One Nation includes disabled and mentally ill citizens

To plagiarise Oscar Wilde, this Government seems to know the cost of everything and the value of no-one. Its treatment of disabled people shows just how fixated it has become on reducing the role of the State and on cutting expenditure, at the expense of people’s well-being. If profit is not attached, expenditure has no point to them.

Attacks on Disability Support Allowance; arbitrary assessment of disabled people as Work Ready; the threatened closure of the Independent Living Fund; withdrawal of support for moderate disabilities; the Bedroom Tax; slashing of adult social care budgets. These are just some of the ways in which the Coalition has focussed its ideologies against citizens. Yet as citizens, all have rights and needs. Just as people’s needs for education, healthcare or transport differ – yet are accepted as entitlements to a degree – disabled people’s needs should not be the focus of this clearly deliberate attack, which smacks of “untermensch”-ism. It seems that Tories regard all claimants as scroungers to be deprived of social security entitlements.

Whatever the ideological basis for these cuts, whether reduction in the size of the State or, worse, a deliberate demonisation of people unfortunate enough already, this has little to do with economics and rides roughshod over rights. There is a failure of joined-up thinking to be overcome, as those cast aside from, for example, educational support, are left less likely to find jobs, which the Tories seem to regard as a panacea. Labour must ride to the rescue of disabled people and restore their right as citizens to public services, both as a moral issue and a pragmatic one. These are voters, after all and a significant minority in need of championing [11.6 million people have a limiting long-term illness, impairment or disability in Great Britain (Office for Disability Issues, 2014)]. The mantra of “independent living” sounds great but lack of support at home for disabled people can leave them having recourse to GPs or A&E at far greater cost to the exchequer. Personal Assistant support, essential for prolonged independence, is under-funded and lacks mandatory standards.

Where parties do agree is on the desirability of integrated, personalised health and care, to maximise independent living. This is a genuine win-win model, being better for the user and more cost effective. But even here, Labour must not follow the Coalition path, which has led already to thousands being outside social security, either by virtue of changes in eligibility criteria, harsh sanctioning or by falling outside the radar, perhaps through loss or a carer. Anyone can become disabled; but their ability to deal with the consequences depends on availability of resources. So far, disabled citizens have been hit disproportionately harder by cuts than most. Labour must listen to them; ensure their individual needs are assessed; then be their advocate and rescuer. Labour must ensure that it reinvests in effective public services, provided to acceptable standards. What higher duty does a State have than the well-being of its citizens?

Tom Serpell

VOTE - then demand change

Turnout for this week's European Parliament election is expected to be low but there is every reason for anyone concerned at the direction of travel of this country to make their mark. First, Europe and our place as a key player in it must surely demand stronger Labour support than has been forthcoming from the shadow Cabinet to date. It must be our future. Second, (and I make no apology that this point has been made on this blog before) for Labour voters in most rural areas,  this is the only chance we get for our tick to count, with every other election dominated by Tory incumbency. Third, every vote which is not for the pseudo-non-racists of UKIP must be registered, to keep their pernicious influence away from power.

So our top candidates - Annaliese Dodds, John Howarth, Emily Westley for the South-East - must be given every chance.

But this support cannot be unqualified. How many voters between elections hear or see any evidence whatsoever of the work of their chosen representatives - let alone know their names? We hear much that is critical of Europe's institutions, their members' lifestyles and expenses, so how about demanding reports on their achievements? MEPs are at least democratically accountable so lets support them this week but be very demanding of transparency and value every other week in return.

Tom Serpell

Rus in urbe

As a countryside dweller I regularly write about the particular issues facing people like me, isolated by geography and historical allegiances of political parties. Labour, Coast and Country is working to create means for rural lefties to act collectively, across boundaries.
Some of the factors driving this campaign to reduce our isolation, though, apply to town dwellers. Isolation comes about from a variety of causes, not just where you live. Just as we hicks in the sticks share metropolitan concerns for rents, welfare, housing etc so urbanites may recognise some of the particularities of country folk. Not least among these can be isolation, a key issue which Labour should actively address. City crowds mask the presence nearby of citizens who, for no fault of their won, find themselves outside the mainstream. They may lack money. They may have mobility issues or sight impairment which prevent them from actively availing themselves of what the city has to offer. They may simply be lonely or suffer from mental health issues which lead them to stay indoors. Whatever the cause of their isolation, they are as important as citizens and voters as anyone. Labour can ill afford to ignore votes wherever they may be found and, as with remote rural supporters, ways need to be found to engage with everyone if we are truly to be One Nation.

Labour Coast and Country is exploring how to bring solitary voices together. Perhaps some of the same tools need to be applied towards enfranchising isolated people wherever they are.

Tom Serpell

Can political parties still command mass support?

It looks as though political parties have had their day, as voters (or rather non-voters) find new ways of collective thought and action. Organised politics has failed miserably to understand or adopt digital media, which are by now quite long-in-the-tooth. Single issue collectives like Stop the War, Hacked Off and UK Uncut have larger “memberships” than the parties. Online petitions regularly attract 10s and 100s of thousands of signatories.

So what can or should the parties do about this? Their portfolios of policies are as likely to put off adherents as to win them. A supporter of Policy A may be as strongly opposed to Policy B. And how can a Leader in today’s media’s preferred presidential politics possibly appeal sufficiently ever to be good enough?

It seems to me that the agenda and language of politics has to be shifted towards values, with a party’s policies described in terms of their consistency with these. A leader with values is surely a match for one with fewer or worse, regardless of how his/her looks may seem to the image-conscious.

It is surely not too late for Labour to espouse new media actively, to link itself to campaigns of others making as well as to its own supporters. The Party must see how digital communities work, not by preaching or imposing barriers to engagement but by creating conversations between people with common interests. Today’s digital policy seems at odds with this. Members receive regular top-down messages, usually accompanied by a request for money. How off-putting is this?

Take rural issues as an example. Voters living in the countryside far from the conurbations which set most of the political agendas have very distinct issues of isolation and cost of living not appreciated by the metropolitan majority. They are fewer in number but still have rights and needs; as well as being a significant minority which Labour should certainly not ignore. Yet how else can these voters have a collective voice if not by connecting them? The same can be said to apply to other otherwise isolated categories like disabled people, freelance workers, the care sector. If Labour could offer individuals the means to connect to others of similar interests, it would be better informed on these issues and rebuild collective behaviours under a common banner. And if Labour does this, perhaps it can justifiably ask voters who are not members to tick its box; and voters who do not buy the whole package will tick that box because the package contains what they need.

Tom Serpell @uckfieldlabour

What future for affordable and social housing?

A Google search for "Section 106" yields, as top advert: "Avoid Affordable Housing". Lawyers touting services to enable property developers to circumvent the needs of local communities. This is the tip of the iceberg which exists to support Big Construction; and it includes the Coalition. What hope can there be that any return to mass house building will include ANY lower-cost homes for those who need them, when the massed ranks of investors and their cronies in Parliament are arrayed against them, hidden behind a single clause in the Town and Country Planning Act?

Section 106 of this Act, backed up by more recent "clarifications", gives developers the escape chute from inclusion of social or affordable homes in new estates. It is clear that the very purpose of the Act was to ensure that developers had to provide Local Authorities with funds - "the essential provision"- towards infrastructure and social housing needed for the local community, through the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Yet the get-out provided by Section 106, whereby reduction of overall scheme profitability below 17.5% enables the developer to escape the "essential provision" belies this intention; and invoking it has now become standard practice.

With house-building already below half of the rate required to meet demand in this Parliament, the shortfall has increased under the Coalition by an extra half-a-million houses. The Government is certainly failing the working and non-working people of the South of England who need to live near work but cannot find homes. Then in April Clegg announced that new Garden Cities and now all new developments can be built without social housing.  With neither sufficient build nor provision of an affordable element, could the Coalition really be expecting NOT to get back into power?  Could they be inflating a house price bubble whose burst the next Government will have to suffer? They are certainly doing big favours to land-owners, landlords and developers. Luckily, there are fewer of these than there are would-be householders. Labour has to get the message out that only we will free up land, control rents, build council houses and demand a proper affordable housing sector.

Whom is Labour for?

In the post-industrial age, with smaller workforces and collectivism more challenging in the workplace, the "natural constituency" of Labour has diminished like mist on a sunny day. Yes, there remains the important historic and emotional tie between Party and Unions but these too have seen their ability to recruit and organise dwindle as the nature of the workplace has changed and vindictive Tory legislation has bitten.

Success as measured by the Coalition merely counts the wealth growing in the off-shore coffers of the plutocracy. The unequal society on which we now - again - live illustrates clearly the need for a party willing and able to represent those whose economic and social prospects count for so little to the current government.

With values of altruism and mutuality, the Labour Party is clearly the only political entity which offers any voice for the under-paid, unpaid, isolated, disabled or ignored of Britain's 21st century. The problem is to persuade this majority to see itself as belonging to the Labour banner. We have been persuaded to see ourselves as individuals first, community second. The politics of individualism have dominated the consumerist, shopping-as-leisure marketplace we are told we occupy. What we really have is millions of people with common needs, for well-being, happiness and social cohesion as well as enough money.

We are a society in which care for others is second nature but belittled by low wages and status. Labour must lead a campaign to revalue caring for others' wellbeing and the caring professions in particular to where they belong, financially as well as emotionally; at the same time setting free-loading and gambling in their proper place in the hierarchy of respect - far below the carers, manufacturing, creative and digital workers. And let our party resile from this courting of "hard-working families" which so damages the esteem for those who are unable to work, no longer work, cannot find work or have no family. Let Labour be the voice of its true constituency: those who find themselves, temporarily or permanently unfairly treated by the economy.

Energy as a Rural issue?

Now that Green Dave (as was, until his Chancellor persuaded him otherwise) is thinking of withdrawing support from Onshore Wind; and in the aftermath of the fracking threat in West Sussex,  energy is now a rural issue.

 

Wind Farms are rarely found in urban environments, requiring space, wind, and low impact on people [because of the number affected]. Therefore they must be located, if anywhere, either at sea ("OffShore") or in the countryside ("Onshore"). Dave's Mates own most of the latter, though, and are starting to make noises. Now that those who wanted to cash in on the generous compensation for hosting turbines have done so, he is persuaded that supporting this form of wind energy generation, the lowest cost one, is no longer attractive. One must not upset one's friends, must one? No matter that the country appears to need both more energy and lower costs.

So should Labour now take up the cudgels for Onshore Wind all the more strongly, as the lower-cost renewable energy source currently available? Or should Labour take an environmental stance against further rural eyesores? Who are we to please - or displease, most?

 

Labour seems at last to be moving towards a devolution agenda, which may enable local communities to develop their own strategies and even to invest in their own infrastructure needs, energy included. The sorts of energy local authorities could afford whilst responding to local geography, would include on-shore wind, fracking and solar. Labour could usefully consider developing policy in this area whereby not only land-owners receive compensation but so do affected local communities.  This could take the form of discounted energy prices for those most affected,  not just the land-owners.

 

Rural Labour supporters do not often seem to count in determining policy, small in number as we are, but here is an issue where combining rural viewpoints into a coherent lobby might make great sense and carry some weight.