31.5.11

Policy areas...

So, as I said in the last post, there are a number of policy areas grouped together under the banner 'compassionate reform'. What this banner means for the party generally and for society at large we can cover in another post another time.

This post though is to look at some of the more important policy areas - to summarise what those areas mean and what the party policy is on them. Please bear in mind when reading these that the DRP is set up to reflect the views of its members. If you see anything you're not sure about or even disagree with - tell us! We want and need to know what you think. This party is about you!

So... There are 6 key policy areas to cover in this post. For ease I will quote from the party manifesto wherever possible. The policy areas are:

  1. Homelessness:  the manifesto says:  "For one of the richest countries in the world it’s disgusting to know that 400,000 of us are homeless. We will do everything we can to end homelessness once and for all. This does not mean massive tax increases. It means giving a helping hand, and letting homeless people themselves get back on their feet. It means: working with charities and organisations; empowering the homeless to choose how they build a new life; tackling the causes with long term guidance, counselling, support, education and training; supporting effective ‘staging programs’, where continued support is provided for the homeless as they progress stage by stage towards a new life; tax relief schemes for construction companies who can provide low cost accommodation for the homeless and having the guts to do the plain obvious, like putting empty homes to use. Yet it also means wider reforms to the system. GDP is only one contributing factor to happiness and quality of life. Introducing more effective measures of welfare would insist that politicians act to help the most vulnerable within our society, and recognise how rising living costs are affecting people."

  2. The disabled: The manifesto says:  "There are many chronic and degenerative medical conditions that are not officially recognised by the Department of Work and Pensions, despite being recognised by the majority of first world countries. We would accept, and formally recognise all medical conditions that have been documented by the medical community, and where these have not yet been recognised, but where evidence suggests their existence, the party would discuss their inclusion."

  3. Modern day slaves: The manifesto says: "In 2006 Labour proposed to rescind the rights of migrant domestic workers, and refused to sign the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings. In 2010 the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats refused to endorse an EU directive seeking to tackle sex slavery. Slavery is alive and well today, and we intend to fight for its abolition. There are 27 million slaves in the world today, more than at any time in human history, and 15,000 of those are in the UK!

    To abolish slavery we need to act together with other nations around the world (for example by endorsing the EU directive referred to above) to tackle trafficking, and we also need to ensure that more people know that this is an issue, and more police have the expertise to act.
    "

  4. Those living in poverty: The manifesto says: "Persistent poverty – defined as living at least three years out of the last four in poverty – is high in the UK compared to the rest of Europe. Between 1998 and 2001, 11% of UK citizens lived in persistent poverty, compared to 5 per cent in the Netherlands, 6% in Germany, and 9% across Europe as a whole. We aim to tackle this persistent poverty, and especially structural poverty that is passed down generations, through: job creation, micro‐credit programmes, giving more educational options to those with need, especially to adults willing to study in their spare time, creating a minimum pension through minor redistribution, developing a new system of child benefits that gives money not only to struggling parents, but also to the children when they enter adulthood, supporting ex‐offenders into work, improving community facilities, and improving infrastructure. Ending poverty will create wealth and increase economic productivity in the long term. But in the short term costs will be covered through changes in our tax system, cracking down on tax avoidance and evasion, and reducing the size of our bureaucracy through scrapping New Labour’s top down targets and decentralising power."

  5. The mentally ill: The manifesto says: "Major depression is the number 1 psychological disorder in the western world. Alongside mounting levels of stress, it’s growing in all age groups, and will be the second most disabling condition in the world by 2020, behind heart disease. The cost to our society is already in the billions, so not only is it the moral thing to help; it’s also the best financial decision. This is why we favour: extra funding to tackle mental illnesses; a Government campaign to educate people about symptoms, and what they should do when they see the signs; and a long term plan to provide a support network that gives people in every workplace, and every educational institution, access to psychological support."

  6. The physically ill/wounded: This policy is in development currently. We will update this accordingly when the policy is finalised.






      




5 comments:

  1. I believe that people are screaming for compassionate reform, and that what we've done is give a name to what most of the population already wants. Yet there's really no shortage of facts of which the general public are unaware. Many people think it's a good idea to insist on continual re-assessments for those on benefits for example. But in actual fact, besides the point that it puts people through enormous stress, it's a waste of money. Re-assessments are a basic necessity for some people. But for those with a disability that medically cannot get any better, and will always stop them working, this is just plain stupid! I really feel for those people who had to suffer a great deal to join the march through London last month. And I was genuinely hurt to find out that no-one in the House of Commons seemed to have been listening. At the next PMQs the march was mentioned implicitly by a Labour MP who asked about benefits. And Cameron, who seemed unaware that a march had even taken place, simply refuted it and repeated a line that sounded as if had come out of a tabloid. Where's that "pragmatic" Cameron that makes decisions not on ideology but on common sense and evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Totally agree with so much said on here. Personally, as someone diagnosed with major depressive disorder, I really do feel the need for greater support for those with mental illness, for their welfare, and their protection. It is commonly misunderstood by quite a large proportion of people, and whilst their is help available, it is not always easy to find, and GPs aren't always perfectly placed to offer all the help they can. They have a lot of pressure put on them for meeting targets, seeing a certain number of patients, and so, with the best of intentions, people do get left out slightly, and don't see specialists when they necessarily need to. I was lucky, but many, many people aren't. People with mental illness also often get a rough time in the legal system, for example, the case of a young man with bipolar disorder, sectioned under the Mental Health Act, and convicted of a crime he committed whilst sectioned, whilst terrified, and whilst trying to escape the hospital. The judge refused to take his mental illness into account, and placed an Indeterminate Sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection order on him, so that he is not receiving all the treatment he needs, and is being punished unduly for this. http://www.justiceforjoe.org.uk

    Darren

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Darren,

    The system is most certainly failing those with mental health needs. It sounds as if Joe has been a victim of this systemic failure.

    We absolutely MUST provide the means and funding for earlier interventions and more comprehensive support for people.

    Earlier intervention and support would mean that, in the vast majority of cases, the people in question could stay living their lives in the community.

    People with mental health needs could continue to live full and active lives. They benefit, their families and loved ones benefit, society benefits.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I also agree. Far too few people know about mental illnesses. It's often thought that because they're not visible illnesses they're not real. But that's not the case at all. And what's more acting on it is not solely the 'compassionate' thing to do. It's also the 'right' 'common-sense' thing to do. This news article from 2003 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2959054.stm) says that mentall illness costs society £77bn. This report (http://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/pdfs/Economic_and_social_costs_2010.pdf) from 2009/10 says that the costs are now significantly higher at £105.2bn.

    Are these inevitable costs? Absolutely not. If we were to ensure a more effective system of support and pre-emptive action today we would save billions in the future, as well as making our country a much happier place to live in. Yet if you think about what action the old parties are talking about today it's the Coalition's strategy of cutting the benefits of the mentally ill and treating them as 'benefit cheats', versus the attitude of Labour, which is unfortunately a little confused about the scale of the problem. I asked Ed Miliband about mental illness when he was running in the Labour leadership election and he basically just said 'I accept it's an issue and we'll look into it'.

    The DRP is not the only voice saying that the efforts of the other parties are inadequate either. In this Guardian article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/01/labour-mental-illness-coalition-cuts) our views are echoed precisely: "they [New Labour] did not make a proper distinction between the unemployed and the sick. As a consequence, they have seriously eroded the protection of disabled people and those with limiting long-term illness"
    Anyway, I'd better stop talking now but hopefully there's a few ideas here for another post.

    Robert

    ReplyDelete