Dear Richard
I did not want to imply that you were a 'Tory' supporter, 'The Tories' biggest supporter is our 'Labour Leader' when he became Prime-Minister, it looks like that Mr Blair, is their biggest Supporter.
Does not 'deal' and 'compliance' mean the same, within this so-called democratic process are they just using words as political newspeak and they are good at 'Spin' and given over the right 'Image'' is this not aimed at middle-class voters and the facts are Tony Blair and the Labour Party do not care about the Civil and Human Rights of Disabled People.
Is it not their hidden agenda to exclude Disabled People and hopefully we will shut up and go away.
What are differences from present Community Care for Disabled People (including people with mental distress) and when they locked us up in 'Institutions', so we would not be seen and heard. Is it that, through Welfare Reform, that they can make us live in poverty and hope we will die? Is this not called 'Assisted Suicide', by the State?
The denigration of disabled people - as a means of suppressing dissent for welfare reform - began almost as soon as Labour came into power, undoubtedly goodwill and support for anything to do with disability has been harmed as a result. The evidence is also abundantly clear that much of the denigration was made via leaks and unattributed briefings - if you don't have this I will make it available to you. Precisely the situation to which I think you refer to in Canada?
Correct, I would be most grateful if you could make copies available to me
Richard, I am with you all the way, but at this present time my mental health has been greatly affected by all the lobbying I have been doing over the years, at both Local and National Levels with the British Council of Disabled People and Choices and Rights, Hull
I will be with you in Spirit on Monday
All the Best
Hope to hear from you soon
Mr Colin Revell
Research and Development
Adult's with Dyspraxia Support Group
40 Ebor Avenue
Hornsea
East Yorkshire
HU18 1SS
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Light <[log in to unmask]>
To: colin revell <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: Agnes Flethcer <[log in to unmask]>; [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 06 November 1999 20:58
Subject: Re: Welfare Reform
Colin
Thanks for your message - much of what you say makes perfect sense to me, the remainder leaves me completely baffled.
"1) I can not afford to travel from Hornsea (East Yorkshire) to London, because I am only on Incapacity Benefit;
2) As many Disabled People are personal aware The Public Transport System in the U.K. excludes many of 'US'
with impairments;"
No argument on any of the above. As a wheelchair user, I am only too well aware of the inaccessible transport system.
As to:
"3) Does it matter how many Disabled People turn up when a deal has already been done with the Opposition Parties;
and also the 'House of Lords' is history. "
Where does your information that a 'deal' has been done come from? The evidence that I have seen and read is quite clear - far from a 'deal', the Government is blackmailing Tory peers into compliance - hardly a 'deal'. In my opinion, of course it matters how many people turn up, this is still supposed to be a democracy, despite the undemocratic methods used by a government with an overwhelming majority to bully this legislation through.
About 50 backbench MP's have, undoubtedly, put their own position in the Labour Party at some disadvantage, and any Peers that vote against the Bill on Monday have been threatened with 11-th hour changes to the reforms of the upper house. Like it or not, part of the reason why disability rarely attracts political interest is because MP's do not see it as an important issue. Those d.p. and their supporters who are able to attend the rally make it harder for Labour to say that opposition comes from a politically active minority with their own agenda, whilst also serving to publicly acknowledge those whose political careers have been damaged by their opposition to this Bill.
Nothing in the foregoing should be seen as criticising those d.p. who don't attend - I am only too well aware of the practical and financial difficulties and, if reports made to DAA are accurate, there are also good reasons for those in receipt of benefit to keep a low profile!
As to the remainder of your message - why is it assumed that if I dare to voice concerns over both the substance and the means of Labour's Welfare Reform that I am a Conservative supporter? Nothing could be further from the truth, which is why I have problems when New Labour out-Tory the Tories!
The denigration of disabled people - as a means of suppressing dissent for welfare reform - began almost as soon as Labour came into power, undoubtedly goodwill and support for anything to do with disability has been harmed as a result. The evidence is also abundantly clear that much of the denigration was made via leaks and unattributed briefings - if you don't have this I will make it available to you. Precisely the situation to which I think you refer to in Canada?
My professional (rather than personal) interest in New Labour's treatment of disabled people has been initiated precisely because states that were thought to have passed effective civil rights legilsation have subsequently sought to reduce its effects by economic means - this is true in Australia, Canada and the USA, to name but three.
Although not well known, and despite being made available to the Government by their own researchers, there are a number of studies that discredit the notion that the number of welfare claimants is appreciably reduced by reducing benefit or making entitlement harder to satisfy. My starting position is that:
a.. disabled people should have equality of opportunity to employment (amongst other things) and the means to undertake it
b.. most people, disabled or not, would prefer to work than rely on inadequate benefits, and
c.. since Thatcher abandoned all references to the post war aim of full employment, something that this Government have done nothing to reinstate, there will always be some people who are denied employment.
d.. How does restricting access to (remember the 'all-work test' still applies to the new model incapacity benefit), and benefits of incapacity benefit do anything to increase opportunities for obtaining, access to the means of getting to or retaining work?
I am made all the more angry when:
a.. Gordon Brown is sitting on a 12 billion pound surplus
b.. in the same week as the Bill returns to the Commons, Brown announces tax breaks for an already privileged section of society
c.. Lord Irvine's first act in office seemed to be to spend 650 million on tarting up his rooms at the House of Lords - more than half the amount the Treasury first demanded that Harriet Harman claw back in disability related benefits, and
d.. this Government, like the one before it, would rather target the poorest and most excluded sections of society, rather than address the revenue lost to tax evasion and avoidance by the wealthiest.
Perhaps you could make your own position clear on this Colin, so that I can more appropriately address the point that you are trying to make, and I appear to have missed?
Regards
Richard Light
