Little comfort for claimants from Labour conference

MW123

I'm not proficient at generating links, but if you enter the following text at bottom of this post in a search engine, you'll find some interesting reading material. 

I received this email from Benefits and Work today. I hope there won't be any copyright issues, and if there are, perhaps a moderator can take it down.

https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/little-comfort-for-claimants-from-labour-conference

Jimm_Scope

The post and links are fine @MW123  

MW123

Thank you, Jimm, for your prompt reply.

I would greatly value it if an organisation such as Scope could undertake the initiative to inquire of all political parties how they define individuals who they considered too unwell or disabled to actively participate in productive work.

Jimm_Scope

I know Scope does regularly communicate with the major political parties to try and ensure policies actually consider disabled people and their lives, being the largest pan-disability charity in the UK. I am not sure on the exact wording or communications as I'm not on that team but I know it's a regular occurrence.

MW123

Thank you Jimm for shedding light on Scope's important efforts in regularly engaging with major political parties to advocate for policies. 

I comprehend the necessity for governments to demonstrate their commitment to budget reductions, yet it's crucial to bear in mind that each numerical entry on a page signifies a person, not just an abstract value. 

Forcing individuals into the workforce solely to balance the financial books is uncompassionate when many lack the required physical or mental capabilities. 

Disability advocacy groups should passionately push for governments to find a balance that promotes inclusivity, providing support for those who choose to work and compassionate assistance for those who cannot.

2oldcodgers

MW123 said:

Thank you Jimm for shedding light on Scope's important efforts in regularly engaging with major political parties to advocate for policies. 

I comprehend the necessity for governments to demonstrate their commitment to budget reductions, yet it's crucial to bear in mind that each numerical entry on a page signifies a person, not just an abstract value. 

Forcing individuals into the workforce solely to balance the financial books is uncompassionate when many lack the required physical or mental capabilities. 

Disability advocacy groups should passionately push for governments to find a balance that promotes inclusivity, providing support for those who choose to work and compassionate assistance for those who cannot.

Quite interesting.
I don't think that you can have a tick box type of system for this. It will have to be on a case by case basis.
There are going to be cases of severely ill/disabled claimants who have a mindset that they have been written by society and can never work again yet there will always be those in that same category who will/want to avoid such a label at all cost.
Whilst on ESA Support Group and DLA High both Care & Mobility I could so easily have accepted my lot but I hated not working. So did a lot of voluntary work.

apple85

I know that the liz Kendall’s quotes for the most part didn’t offer much hope when compared to the tories own words but as I just mentioned in another thread from the little I found on social media, the language used at labour fringe events seemed very different to that used at similar fringe at the Tory conference. (I think scope themselves was chairing an event………how many disability charities turned up to the Tory conference?)

I know it may not seem like a lot but I think we need to take the little wins where we can - prehaps things won’t get better for the disabled under labour but I have hope it won’t worsen in the same way then if the tories remained in power

apple85

There may be hope yet (not much, but right now it’s enough):

https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/labour-pledges-to-scrap-tory-plans-to-tighten-fitness-for-work-test/

woodbine

The election is a year off (maybe longer) we will have to await the manifestos to see what plans are on offer.

MW123

Woodbine I agree the election could be as late as January 2025. Notably, both the Conservative and Labour parties have commenced the process of outlining their respective stances on this matter during their conferences. 

While governments may not invariably heed the input of charities, it is my steadfast conviction that disability organisations should take proactive measures to address these concerns well before manifestos are finalised and set in stone.

Ralph

I know this was over ten years ago but it’s mostly the same people, I wonder if Labour has the same policies now.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/12/labour-benefits-tories-labour-rachel-reeves-welfare

apple85

Ralph said:

I know this was over ten years ago but it’s mostly the same people, I wonder if Labour has the same policies now.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/12/labour-benefits-tories-labour-rachel-reeves-welfare

Firstly people’s opinions change a lot over a decade - I know it’s hard but sometimes even politicians deserve the benefit of the doubt sometimes

second I know there isn’t a pro disability party, a party that people like us know to float to and vote for.

The only thing we know is 13 years under the tories had been hard & soul destroying for the sick & disabled and if they get in for another 5 years it odds on that things will get worse for us.

I know labour isn’t the greatest of option but articles like the one that you posted could be seen as a smear of sorts that only benefits the tories (you are hoping ppl will vote for the devil they already know than the unknown) - I know that wasn’t your intent but there are a lot of disillusioned disabled people who won’t use their vote because other parties are painted with the Tory brush

if you want parties like labour to have better disabled policies than the disabled need to figure out how to make political parties aware that every vote is going to count and it’s in their best interest to attract the disabled vote

Albus_Scope

This is totally personal opinion and not I'm not speaking on behalf of Scope. 

    But I agree, looking at articles from 10+ years ago and trying to link them to the current party and to those past views isn't useful at all. Parties can change a lot in just a year, as we've been seeing more recently.  You're much better off looking at more recent articles, to get a better idea of how the party stands on important issues, like the disabled. 

The times they are a'changin. 

Jimm_Scope

My ideas and thoughts have certainly changed a lot in 10 years time. 10 years is a long time to learn, experience and consider things. Much better to consider what someone is saying and doing now than 10 years ago.

Not saying you should totally ignore what they said 10 years ago if it's something quite bad, but consider the context of the time and consider more strongly what they are saying now.

Ralph

The problem with Labour is they won’t commit to helping the poor, sick and disabled. They are using the we don’t know what money we will have or we can’t do this because there is no money excuse. This may be true and I can understand this given the shambles the Tory’s have left the country in but they could say in the future when circumstances permit we will do this…. It’s an aspiration.
They won’t because they are courting the wavering Tory voters. So it’s either they don’t want to do it or they are conning the public. If they don’t want to do it well what’s the point in them, if they are conning the public then they are no better than the Tories. That’s how many people see it.

apple85

Ralph said:

The problem with Labour is they won’t commit to helping the poor, sick and disabled. They are using the we don’t know what money we will have or we can’t do this because there is no money excuse. This may be true and I can understand this given the shambles the Tory’s have left the country in but they could say in the future when circumstances permit we will do this…. It’s an aspiration.
They won’t because they are courting the wavering Tory voters. So it’s either they don’t want to do it or they are conning the public. If they don’t want to do it well what’s the point in them, if they are conning the public then they are no better than the Tories. That’s how many people see it.

Honestly I’m a glass half empty type person but this is too much doom & gloom even for me - you seem to be suggesting that as a sick or disabled person it’s pointless voting but that is a wasted vote (especially if the hundred of thousands of disabled voters are turned to that way of thinking)

people need to be realistic - no party sees the sick or disabled as a priority (which is understandable when looking at societies sub groups which voters the political parties are going through - we are a very quiet group that don’t shout out as loud as others.
As a member of society when looking into political parties, on a selfish side I’m looking for the party with the least negative impact for someone like myself. But the bigger picture is any political party must serve the many and not the few (issues like the nhs, cost of living, education, etc…) - perhaps none of these parties cater for me but if that’s the case you should vote for a party that could make the lives of the people around you better.

You talk about being ‘conned’ by all parties but that is called political spin and to an extent we need to accept it (can you imagine a politician on true serum - it would be chaos)

but you are almost implying that we should either not vote next election or continue voting for the tories because they are all awful so why bother trying to change things

There has only ever been one non-Tory elected pm in my lifetime - and conservative has been the uk’s default vote for years - labour has had to work significance harder to get into power and stay there, the tories have not had to work hard at all for their current 13 years.

the tories can get a 2nd, 3rd term even if they conned the public - starmer’s labour will not get a 2nd term unless they prove that things have gotten better for the country and general public (though honestly if they don’t solve anything but not make things worse that for me is a win……that’s how low my standards after 13 years of the tories have gone)

in my honest opinion I’m 50/50 on whether the tories actually get a kick out of making life difficult for the disabled on top of the financial stuff - in comparison I think right now labour are overly focused on uk economics and statistics (in this case the increasing welfare bill and uk job vacancies) - both parties may seem on the same page but I do think they have different motives - but they are both correct that the country is in a financial mess and the ‘no money’ thing is a reality.


lastly I know many will try and vote strategically but you are also voting for the individual mp for your area - and many mps are very decent people, and some have helped out disabled individuals in things like welfare claims (for example about 7 years back the mp for my constituency at the time couldn’t care less about a problem I was having, and in the end the mp from one of the neighbouring constituencies ended going above and beyond to help)
we owe it to the decent mp candidates to be open minded and not to waste our vote 


once again sorry for the rant but the negativity of your post just got me down (too much hope is a dangerous thing but so is hopelessness!)

Jimm_Scope

In a first past the post system it's all about voting against what you dislike the most. It's part of the reason I'd like something more proportional representation, at least then you're voting for something, not again something.

Also, "both sides are the same" is a tactic used to increase voter apathy. The less people that vote the fewer you need to convince to vote for you, or against your opponent. While it's true, with only 2 main parties there's sometimes very little difference between the two in certain policy areas, they aren't exactly the same.

apple85

Jimm_Scope said:

In a first past the post system it's all about voting against what you dislike the most. It's part of the reason I'd like something more proportional representation, at least then you're voting for something, not again something.

Also, "both sides are the same" is a tactic used to increase voter apathy. The less people that vote the fewer you need to convince to vote for you, or against your opponent. While it's true, with only 2 main parties there's sometimes very little difference between the two in certain policy areas, they aren't exactly the same.

I agree with you jimm

the point is that as many people from the disabled community who read this scope forum need to either use there vote or sign up to vote.

the more disabled who are vocal about the need to vote the more likely this is noticed by the political parties and they may have to start catering for us as in higher numbers the disabled vote becomes more desirable and worth voting over. (Look at the pensioner vote, highly sought over and the triple pension lock not dared touch in fear of losing that vote - the sick/disabled have similar numbers in rank, we could learn a lot from the pensioner backlash against political policies over the years)

I don’t know what percentage of working age disabled voted last election but it was lower than the national average

the disabled are heavily disfranchised and those who aren’t then may face barriers to poll stations via access or id issues

id really wish that (disability) charities would run a highly visible campaign to encourage the disabled community that their vote highly matters and they should make the effect

where I used to live parties used to send out cars to the elderly to help them get to the polling stations there vote was so desired - something similar would be great for the disabled as well as help getting the right id (which I can write about more on the other thread)

there are more reasons to vote for a party….for an mp candidate than just their disability policy

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/09/disabled-people-votes-count-election

Albus_Scope

I do feel (on a personal level) every disabled person should vote if at all possible.  I also feel anyone who can vote, should.  But they also need to be educated on who they can vote for and what they stand for, without papers and social media throwing in all the usual fear and false information. 

apple85

Albus_Scope said:

I do feel (on a personal level) every disabled person should vote if at all possible.  I also feel anyone who can vote, should.  But they also need to be educated on who they can vote for and what they stand for, without papers and social media throwing in all the usual fear and false information. 

That would be great idea for a website (what do you think?)

a place for the disabled community could go onto (and perhaps contribute to) and read up on individual candidates for the major parties for each individual constituency and their own personal views on issues that affect the sick and disabled & if it’s a priority (something they may campaign for or bring up in parliament)

Honestly if it was something that would help or be in huge demand I’d but tempted to start building something myself online (I mean it’s too much for one person but if it would potentially help thousands I’d be more than happy giving up my time)