So I met Jeremy Corbyn.

So me and Techiecarer went to hear Jeremy Corbyn speak.

Even though we arrived early the hall was already packed. Asking for help we managed to get seated after someone had kindly offered their seat. Before the event had started the hall was filled with people spilling out of the doors and crowding around the entrance of the hall desperate to hear him speak. I obviously thought that this was likely as the same scenario seems to have been played out up and down the country. So arriving to a rapturous applause he began his speech.

He was the first politician I have ever heard to categorically state that those on welfare are not to blame for the UK’s problems, that we should be proud of the welfare state, that the NHS should be free from the point of use and that society has failed so many people in need of mental health treatment. That immigrants fleeing atrocities should be seen as people in need and not as swarms, as if they were non human. That we need to invest, tackle tax avoidance and increase public housing and pay. That we should have more public ownership, look after our environment and invest in education. That people should be able to learn what they want without worrying about fees at any point in their life. For the most part I agreed greatly with what he said even though I still have some questions on some of his policies.

After his talk he took random questions from the audience.

He then dashed around to talk and take selfies with everyone that wanted one. There were people at the event who were obviously struggling in their lives but he approached them with no less interest than anyone else and listened to what they had to say. Too often politicians seem awkward when talking to ordinary people and it was nice to see they were treated no differently.

Initially I didn’t think I would manage to grab a word with him, I was low on spoons and trying to ask something in a crowded room is not the easiest especially as I was sitting down. I thought I would only have a second as he was rushing to another event but he stopped and smiled. I spoke to him about how the disabled community felt especially about Labour’s actions and the discrimination faced due to the negative stereotypes portrayed in the media. He answered and when I mentioned my health asked about how I was managing. I also spoke to him about care leavers and he actively asked about my experiences.

Although he was in a rush I can honestly say there was not a moment where I felt he wanted to rush the conversation. I shook his hand and he reached to the side of me to shake Techiecarer’s hand, as well as the lad to the other side of me.

The main point that resounded with me from his speech is when he stated that no party has the automatic right to exist and that the public should play a part in helping shaping its policies.

I have supported the party in the past, as well as other parties but more recently like others I haven’t felt like I could. Labour's inaction to hold true to its roots has been infuriating. The election campaign was run on an attitude that voters must vote for Labour otherwise the Tories would get in and that voters must accept austerity light. That any disgruntled Labour voter who votes instead for another left wing party are allowing the Tories to get into power and obviously this attitude did nothing to win voters over. Throughout the Labour leadership campaign, the other Labour candidates and political commentators have stated that Labour lost the general election because it was too left wing. The fact that they state this shows how little they are listening to the public. Labour lost because it was offering austerity light. So people either decided not to vote or instead voted for other left wing parties. Instead of coming to the realisation that people were voting for other parties because they didn’t believe in Labour's policies, Labour decided to attack them stating how much their vote would be wasted. It is true that under the current electoral system for Westminster that these votes are more often than not “lost” but Labour did not understand that people wanted to vote for policies they believed in and I respect anyone holding on to what they believe in.

It is often stated that people do not care about politics any more but if that was truly the case why is this man packing halls up and down the country with people spilling out of the doors and jumping up to windows in the hope to hear what he wants to say?

Yes Corbyn could be like any other politician, this could be an act and he could totally change if he becomes leader or even prime minister but at the moment he seems to have been the most genuine politician that I have met. There is also no guarantee that the party, like any other might not backtrack on any election promises made. With how current opinion is within the Labour Party, there has been doubt cast on whether the party will allow him to lead if he gets elected as leader.

But you can not tell me that people aren't interested in politics, they just want policies they can believe in, an alternative whatever the party.

#BADD2015: Don't shove me into your stereotypical box.

The other day I felt really angry, for me at least because I’m not a person who angers easily. However when I was younger, there were periods in my life when I felt really angry. My Auntie taught me that the things I was getting angry about may not be as simple as they seemed and to find out what the truth was. As I got older I questioned more and endeavoured to understand. I shied away from anger believing that it had no place in my life, that it would only bring negativity and pain. And although I still believe that anger is best kept in small quantities, anger can push us forward, it can prevent us from accepting the inequality within society and instead motivate us to fight for change.

The last five years have been especially hard on the disabled community and there have been many times when it would have been easy to be consumed by anger. Even before the last general election, the tabloids had increased the disproportionate amount of articles that falsely claimed or gave the perception that benefit fraud was sky high. And not only has this continued but it has steadily worsened.

Over the last five years society has been bombarded with an underlying ideology that disabled people that claim welfare are a problem and are not part of society.

This negative ideology is only further perpetuated by the Government. With a speech on the fairness of seeing the “closed blinds of their next door neighbour sleeping off a life on benefits” and the near constant references to those who “work hard and get on” and “hard working families” to name but a few.

But this simplistic and discriminatory view implies disabled people who are not in work are simply choosing not to do so because of the perception, that a life on benefits is an “easier” life. This shows an absolute lack of understanding about those who can’t work and of how restrictive disability can be.

But with this being portrayed as an injustice to the rest of society it is easier for politicians to form a regressive welfare policy if people believe that those in the disabled community are fraudsters. Because the perception then is of a government that is simply righting a “wrong” and not the truth, that this causes society to stagnate and discrimination towards the disabled community to worsen.

You would think with a government and the media that is so eager to criticise the disabled for not working it would be shredding away the barriers to work to enable those that could, with the right support, variety and flexibility in the work available but alas no. This Government that is so eager to criticise has not only failed to remove any barriers to work and social inclusion as a whole but it has closed or reduced existing schemes like the Independent Living Fund and Access to Work.

The prime minister only days ago stated “a life on benefits, is no life at all.”

This goes back to the same perception that a disabled person without a job, has no purpose, no life. It also implies that a disabled person’s value simply rests on their ability to work or not and belittles the huge contribution that disabled people have made in society. In the same way as the rest of society, the disabled community pursue interests and contribute to society as others do outside of their employment.

When highlighting the Government and the media’s position with the public and with people I know, it is obvious to see how much this distorted perception of the disabled community has influenced many peoples’ opinions.

In its more milder form it is not unusual to be told that the “Government are obviously not talking about you, you're obviously genuine”

I know I am but given that the vast majority of people claiming disability benefit are genuine, chances are however much this person may perceive me as genuine, another member of the public who doesn't know me may not and may discriminate against me. This feeds into the public's belief that benefit fraud is 34 times higher than reality.

For anyone that has read my blog you will know I have psoriatic arthritis and hypermobility alongside additional conditions and that I deal with pain every day. Although I walk with a stick and have had to use a wheelchair at times, I may look “normal” to an outsider that doesn't take more than a second to glance at me or get to know me.

I have had my disability questioned and have faced discrimination by passers by and those who even know me. I know that isn’t helped by the fact that stereotypically, arthritis is seen as a mild condition and one that only affects people in their old age. But the real crux of it is, that not only is the reality of my condition further from the public’s often misguided perception, I often receive discrimination and less understanding than someone who has the flu.

This is what I find truly ludicrous. I would love to say that this is uncommon but I and so many who live with invisible conditions have our validity questioned just because we don't have a snotty nose. It is even more ludicrous when you factor in that my arthritis can create a immune response that is equal to a severe bacterial infection or even burns.

Not only do disabled people have their validity questioned by society and even by people they know, they often are excluded from social gatherings and if invited the lack of an accessible venue or seating may mean they are unable to join in when they otherwise could of.

I have learned since the onset and the gradual worsening of my disability that friends that knew me well accept that my disability is just another aspect of me and that if they enjoy my friendship, they will make time for me as they did before. There are friends that care after every hospital stay and friends that will wait with me whilst I sit and rest, and there is the friend that has done all she can so I could be at her wedding.

Because of those friends and when I meet members of the public that give me their seat before I stumble, for those that don’t glare at me and instead open a heavy door, and for those that ask me questions with a thirst for understanding, you are the reason I do not submit to that anger.

The discrimination has been completely engineered to pull the public's attention away from the real causes of the inequality in other sections of society to easily blame those in the disabled community.

Society has gone backwards and peoples' perceptions have worsened. But this is not an problem created by the disabled community, it is one of a complete lack of acceptance. It is so hard for the disabled community not to be blinded by rage from the injustice experienced. The realisation that this shouldn’t be up to the disabled community to fix. There are those in society that will judge the disabled and do not want to change their ignorance and to those people I do not need to justify myself or spend time on you. To those that ask questions and want to reach out to understand, I am here.

(I know im late this year but better late than never)

The NHS: should we all have care?

So I was looking at 4OD, looking through the factual section when I found NHS: £2 Billion a Week and me being me, who has watched so many documentaries I was intrigued to find out what it was and when I did my heart sunk.

The first episode of NHS: £2 Billion a Week follows three patients; a women in need of a breast reduction, a man in need of a liver transplant and a couple in need of the support of a Dementia nurse. After each of their stories were shown, it was detailed how much their care would cost and what the same amount of money could provide in other areas. Selected tweets were also shown live commenting on why each person should receive their care or not.

First was a women in need of a breast reduction. Generally, it is often felt that any breast augmentation is purely cosmetic and stories shown in the media like that of Josie Cunninghams only serve to reinforce this further. Many breast augmentations undertaken in the UK are for cosmetic reasons. However there are people, like Kim, who have particularly large breasts and this extra weight attached to the front of them day in day out will eventually take it’s toll on a person’s back.

She also referred to how she had and was working when explaining how she needed help. I have seen this more & more, consciously or not, many are using language to almost promote their “worth” before they are “allowed” to receive help both in the welfare and NHS system.

Then you have people like Josie Cunningham who had breast implants on the NHS and yes, she plays the villain well for the media. But the simple fact is she had no breast tissue, she was at the extreme other side in breast augmentation and for many girls they find this truly difficult to deal with psychologically. Do we therefore not allow anyone any argumentation because of the socially unpalatable person that came before them?

The cost of surgery was used to compare what the same amount could provide for elsewhere. It resulted in an inevitable tweet “Shall I miss dialysis for 6 weeks and die so you can reduce your boobs.”

Cost of Breast Reduction £4,000
the examples given for the money spent elsewhere
1,000 inhalers for children with asthma
6 Weeks of Dialysis
100 GP visits

Next patient Mark, who has alcohol related liver disease and needs a liver transplant. Any transplant given is obviously a gift that anyone should be thankful to the donor family for giving and thinking of others at such a sad time.

However, there was the inevitable tweet stating “why give an alcoholic new liver so he can drink more give it to someone more deserving.” This person isn’t alone in their opinion, many feel this way. But because this is due to alcohol he or anyone else is not allowed a second chance to change and turn his life around?

Another tweet however, reminded people that alcohol is an addiction and an illness, albeit one that society finds unpalatable. One that too often we judge to be the individual’s doing, a choice. It is a choice but not to become an addict but one to escape from life and what the person’s feeling. Access to drink and drugs are available within minutes but access to mental health care can be months if well over a year away. With the systematic lack of mental health care provision and mental illness being too often viewed by society as something people can help if only they tried, there should be no surprise that when given the choice of lessening your pain (and emotional pain is legitimate) that people often chose to forget with drink or drugs.

Cost of a Liver Transplant £73,000
the examples given for the money spent elsewhere
A nurses salary for 2 years
9 Hip replacements
40 hospital beds for a week

The third, Barrie, has Dementia and his wife and carer Ros wanted access to a specialist Dementia nurse who would support the couple. The couple are dealing with an awful disease which is only going to increase in frequency in the UK as the elderly population rises. Many will be supported by their carers who often aren’t supported and often are overlooked. The government knows these carers won’t abandon the person they care for and too often carers take the strain at a cost to themselves.

Cost of a Dementia Nurse £375 a year
the examples given for the money spent elsewhere
2 Meningitis B jabs
2 ambulance call outs
19 blood tests

For me this programme brought up notions of the workhouse and the “deserving” and “undeserving” poor. The simple reality is the NHS is affordable but at present is being woefully underfunded and portrayed as unsustainable. The program detailed the costs of each procedure requested and what the same money could buy if used elsewhere. Instead of creating an environment where people feel they need to prove themselves “worthy” of help, the equivalent costs could have been shown for how much the same procedures would have been under a private health care model. The government want to portray the NHS as unsustainable, for us to reduce the NHS to the bare bones so those that can pay are forced to top it up with private health care and those that can’t go without.

Kim’s breast reduction would have been £4,000 on the NHS, the same privately would cost nearly double. Even if people paid more in tax, the NHS is still cheaper and more efficient. Its not perfect but satisfaction is often no better in countries that have a private health care model.

For me, the programme highlighted how decisions are often based on the short term in order to “save” money. Kim was refused a breast reduction and it was costly to decide this. However not once was she seen by a (NHS) plastic surgeon to assess the reality that if she lost weight (which she already had) would it reduce her cup size. Long term, the medication she is taking will be more costly than providing the operation. Providing a Dementia nurse also long term is more cost effective, supporting people in their own home, away from hospital which is so much more costly.

The programme also highlighted how society’s disregard in helping those with addiction is so much more costly and simply because it is seen as “immoral.”

The cost of not treating addiction is added to policing and seen in the increases to home insurance with both costs recurring. By not treating addicts, the odds are stacked against them being able to achieve recovery without the support. It is something that crosses all social barriers and could happen to anyone.

This programme opened up the debate on Twitter of who was deserving and who wasn’t. Many believed that addicts weren’t. But if were to get rid of the limited and woefully inadequate amount of support available for addicts, what is to stop the same happening to the next illness society finds unacceptable?

What would be the criteria? Do we exclude those who don’t work in favour of those that do? Or ration treatment for the elderly? Or no treatment for those that smoke? It would be a nasty downward spiral.

I am worth it. I personally won’t apologise nor justify myself because I have a disease that was not of my own doing, that I won the shit health lottery or that it happened to me when I was young. I will however say my gratitude for the NHS can not be summed up in a few mere words, the NHS is worth fighting for and is cheaper than private health care. You may be healthy now but probability states that you will need the NHS in your lifetime, it only takes a second for things to change.

We have already seen councils placing elderly and disabled up on bidding sites for social care providers, reduced to a list of conditions like you would sell an old Jacket you no longer wanted. How would you feel if that was your relative? Nobody should feel unworthy of care and feel like they have a price on their head.

Everyone should receive treatment but we are a generation that were born in the NHS and so often don’t understand the realities of not having it to rely on. People need to use each service responsibly. We can not let this be reduced to an argument about which condition is more “deserving” than the rest. The NHS was created at a time we could least afford it because it was the right thing to do, it is one of the best things this country has done and it will remain as long as there are people left to fight for it.

Westminster, If we can do it so can you!

So a few weeks ago I watched Prime Minister's Questions, oh why did I.

I rarely watch Prime Minister's Questions anymore, it has descended into a circus of baying, laughing & taunting that any child could tell you is a deeply wrong way to behave especially when parliament discusses matters that affect the public so deeply. But even putting this aside, no genuine debate occurs, ministers on the prime minister's benches jostle for a turn to stand up & state how wonderfully they're doing, with the opposition of course taking it’s turn to say they could have done it better. Any genuine inter bench debate is silenced. There is no debate, no back & forth of ideas & definitely no compromise. So whats the point? All Prime Minister's questions shows us is what the government & the opposition is arguing about on a given week. What they accuse each other of failing at & what achievements they claim to have accomplished, regardless of the truth of them. All of which are covered by any news source that covers politics within the UK.

Watch one Prime Minister's Questions & you can't wonder why people are disillusioned with politics in Westminster.

This is however not how Questions are done throughout the rest of the UK. With the countries that make up the UK having their respective devolved Assemblies & Parliaments that sit depending on the nation, on a differing amount of devolved legislative powers.

So I decided to look at the most recent sessions (at the time of writing), in the respective parliaments & assemblies across the UK, that were currently available online when all nations sat during the week. (I couldn't find any link for the London Assembly)

The First Questions were on Monday 24th November - First & Deputy First Ministers questions: Northern Ireland's Assembly.

During this session the chamber talked about the troubles, the Irish language & religion. Northern Ireland with such a troubled past, can gather in the chamber & discuss topics which outside the chamber can still be very heated without resorting to the same type of behaviour seen in Westminster.

The Second Questions were on Tuesday 25th November - First Minister's Questions: Welsh Assembly

During this session the chamber talked about transport, including roads & rail. The First Minister was asked about the changes in fares & admitted at present he did not know the information to give to the minister but that information would be made available in due time. There was no spin given & no guess work & the minister asking the question accepted the First Minister's answer. The chamber got a little more heated at 18.20 in the video when Plaid Cymru leader Leanne Wood spoke about Welsh under funding. However this didn't continue for long after the speaker intervened & brought the chamber to order. There was then further debate about health & domestic violence. 

Wednesday 26th November - Prime Minister's Questions: Westminster

The debate started with VAT & how the Prime Minister believes there should be a debate in the commons about the Welsh NHS even though this is a devolved issue. Even if there was to be any debate in the Commons, it should be about the NHS as a whole & not instead an attempt to politically point score by attacking the Welsh NHS. The Coalition attacks the Welsh NHS because a Labour government is sitting in the Senedd (Assembly) & a there is a Labour opposition in Westminster. There are various problems within the NHS as a whole but as a Labour government doesn't hold a majority in any other parliament, there is no other opportunity to attack the Labour opposition. 

The debate then moved onto those with learning difficulties, often those who get placed into institutions away from & against their families wishes instead of being supported in the community.

Then there was A LOT of it's your fault, no it's your fault. There was also a lot of “will you congratulate” so & so & oh our economic plan was so “awesome”. If this was cut out, all of the peppy filler, there may be so much more time to discuss more pressing issues?

Anyway, after the peppy interlude, the debate moved on to accusing the government of pandering to UKIP. Followed by the NHS & the Israeli bill removing the rights from non jews. A minister then tried to praise the personnel who were going to help with the ebola outbreak. Something very worthy of praise, however people continued to speak whilst she was trying to talk. Its worth noting that this help is arriving months after charities on the ground had stated the urgent need for further assistance & unfortunately this help was only given after westerners had become infected.

Thursday 27th November - First Minister's Questions: Scottish Parliament 

The session began with Jackie Baillie asking what the First Minster was doing & wishing her a safe journey to the Isle of Man. Could you really see an opposing party member doing this in Westminster? The debate primarily focused on further powers being given to Scotland. Although the debate was a little more rowdy in parts, the debate still continued with the Chair bringing the chamber back to order.

I have included all of the videos of each debate, from each of the respective parliaments & assemblies. I don't expect anyone to sit through & watch each session but click on each video, a few times on each & the difference in noise level between Westminster & the devolved parliaments is astounding. Especially the shocking frequency of how people are not talking when someone else is trying to speak in the devolved parliaments. Has it come to the point that we must implement a talking stick within Westminster & for ministers not holding the stick, to sit with a finger to their lips like children do in primary school before they learn to listen?

Although there has always been debate about the effectiveness, along with the ability to efficiently legislate in the devolved parliaments, the fact remains there is much more purposeful debate seen in these parliaments. There has been research to suggest that parliaments that sit in a rectangular chamber with two sides are much more confrontational than those that are round & parliaments that sit in a rectangular chamber are much less likely to compromise. In addition, in all of the devolved parliaments within the UK there is an opportunity for the member posing the question to the First Minister to respond to their answer, something which is not seen at Westminster with the exception being the lead for the opposition. Regardless of the reason it is clearly possible to have an adult debate without the behaviour seen in Westminster. When people are watching ministers laugh when pressing through legislation that may impact upon a person's life so significantly that it may mean they have less food, no roof over their head & less opportunity in life, there should be no surprise how little faith people have with Westminster. Laughing shows how little they are in touch with the people in which their legislation affects & that I think is the main difference, that too often Westminster MPs forget who they represent until the next national vote.

But it is always important to remember. These MPs are voted in, they represent their constituents with their consent. We are the ones that must push for change & understand the importance of who you vote for on election day. 

Chronic illness, disability & a box that doesn’t “quite” fit

So I am referring to a blog post I have read titled “Please Stop Framing Disability as Just a Welfare Issue” & although I refer to the piece it is not an attack at the bloggers character but criticism of a piece that I felt was deeply one sided in parts.

I have linked to the blog post that I am referring to above & about half way down the post it refers to a section of the disabled community as the “Sick movement”.

I can’t see how refusing to accept a section of the disabled community as that, disabled, is suppose to support a move to have the disabled community included fully into society?

Just because someone may personally believe that these people do not “fit” into the definition they have of disability doesn't make it true.

It is also deeply disturbing & damaging to imply that if one person is perceived to have a severe disability & can do a proportion of work, that people with perceived “less severe” disabilities should have no excuses. When in reality most have additional difficulties that are not taken into account when casting judgement, which in itself can often be most damaging to the individual & will not support any idea of being confident living with their disability.

I have several overlapping medical conditions including psoriatic arthritis & hypermobility & although some conditions with the appropriate medical treatment can be well managed, medicine is still not perfect & often a person's condition is still disabling.

I have a condition which as a result causes disability & so therefore i am DISABLED. My arthritis causes me pain, fatigue which restricts my movement. I am restricted in my movement by the inflammation & pain & I can not carry anything heavy because my wrists will physically give way & this is just to start. Although I have medical treatment, I am one of those where medicine can not control the disabling aspects of my condition.

Disability by definition is a restriction & a limitation. It is not because we aren't trying hard enough, that we’re not “determined” or that we are giving in. With all the will in the world it won’t necessarily be enough if the body can’t keep up, even if the person had unlimited support & adaptations & this is not a failing on the person’s part.

It is bad enough that the government & the media consistently bash the disabled community on its legitimacy (which creates a more ablest environment) without members of the disabled community excluding people, often newly disabled, because they don’t believe that these people belong in their definition of disability.

However much the blogger in question may not like welfare being part of the immediate debate it is because if people are left without money & security when you are disabled (especially newly so) it will worry the life out of you, as it would for others disabled or not.

At the point when the brown envelope hits the mat the last thing a disabled person is thinking about is how to change disability policy for the better but instead are hoping that they will have a roof over their head, food & heat. The blogger makes it come across as if the first thing that enters a newly disabled person’s mind are pound signs but instead it is worry.

The work capability assessments work on the basis of the person is "guilty" or has something to hide & it grades on how “damaged” a person is. I would argue that the work capability assessments are the immediate basic problem for many. They are disabling in the way they are carried out & inspire no level of confidence from the individual that they will receive the support they need.

From what I have taken, from what the blogger has written, I agree that society is disabling but even if we had some beautiful utopia (oh how I wish) people will still be disabled especially those with chronic illnesses until medicine advances further. The WCA is broken & campaigners are drawing attention to the failings of the assessment to try & improve the situation. If the WCA was altered or removed this wouldn’t be the end to campaigning, it is only the start.

It is not seen as a "black or white" issue or that simply welfare is the only issue affecting disability. I find it incredibly patronising that people who campaign for improvement in the WCA apparently want the "protective feeling of a hospital environment".

The campaigners that campaign against the WCA want greater support given to disabled people so that they can realise their full potential. However many of the policies that were moving towards this have been cut, altered or greatly reduced including the ILF, PIP & access to work. Although imperfect, these were steps towards giving greater support to disabled people to realise their full potential & to be independent but due to the cuts the progress that has been made is largely being undone.

Disease does disable people & so does society. I would love society to lift the barriers around access to transport & buildings, for flexible working, job sharing or variable hours. But also for society to see that some people can't do paid work but could volunteer & that some can’t work but still have valuable contributions to make in other ways & to appreciate the value in it.

But this takes time & for society to care, which seems to be happening less & less with the increasing scrounger rhetoric portrayed by the media. Disability doesn’t fit into a tidy box or category it is as unique as the individual affected. The blogger only sees the final goal, not appreciating that we can not ignore the issues of the WCA if we want fair treatment for disabled people.

The process takes time.

A Welsh opinion on today's vote on Scottish independence.

I was born in England next to the border with Wales, have ancestry from both Scotland, England & Wales but for me personally I have lived longer in Wales,, love Wales and consider myself Welsh first & British second.

I’ve been following the debate I have seen both the English & Scottish point of view, the views portrayed by the media and the views of my friends on both sides of the border.

Unsurprisingly the Better Together campaign has seemed at the very least patronising at times often resorting to fear mongering about issues that shouldn’t even be issues. Issues that have been made out to be impossible to work around when plenty of new countries have found solutions to these problems with relatively little fuss. This wasn't helped by Westminster refusing to confirm their position on a yes vote, bringing uncertainty that isn’t needed. And now in the later stages we have bribery, more funding promised instead of giving people guaranteed policy change if there was a no vote. It also doesn’t help prove that you will follow through with your promises when in the next breath your backbenchers swear to reject it.

The thing is England still thinks along similar tones as it once did in the days of Empire & often doesn't realise how things said can come across badly & how often the Welsh & Scottish people can be treated like second class citizens.

We get our money given to us like an allowance & when we have different priorities like free prescriptions & free or subsidized education you moan. that its not fair. Its not fair that England has to pay what it does, we agree but thats why we have prioritised money for these, we don’t get any extra money for this, we just spend it differently.

Also people may feel differently if Scotland was represented better in Westminster but how can they? They did not vote for this government that has imposed some of the harshest cuts in recent times & it doesn’t represent the majority of Wales either with only eight Welsh Conservative MPs sitting in parliament.

Wales achieved full devolution in 2011. I know that there were many in Wales who as well as voting for devolution to have more control over policy, also voted for devolution for a degree of protection from Westminster. The ability to lessen the impact of the cuts just a little.

Also devolution makes sense. For example planned changes in NHS England to make up to half of NHS A&E departments specialist units wouldn’t necessarily work for Scotland & Wales with countries that have fewer hospital’s & more space in between them. With small community hospitals that are sometimes the only provision for 2hrs + in any direction, they become a jack of all trades to serve the community. Although Scotland & Wales have lost some of these hospitals it would have even made less sense for a minister in London to make the decision when he or she can get to a hospital within mere minutes.

Furthermore when Scotland's Parliament (Pàrlamaid na h-Alb) asked for Westminster ministers that included Ian Duncan Smith, Ester Mcvey & Lord Freud to come to the Scottish Parliament to answer questions at the Scotlands Welfare Reform Committee the ministers seemed to refuse. This included Ester Mcvey agreeing to meet ministers “informally” but not appear in front of the committee in the same way that she can be summoned to Work and Pensions Select Committee at Westminister. This just screams of a lack of respect, no MP wants to be dragged in front of a committee to answer questions on what their department has done but if you want Scotland to feel that Westminster thinks about & cares about what the people think & that you treat them as equals, you should treat their committee in the exact same way as its Westminster cousin.

For me personally I don't want the United Kingdom split up but we can’t stay with the current model of the union which was made in days before & during the empire. It is modelled on a system that fundamentally doesn’t treat people equally as it comes from the days of the conqueror and the conquered. The only way to keep the union in the long term would be to change together as equals & that involves compromise which I don’t think Westminster still really wants to do. The union could continue but not in its current format, countries like the USA & Switzerland show there is more than one way to do it but things would need to change.

You can see that regardless of the outcome of today's vote that people want their own voice. Many in Cornwall want there own parliament as Scotland & Wales has & the Cornish people have only recently been officially recognised as a minority people too.. There have also been calls for Yorkshire to have their own parliament as well.

I don't want to see Scotland leave but they deserve the right to self determination. I know there are risks for them leaving but there a risks for them staying. For us I think that if Scotland leaves there is the possibility that we will see harsher times as the Government clamps down further with knee jerk decisions & ill thought out plans in response to independence. (which I hope wouldn’t be the case). I also think that the Welsh independence movement will grow (it already has with the Scottish vote) but our Assembly is younger, we need stronger industry & we still have a way to go.

For Wales & Scotland we are Celtic siblings along with Cornwall, Ireland & the Isle of Man, as well as Celts on other continents. The Celtic link will never be broken whatever happens & we have a strong identity & a strong culture of our own. But people suggesting that if Scotland votes yes for independence that they will lose their shared history with the rest of the British Isles including England is nonsensical. That history will be there for better & for worse Scotland is just deciding today on what the next chapter will be.

EU elections?

So it EuroVision!! Oh wait…..

So today is the EU elections, not that a significant percentage of the population actually seems to care. By watching tv & the mainstream media, it would be easy to think that UKIP were the only party standing & that different opinions almost seem to not exist. However, this has seemed to be the status quo in recent years, that less care has been put in to include all sides of an issue, with some issues completely missed from the mainstream media.

It is slowly getting better, more papers are picking up on important news stories that were once missed & Twitter, as always has stepped into fill the void.

The main reason I mention this is because most of the general public doesn’t know what the EU exactly does, other than it costs money. Leaving out how racist some have been which I for the record do not condone, If you have a party that is telling the public these “facts” about the EU unless you research it yourself (a lot don’t) many could believe in what they are saying.

In other countries kids are taught much more about how their government works. And when you are educated on something, you will come to care a lot more about it if it is lost, who is running it & if you want it changed. I think we need to educate on what the EU actually does. We rarely hear a mention of the EU (unless its an election), of debates from within the parliament. And when the mainstream parties don’t put anywhere near as much value on the EU elections as the UK general election it gives off the impression that not even the main parties give a monkeys.

You really can’t complain, if you chose not to vote. Our inaction can aid things we don’t want to happen, more extremist parties will & do get seats. All I would ask of anyone is to please vote but research their policies for yourself & know what you're voting for. The EU is proportional representation, the little parties do get seats, even spoil your ballot. And for me personally what womens suffrage went through for the vote, it would be awful not to use it.

Food banks, poverty & a parallel universe

So I watched most of the food bank debate. Not at the time as my bendy spoonie arthur body wasn’t playing ball.

It was a sad sight to watch as Labour passionately recalled stories of people, in desperate need in their constituencies. As Labour were trying to make their point the coalition benches laughed, brayed & tried to shout them down as they attempted to highlight the crisis that is unfolding in this country, one of the richest countries in the world where people are being propped up by food banks, charities as there government continues to fail them.

The coalition benches made the whole Charade feel like the Goverement was implying that poor people are just darn stupid, we’re beating them with this rod with all the welfare cuts & telling them to work so why arn’t they? Their problems would be resolved. If they are at food banks they deserve nothing more, it is of their own doing.

The coalition further blamed people for poor budgeting skills but didn’t understand that for many, when they reached the foodbanks they have fallen so hard & so quickly & for others they have already striped their outgoings down to the bone. If the end line is that you need £60 & you only get £40, how are you supposed to win? Just demonising people further isn’t the answer.

Most of the coalition MPs come from much more privileged backgrounds, that have never had to deal with these problems. These MPs live in a world where they get a food allowance, expenses & subsidised bars. They have never had to hardcore budget like the people that end up at food banks do. They’re in a parallel world were they constantly live with their fingers in their ears & take their party’s doggy statistics on face value.

The coalition put these policies in place & they’re just not logical. If you speak to most, they agree that the system needed reform but it needed to be fair, the coalition need to accept that there are people that are just not able to work & that working isn’t the only solution out of this kind of situation, that work doesn’t always pay which can be seen by the increased number of people in work, forced to rely on food banks as wages are low & commodities high.

The coalition throughout continued to state that the food banks began under the last government which is indeed true but the explosion in the number of food banks under this government demonstrates how much policy is not working & that the simple truth is, that if social policy was better there wouldn’t be anywhere near the demand that there is now.

If anyone agrees that its ok for people in this country to have to rely on food banks, for children to be so grateful that they were given chocolate because its one of the best things they have seen in a while & that for the red cross to be doing its first appeal since world war 2 for the people in the UK, then remember this; anyone can find themselves in this situation & if you’re saying to yourself not me? there have been many people before you that have said the same & yet found themselves in a position they would never have seen coming.

These MPs call each other honourable members, if this is honour, its not an honour I recongnise.

Go back & do it again! The Conservative party conference

So just in case you haven’t been fortunate enough to escape to a distant land or planet or you haven’t been sticking your fingers in your ears with a blindfold on & have being going ” La la la, I can’t here you” you will be aware that the Conservative party conference finished this week.

There have been announcements & leaked documents & to say their ‘policies’ have been hastenly rushed seems like the understatement of the century. It’s like they were doing their homework last minute on the bus whilst gigging with their friends, planning to pick on the vulnerable kid at break, whilst making sure they snatch any treats from any of the other kids.

So out of the array of topics that came out just before the conference & during.

1.The Mirror - Working for benefits

The conservatives seemed to have discarded the persona a little while ago that we are all in this together, leaning more towards the principle that there are whole groups that are just undeserving.
This seems to extend especially to those claiming jobseekers allowance, that they are content to ‘languish’ on benefits & that no one wants to get a job.

So they have proposed that to get JSA claimants off benefits & into a job & to stop the ‘Something for nothing culture’, claimants will undertake 30hrs a week on a community work scheme on top of searching for a job.

But the real reason for this is to appease the proportion of society that has the belief that it is one big party living on benefits & that the majority have no interest in looking for a job, whereas in fact its the exact opposite.

I can see this hindering people with disabilities who claim jobseekers. Will there be flexibility in the scheme? & how are people going to be available for job interviews as most would be scheduled for between 9-5.

On this blog Where’s the benefit they have highlighted many people that were claiming other benefits, have been pushed on to JSA despite being in no fit state to work may now be forced to undergo unsuitable treatment or risk losing their benefits.

And just in case you want to complain, there are plans to attempt to withdraw from the Europen Convention on Human Rights, with proposals of new anti-union laws.

2. The Telegraph - Human whatsits?

In the Telegraph, it further explains the Government’s reasons from withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights. I can understand how the Government & the public don’t want dangerous criminals in the country & they want them removed but my concern would be whilst they’re there, will they withdraw other rights for joe public? As with the possible new anti-union laws.

3. The guardian - Plant what?

So just before the conference Mr Osbourne stated that “He doesn’t want to be at the forefront of tackling climate change”. This seems to be because Osbourne believes that other countries should also contribute their own share towards alleviating the impact of climate change. I agree but instead of continuing to do the responsible thing, it seems to be more along the lines of “Well they’re not picking up their rubbish, so why should we?”

This isn’t even approaching the real issue, that the living wage is too low & the profit made on energy too high. Personally I would find it more logical to negotiate fairer energy prices but I have the sneaking suspicion that this wouldn’t be as ‘profitable’ for certain members of society.

But on an important point we need to do what we can to be more responsible with the energy we use & the way we provide it. The Earth does go through natural cycles of climate change, it has done through out its history but we are accelerating this one significantly & we must modify our behavior to be able to leave the planet to further generations for them to appreciate it & not to have a harsher existence brought on through our actions.

4. The Daily Mail - there are no words

So I read this……

There has been a green paper leaked that has set out a “Thermal Reduction Initiative” which would be a 9% duty set on champagne sold in public places. According to the paper, chilled champagne adds on average an additional 0.5% to a bar’s carbon footprint. (& no I did not check this one!! but their stats have been awful so don’t take it on face value)

This IS apparently being pushed as an environmental initiative even though it won’t include Prosecco or Cava even though these also are best served chilled.

My brain further couldn’t believe what it was reading when apparently the Lib Dems had taken the energy to lobby to exempt Pomagne & Babycham!

Now whilst making sure to wear my most serious face, this isn’t an environmental measure as it would include every chilled wine & such, this is just for publicity because of what happened with the pastry tax. I would love to know why the Lib Dems put in all that effort to get Pomagne & Babycham exempt, I would assume that its either because it aided the Lib Dems cause in some way or someone has a real liken for it!

When reading these types of stories, you cant help but think that if they put this much effort into this, why aren’t significant policy changes that affect vulnerable people being thoroughly tested to ensure the smallest amount of people fall through the cracks, unfortunately it probably just comes down to profit.

5. The Guardian - Why aren’t YOU celebrating suffering?

This I find disgusting. Leaked documents seem to show that IDS was trying to find a way of making it even more difficult for sick & disabled people to claim benefits. He was also trying to see if he could put in place additional secondary legislation without the need to go through Parliament to give Jobcentres more powers to sanction people.

The article also goes on to explain how the DWP has had its ‘celebration’ week of new tougher sanctions indefinitely suspended.

I find this both alarming & disturbing that they were going to ‘celebrate’ cutting peoples money. I also find it disturbing that he was trying to circumvent Parliament.

It seems that as long as the people that could carry some of the burden don’t, the vulnerable will continue to carry much more of a disproportional share.

So many different benefits & services have been affected. With it being falsely implied that something is the majority, like most claimants are content languishing on benefits & that they get payed exorbitant amounts of money, whereas instead its a very small minority.

I just wish more than anything else that people wouldn’t read or watch something & take it on face value. The spread of inaccurate figures & facts just breeds ignorance.

I have seen & heard so many discussions & comments that include “I know someone who knows someone thats a cheat” or ” There’s someone in my street that’s perfectly capable of working” & this frustrates the disabled community immensely.

Because more often than not they don’t, often it is a misunderstanding or lack of understanding of the individuals disability or entitlement. You don’t know what goes on when they step through their door, taking painkillers, resting, vomiting & such.

It also doesn’t help with the propaganda fed by certain areas of society making people believe that benefits are too high, whereas in fact wages are too low.

Just remember, to get the complete picture you must read as much as you can from as many sources as you can. Once you block your mind to the possibility that you are wrong, you will never learn anything new.

And to finish this post (thank god conferences aren’t every week, this took many breaks & many days) the Conservatives have been doing a #sharethefacts about how their existing policies have been & their new polices will help people but through out the conference, the only #sharethefact tag i could find appropriate to sum up the conference was this……….

"So whats a cumulative impact assessment"

So today has been one of those interesting days & I wasn’t going to do another post but found myself compelled to.

So i’m doing this post at the moment with two of my fingers strapped up because my hand decided it reaaaallllyyy wanted to know what a dislocated finger felt like so my finger happily obliged >.<

Ah hypermobility!

But the thing is I can only do the things I do because of a lot of physical help, adaptions & aids etc & there is always a physical “price" for everything I do. Disability is a major barrier.

The government have pushed through a vast array of cuts in the light of austerity but to begin with they insisted that the most vulnerable would be protected.

If we fast forward to today there are no promises of protection because they know that it is not being given & with each cut it slices into the safety net making the holes bigger, meaning more & more of the most vulnerable falling through the net. You only need look at the news, to see countless examples of people that were let down & for every one story covered there are many more in the wings.

So tomorrow there is a debate in the house of commons calling for a ‘cumulative impact assessment’ with the aim to try and assess the overall impact of the cuts. Because many people are experiencing several cuts to services all at once instead of just one or two which people could try & adapt to & this is leading people into significant difficulty & hardship.

Many people, news outlets & charities are now seeing the scope of these cuts & how multiple cuts are causing significant problems to vulnerable people & now they want to get the government to see the reality.

Below is a link to a awesome blog that goes into much more detail than I can atm with my wonky finger

Diary of a Benefit Scrounger