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
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:
- disabled people should have equality of opportunity to
employment (amongst other things) and the means to undertake it
- most people, disabled or not, would prefer to work than
rely on inadequate benefits, and
- 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.
- 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:
- Gordon Brown is sitting on a 12 billion pound
surplus
- in the same week as the Bill returns to the Commons,
Brown announces tax breaks for an already privileged section of
society
- 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
- 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