Manifestly a mess....

[davidgillon]

 Tweeting last night about fact the Greens released their manifesto with accessible versions, had one of their candidates replying telling me he was on the manifesto working group, and disability had been a priority, but they had chosen to launch without the accessible versions. I advised him to stop digging, the hole was deep enough already. Meanwhile I'm damned if I know whether the Tory or Labour manifestos have accessible versions because their websites are as clear as mud. Labour's is particularly a mess and clearly wasn't subject to an access audit. They have lots of options to 'create your own manifesto', likely in an attempt to profile you at the constituency level - it insists on full postcode, and the option to download the full manifesto is tucked away at the bottom as the very last of about thirty options. I barely found it, God help anyone trying to get through with a screen reader. (I don't think UKIP or the Lib Dems have launched yet).

Highlights so far, the Tories are now officially fat shaming in their manifesto, they threaten to cut the benefits of anyone disabled and obese if they 'refuse recommended treatment', with the clear implication that anyone who does is a lazy scrounger. The idea of compelled treatment is bad enough, but obesity in disability is generally the result of disability, not vice versa, which means the Tories are deliberately instigating disability hate as a manifesto policy. Meanwhile they want to repeal the Human Rights Act, which is of course how we defend ourselves against things like compelled treatment. Labour, meanwhile, is proposing a massive overhaul of Social Care, but carefully doesn't mention the fact the Independent Living Fund is being shut down in two months, that the funding for that won't be ring-fenced when it transfers to Local Authorities, and that there is no transition plan to cover ILF users between then and the start of the new system in however many years time. Meanwhile they're hellbent on keeping the WCA, never mind what we think of it.

Oh, and yesterday the Tory candidate in Cambridge tried to argue people with mental health issues should wear coloured wristbands to identify them to police etc. Another political party tried that once, but re-implementing Nazi policies isn't usually considered an electoral positive.

Comments

[rmc28]

the Tory candidate in Cambridge tried to argue people with mental health issues should wear coloured wristbands to identify them to police etc

Because obviously no-one can expect the police to cope with neurodiversity or have any patience with anyone being non-verbal or slow to respond for any reason.

(yes, they conflated autism and mental health)

[cxcvi]

(yes, they conflated autism and mental health)

I'm not sure that they're that different? Or maybe it's just that I can't tell what's causing me to be the way I am, any more...

[rmc28]

I think they overlap? Illness, developmental differences, chronic conditions, disability. And often people have more than one of whatever we call it.

I'm allistic; most of my life I've had good mental health but I had postnatal depression after my last pregnancy and my mental health is still rocky. I also have chronic physical and sensory processing conditions which I need to manage, but don't (yet) greatly limit my daily activities.

My older child is autistic and seems to be in good physical and mental health generally. (As best as I can judge, and I might be wrong.) I think I'm reacting badly to regarding my child's autism as an illness rather than a difference?

[davidgillon]

I think there's a fairly major difference in mechanism, but some overlap in symptoms. It's entirely possible to be neurodiversity with no MH issues (even if said Tory didn't recognise that).

[cxcvi]

Well... fuck.

Still think that Labour is the best vote for disabled people?

[davidgillon]

Overall, based on likeliest to be in power and cause least damage while there*, yes.

* my expectations are depressingly low.

[cosmolinguist]

The Lib Dem manifesto is out now, and available in Easy Read, braille and audio versions.

[davidgillon]

Yes, kudos to them on being only party to manage that. Of course chances of them sticking to manifesto based on past performance....

(Just realised I didn't look at what it says on disability, must check).

[cosmolinguist]

Of course chances of them sticking to manifesto based on past performance....

Well, the chances of anybody sticking to their manifesto seem pretty slim. But I think it's worth pointing out that their manifesto was for a Lib Dem government, not one where they were very much junior to the Tories. Even then, the Lib Dems seem to have delivered more of their namifesto than was expected for the amount of power they have, and at least as importantly, blocked the Tories from doing some of the more egregiously heartless things they'd like to.

Just the fact that the 2015 Tory manifesto seems to be so similar to the 2010 one is heartening as it seems to illustrate how little of what they wanted then they've done in the last five years. I don't think any party can be trusted to stick to what they say in their manifesto, after the election.

[davidgillon]

OTOH they explicitly voted for the Welfare Reform Act, knowing the harm it would do, even when former Thatcherite ministers were voting to amend it as too harsh. They didn't block it, they didn't ameliorate its effects, they actively enabled it, and that's really all I need to know.

[cosmolinguist]

Yes, the MPs who voted for it absolutely betrayed their party and its policy on that. The Lords did a bit better. :) But unfortunately, despite Labour having it in their manifesto, they blocked Lords reform so we don't get to vote for the peers yet.

[davidgillon]

The Lords did a bit better. :)

Actually it's bloody Baroness Floella Benjamin voting for stuff even ex-Thatcherite ministers couldn't stomach that really gets my goat!

And I'm against Lords reform as it's the only way we get the disabled cross-bench peers like Tanni Grey-Thompson and Jane Campbell who are our only voices in either house.

[davidgillon]

The UKIP manifesto is out, and while there aren't any accessible versions that I can see, they did manage to keep the pdf semi-accessible, which put them one up on the Greens for the couple of hours before the Greens got their accessible versions out. UKIP say they'll get rid of WCA and that they stand by UNCRPD, but given their attitude to European Court, I find that dubious, meanwhile their disability spokeswoman, who is actually disabled, has said making schools accessible may cost too much, while Farage is fear-mongering about HIV. Even when talking about disability employment, the manifesto blames the problem on those damned foreigners, coming over here and being able-bodied, apparently oblivious to the bye it's giving good old fashioned British discrimination in that example. The whole document really is unspeakably vile, full of open appeals to the politics of envy and hatred for the 'liberal metropolitan elite' and the 'chattering classes' ( that would be us). I needed a bath afterwards, it's one of those things that makes you feel dirty just by knowing about it.

[davidgillon]

Oh, and an interesting comment from my friend Kaliya Franklin, who is an expert on Easy Read, the accessibility format for people with Learning Difficulties, she notes that the parties may be reluctant to produce Easy Read versions because it's extremely difficult to obfuscate the true meaning of your policies in Easy Read.

[jesse_the_k]

Too damn true. Your feted countryman George Orwell taught us the reverse of this: that sufficiently obfuscatory prose will confuse people so much they can't see the evil being pushed under their toenails.

[jesse_the_k]

You said: the Tories are now officially fat shaming in their manifesto, they threaten to cut the benefits of anyone disabled and obese if they 'refuse recommended treatment', with the clear implication that anyone who does is a lazy scrounger. The idea of compelled treatment is bad enough, but obesity in disability is generally the result of disability, not vice versa, which means the Tories are deliberately instigating disability hate as a manifesto policy.

They couldn't be instigating hate if fat-shaming wasn't so deeply engrossed in our culture, no matter whether the fat person has an impairment. I'm sure you'd agree that shaming fat people for being fat is not productive: we know we're fat. Pride, promise, and dreams are better inducements to change than shame anyway.

[davidgillon]

Absolutely, but when the obesity is also more than likely to be the result of disability, there's am extra level of disturbingly calculating, especially when they've singled out three areas (for now*) for this policy: alcoholism, drug addiction, and obesity. Anyone who writes policy in these areas knows that none of these have simple solutions and in general they have complex and deep-seated causes, and they equally know that this is going to further stigmatise people with complex disabilities/MH issues, but they've taken that knowledge and decided that none of it has any value beside the opportunity to kick a vulnerable minority group for political advantage.

* I say for now because there is also a pilot programme in Jobcentres to 'offer' people MH therapy. Now given that Jobcentres are themselves an abusive environment known to be the cause of considerable stress for disabled people, and that they are caught on a pretty much weekly basis compelling people to do things they can only legally ask them to volunteer for, the potential for abuse is appalling. And that one's the pet project of Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem leader/ex-Deputy PM, not the Tories.

[jesse_the_k]

Indeed.

Creeping in from the "vulnerable citizen" to everyone is not just rhetoric. Our state Legislature is considering mandating drug-testing for anyone collecting unemployment benefit, Medicaid, or Food Stamps*. (Unemployment is an employer-funded insurance program with Federal minimums.) The drug testing will make sure that anyone taking pain killers or psych drugs will be easier to discriminate against.

* Food Stamps are a weird mix: they are means-tested; they provide scrip which can only be spent on food (not diapers, condoms, or beer), and they subsidize U.S. agribusiness.

I just came back from a transportation related meeting where a City program we'd advocated hard for has been "thrown under the bus." *groan* Hand to God, Richard Nixon is beginning to look like a decent choice right now.

[davidgillon]

Ugh for the idea of drug testing benefit recipients, and we all know it's nothing to do with drugs, its just another way for the intolerant parts of society to punish people for being in need. It's a sad state of affairs when bullying people in need is applauded as the socially responsible thing to do.

And I completely agree, given the current batch of neo-con, neo-liberals, tea-partiers or whatever the in-group is this week, Nixon begins to look like a socially responsible moderate.

[jesse_the_k]

It's a sad state of affairs when bullying people in need is applauded as the socially responsible thing to do.

You have quite a way with words!