Contents
Election hustings candidates invent disability policies, days before general election 1
‘Shocking’ failure of election candidates asked about accessible housing 7
Some parties still failing on accessible manifestos 9
Almost no councils now employ access officers, new research shows 11
Disabled election candidates: Labour’s Marsha de Cordova 13
Disabled election candidates: Liberal Democrat Katharine Macy 16
Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week 18
Election hustings candidates invent disability policies, days before general election
A series of election candidates have been caught inventing party policy in front of an audience of disabled people, at a disability hustings event held just days before the general election.
The event in Bristol was organised by five disabled people’s organisations* who wanted disabled people to be able to question candidates standing in various Bristol seats at next week’s election.
The Conservatives, Greens, Liberal Democrats and Reform UK sent candidates from one of the five Bristol constituencies, but Labour only offered a city councillor, Kelvin Blake.
Blake explained to the audience of voters that none of Labour’s five election candidates were able to attend because they were “obviously very busy on the stump, trying to get people’s votes”.
There was frustration and concern after the event that each of the five representatives had made statements that were not in their parties’ manifestos and were not party policy.
Blake twice stated that a Labour government would implement the right to independent living into law, telling the audience that “we’ll change the law, and enshrine independent living”, later saying Labour would “basically enshrine in law independent living”.
That is not a policy that appears in Labour’s manifesto, which only promises that, under a new National Care Service, “services will be locally delivered, with a principle of ‘home first’ that supports people to live independently for as long as possible”.
Labour has in fact dropped its previous commitment to implementing the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) – which includes a right to independent living – into UK law.
The Conservative candidate, Rose Hulse, who is standing in Bristol North-East, said she wanted to implement the whole of the convention into UK law, a policy her party is opposed to.
She was responding to a question about a report in April from the UN committee on the rights of disabled people that found the Conservative government had made “no significant progress” in the seven years since being found guilty of “grave and systematic” violations of the convention.
But Hulse told the audience that the “UN policies… currently are not part of law. They should be part of law. They need to be written into the law.”
This is not Conservative party policy and does not appear in the Conservative manifesto.
For the Liberal Democrats, Tony Sutcliffe, who is standing in Bristol East, called for the part-nationalising of care homes, as he discussed his experience of working in a residential setting.
He told the audience: “It is absolutely vital that we try and bring all of these things back into some sort of ownership, possibly public ownership, possibly a public private ownership model.
“But it needs to be done in such a way that we can get the profit motive out of the business and actually have homes that people would live in, that they can work in, that they can have a life that is worth living.”
There is no mention of such a policy in the Liberal Democrat manifesto.
Reform UK’s Robert Clarke, who is standing in Bristol Central, told the audience that he believed disabled people should not have to “jump over hurdles” to get benefits, and that the current system was a “very Kafkaesque nightmare, and we know that the authorities and the governments love this because it means they pay out as little as possible”.
But his own party’s manifesto says that all assessments should take place face-to-face and that a Reform government would “require independent medical assessments to prove eligibility for payments” as well as saving £15 billion a year by forcing “1 million plus back to work”.
The Green candidate Jai Breitnauer, who was the best-briefed of the five panellists, still appeared to over-state her party’s manifesto promise on accessible housing.
She told the audience that her party wanted to see 150,000 new social homes a year being built.
She said: “They would be affordable homes. They would be accessible, and they’d be on good transport routes.”
But the Green manifesto does not promise that all these new homes would be accessible, pledging only that the party would “ensure that the needs of the elderly, families with children, people living with a disability or requiring support through sheltered housing are adequately catered for”.
Rick Burgess, from Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People (GMCDP), said after the event that much of the information from the panellists had not reflected the parties’ manifestos.
He said: “No-one was happy with the level of information that the candidates generally gave out.
“I don’t think any of them reflected their national manifesto fully.
“The political system let us down. If it wasn’t great, it was because of the candidates who turned up.”
GMCDP is also supporting the national disability hustings event in Manchester next week, two days before the general election.
One disabled campaigner who attended the event, but asked to remain anonymous, said: “It was not informative – candidates were allowed to make up anything they felt the audience might like, without being called out for the lack of facts or the lack of semblance to their party manifesto.
“It was not a means of holding anyone to account (which I would say is anyway an extremely naive objective for a hustings) because nobody that came has any chance of being elected.”
Alex Johnston, from West of England Centre for Inclusive Living (WECIL), who chaired the event, said he had been “hoping for more from the audience” and wished they had asked questions that were “a little bit more testing”.
He also criticised his own chairing of the event.
He said that “with hindsight I could have done better, I could have had more of a depth of understanding of each party’s manifesto” to try to “hold the candidates’ toes to the fire around policy”.
But he added: “The takeaway for me was that all of those parties could do well to read the Disabled People’s Manifesto.”
*Bristol Reclaiming Independent Living, West of England Centre for Inclusive Living, Disability Rights UK, Inclusion London and Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People
27 June 2024
DPOs pledge to continue with election hustings, despite controversies, conspiracy theories and no-shows
Disabled people’s organisations (DPOs) have pledged to continue hosting election hustings, despite organisers this week having to cope with an anti-trans rights activist, a conspiracy theory-spouting Reform UK politician, and no-show party candidates.
The event in Bristol was organised by DPOs* who originally wanted disabled people to be able to question candidates standing in the Bristol Central seat at next week’s election.
But both Labour’s Thangam Debbonaire and the Green Party’s co-leader Carla Denyer turned down invitations to attend.
Even though the event then had to be extended to all of Bristol’s five general election constituencies, Labour still failed to provide a candidate from any of them.
The event organisers also had to tell anti-trans activist Kellie-Jay Keen, who is standing in Bristol Central, that she could not join the panel of candidates, because her Party of Women has no MPs.
Keen, who has a vocal social media following, then booked a ticket to attend the event in Bristol.
She was initially prevented from entering the venue by security guards because of concerns that she would disrupt the event and distract from its aim of allowing disabled people to question candidates on disability rights issues.
There was also a police presence outside the venue, although it is not clear who asked them to attend.
The incident, and the refusal to allow her to speak, led to Keen posting a series of angry videos on her social media accounts, and her supporters swamping the comments section of the YouTube live-stream of the hustings with demands for her to be allowed to join the panel.
There was also anger and frustration that Robert Clarke, from the right-wing Reform UK, who is standing in Bristol Central and was on the panel, was able to deliver a stream of conspiracy theories and allegations relating to the United Nations, vaccine damage and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, without challenge.
He repeatedly accused the other parties of being “globalist”, a term often used by right-wing parties and conspiracy theorists.
He echoed the controversial comments of his party leader Nigel Farage, who said that the EU and NATO had “provoked” Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by expanding eastwards.
Clarke told the audience that the main political parties were “interested in globalist wars like they are pushing in the Ukraine”, which he said had “very little to do with us” and was “a provocation of Russia”, and he accused the United Nations of doing “a lot of very bad stuff”.
He also repeatedly attacked the use of vaccines, claiming it was “extremely unwise to think that a so-called vaccination programme is going to help us or help disabled people” and referencing the discredited theory linking autism to the MMR vaccination.
After the event, Rick Burgess, from Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People, one of the DPOs that supported the event, said it had been obvious that Keen had arrived intending to create content for her huge social media following and “advance her personal campaign”.
He said she was eventually allowed to enter the event on the understanding that she did not disrupt the event and “other than handing out leaflets, she wasn’t disruptive”.
Burgess said there had been frustration at the failure of key candidates to attend the hustings, and with the quality of those who did attend.
He said that “the political class didn’t deliver, so it left us dealing with that failure”.
He added: “If at national general elections [political parties] are not going to engage, we will not do [hustings] anymore, but I think we need to give it a try, learn and do better.”
Alex Johnston, from West of England Centre for Inclusive Living (WECIL), who chaired the event, said they had been forced to restrict the number of candidates they invited to make the event manageable, and so only invited candidates from parties with at least one MP.
He said they had originally prevented Keen from entering the event because of the risk that she would “disrupt and sidetrack the event, which we know they have form for, undermining the real purpose of the event, which was disabled people hearing direct from politicians”.
He added: “Then the police got involved and security got involved and as a result they did come in.
“There was some disruption to the event but not that it took away from the main purpose of the event.”
Jon Abrams, campaigns and justice coordinator for Inclusion London, which also supported the hustings, said there had been security and stewards present because people often attend such events who are “very angry and emotional”, but he stressed that it was not the DPO organisers who had called the police.
He said it was challenging organising such events when public figures such as Keen attend “to get media attention”.
He said Inclusion London had approached a number of DPOs to offer its support and in some cases funding to organise hustings events during the election campaign.
He said: “Clearly there is learning for us as well. People may come along to disrupt it for their own agenda.
“This is what is happening now. Do we not organise hustings? I imagine some people have that view.
“So how should disabled people in the run-up to elections who are already disadvantaged by barriers, how should they engage politically? What are the alternatives? Not to do anything?
“There may well be better ways of doing it. It would be great if people had constructive ideas for future elections.”
He said it was the first election campaign (along with the London mayoral election in May) at which politicians were not turning up to hustings without apparently valid excuses, which he said was “very disappointing”.
Among others who have failed to turn up to disability hustings events in their local areas are Labour’s shadow health secretary Wes Streeting – who instead sent written responses to be read out at last week’s event – and Labour candidates in the two Richmond constituencies, earlier this week (see separate story).
Some disabled campaigners criticised the DPOs for going ahead with the hustings when it was clear that the two leading candidates for Bristol Central, Labour’s Thangam Debbonaire and the Green Party’s co-leader Carla Denyer, were not going to attend.
All three campaigners asked to remain anonymous.
One said: “It is unclear what the event was designed to achieve.
“It was not informative – candidates were allowed to make up anything they felt the audience might like, without being called out for the lack of facts or the lack of semblance to their party manifesto (see separate story).
“It was not a means of holding anyone to account (which I would say is anyway an extremely naive objective for a hustings) because nobody that came has any chance of being elected.
“It was not a means of asserting disabled people’s voting power and there was not even any debate.”
She said such events play a “central role” in mainstreaming right-wing parties like Reform, while the Bristol event had used voluntary sector “time and money”, with each candidate given “equal time to put forward their ideas without interruption”.
The money could have been used instead for a “facilitated discussion about what we want from a future government and how we could get it”, she said, and DPOs could also then have publicised “the fact that the candidates couldn’t be bothered to come, so we have to organise without them”.
Another disabled campaigner said that “only allowing speakers to expound their views unquestioned was not a hustings, it was purely a platform” which “failed to either hold anyone to account or challenge the rubbish that was being said”.
A third disabled activist said: “The whole sorry incident hasn’t helped disabled people, caused division, and wasted £1000s that could have been used usefully.”
But Kamran Mallick, chief executive of Disability Rights UK (DR UK), said DR UK had wanted to support hustings organised by DPOs, including offering financial support, at “what is a really important moment”, and was also supporting next Tuesday’s national disability hustings in Manchester.
He said: “As with the Manchester national hustings, it was decided that parties represented in parliament should be invited to these sessions.
“We cannot and would never try to control what candidates say, but hustings are an excellent way for local disabled people to meet and engage with candidates and hear what they say on important key issues.
“This gives individuals the information and knowledge they need when it comes to casting their vote.
“It is important that DR UK, working with other organisations, supports accessible hustings where disabled people feel they can go and ask the questions most important to them.
“We do not condone harmful and hate speech about disabled people or members of our society.”
*Bristol Reclaiming Independent Living, West of England Centre for Inclusive Living, Disability Rights UK, Inclusion London and Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People
27 June 2024
‘Shocking’ failure of election candidates asked about accessible housing
Politicians attending an election disability hustings event showed a “shocking and disappointing” lack of knowledge and commitment to addressing the accessible housing crisis, when they were asked about the issue.
None of the major parties have engaged within their manifestos with the critical shortage of accessible housing, despite several parties issuing significant house-building pledges.
Representatives of Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party were asked about the issue at the hustings event in Richmond, south-west London, on Monday.
But none of the four appeared to recognise the scale of the problem, while two of the quartet misled the audience – and those watching online – about their party’s policies.
The hustings was organised by the disabled people’s organisation Ruils Independent Living, and covered the two constituencies within Richmond borough, focusing on issues around education, health, social care and housing.
Those taking part were Jonathan Hulley, who is standing for the Conservatives in Twickenham; Munira Wilson, for the Liberal Democrats, who was elected as the MP for Twickenham in 2019; and Chas Warlow, the Green candidate in Richmond Park.
Labour did not send either of its Richmond candidates, instead offering the local campaigns coordinator for Twickenham Labour, Philip Moshi.
Towards the end of the hustings, Svetlana Kotova, director of campaigns and justice for Inclusion London, told the panel that all the parties were pledging to build more homes.
But she pointed out that the Conservative government had failed to fulfil its promise to raise standards so that all new homes had to reach a higher standard of accessibility.
Only last month, a committee of MPs concluded that the shortage of accessible housing in England posed a “clear and direct risk” to disabled people across the country, with many of them living in unsuitable accommodation for years “without hope”.
The committee was highly critical of the government for failing to implement its “headline” policy to address the shortage of accessible housing: increasing the minimum accessibility level of all new-build homes to the M4(2) standard*.
This would mean nearly all new homes would need step-free access to all entrance-level rooms, as well as facilities and other features to make the homes more easily adaptable over time.
But it is now almost two years since the policy was first announced, and almost four years since it was first consulted on.
And there was no mention of accessible housing in the Conservative manifesto.
Despite these delays, Hulley, the Conservative candidate in Twickenham, told the audience that the new regulations had already been introduced.
He said: “It is frustrating to me to hear what you have said, and it is also frustrating it has taken longer than I would like to see these new rules and this new legislation on the statute book, but it is here now, underpinned by rules and regulations, enforceable by the social housing regulator.
“If housing associations fall short on accessible requirements we must hold them to account. That is what I will do as your MP.”
But Hulley, a social housing lawyer, later clarified his comments to Disability News Service, and said he had “confused” the call for stricter accessible housing standards with new social housing regulations that were introduced by the government in April.
He said he would “like to see the next government mandate M4(2)”.
He accepted that this commitment was not included in the Conservative manifesto, but he claimed the party was “committed to bringing in M4(2)” and that it was “just a question of finding the time to get it done”.
Moshi, speaking for Labour, which also ignored accessible housing in its manifesto, said: “We will always ensure that a significant proportion of housing was accessible, was disability accessible.
“What is the point … this is the social model of disability? Why would you build a house that is not disability accessible? We would not do it.”
Warlow, the Green candidate in Richmond Park, said only: “Universal design is the basic principle so that you are always going to have accessible housing. That’s it.”
On accessible housing, the Green Party’s manifesto promised only to “champion the right to… housing under the principles of universal design”.
Wilson did not address the issue of new national accessible housing standards, an issue which her party also ignored in its manifesto.
Instead, she focused on London, where at least 10 per cent of housing already has to be suitable for wheelchair-users* through the London Plan.
She said: “That needs to be enforced and also we have got to hold developers to account.”
She added: “I had somebody in my surgery who bought an accessible flat with accompanying parking space, but the developers sold the space to somebody else further up the building who wasn’t disabled.”
Wilson said there was “no planning enforcement mechanism” to deal with such situations, and she suggested that the law needed to be strengthened to address that.
After the hustings, Kotova said it was “disappointing and shocking to see how little political parties know and care about accessible housing”.
She said: “For far too long there has been a game of passing the buck from national to local decision-makers, instead of everyone working jointly to ensure new homes are good for everyone.
“It is shocking that with the ageing population and with so many disabled people living in unsuitable homes, the current government failed to set accessibility standards for new-built homes.
“Next month it will be two years since they promised to do this.
“Whoever forms our new government needs to take an urgent action on this, and all elected politicians, from MPs to councillors, need to ensure new accessible homes are being built.”
*Homes built to the M4(2) standard have 16 accessible or adaptable features, similar to the Lifetime Homes standard developed in the early 1990s, to make homes more easily adaptable for lifetime use, while M4(3) homes are those that are supposed to be fully wheelchair-accessible
27 June 2024
Some parties still failing on accessible manifestos
Some of the main political parties fighting the general election have still not published accessible versions of their manifestos, with just a week to polling day.
The worst offender is the right-wing Reform UK, which has so far failed to provide any accessible versions of its manifesto, preventing many disabled people from viewing its policies.
But some of the other smaller parties had also failed by 10am today (Thursday) to produce manifestos in some of the formats, including large print, easy read, Braille, British Sign Language (BSL) and audio.
The Greens, despite offering several disability-friendly policies in their manifesto, have so far only produced an easy read version of their manifesto, with no Braille, BSL, audio or large print versions.
The SNP has released a large print version, and it asks visitors to its website to email for a Braille copy of the manifesto, while there is a BSL version available on its website.
It originally said on the site that audio and easy read versions were “coming soon”, but that message has now been removed.
Until this week, the Conservatives – who pledge in their manifesto that they will make Britain “the most accessible place in the world for people with disabilities to live, work and thrive” – had not published any accessible versions, but they finally added audio, BSL, large print, easy read and Braille versions on Tuesday, just nine days before the election.
Labour has produced large print, easy read, Braille, digital Braille and BSL versions of its manifesto.
It has yet to publish an audio version of its manifesto, although it has released a “synthetic audio” version, which uses artificial intelligence and is less easy to understand than a human reading the document.
The Liberal Democrats have published easy read, Braille, BSL and audio versions.
Although there is no large print manifesto, the party has released plain text and clear print versions, which allow the text size to be easily enlarged.
Plaid Cymru has published easy read, large print, audio and BSL versions of its manifesto but does not mention Braille.
Deborah King, co-founder of Disability Politics UK, said: “Disability Politics UK would like political parties to tell the truth to disabled people about what plans they have for social security, work, transport, health and social care.
“It is the responsibility of the communicator to communicate in a way that people can understand.
“Parties who fail to provide accessible Information are unlikely to get disabled people’s votes.”
She said she was pleased that some parties had made more of an effort at this election to produce accessible manifestos.
She added: “The parties underestimate the audience for accessible information.
“Disabled people want accurate information in plain language about what the various political parties are going to do if they vote for them.
“The parties could be marketing their ‘offer’ to the voting public in different ways, for example, by encouraging people to read or listen to manifestos on the way to work, to listen to the audio versions while doing housework or while running.
“I hope that members of the public will make the effort to post the various accessible versions in their own social media.”
The Electoral Commission stressed this week that accessible formats should be released at the same time as the manifesto is published.
A spokesperson for the commission said: “Political parties are responsible for the production of their own manifestos but we have recommended that, when they publish manifestos, they should make sure accessible formats are available at the same time, so that disabled people have just as much time as anyone else to understand what parties stand for.”
But she added: “We don’t have any powers to investigate or take action around how parties publish their manifestos.”
Disability News Service approached Reform, the SNP, the Green Party and Plaid Cymru, but none of them had commented on their accessible manifestos by 11am today.
27 June 2024
Almost no councils now employ access officers, new research shows
Only a tiny minority of local authorities now employ a member of staff dedicated to improving access for disabled people in their area, new research has found.
Disability Rights UK (DR UK) has found just 15 of 222 English councils that responded to a freedom of information request said they employed a dedicated access officer, or a staff member with a similar job.
Access officers have duties such as responding to complaints and questions about disability access; providing advice on access design issues, for example with road crossings, traffic calming and street furniture; supporting local access groups; and providing technical advice on planning applications.
Many of the councils that told DR UK they did not employ an access officer said all their officers were expected to have knowledge of access and equality issues, while others said the duties mentioned by DR UK were spread among several of their officers.
But some were blunter in their responses.
One said: “The council can confirm that we do not hold such a position or commission an access officer.”
Another council said: “The Borough does not employ an access officer and has not done so [for] some years.”
A third council told DR UK it did not employ an access officer, but it added: “All staff are aware of the above mentioned duties and responsibilities under the DDA*.”
And a fourth local authority replied: “We do not employ an access officer. We would seek expert advice as and when required.”
Some of the councils that said they did employ an access officer – although sometimes giving the role a different title, such as inclusive design officer, or access and inclusion adviser – include Brighton and Hove City Council, Buckinghamshire Council, Liverpool City Council and Norfolk County Council.
Mikey Erhardt, DR UK’s policy and campaigns officer, who carried out the research, said: “Creating accessible communities and spaces requires local authority officers and planners’ skill, care and dedication.
“This research shows that the years of austerity and underinvestment in our local councils have had a clear loser: disabled people and those with long-term health conditions.
“If we continue to see fewer and fewer skilled access officers or equivalents, then we will continue to be excluded by local authorities, being unable to undertake the important work of co-production and co-design needed to create truly accessible spaces.”
He added: “The evidence shows that local authorities are not prioritising planning with our needs and desires in mind.
“We cannot be surprised that in this context, with so few skilled access officers, many disabled people feel ignored, excluded, and unsupported.”
Erhardt said: “Being active and navigating our neighbourhood in a way that suits us and is fun is not a luxury; it should be a core part of our lives, regardless of background.
“Being an active part of the community requires safe, accessible community infrastructure, from safe road crossings to high-quality pavements to accessible mobility lane options.
“But the current lack of these options speaks to our wider exclusion from society.
“We all have a right to live free, independent, and healthy lives.
“To do this, we need more than transport options; we need safe and accessible walking, wheeling, cycling, and driving environments, and clean air to breathe.”
Disability News Service approached the Local Government Association for a comment on the research, but a spokesperson said her colleagues “don’t feel they know enough about the issue to provide valuable input”.
But Glyn Hayes, parliamentary and public affairs coordinator for Spinal Injuries Association, said access officers play “a crucial role in ensuring that individuals with spinal cord injuries receive the support they need”.
He said: “When someone sustains a spinal cord injury, their life can change dramatically, and their familiar home environment may no longer be safe or suitable.
“Navigating the complexities of finding a new home or updating an existing one can be overwhelming, especially when it involves council support or funding.
“Unfortunately, we often hear of cases where people with spinal cord injuries end up in hospitals or inappropriate settings due to decision-makers’ lack of awareness about their unique needs.
“With local government budget cuts and overwhelmed departments, staff may struggle to allocate the necessary time and effort to ensure true equality in accessing services.
“Access officers bridge this gap by advocating for those with protected characteristics, ensuring not only recognition but also a deep understanding of their requirements.
“Their role is vital in promoting equality and accessibility.”
*The DDA (Disability Discrimination Act) was replaced by the Equality Act 14 years ago
27 June 2024
Disabled election candidates: Labour’s Marsha de Cordova
Despite her party’s decision to drop its pledge to implement the UN’s disability convention into UK law, disabled Labour candidate Marsha de Cordova has this week confirmed her own long-standing commitment to the policy.
She describes herself as a “lifelong campaigner for disability rights” and has made it her “mission” to campaign for the rights of disabled people since first being elected to parliament in 2017.
She says it was injustice in education and the labour market that first politicised her as a disabled person.
One of the policies she believes would improve the lives of disabled people would be to incorporate the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) into UK law, a policy she has backed for many years.
She repeated that backing this week, despite her party dropping its pledge to implement the convention last year, and failing to include any mention of the UNCRPD in its election manifesto.
De Cordova says she would also like to see more accessible and inclusive public spaces, services and transport, and improve funding for health and social care.
She says she has always been determined to help create a “fairer and more equal society”, with her own lived experience guiding the “two central pillars of my life… making a difference and being a voice for the voiceless”.
She says that “representation matters”, but not just in politics.
“Being who you are should never hold you back,” she says. “I am standing again for re-election as it is important that all people have a voice.
“Our motto is ‘nothing about us without us’ and we can only do that if we are represented in parliament.”
She says there are still “shockingly” few disabled MPs, possibly as few as five in the last parliament, which would have meant disabled people making up less than one per cent of the total number of MPs.
She points out that successive Conservative-led governments set up and then scrapped two schemes that were supposed to help candidates for elected office with their extra disability-related costs.
This, she says, “demonstrates their disdain for our participation in politics”.
De Cordova grew up in Bristol and then moved to London to study and work.
“My career and purpose in life have been interlinked,” she says. “I have always been a lifelong campaigner for disability rights and issues affecting blind and partially-sighted people.”
She worked in the charity sector for more than two decades, including setting up a small charity, South East London Vision, which supported blind and partially-sighted people across south-east London, and as a director at the Thomas Pocklington Trust.
She says: “While the work done by charities is essential, my decision to pursue elected office was informed by the increasing realisation that this work requires representatives in the central institutions of power – whether on a local or national level – to truly realise lasting change.”
She was elected as a Labour councillor in Lambeth in 2014, and then stood as a general election candidate in Battersea in 2017 and overturned a Conservative majority of nearly 8,000, defeating a government minister.
She has served as shadow women and equalities secretary, and as shadow minister for disabled people, where she helped draw up the party’s Breaking Down Barriers disability manifesto for the 2019 general election, which she says would have “delivered transformative change for disabled people in education, employment and health”.
De Cordova says the current government’s record on disability is “woeful” and that the Conservatives have “waged a full-on assault on disabled people”.
She points to the government’s green paper on further cuts and reforms to personal independence payment (PIP), which was published shortly before the election was called, and the “cruel” decision to change the criteria for qualifying for the Warm Home Discount.
But she also highlights how the government downgraded the role of the minister for disabled people from minister of state to a junior ministerial position in October 2022, a move that was only reversed in April this year.
She says Labour “is and has always been the party of equality”.
She highlights its decision to replace the National Disability Council with the much stronger Disability Rights Commission in 1999, the Labour government’s ratification of UNCRPD in 2009, and the passing of the Equality Act, shortly before the 2010 general election, which “enforces, protects and promotes the rights of disabled people”.
Asked why disabled people should vote for her party, she says Labour is “committed to championing the rights of disabled people and to the principle of working with them, so that their views and voices will be at the heart of all we do”.
She points to its manifesto commitments to a new right to equal pay for disabled people, disability and ethnicity pay gap reporting for large employers, improved employment support and access to reasonable adjustments, and reducing the Access to Work backlog.
De Cordova says there is no question that life is far worse for disabled people than when the Conservatives first won power as part of the coalition with the Liberal Democrats in 2010.
“Successive Tory-led governments have implemented an austerity regime which has caused needless suffering to so many, but has disproportionately affected disabled people,” she says.
This regime has included their “cruel and inhumane” benefit sanctions regime, abolishing working-age disability living allowance and replacing it with personal independence payment, cuts to employment and support allowance, the scrapping of the Independent Living Fund, and cutting funding to Deaf and disabled people’s organisations.
She says the post-2010 programme of austerity “has demonised disabled people, harmed our livelihoods, and in some cases resulted in death”, as well as creating a “hostile environment” for disabled people over the last 14 years.
This led to the UK becoming the first country to be investigated for breaches of UNCRPD by the UN’s committee on the rights of disabled people, and being found guilty in 2016 of grave and systematic violations of disabled people’s rights.
She says this was a “stark illustration of the Tory government’s contempt for disabled people”, while a follow-up report by the committee earlier this year found no significant progress and even “signs of regression”.
But still the Conservative government “committed to further entrenchment of their disastrous austerity regime” in this year’s spring budget, she says, while the party has now pledged further social security cuts in its manifesto.
“A further Tory term will be disastrous for disabled people,” says de Cordova.
*This is part of a pre-election series of articles that will give some of the disabled people standing as candidates at the general election a chance to describe why they wanted to stand, how they became politicised, and the kind of barriers they have faced as disabled people. The aim is to raise the profile of some of the disabled people seeking elected office. Disability News Service has analysed party manifesto commitments separately. It has asked two disabled Conservative candidates to take part, but neither of them has responded
27 June 2024
Disabled election candidates: Liberal Democrat Katharine Macy
Katharine Macy grew up “hearing about people faking disabilities to lounge around on benefits”, but they knew the truth, because they had a mother who struggled to leave the house and desperately wanted to return to work.
“I remember her crying many times over our situation, and thinking how angry it made me that people saw her as a layabout,” says Macy, who is standing in Colne Valley.
“She was a teacher and a councillor, she gave herself to so many people, and was abandoned, written off, then accused of being lazy.
“She, and so many other disabled people, deserve better.”
Macy says that just “existing” as a member of a minority is politicising, but it is also “exhausting”.
Every year their family’s struggles have increased, and their mother has become more disabled, “but every time we ask for help, it’s a battle”.
Asked to choose three polices that would improve the lives of disabled people, they pick accessible transport, inclusive education and reform of personal independence payment (PIP).
They would like to see a focus on accessibility for all new public transport, including making it “completely wheelchair-accessible”, and cutting the distance that those with mobility impairments need to walk around stations.
They also want to see as many disabled pupils taught in mainstream schools as possible, because “separation is not the answer, but currently very few comprehensive schools are set up to provide disabled children the support they need”.
And they point to their party’s manifesto promise to reform PIP assessments to make the process more transparent, stop unnecessary reassessments, and end informal assessments.
Macy, who was consulted on the party’s manifesto as chair of the Liberal Democrat Disability Association, says their party has taken the rare step of putting disabled people “front and centre” of its campaign.
And they say the Liberal Democrats will fight to speak up for disabled people and have a manifesto “that promises to fix so many issues with the NHS, education and the welfare system”.
They say they wanted to be an MP to “change many lives in lots of little ways”.
“Disabled people especially need this. I want to go down the path and widen it, strengthen it.
“Others before me mean I have to fight a little less. I want to do the same. Reduce barriers as much as I can, so someone in 20 years has less to reduce.
“Disabled people deserve representation and I want to try and be that.”
“Everyone deserves dignity and a good life,” they say, “and everyone includes disabled people.
“Disabled people deserve better, we deserve respect, we deserve opportunities, and we deserve support.
“None of these have been provided under the last few governments.”
From the age of about 10, Macy grew up with an undiagnosed neurodivergent mother who was unable to work.
They have “countless memories of watching other children do things I couldn’t”, either because their mother could not do it or because they could not afford it.
They relied on free school meals and their friends had to pitch in to buy Macy a scientific calculator because their mother was unable to afford one.
Growing up as autistic was also “a challenge” and “exhausting”, leading to depression, anxiety, and teenage anger.
They say: “Even now, sometimes I come away cringing at myself, wishing I could be ‘normal’, but I know from my research that autism is natural – and I work hard to accept myself.”
In the last two years, a mobility impairment has opened their eyes “even wider” to the barriers facing disabled people.
They say: “I am not disabled enough to get any government support, because usually I can walk more than 200 metres, but I spend so much more on bus fares and Ubers.
“I have to give myself significantly more time to get to places, and be willing to miss things.
“I am still learning that I cannot do what I once could – in politics, it can be difficult.
“Lib Dems win and campaign by being incredibly active. We deliver leaflet after leaflet, and canvass over and over.
“When you cannot stand or walk for more than 20 minutes on a good day, this makes proving my worth in politics difficult.”
But, they say, they know they play a valuable role in their party.
“I wrote the 2019 Young Carers motion that kickstarted Ed Davey’s focus on care and is the cornerstone of our manifesto.
“I put hours of work into both paid and voluntary support for the party.
“I will sit and write letters, fold leaflets or bundle tabloids for hours at a time, but proving I am still worthy feels exhausting sometimes.”
They added: “Being unable to show my pain, I have to rely on people believing me, accepting and understanding that I have good days and bad.
“This makes me afraid of work environments, and scared of moving jobs. But I will keep fighting, because I can.
“Not everyone has this energy – that’s okay – but it means I need to use the energy I have on making sure I keep speaking up for not just myself, but those who cannot.”
*This is part of a pre-election series of articles that will give some of the disabled people standing as candidates at the general election a chance to describe why they wanted to stand, how they became politicised, and the kind of barriers they have faced as disabled people. The aim is to raise the profile of some of the disabled people seeking elected office. Disability News Service has analysed party manifesto commitments separately. It has asked two disabled Conservative candidates to take part, but neither of them has responded
27 June 2024
Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week
More than 200,000 people have wrongly faced investigation for housing benefit fraud and error after the performance of a government algorithm fell far short of expectations, the Guardian can reveal. Two-thirds of claims flagged as potentially high risk by a Department for Work and Pensions automated system over the last three years were in fact legitimate, official figures released under freedom of information laws show: https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jun/23/dwp-algorithm-wrongly-flags-200000-people-possible-fraud-error
Keir Starmer has said benefits offer people less “dignity” than work, prompting fears that Labour may take a tough approach to social security in the UK. Outlining his plans for “wealth creation” in the Telegraph, the Labour leader said “handouts from the state do not nurture the same sense of self-reliant dignity as a fair wage”. But charities have said the “real indignity” is in the UK’s “broken benefits system” which is leaving millions of people in poverty and struggling to afford the essentials they need to survive: https://www.bigissue.com/news/social-justice/keir-starmer-benefits-work-labour-general-election/
Bob Williams-Findlay has spent a lifetime fighting the system to ensure disabled people get a fair crack at the opportunities available to others. And he’s angry as hell over plans by Birmingham City Council to dramatically cut the budgets for services used by disabled people and the families of children and young people with special educational needs as part of their “recovery budget”: https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/we-not-numbers-real-people-29379650
Tens of thousands of people with sight loss will be denied their right to a secret ballot at next week’s general election, campaigners have warned, prompting calls to make it the last inaccessible election. The Royal National Institute of Blind People is calling on all political parties to commit to remove barriers that prevent blind people voting on their own and without help in future elections. It estimates that 160,000 people in the UK of voting age with severe sight loss will struggle to vote independently because of the lack of adjustments made at polling stations: https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jun/26/rnib-blind-people-vote-independently-elections-uk
27 June 2024
News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com
