Make them, break them

I was amused by this item in the Guardian today. Psychologists have found that men and women maximise their chances of keeping their New Year resolutions in different ways. Men are more likely to succeed if they break their objectives into small steps and reward themselves at every stage; they also found it helpful to focus on the outcome of the resolution, ‘such as losing weight to become more attractive to the opposite sex’. Hmm.

Women, on the other hand, did best if they told everyone about their goals, so that they could receive ‘encouragement’ if they relapsed. The researcher suggested that women could ‘write down their resolutions on a big piece of paper, sign it and place it somewhere prominent at home’. Yes, why not give everyone a huge laugh every day?

The hot tip for everyone is not to leave your resolutions until New Year’s Eve, hence this early post on the subject. Although they are not really ‘New Year’ resolutions then, are they?

The reason I found all this so funny is because this year I had resolved not to tell anyone about any of my New Year resolutions, and to break them down into small steps and reward myself incrementally. Obviously I should add getting a sex change to the already incredibly long list. Right now there are TEN, about double the usual. In order to conform at least partly to gender norms, I’m prepared to share a few of them:

1. Before the assassination of Benazir Bhutto I had already decided to take more interest in international politics, i.e. outside Britain and Ireland. Events in South Africa, debates on the Lisbon Treaty, and my trips to Canada this year have also made me feel very ill-informed.

2. Move house. Which will probably involve being more frugal as well.

3. Keep up the Gaelige.

4. And the blog.

5. Work harder.

That actually turned out to be six of the ten, so perhaps I’m more of a girlie than I thought. The other four, though, are nobody else’s business.

Should bloggers get a life?

I’m sure I’m not the only blogger to have had Doris Lessing’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech drawn to my attention. Lessing says:

“Writing, writers, do not come out of houses without books. We are in a fragmenting culture, where our certainties of even a few decades ago are questioned, and where it is common for young men and women who have had years of education to know nothing of the world, to have read nothing.”

The issue of children being raised in homes without books, by parents who do not read, is not new in the 21st century. Some writers have managed to emerge from this background, but class and gender bias have undoubtedly deprived the world of many more. Neither is the idea of a ‘fragmenting culture’ new – it’s the cry of the threatened throughout the ages. It’s surprising to hear Lessing complain about how ‘our certainties of even a few decades ago are questioned’, when her earlier great novels took on patriarchy in those decades, and would have led me to think she would be in favour of that sort of thing.

Lessing does have a point about weaknesses in the education system which disadvantage young people. There are many reasons for this: the home environment, lack of funding for education and for libraries, lack of respect for teachers, the political emphasis on test and exam results, consumerist culture, television, and no doubt many more. But Lessing has only one culprit in mind:

"We never thought to ask how will our lives, our way of thinking, be changed by the internet, which has seduced a whole generation with its inanities so that even quite reasonable people will confess that, once they are hooked, it is hard to cut free, and they may find a whole day has passed in blogging."

So ‘we’ (who?) blame the internet, and blogging in particular, for civilisation’s decline. Well, the internet has certainly changed my life. I can’t imagine doing my job without it, both in terms of access to information and the ability to communicate easily with people all over the world. Of course not all the data are reliable, but learning this is part of using any information resource. The internet also helps me to make better use of my leisure time: news sources, concert tickets, route planning, flight booking, arranging to meet people, posting photos on Facebook, as well as googling anything and everything I want to know. Why should this fantastic resource be labelled inane just because some sad individuals use it to look at porn?

And now I turn to blogging. It’s terrific that so many people are prepared to put their time into this free resource. I always start the day with a look at Slugger O’Toole for news and local debate; I’ll check out John Self for book reviews; Cedar Lounge and Splintered Sunrise for politics; and Flirty for entertainment. I could name many others. Of course there are dreadful blogs out there: boring, inaccurate, sexist and racist - but as with the internet as a whole, the good far outweighs the bad.

Writing South Belfast Diary has helped me to sharpen up my opinions and my writing skills. I’ve found it particularly helpful to clarify my views on Irish politics, but because this is a personal blog I write about anything I like, which is very liberating. Blogging hasn’t stopped me from being involved in a political party, taking an evening course, reading books, attending concerts and plays, and going on holiday. And having a full-time job. In other words, from having a life. I would argue that a couple of hours spent putting together a well-informed blog post is a superior use of leisure time to, for example, watching TV reality shows or soap operas, shopping as a leisure activity, socialising with people you don’t like in order to avoid your own company, or becoming obsessed with work.

Far from detracting from life, blogging enhances it. It gives a voice to those of us who wouldn’t otherwise be listened to. But to blame bloggers for the deterioration of intellectual discourse in post-modern times is according us a little too much power, I think.

The price of democracy

People are talking about money and politics. No, not the interminable inquiry into ‘certain planning matters and payments’ in the South. This time it’s British Labour, although there’s no hint that any British politician has gained personally from the mix of farce, incompetence, and general turning of a blind eye that’s been going on. It’s impossible to tell whether the people involved made mistakes or hoped they wouldn’t get caught, whether in Labour Party Head Office, in deputy leadership campaigns, or in Scotland.

Of course, as has been pointed out today on Slugger, here in Northern Ireland we’d never have got to hear of David Abrahams. Regulations here allow donors to political parties to be declared to the Electoral Commission but kept secret from the public, in case of intimidation - although I thought you got intimidated if you didn't give to some parties? (If you want to see at least some of the donations to Sinn Féin, go to the Republic’s Standards in Public Office Commission web site.) If the Electoral Commission finds an ‘impermissible or unidentified donor’, they are allowed to make this fact public but still not to name the donor. Other differences are that Irish citizens, political parties and some other Irish organisations are allowed to donate to NI political parties, quite rightly recognising our unique position here, and there is only voluntary regulation on loans, because we’re all so honest.

Inevitably the question of state funding for political parties has arisen, yet again. There’s a good short guide to GB party funding here, including the point that opposition parties already receive some cash for administrative costs in order to level the playing field with the party in government. In the South, there is modest state funding of political parties and the sky hasn’t fallen in as a result, although it hasn’t got rid of all problems in that area either.

But in the UK it’s not a popular suggestion. Politicians are seen as untrustworthy and anyone who gives large amounts to a political party must be doing it to get an honour, or planning permission. Why aren’t they giving the money to charity instead? Most voters refuse to face up to the fact that the democratic process has to be funded somehow. All available options involve a combination of state funding and voluntary donations, even when they include an overall cap on expenditure. It’s illogical for those who complain about taxpayers’ money going to fund party politics also objecting to people who can afford it giving money openly to the party of their choice. No wonder some high-profile donors take an illegal route – wrongly, of course.

In the UK, politics is our dirty little secret. That has to change.

Househunting

After a summer spent bickering about whether to build an extension, Nick and I decided to move house instead, just as Northern Ireland’s overheated property market took a cold shower. We bought our current home when we moved to NI from London, which was a very fraught process and we nearly ended up homeless. The house was meant to be temporary as it was rather small, then I became a student again and we didn’t have much money, then we got to like the area, and somehow seven years passed.

So here we are, househunting again. It’s important to keep it in perspective. Our house is perfectly adequate for the two of us and we’re very lucky to be able to think about buying more space (and getting away from the local teenagers). I was reprimanded, quite rightly, by a Labour colleague when I moaned about being ‘marooned in Stranmillis’.

But still, there are four obstacles to progress:

1. The houses on offer

There are very few of them and they are mainly rubbish. They are either in the wrong area or they don’t have everything we want – and this time around we are being very, very fussy. Of course you have to know what you do want, and that has been a learning experience. Garden? Not bothered. Second shower? Essential. East Belfast or Holywood? Not after sitting in rush hour traffic for half an hour to view a house on the other side of town. We have a much better idea of what we want than when we started looking a few months ago. Even if it’s not out there for a price we can afford…..

2. The prices

The general rule seems to be that however much you can afford, you always need £100,000 more. We have more to spend than we ever thought we would, given we’ve never earned vast salaries, and yet even in a property downturn our limit is creeping up and up. I’ve stopped saying how dreadful it is that the bank’s prepared to lend us so much, and started to be grateful. It’s a slippery slope.

3. Estate agents

I’m not one of these people who wants to buy and sell without an estate agent, as it’s too time-consuming. All I ask is a bit of basic competence from the people whose job it is to do these things. There seems to be a increasing trend for owners to be out when you go round to view, and the agent meets you there instead. So if I want to know where the boiler is, or what that discoloured patch on the ceiling might be, or (when viewing a waterfront apartment) whether there’s a second lift in the building that might be big enough to move in our furniture, I would like an informed response. And I’d also like property details that don’t mislead by concentrating only on the good bits, but I know that’s too much to ask.

4. And if we move out of South Belfast, I’ll have to change the name of this blog….