Well I have to disagree in that it is perhaps debatable whether the ILF
would have been introduced at all if it had not been for the degree of
protest over the Fowler proposals that were mostly enacted. It could be
argued that the old supplemenatary benefit system, was better tuned to
individual needs as there were some people who were getting very high levels
of payments for specific personal needs that were simply unavailable under
any other system, for example the laundry allowance which was based on the
actual costs submitted of extra washing needed resulting from what the
system termed a disability or chronic illness (not wanting to debate
terminology here)
I can recall I think it was in 1982 attending a benefits conference in that
place next to Westminster Cathedral, It may have been hosted by the spastics
society as it then was (I can't be certain, ) but dig and the disability
alliance were both represented there putting forward there different
proposals for comprehensive disabiilty income schemes. Much was made at the
time of the unreliability and medicalisation of the current approach of
medical validation for such things as Mobility Allowance and Sup Ben
additional payments. There was much talk of self assessment, of the kind
that ultimately landed us with those horrendos DLA forms, and of course the
agency DR's still have too much power.
That is when I started observing and informing my opinions on the varios
organisations. I came at the time from what you would call a leftist
perspective as I attended from a welfare rights organisation whose
connections were mainly labour party and trade unionist. My opinions have
gone through many changes with the times of course, not least having
regarded Maggie Thatchers tories as the enemy to seeing Blair enact many
things that labour was opposed to when in opposition.
I think one of the most dissilusioning things for me, was when Harriet
Harman and Frank Field had responsibility for benefit reform and it looked
like they would go ahead with one of the worst of Peter Lilleys proposals,
that of restricting housing benefit for single people to that which would be
payable for a single room, and I think that would have bee irrespective of
disability either.
I corresponded with Harriet Harman and Frank Field to no avail, recieving
the standard non commital ministerial replies that everyone gets when the
minister has clearly not read anything you have written to them.
I of course made all the same points during the years of the Fowler reviews,
which were going to be the be all and the end all of the drive against
"scroungers" then when that was not enough I think it was Peter Lilley who
got out his little list at the Tory conference.
Now we see attacks on IB under the guise of liberalism and meeting our
demands that we all want to work, whilst failing to acknowlege that even if
we do want to work the reason we can't get it is related to the perception
of disability and labour market factors that the legislation has been unable
to do anything about, that is to say too many people too few jobs, to many
excuses for employers to disguise prejudice.
Gone off the point a bit, but I cannot help seeing any organisation who
collaborates with Governments who have done these things in the way I do.
You may not agree but as a Sociologist, I am sure you ought to take note of
my strand of opinion and grant that just because you do not think it helpful
it nonetheless has validity for a great many people besides me, who have had
to survive on benefits whilst being pawns in a debate as to who are
deserving and undeserving poor carried out by people who could not convieve
of ever having to live on incomes as low as ours.
Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of T W Shakespeare
> Sent: 28 February 2003 08:31
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Disability Income Group
>
>
>
> I know I am a reactionary old liberal, but I always thought that the
> Independent Living Fund was a very good thing. It enabled the
> Integrated Living Movement to take off. It gave hundreds of disabled
> people the direct payments needed to employ personal assistance. Demand
> far outstripped the budget which the Tories had allowed for it. It lead
> to the direct payments legislation etc that we have today. I'd be
> interested in other people's views.
>
> There is to be had a debate about direct payments and personal
> assistance, and certainly the state is by no means a benign entity, but
> terms like 'the enemy' and 'poacher turned gamekeeper' seem unhelpful.
>
> Tom
>
> ________________End of message______________________
>
> Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
> are now located at:
>
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>
> You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
>
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|
