Our House

Moving on with the many things I wanted to blog about during the election campaign, I want to talk about housing. It's a significant issue in Salford. We have a multitude of different types of housing, from high-rise to bungalows and from tiny shoe-box studios to huge detached mansions. We also have a big social housing deficit with, at the last count, almost 20,000 people on the council waiting list. Yet at the same time, hundreds of potential homes are boarded up, lie empty for one reason or another, or have been demolished in the name of regeneration. However, rather than cover one of Salford's big issues, I want to spend some time considering the bricks and mortar itself.

Before the industrial revolution, this area, which is now part of the city of Salford, was a township known as Pendleton. It included a vast swathe of open space interspersed with a few large houses, such as Chaseley House (now flats). Buile Hill Park and Seedley Park at the top of our road were once much larger parklands and Salford was then a humble market town to the east. The industrial revolution brought railways. With the railways came the mills and with the mills came jobs. Jobs meant more people and people needed houses.

At one time, the most common type of housing in Salford was the two-up-two-down red-brick terrace. Indeed, much of Salford, including where I live, is still characterised by geometrically arranged streets marched on either side by rows of orange-brown buildings. These Victorian constructions - a then modern take on the Regency town-houses of the upper classes - are solidly built and have stood for a hundred years. They offer generous accommodation, even with the later additions of indoor plumbing, central heating and fitted kitchens. High ceilings and large windows make rooms feel big, bright and airy. But these wonderful homes are a bit of a dying breed. There are still plenty of them but far less than 10 years ago or 10 years before that. Perhaps it is the lack of outside space - terraced houses have enclosed yards but no gardens. They are houses designed and built to make maximum use of the available space. They are the high-rises of the past, built horizontally across an industrial landscape, instead of vertically into the sky. This is the landscape of LS Lowry.

The next round of housing at greatest evidence in this area is the product of the great depression of the 1930s. Faced with a massive recession as a result of the 1929 Wall Street Crash in America, the UK government pumped money into the economy by building millions of new homes. 30's homes are mostly semi-detached. Unlike their terraced brothers, they have outdoor space to spare. Gardens front and back show a developing aspirational society. Homes were not just places to eat and sleep in between work, they became the castles of the working class. However, like the housing of the past, they are homogeneous. In between the columns of Victorian and Edwardian terraces, you will find rows of cloned 1930s semis squatting in little patches of green.

There is a third housing presence in this part of the city that dominates in a different way to the rest. The 60s and 70s brought the replacement of so-called slum housing. Vast tracts of terraced housing were demolished, either during World War II as a result of The Blitz, or in the late 50s and early 60s in the name of modernisation. Replacing them were the great towering high-rises of the late 60s and early 70s, augmented with larger low-rise accommodation. The high-rises offered a vision of apartment living with all the amenities of modern life. The maximised accommodation in the minimum of space and created communities in the sky. In some parts of the country, and indeed, in some of the high-rises in this city, the slums of the past may have been cleared but the modernisation of the 60s turned out to be the slums of the future. I have been in many of the high-rises in this area and they are generally well-maintained and attractive places to live. Some places, like Thorn Court, are genuine communities. But not all 60s domiciles are so pleasant.

Certain parts of our area are made up of the 60s version of the Victorian terrace. Set at odd angles to each other and built in quadrangles or walks without vehicle access, these areas area difficult to police, so are favourite escape routes for criminals. Although they make good sound homes, they are often unattractive externally. On approach you are never quite sure whether it's the front of the house or the back you're looking at, giving them a somewhat schizophrenic appearance.

Nevertheless, Salford has some great housing stock and it's been great to get out and have a really good explore of my area. Like it or love it, leafletting is the best way to get to know the place you live in. The fingerprint of the city's history can be seen in it's housing and when you look back to the past you can see the same steps being taken and the same mistakes being made time and again. Regeneration and modernisation marches on and poorly maintained or poorly planned housing of yesterday is demolished to make way for the demands of today. Here in Langworthy, housing is coming full-circle. The lost terraces of the past have been replaced with modern equivalents to one degree or another. It's fascinating to look around and imagine the cityscape of the past and what might come along in the future.

Letterboxes

It would be a strange circumstance indeed that would see me become Prime Minister tomorrow, or indeed ever. But should that strange circumstance occur, my number one priority would not be the economy, schools or the NHS. It wouldn't even be electoral reform. It would be letterboxes!

Over the last 7 days I must have walked 50 miles and posted thousands of letters and leaflets through the doors of my neighbours. It has given me a new appreciation of the plight of the neighbourhood post-person. It has also given me a nice set of nicks, bruises and scars on the back of my hands and on my knuckles.

So, as your new Prime Minister, here are the new rules that will be introduced as of June 1st (see... I'm fair... I'm giving you some time to sort out your letterbox!)

1. All letterboxes must be in the middle of the door. No more letterboxes at the bottom of the door. How more posties don't throw their backs out or get assaulted by their bags as they bend down to access such letterboxes, I will never know.

2. All letterboxes must lift up rather than push in. Push in letterboxes are usually so stiff that you can barely move your fingers by the time your done. They also have a nasty habit of taking your fingers off. There is many a campaigner out there that is missing the end of a finger, or a whole finger, or even a hand!

3. There must be no sharp edges on any part of the letterbox. Brushes on the inside of letterboxes are increasingly popular - they are a good thing because they stop drafts and in these eco-conscientious times, who doesn't want to stop a draft? The side effect is that you usually have to shove your whole hand into the letterbox to get the letter or leaflet in. Sharp internal edges have drawn blood more times than I can count and have left me with many a battle scar.

4. On the subject of anti-draft brushes, can we have nice soft ones, please. Soft ones are nice on our weary little fingers. We don't like the kind that feels like scraping your hands on sandpaper.

5. Brushes make internal flaps unnecessary and it's hardly fair that you get to try and sever our fingers twice in one go.

6. Narrow letterboxes are forbidden. Only children can effectively use these letterboxes and we do not condone child labour.

7. All letterboxes must be hung horizontally. Vertical letterboxes are hopeless - especially the ones that are hinged at the top. Although side hinged ones are almost as bad.

8. In houses where there are dogs, a cage must be provided, either for the dog or for the letterbox. A third opportunity for finger severance in the form of a dog (or dogs) lying in wait on the other side of a door, is most definitely not acceptable.

9. As an alternative to the above, an outside box for post can be provided. And if you want to put it on your fence or gate to avoid the trek up (or down) a hill that's like the north face of the Eiger, that would be most welcome. There will be tax breaks for homes with long or steep paths that use this type of post receptacle.

10. A letter box must be provided. What's the deal with houses and flats with no letterbox? I can understand the attraction - no pizza leaflets, take-away menus and election stuff - but how the heck do you normally get your post? You are strange people!

11. Everyone must test their own letterbox several times to ensure full compliance with the above. Trust me, it will give you a whole new appreciation of the trouble this small, rectangular orifice causes.

Now aren't you glad you ended up with the present no-man's-land of politics, instead of me? :o)

The Fear

The election is over... sort of. After all, no party has really 'won' yet and, for the campaigner on the ground, there is still all the tidying up, thank you letters and the campaign autopsy to do before we can really say that the election is over. But for now, there is a little time to recover from our 'war wounds' (aching feet, lack of sleep and 'letter-box knuckle') and chance to reflect. Election week was so busy I didn't have time to post all the things I wanted to. So I will be catching up.

Last year, Lily Allen released the single 'The Fear', with the chorus...

I don't know what's right and what's real anymore
I don't know how I'm meant to feel anymore
And when do you think it will all become clear?
'Cos I'm being taken over by the fear

Wise words indeed. It's almost as if it was written about the election as the various parties vied for votes and power and tried (perhaps in vain) to use the black cloak of fear to confuse the electorate into supporting them.

Early on, Labour came under heavy criticism for sending postcards to cancer patients. Not only did the party make rather dubious use of NHS patient information in order to do so, they attempted to scare said cancer patients into supporting them by claiming that the Conservative party would cut cancer treatment and put lives at risk. It was a desperate tactic that backfired horribly. Rather than garnering support, it put people off the party. Far from being scared of a Tory government, it seemed the majority response was horror at the blatant attempt at manipulation that was just about as subtle as a brick and the general misuse of patient information.

The Conservatives tried a similar, albeit slightly less brick-like tactic. Feeling their divine right to power slipping through their tightly clenched fingers, the Tories tried to scare the electorate into avoiding a hung parliament. It'll be bad for the economy, the stock markets won't like it, it'll be all shady back-room deals... they failed to mention any of the nations where minority governments, coalitions and hung parliaments are run-of-the-mill. The SNP minority government in Scotland has managed to do just fine for its people. Fortunately, it seems that people were just as unconvinced by this tactic. The electorate didn't like to be 'told' how to vote and returned a hung parliament anyway. Take that, David Cameron!

The British National Party are of course the party of fear. They play on the general fear that surrounds immigration, 'foreign' cultures and some religions. Less than a week before the election, some of our neighbours received a mocked up letter and other material purporting to be from a Muslim organisation. I will not perpetuate the lies, but the stunt was designed to instill fear of the Muslim community. Thankfully, people here saw straight through it. Many of the mailings were handed to the police. Most were simply discarded. I am proud to say that the BNP vote collapsed.

So generally it seems that people do not allow themselves to be taken in by such tactics, but having said that, there was a large proportion of voters that remained undecided right up to the last minute and I wonder if these sort of tactics might have had something to do with it. 'Spin' is one thing - the presentation of information in a positive or negative way - but some of the strategies and tactics that have been employed have gone far beyond mere spin. It's tough enough picking a party or candidate to support without the media and the opposition making matters more complicated with fear, half-truths and sometimes even lies. Perhaps rules are needed? But then again, rules are made to be broken.

Style v Substance

There is little doubt, in this election, that celebrity is playing an important role. Until the first televised leaders debate, the Lib-Dems were very much the third party and no-one realistically expected a strong showing. But the debates have changed that. Here was a platform on which the Liberal Democrats were entirely equal to their opponents and here was a platform on which two young, charismatic men competed with an older, less attractive, and perhaps more typical, politician, for public affection. In a society that is increasingly driven by celebrity and media attention (Princess Diana, Jade Goody, Susan Boyle, Brangelina, Katie Price and Peter Andre, Heather Mills and Macca, etc, etc) Gordon Brown was perhaps always doomed to failure.

Of course, the outcome of the election hasn't yet been decided - we'll have to wait until Thursday for that - but this raises interesting questions about the influence of celebrity and media in modern politics. It is a concern for me that voters might be swayed either by the image a candidate projects in the media, the attention they get in the spotlight, or by the celebrities that support them, rather than by their policies. This set me thinking about another aspect of celebrity politics: Is it wrong for celebrities to endorse parties or candidates?

My head says, no (after all, celebrities are voters too and they have a right to support whomever they wish, just like the rest of us) but something in me finds this whole area of politics a little distasteful.

Early on in this election campaign Sir Michael Caine was seen doing the rounds with David Cameron
in support of Conservative proposals for a National Citizenship Service for 16 year olds. The Labour party have the support of comedian Eddie Izzard, who has been out on the campaign trail; and actor, David Tennant. Both have been seen in recent election broadcasts. The local Labour party has been at it too. They have the support of local artist and LS Lowry protege, Harold Riley, who, this year, signed the nomination papers for Hazel Blears. As for us, who have we managed to call out in support of the Lib Dems? We have presenter, Floella Benjamin; actor, Colin Firth; and Harry Potter (well, Daniel Radcliffe - sadly there will be no 'accio Lib-Dem Voters' for us). Even the BNP have tried to associate themselves with one of the most recognisable British Politicians ever, and wheeled out the corpse of Sir Winston Churchill for a controversial guest spot on the front of one of their leaflets. Bah!

Of course, as much as we'd like to think this is all part of some wider media furore surrounding this particular election, or perhaps a side effect of having live, televised leaders debates for the first time in UK history, having a celebrity or two stepping out in support of your politics is nothing new. There are few Scottish voters that will forget Sean Connery's stirring party political broadcasts in support of the SNP. And does anyone remember John Cleese's 1992 Lib-Dem broadcast? No, I thought not, but it did happen! This is nothing new. In fact, over the pond, the celebrity campaign has been used to great effect for quite some time. During Barack Obama's campaign, he had the support of high profile celebrities such as Madonna, Oprah Winfrey and Scarlett Johansson and USA Today traces celebrity endorsement as far back as...

"nearly a century ago. According to journalist Ronald Brownstein's account of the connection between Hollywood's glitter and Washington's power, the first formal endorsement of a presidential candidate by a major show-business figure came in 1920, when Al Jolson organized a group of Broadway celebrities on behalf of Republican Warren Harding's presidential campaign. Four years later, Jolson publicly backed Harding's successor, Calvin Coolidge. But it was not until the 1930s, when Franklin D. Roosevelt captured the loyalty of scores of actors and actresses — including a later president, Ronald Reagan — that endorsement of presidential candidates by performers became commonplace."

Mind you, in the same article USA Today also discusses how celebrity endorsements can sometimes backfire, as happened in the 2004 John Kerry campaign when Whoopi Goldberg made an inappropriate joke at George W Bush's expense.

"Candidates have often found out the hard way that stars are a bit like uranium: precious, but radioactive."

But I'm still not convinced that it's right. There's something about the parading of music, TV, movie or other cultural icons in politics that I find uncomfortable. The implication is something like, 'look, your favourite celebrity votes for us - so you should too'. It leaves a somewhat sour taste.

However, the attraction of the celebrity endorsement isn't only in the potential to draw votes, it's also in the draw of the media. Dragging out your highest profile celeb to shake some hands or make a statement at a press conference is a virtual guarantee of coverage in the media. In a society that hungers for star gossip, what a celebrity is up to at any given time sells papers and boosts ratings, so of course the media will sit up and pay attention. Perhaps the real impact at the end of the day is negligible compared with the potential positive benefits, because the difficulty for any candidate, whether in a local or parliamentary election, is getting your name and face out there, and the attention of the media is an exceptionally powerful tool that can be used to do just that. In truth, if we had a local celebrity willing to publicly back our parliamentary or local candidates in this election, I wouldn't hesitate to use him or her, if only to get us some extra media attention. I suspect I might not sleep very well, having done so, but I don't think I could pass-up the opportunity.

So perhaps celebrity and politics can happily sit together on the same park bench. Perhaps it is wrong of me to think that voters are so easily swayed or so shallow... or perhaps not? But spare a thought this bank holiday for the accidental celebrity in this election. I am, of course, speaking of Mrs Gillian Duffy, who found herself thrust into the media spotlight while out buying a loaf of bread. The 'bigoted woman', as Gordon Brown so unwittingly dubbed her, is now somewhat of a local heroine for confronting the Prime Minister on the campaign messages that were important to her. What a shame, however, that it wasn't her earnest and heartfelt challenge that earned her the attention of the TV camera's winking eye, but the far more sensational and far less inspiring gaff made by Gordon Brown - a weary man in a moment of weakness.

"Style over substance" is a phrase that has been used many times over the past few weeks and one which summarises this post most succinctly. If Mrs Duffy is anything to go by, perhaps substance is winning after all... although it's a disappointment that she has been so disillusioned by Gordon Brown's behaviour that she is saying that she will not vote for anyone. Ultimately, as long as most people vote for the candidate or party that most closely represents their views, no matter what role media and celebrity played in that decision, I'll be happy because democracy will be the outright winner.