Aug 182018
 

Norwich Art Show Announced

Vince Laws & DPAC (Disabled People Against Cuts) have teamed up to ensure there is a Norfolk Disability Pride Art Show. The show falls under 3 headings:

1) ‘I Protest!’ 

Protest Art by Vince Laws & DPAC Artists

including the DEAD PEOPLE DON’T CLAIM banner

and the DWP DEATHS MAKE ME SICK shrouds.

Supported by Disabled People Against Cuts

dpac.uk.net

2) A Very Queer Nazi Faust – Props, Photos, Poetry & More!

Highlighting the plight of disabled people under the current Tory government.

(Following the live art performance at Norwich Arts Centre on Weds 12 Sept at 8pm, tickets £6.66.)

Commissioned and supported by Unlimited, celebrating the work of disabled artists with funding from the Spirit of 2012. Supported by Norwich Arts Centre. Supported by Norfolk County Council.

avqnf.co.uk

3) Norfolk Disability Pride Art Show supported by DPAC

At St Margaret’s Church of Art,

St Benedict’s Street, Norwich, NR2 4AQ

Sunday 16 – Saturday 29 September 2018.

Accepting and hanging work Sunday 16 Sept 11am-5pm.

LAUNCH PARTY Sunday 16 Sept 5-10pm, (after the Norfolk Disability Pride event at the Forum earlier the same day, 11am-4pm.)

Performance evening Saturday 22 Sept, details TBC.

A Very Queer Nazi Faust end of show Party open to everyone on Friday 28 Sept from 5-10pm.

Take down Saturday 29 Sept. All work must be collected by 5pm.

Call to Artists

You don’t have to show protest art.

Work needs to be relevant to Norfolk Disability Pride, but you don’t have to be disabled to take part.

Work can be for sale or display only. Donate what you can afford to take part, all money goes to DPAC.

To enter work contact vincelaws@gmail.com

Volunteers Welcome

Help Vince hang work on Sunday 16 Sept 11am-5pm.

Help host the Launch Party on Sunday 16 Sept 5-10pm.

Help welcome visitors 17-29 Sept, open daily 10am-5pm. (Early shift 10am-1.30pm. Later shift 1.30-5pm)

Entry to the art show is FREE throughout, however donations to DPAC welcome. I hope to pay them back the venue hire & costs.

What: ‘I Protest!’ Art Show, with A Very Queer Nazi Faust props and photos, and Norfolk Disability Pride Art Show.

Where: St Margaret’s Church of Art, St Benedict’s Street, Norwich, NR2 4AQ.

When: Sunday 16 to Saturday 29 September 2018.

When: Launch Party: on Sunday 16 Sept from 5-10pm, then open daily 10am-5pm.

Why: Part of Norfolk Disability Pride 2018. Fighting for disabled peoples’ human rights.

Who: Vince Laws, DPAC, Art of Norwich, Unlimited, Spirit of 2012, Norwich Arts Centre, Norfolk County Council.

Contact: vincelaws@gmail.com

Norfolk Disability Pride contact: penny.parker@equallives.org.uk

Tickets for A Very Queer Nazi Faust: https://norwichartscentre.co.uk/events/vince-laws-queer-nazi-faust/?spektrix_bounce=true

Poster shows 3 images:

Top photo by Ruski: Shows Tory MP for Norwich North, Chloe Smith, speaking on the steps of Norwich City Hall at Norwich LGBT+ Pride, while Vince Laws stands silently beside her holding a sign which reads ’Tories Guilty of grave and systematic abuse of disabled people – United Nations’.

Middle photo by Vince Laws shows part of A Very Queer Nazi Faust sign, and 2 of The Naked Abseilers.

Bottom photo by Vince Laws shows an oil painting of some sunflowers.

 Posted by at 20:39
Jul 212018
 

 

Our Festival of  Resistance highlighting the hypocricy of the UK and Kenyan governments hosting a Global Disability Summit kicks off in ernest today/Saturday as our overseas activists arrive in the UK to join in with our fun.

On Sunday we are holding our own global summit which is very over subscribed with guest speakers including -:

Rose Achayo from the National Union of Women with Disabilities of Uganda (who will be talking about the particular barriers disabled women in Uganda face, the work of her organisation including its work with disabled refugees)

John Clarke from Ontario Coalition against Poverty (who shares DPAC’s concerns over universal basic income as a proposed solution to the future of social security)

Antonios Rellas from a disabled campaign group called Zero Tolerance in Greece (who campaigns against institutionalisation of disabled people and recently testified against Golden Dawn). https://dpac.uk.net/2016/09/greeces-shocking-secretthe-work-of-zero-tolerance/

Bolivian campaigners who were involved in this: https://www.theguardian. com/news/2017/may/05/the- fight-disability-rights- protestors-in-bolivia-on-the- barricades

And successfully forced their government to introduce disability payments for people. Although not yet at a high enough rate to enable an adequate standard of living.

We will be live streaming this conference using our facebook page https://www.facebook.com/disabledpeopleagainstcuts/

And tweeting with the hashtag #Disability&Resistance

Unlike the summit arranged by DfID we will not be having anyone from any large corporations hyping expensive equipment which is beyond the reach of many disabled people to fund.

On Monday and Tuesday follow us on twitter @dis_ppl_protest and please use  hashtags #NowIsTheTime and #disability summit

Tweet to any or all of the following saying why the UK government is unfit to host a disability summit.

@DFID_UK

@IDA_Forum_CRPD  gate keepers for who was allowed to come to the summit, to be kind possibly due to ignorance of the UK violation of disabled people’s rights.

Speakers at Tuesday’s summit event

@SophMorgan a disabled model

@Lenin  Lenin Moreno (president of Ecuador)

@gabimichetti  (vice president of Argentina)

More to follow shortly re-tweets.

And remember watch out for any surprise events happening in the very near future after all no-one ever knows quite where and when DPAC will pop up unexpectedly.

 Posted by at 12:55
Jun 182018
 

DfID and DPAC Global Summits

In response to the UN disability committee findings and criticism of their record on disability rights, the Tories have been using international comparisons. The previous Minister for Disabled People used her time up in a debate on the UN CRPD that the SNP had tabled talking about how when she was in the navy she had liberated all these poor starving neglected disabled orphans from “the socialist republic of Romania.”

The implication is always that disabled people in the UK are over-privileged and should be grateful for what we get here. This shows a misunderstanding of the UN Convention as a progressive tool for rights implementation.

The same day as a much criticised government strategy on disability, health and work was published, the previous Minister for Disabled People, Penny Morduant, made an announcement in her new role as Minister for International Development that the UK would be holding a global summit on disability at the end of July 2018. This has proved a very popular initiative with international organisations falling over themselves to be involved and the Tories are using it to its maximum to validate their self-proclaimed status as “world leaders in disability”.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-government-to-host-its-first-ever-global-disability-summit

It is also linked to a 27m international disability development support programme and you can see from the announcement about the focus on technology companies (and opening up new markets).

We obviously support better rights for all disabled people regardless of where they live but cannot let the Tories continue to pass themselves off as world leaders in disability rights when they have been found guilty of the grave and systematic violation of those rights and their policies have been called a ‘human catastrophe’ by the UN Disability Committee.

Therefore we will be holding our own summit on Sunday, July 22nd with input from disabled activists from the global South. This will be near the Olympic Park although the venue is still to be confirmed.

On July 24th the actual day of the summit please join us for some on-line activism.

Further details to follow shortly.

 

 

 

 

 Posted by at 18:49
Jun 122018
 

Call for Submissions

Are you an artist, sculptor, film maker working around disability issues? 

Would you like your work to play a part in building a Global Resistance Movement of disabled people?  

Then here’s how

In July 2018, DPAC will be holding a public event around building a Global Resistance Movement of disabled people.

We need your creativity and energy to help make this happen.

We want to create an event which celebrates our shared experiences and aspirations; and which connects our struggles and campaigns. As a backdrop to this, we would like those attending on the day and taking part from afar to do so in a space filled with creative expressions of our lives and our politics.

We are calling for contributions, large and small to exhibit at the event. Artists can come and be part of our activities or can simply give us access to their material. We will store and exhibit your material and return it to you after the event.

We are asking for:

  • Imagery such as
  • Pictures
  • Prints
  • Collages
  • Photographs
  • Paintings etc

 

  • Ceramics
  • Carvings
  • Glass work
  • Metal work

 

  • Digital Art
  • Film
  • Animation
  • Video Art

 

If your work has supporting materials such as mounts, plinths, frames, description or requires these materials for exhibition, please let us know.

 

If you would like to find out more or contribute please email. mail@dpac.uk.net

 Posted by at 20:44
Apr 042018
 

As we’re being asked more and more often to endorse candidates standing for various political positions we feel that it is important to re-iterate that DPAC remains completely independent from supporting any particular political party.

Nor can we guarantee to endorse someone just because they are a disabled person – after all some disabled people vote Tory or even UKIP and we could not under any circumstances endorse anyone who supported such policies. However we will consider endorsing people seeking office in any other reputable political parties.

We will only be able to support candidates who contribute to DPAC’s aims and are prepared to support #StopandScrap Universal Credit and our manifesto demands from politicians.

Overall this means that while we might endorse someone to stand for a political party that does not in any way negate our independence or our right to criticise that party and its policies when ever we deem it necessary.

 

 Posted by at 18:00
Apr 032018
 

The Public Law Project (PLP) is an independent, national legal charity which aims to improve access to justice for those whose access is restricted by poverty, discrimination or other similar barriers. It represented RF in the recent High Court case where the DWP’s changes to the PIP regulations were found to unlawfully discriminate against people with mental health conditions. PLP is representing another individual client, who is bringing a case concerning the DWP’s “workaround” communications system for people with disabilities who receive DLA/ESA/IB/PIP.

 

The DWP has a policy that it communicates with (non-UC) benefits recipients by post. However, its policy allows them to agree to email as a reasonable adjustment (the “workaround”), for example where a recipient has a disability.

 

The case is that the workaround is not satisfactory because it puts people using it at a disadvantage, including because there is a risk of letters being lost and there is no provision for two-way communication.

 

PLP needs to gather evidence of examples of problems caused by the workaround to support its client’s case. If you have had difficulties with the DWP’s communications system because of your disability, in particular if you have had difficulties getting the DWP to agree to email you as a reasonable adjustment, or have had information lost,  and are willing to discuss this further then please email Ollie Persey (o.persey@publiclawproject.org.uk).

 

 

 

 Posted by at 21:13
Mar 202018
 

A report coming out tomorrow shows that since 2011, the Department for Work & Pensions has underpaid an estimated 70,000 people who transferred to Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) from other benefits.

The ‘error’ related to people who may have been entitled to income-related ESA but were instead only awarded contribution-based ESA, and therefore may have missed out on premium payments.

The average underpayment is likely to be around £5,000 but some people will be owed significantly more. A review of a sample of 1,000 cases suggests that 45,000 claimants  entitled to the enhanced disability premium only may be owed around £2,500 and that around 20,000 claimants who are entitled to the severe disability premium may be owed around £11,500 each. A small number could be owed around £20,000.

 

If you think you might be affected by this complete botch up by DWP then BBC  and ITN news would like to speak to you. Please contact Camilla Horrox – Camilla.horrox@bbc.co.uk

Telephone – 02036143166 or Amie Stone amie.stone@itn.co.uk telephone – 020 74304551

 

 Posted by at 15:56
Mar 192018
 
NHS facing court action over unlawful policies

Published: 19 Mar 2018

NHS organisations are facing legal action over discriminatory Continuing Healthcare policies, the Equality and Human Rights Commission warned today.

The Commission has taken its first steps in judicial review proceeding by issuing legal letters to 13 Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs).This follows an initial warning issued by the Commission, which highlighted concerns about NHS Continuing Healthcare (NHS CHC) policies being unlawful and breaching the human rights of patients.

If the CCGs fail to provide evidence to demonstrate that their policies are lawful, or do not take steps to review them, they will be taken to court.

The Commission has raised significant concerns about blanket NHS CHC policies having arbitrary caps on funding and failing to consider the specific needs of individual patients, such as living location and family life.

This is a serious breach of the Human Rights Act, the Public Sector Equality Duty and the Department of Health and Social Care’s own NHS CHC framework.

Rebecca Hilsenrath, Chief Executive at the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said:

‘It is utterly unacceptable that anyone should be forced into residential care when they are healthy enough to live independently and with their families. And it doesn’t make sense for individuals or communities.

‘A “one-size fits all” approach will never properly address every single individual’s healthcare needs, and NHS CHC policies are no different. This is another example of individuals being disabled by society, and prevented from living as full and independent lives as possible, as is their right. We will use our powers to ensure that the NHS thinks about this again.’

The Commission first aired concerns over discriminatory NHS CHC policies in October 2017, when it wrote to 43 CCGs demanding more information on their approach.

Following this warning, almost a quarter of those contacted are now reviewing their policies and the Commission will be writing to the others whose policies are of less concern.

It will use its formal legal powers to initiate judicial review proceedings against 13, who it determines have not considered their human rights and equality responsibilities in the way they operate their policies.

NHS CHC provide funding for care outside of hospital, either in a care home, nursing home, hospice or a person’s own home, funded by the NHS to meet physical, mental health and associated social care needs.

The letters have been sent today (19 March 2018) and the CCGs have 14 working days to respond, after which decisions about starting court proceedings will be made.

Notes to editors

The Commission will be writing to the following 13 CCGs across England:

  • Brent
  • Coventry and Rugby
  • Dudley
  • East and North Hertfordshire
  • Eastern Cheshire
  • Harrow
  • Hillingdon
  • South Cheshire
  • Vale Royal
  • West Cheshire
  • Warwickshire North
  • Lincolnshire West
  • Redditch and Bromsgrove
 Posted by at 18:38
Feb 272018
 

Press release:
Disability rights coalition calls for talks with prime minister over ‘human catastrophe’.

A coalition of Disabled people’s organisations has today written to the Prime Minister urging her to meet with them to discuss the deteriorating quality of life experienced by millions of disabled people in the UK.

The call comes exactly six months since the United Nations’ damning report on the UK Government’s implementation of the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD).

The report, published last August, made a number of recommendations but disabled people’ organisations which gave evidence to the UN say that the Government is not taking the urgent action required

The coalition has highlighted five areas of particular concern:

  1. The failure to fully implement the 2010 Equality Act.
  2. The lack of joined up working across the 4 nations of the UK.
  3. The lack of resources to ensure disabled people’s right to independent living  and inclusion in their communities.
  4. The continuing gap in employment opportunities for disabled people.
  5. The right of disabled people to an adequate standard of living and social protection.

Tracey Lazard, CEO of Inclusion London and Reclaiming Our Futures Alliance member, said:

“6 months on from the UN Disability Committee’s damning verdict on this Government failure to protect and progress Disabled people’s rights, things continue to get worse not better for Disabled people . The Government appears to be maintaining its position of blanket denial that there is anything wrong, dismissing our lived experience, the UN findings and failing to act on any of the recommendations put forward in the Committee’s Concluding Observations. This state of affairs cannot continue . Disabled people’s organisations from across the UK are calling on the Government to recognise the very serious concerns identified by the UN Disability Committee and to use the Concluding Observations as an opportunity to begin working with, not against Disabled people, so we can get our rights, inclusion and equality back on track.”

The coalition members include:

Disability Rights UK; Inclusion Scotland; Disability Wales;  Disability Action Northern Ireland; Reclaiming Our Futures Alliance; Disabled People Against Cuts; Black Triangle; Alliance for Inclusive Education; British Deaf Association; People First, National Mental Health System Service Users Network; UK Disabled People’s Council; Equal Lives; Inclusion London.

–ENDS–

Contact:

Tracey Lazard, tracey.lazard@inclusionlondon.org.uk, 020 7237 3181

Notes to editor:

Text of letter to the Prime Minister is as follows:

Rt. Hon Theresa May M.P.
Office of the Prime Minister
10 Downing Street
London SW1A 2AA

28th February 2018

Dear Prime Minister

United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities

We are a coalition of disabled people’s organisations, led and controlled by disabled people, who, following our participation in the UN’s examination of the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD) have come together to promote the Convention.

We are writing to draw your attention to the fact that the examination by the U.N. of the U.K.’s implementation of the CRPD was concluded in Geneva six months ago and that, to date, there appears to have been no response from HM Government. In its Concluding Observations, a number of areas for action were identified.

Among these, the UNCRPD committee particularly highlighted five significant areas of concern:

  1. the many gaps in safeguards and rights for disabled people including unimplemented sections of the Equality Act 2010, the lack of resources to ensure the Equality Act is implemented, and the need to enshrine the CRPD into U.K. law as we leave the E.U.
  2. the lack of joined up working between the four nations of the U.K. and the need for a fully resourced action plan to implement the CRPD across the U.K.
  3. our right to independent living and to be included in the community.
  4. our right to employment and
  5. our right to an adequate standard of living and social protection.

Further the U.N. committee recognised that the U.K. has previously been seen as a leader on disability rights by many countries around the world and therefore has a ‘special obligation’ to set world leading standards on the treatment of disabled people and their inclusion in society.  Sadly, the committee concluded that the UK’s leading position has been lost.

We note that during the two-day hearing in Geneva, 23 and 24th August, the U.K. Government delegation gave a commitment to continuing the dialogue on how disabled people’s rights can be realised in the U.K. and specifically how engagement might be improved.  In the spirit of Article 4.3 of the Convention, general obligations involvement of disabled people and their representative organisations we are willing, and indeed expect, to work with you on progressing disabled people’s rights across the whole spectrum covered by the Convention from access through to being included in the community and being able to realise our ambitions and potential.

We should therefore like to request a meeting with you and your officials to discuss:

  1. How government is implementing the UNCRPD committee’s concluding observations, and
  2. How Government plans to work with organisations led by disabled people monitoring and implementing the Convention.

We trust that the Government will embrace the need to be more proactive in promoting and implementing disabled people’s rights and inclusion in society. We look forward to hearing from you further and working with government on an action plan to complete the implementation of the rights of disabled people detailed in the CRPD which was ratified by the U.K. in 2009.  Our expectation is that the U.K. will once again be seen as a leader in implementing the human rights of disabled people by all countries across the world.

Your faithfully

Kamran Mallick – CEO Disability Rights UK

Dr Sally Witcher OBE – CEO Inclusion Scotland

Rhian Davies – CEO Disability Wales

Patrick Malone – Disability Action Northern Ireland

Eleanor Lisney – Reclaiming Our Futures Alliance

Dr Terry Riley – British Deaf Association

Tracey Lazard – CEO Inclusion London

Linda Burnip – Disabled People Against Cuts

John McArdle – Black Triangle

Tara Flood – CEO Alliance for Inclusive Education

Anne Novis – UK Disabled People’s Council

Mark Harrison – CEO Equal Lives

Dorothy Gould – National mental health system Survivor Users Network

Andrew Lee – CEO People First

 Press release:
Disability rights coalition calls for talks with prime minister over ‘human catastrophe’.

A coalition of Disabled people’s organisations has today written to the Prime Minister urging her to meet with them to discuss the deteriorating quality of life experienced by millions of disabled people in the UK.

The call comes exactly six months since the United Nations’ damning report on the UK Government’s implementation of the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD).

The report, published last August, made a number of recommendations but disabled people’ organisations which gave evidence to the UN say that the Government is not taking the urgent action required

The coalition has highlighted five areas of particular concern:

  1. The failure to fully implement the 2010 Equality Act.
  2. The lack of joined up working across the 4 nations of the UK.
  3. The lack of resources to ensure disabled people’s right to independent living  and inclusion in their communities.
  4. The continuing gap in employment opportunities for disabled people.
  5. The right of disabled people to an adequate standard of living and social protection.

Tracey Lazard, CEO of Inclusion London and Reclaiming Our Futures Alliance member, said:

“6 months on from the UN Disability Committee’s damning verdict on this Government failure to protect and progress Disabled people’s rights, things continue to get worse not better for Disabled people . The Government appears to be maintaining its position of blanket denial that there is anything wrong, dismissing our lived experience, the UN findings and failing to act on any of the recommendations put forward in the Committee’s Concluding Observations. This state of affairs cannot continue . Disabled people’s organisations from across the UK are calling on the Government to recognise the very serious concerns identified by the UN Disability Committee and to use the Concluding Observations as an opportunity to begin working with, not against Disabled people, so we can get our rights, inclusion and equality back on track.”

The coalition members include:

Disability Rights UK; Inclusion Scotland; Disability Wales;  Disability Action Northern Ireland; Reclaiming Our Futures Alliance; Disabled People Against Cuts; Black Triangle; Alliance for Inclusive Education; British Deaf Association; People First, National Mental Health System Service Users Network; UK Disabled People’s Council; Equal Lives; Inclusion London.

–ENDS–

Contact:

Tracey Lazard, tracey.lazard@inclusionlondon.org.uk, 020 7237 3181

Notes to editor:

Text of letter to the Prime Minister is as follows:

Rt. Hon Theresa May M.P.
Office of the Prime Minister
10 Downing Street
London SW1A 2AA

28th February 2018

Dear Prime Minister

United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities

We are a coalition of disabled people’s organisations, led and controlled by disabled people, who, following our participation in the UN’s examination of the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD) have come together to promote the Convention.

We are writing to draw your attention to the fact that the examination by the U.N. of the U.K.’s implementation of the CRPD was concluded in Geneva six months ago and that, to date, there appears to have been no response from HM Government. In its Concluding Observations, a number of areas for action were identified.

Among these, the UNCRPD committee particularly highlighted five significant areas of concern:

  1. the many gaps in safeguards and rights for disabled people including unimplemented sections of the Equality Act 2010, the lack of resources to ensure the Equality Act is implemented, and the need to enshrine the CRPD into U.K. law as we leave the E.U.
  2. the lack of joined up working between the four nations of the U.K. and the need for a fully resourced action plan to implement the CRPD across the U.K.
  3. our right to independent living and to be included in the community.
  4. our right to employment and
  5. our right to an adequate standard of living and social protection.

Further the U.N. committee recognised that the U.K. has previously been seen as a leader on disability rights by many countries around the world and therefore has a ‘special obligation’ to set world leading standards on the treatment of disabled people and their inclusion in society.  Sadly, the committee concluded that the UK’s leading position has been lost.

We note that during the two-day hearing in Geneva, 23 and 24th August, the U.K. Government delegation gave a commitment to continuing the dialogue on how disabled people’s rights can be realised in the U.K. and specifically how engagement might be improved.  In the spirit of Article 4.3 of the Convention, general obligations involvement of disabled people and their representative organisations we are willing, and indeed expect, to work with you on progressing disabled people’s rights across the whole spectrum covered by the Convention from access through to being included in the community and being able to realise our ambitions and potential.

We should therefore like to request a meeting with you and your officials to discuss:

  1. How government is implementing the UNCRPD committee’s concluding observations, and
  2. How Government plans to work with organisations led by disabled people monitoring and implementing the Convention.

We trust that the Government will embrace the need to be more proactive in promoting and implementing disabled people’s rights and inclusion in society. We look forward to hearing from you further and working with government on an action plan to complete the implementation of the rights of disabled people detailed in the CRPD which was ratified by the U.K. in 2009.  Our expectation is that the U.K. will once again be seen as a leader in implementing the human rights of disabled people by all countries across the world.

Your faithfully

Tracey Lazard – CEO Inclusion London

Linda Burnip – Disabled People Against Cuts

John McArdle – Black Triangle

Tara Flood – CEO Alliance for Inclusive Education

Anne Novis – UK Disabled People’s Council

Mark Harrison – CEO Equal Lives

Andrew Lee – CEO People First

And others

 

 Posted by at 20:26
Feb 252018
 

For anyone who would like to email more than their own MPs all MPs email addresses are here. If as many people as possible email as many MPs as possible fromThursday March 1st then our message has more chance of being heard.

Template letter has also been posted

diane.abbott.office@parliament.uk, abrahamsd@parliament.uk, nigel.adams.mp@parliament.uk, bim.afolami.mp@parliament.uk, adam.afriyie.mp@parliament.uk, peter.aldous.mp@parliament.uk, heidi.alexander.mp@parliament.uk, rushanara.ali.mp@parliament.uk, lucy.allan.mp@parliament.uk, heidi.allen.mp@parliament.uk, rosena.allinkhan.mp@parliament.uk, mike.amesbury.mp@parliament.uk, amessd@parliament.uk, jenny.chapman.mp@parliament.uk, bambos.charalambous.mp@parliament.uk, joanna.cherry.mp@parliament.uk, rehman.chishti.mp@parliament.uk, chopec@parliament.uk, jo.churchill.mp@parliament.uk, colin.clark.mp@parliament.uk, greg.clark.mp@parliament.uk, clarkek@parliament.uk, simon.clarke.mp@parliament.uk, james.cleverly.mp@parliament.uk, cliftonbrowng@parliament.uk, ann.clwyd.mp@parliament.uk, vernon.coaker.mp@parliament.uk, ann.coffey.mp@parliament.uk, therese.coffey.mp@parliament.uk, damian.collins.mp@parliament.uk, julie.cooper.mp@parliament.uk, rosie.cooper.mp@parliament.uk, coopery@parliament.uk, jeremy.corbyn.mp@parliament.uk, barronra@parliament.uk, robert.courts.mp@parliament.uk, ronnie.cowan.mp@parliament.uk, coxg@parliament.uk, neil.coyle.mp@parliament.uk, stephen.crabb.mp@parliament.uk, crausbyd@parliament.uk, angela.crawley.mp@parliament.uk, creaghm@parliament.uk, , tracey.crouch.mp@parliament.uk, cruddasj@parliament.uk, john.cryer.mp@parliament.uk, judith.cummins.mp@parliament.uk, alex.cunningham.mp@parliament.uk, eleanorm.connolly@parliament.uk, nic.dakin.mp@parliament.uk, edward.davey.mp@parliament.uk, wayne.david.mp@parliament.uk, chris.davies.mp@parliament.uk, david.davies.mp@parliament.uk, geraint.davies.mp@parliament.uk, glyn.davies.mp@parliament.uk, mims.davies.mp@parliament.uk, daviesp@parliament.uk, david.davis.mp@parliament.uk, martyn.day.mp@parliament.uk, thangam.debbonaire.mp@parliament.uk, marsha.decordova.mp@parliament.uk, emma.dentcoad.mp@parliament.uk, gloria.depiero.mp@parliament.uk, tan.dhesi.mp@parliament.uk, caroline.dinenage.mp@parliament.uk, jonathan.djanogly.mp@parliament.uk, leo.docherty.mp@parliament.uk, martin.docherty.mp@parliament.uk, annaliese.dodds.mp@parliament.uk, nigel.dodds.mp@parliament.uk, jeffrey.donaldson.mp@parliament.uk, michelle.donelan.mp@parliament.uk, dorriesn@parliament.uk, steve.double.mp@parliament.uk, stephen.doughty.mp@parliament.uk, peter.dowd.mp@parliament.uk, oliver.dowden.mp@parliament.uk, jackie.doyleprice.mp@parliament.uk, richard.drax.mp@parliament.uk, david.drew.mp@parliament.uk, jack.dromey.mp@parliament.uk, , rosie.duffield.mp@parliament.uk, david.duguid.mp@parliament.uk, alan.duncan.mp@parliament.uk, olivia.kybett@parliament.uk, philip.dunne.mp@parliament.uk, eaglea@parliament.uk, eaglem@parliament.uk, jonathan.edwards.mp@parliament.uk, effordc@parliament.uk, julie.elliott.mp@parliament.uk, michael.ellis.mp@parliament.uk, louise.ellman.mp@parliament.uk, philip.hammond.mp@parliament.uk, hammonds@parliament.uk, matt.hancock.mp@parliament.uk, handsg@parliament.uk, david.hanson.mp@parliament.uk, emma.hardy.mp@parliament.uk, harriet.harman.mp@parliament.uk, mark.harper.mp@parliament.uk, richard.harrington.mp@parliament.uk, carolyn.harris.mp@parliament.uk, rebecca.harris.mp@parliament.uk, trudy.harrison.mp@parliament.uk, simon.hart.mp@parliament.uk, helen.hayes.mp@parliament.uk, hayesj@parliament.uk, sue.hayman.mp@parliament.uk, chris.hazzard.mp@parliament.uk, oliver.heald.mp@parliament.uk, john.healey.mp@parliament.uk, james.heappey.mp@parliament.uk, chris.heatonharris.mp@parliament.uk, peter.heatonjones.mp@parliament.uk, gordon.henderson.mp@parliament.uk, mark.hendrick.mp@parliament.uk, drew.hendry.mp@parliament.uk, hepburns@parliament.uk, , sylvia.hermon.mp@parliament.uk, mike.hill.mp@parliament.uk, meghilliermp@parliament.uk, damian.hinds.mp@parliament.uk, simon.hoare.mp@parliament.uk, wera.hobhouse.mp@parliament.uk, hodgem@parliament.uk, sharon.hodgson.mp@parliament.uk, hoeyk@parliament.uk, kate.hollern.mp@parliament.uk, george.hollingbery.mp@parliament.uk, kevin.hollinrake.mp@parliament.uk, philip.hollobone.mp@parliament.uk, hollowaya@parliament.uk, hopkinsk@parliament.uk, hosies@parliament.uk, george.howarth.mp@parliament.uk, howelljm@parliament.uk, gaskillm@parliament.uk, nigel.huddleston.mp@parliament.uk, eddie.hughes.mp@parliament.uk, huntj@parliament.uk, rupa.huq.mp@parliament.uk, nick.hurd.mp@parliament.uk, imran.hussain.mp@parliament.uk, alister.jack.mp@parliament.uk, margot.james.mp@parliament.uk, christine.jardine.mp@parliament.uk, dan.jarvis.mp@parliament.uk, sajid.javid.mp@parliament.uk, , bernard.jenkin.mp@parliament.uk, andrea.jenkyns.mp@parliament.uk, robert.jenrick.mp@parliament.uk, boris.johnson.mp@parliament.uk, caroline.johnson.mp@parliament.uk, johnsond@parliament.uk, gareth.johnson.mp@parliament.uk, jo.johnson.mp@parliament.uk, andrew.jones.mp@parliament.uk, darren.jones.mp@parliament.uk, david.jones.mp@parliament.uk, gerald.jones.mp@parliament.uk, graham.jones.mp@parliament.uk, jonesh@parliament.uk, kevanjonesmp@parliament.uk, marcus.jones.mp@parliament.uk, sarah.jones.mp@parliament.uk, susan.jones.mp@parliament.uk, mike.kane.mp@parliament.uk, kawczynskid@parliament.uk, gillian.keegan.mp@parliament.uk, barbara.keeley.mp@parliament.uk, liz.kendall.mp@parliament.uk, seema.kennedy.mp@parliament.uk, stephen.metcalfe.mp@parliament.uk, ed.miliband.mp@parliament.uk, maria.miller.mp@parliament.uk, amanda.milling.mp@parliament.uk, nigel.mills.mp@parliament.uk, anne.milton.mp@parliament.uk, andrew.mitchell.mp@parliament.uk, , carol.monaghan.mp@parliament.uk, moonm@parliament.uk, damien.moore.mp@parliament.uk, layla.moran.mp@parliament.uk, penny.mordaunt.mp@parliament.uk, jessica.morden.mp@parliament.uk, nicky.morgan.mp@parliament.uk, stephen.morgan.mp@parliament.uk, annemarie.morris.mp@parliament.uk, david.morris.mp@parliament.uk, grahame.morris.mp@parliament.uk, james.morris.mp@parliament.uk, wendy.morton.mp@parliament.uk, david.mundell.mp@parliament.uk, ian.murray.mp@parliament.uk, sheryll.murray.mp@parliament.uk, murrisona@parliament.uk, lisa.nandy.mp@parliament.uk, bob.neill.mp@parliament.uk, gavin.newlands.mp@parliament.uk, sarah.newton.mp@parliament.uk, caroline.nokes.mp@parliament.uk, jesse.norman.mp@parliament.uk, alex.norris.mp@parliament.uk, neil.obrien.mp@parliament.uk, matthew.offord.mp@parliament.uk, brendan.ohara.mp@parliament.uk, jared.omara.mp@parliament.uk, fiona.onasanya.mp@parliament.uk, melanie.onn.mp@parliament.uk, chi.onwurah.mp@parliament.uk, guy.opperman.mp@parliament.uk, kate.osamor.mp@parliament.uk, albert.owen.mp@parliament.uk, ian.paisley.mp@parliament.uk, neil.parish.mp@parliament.uk, withammp@parliament.uk, patersono@parliament.uk, mark.pawsey.mp@parliament.uk, stephanie.peacock.mp@parliament.uk, teresa.pearce.mp@parliament.uk, penningm@parliament.uk, matthew.pennycook.mp@parliament.uk, penrosej@parliament.uk, andrew.percy.mp@parliament.uk, toby.perkins.mp@parliament.uk, claire.perry.mp@parliament.uk, jess.phillips.mp@parliament.uk, bridget.phillipson.mp@parliament.uk, chris.philp.mp@parliament.uk, laura.pidcock.mp@parliament.uk, christopher.pincher.mp@parliament.uk, joanne.platt.mp@parliament.uk, luke.pollard.mp@parliament.uk, daniel.poulter.mp@parliament.uk, steve.pound.mp@parliament.uk, rebecca.pow.mp@parliament.uk, lucy.powell.mp@parliament.uk, victoria.prentis.mp@parliament.uk, natalie.bithell@parliament.uk, pritchardm@parliament.uk, tom.pursglove.mp@parliament.uk, jeremy.quin.mp@parliament.uk, will.quince.mp@parliament.uk, yasmin.qureshi.mp@parliament.uk, dominic.raab.mp@parliament.uk, faisal.rashid.mp@parliament.uk, angela.rayner.mp@parliament.uk, john.redwood.mp@parliament.uk, steve.reed.mp@parliament.uk, christina.rees.mp@parliament.uk, jacob.reesmogg.mp@parliament.uk, ellie.reeves.mp@parliament.uk, rachel.reeves.mp@parliament.uk, emma.reynolds.mp@parliament.uk, jonathan.reynolds.mp@parliament.uk, marie.rimmer.mp@parliament.uk, michael.tomlinson.mp@parliament.uk, craig.tracey.mp@parliament.uk, tredinnickd@parliament.uk, annemarie.trevelyan.mp@parliament.uk, jon.trickett.mp@parliament.uk, elizabeth.truss.mp@parliament.uk, tom.tugendhat.mp@parliament.uk, anna.turley.mp@parliament.uk, karl.turner.mp@parliament.uk, derek.twigg.mp@parliament.uk, stephen.twigg.mp@parliament.uk, liz.twist.mp@parliament.uk, chuka.umunna.mp@parliament.uk, ed.vaizey.mp@parliament.uk, shailesh.vara.mp@parliament.uk, vazk@parliament.uk, valerie.vaz.mp@parliament.uk, martin.vickers.mp@parliament.uk, , charles.walker.mp@parliament.uk, robin.walker.mp@parliament.uk, thelma.walker.mp@parliament.uk, wallaceb@parliament.uk, david.warburton.mp@parliament.uk, matt.warman.mp@parliament.uk, giles.watling.mp@parliament.uk, tom.watson.mp@parliament.uk, catherine.west.mp@parliament.uk, matt.western.mp@parliament.uk, helen.whately.mp@parliament.uk, heather.wheeler.mp@parliament.uk, whiteheada@parliament.uk, martin.whitfield.mp@parliament.uk, philippa.whitford.mp@parliament.uk, craig.whittaker.mp@parliament.uk, john.whittingdale.mp@parliament.uk, bill.wiggin.mp@parliament.uk, hywel.williams.mp@parliament.uk, paul.williams.mp@parliament.uk, chris.williamson.mp@parliament.uk, gavin.williamson.mp@parliament.uk, phil.wilson.mp@parliament.uk, barronj@parliament.uk, rosie.winterton.mp@parliament.uk, pete.wishart.mp@parliament.uk, sarah.wollaston.mp@parliament.uk, mikej.wood.mp@parliament.uk, john.woodcock.mp@parliament.uk, , jeremy.wright.mp@parliament.uk, mohammad.yasin.mp@parliament.uk, nadhim.zahawi.mp@parliament.uk, daniel.zeichner.mp@parliament.uk, stuart.andrew.mp@parliament.uk, tonia.antoniazzi.mp@parliament.uk, edward.argar.mp@parliament.uk, jon.ashworth.mp@parliament.uk, , austini@parliament.uk, richardbaconmp@parliament.uk, kemi.badenoch.mp@parliament.uk, baileya@parliament.uk, steve.baker.mp@parliament.uk, harriett.baldwin.mp@parliament.uk, stephen.barclay.mp@parliament.uk, hannah.bardell.mp@parliament.uk, baronj@parliament.uk, barronk@parliament.uk, guto.bebb.mp@parliament.uk, margaret.beckett.mp@parliament.uk, bellinghamh@parliament.uk, hilary.benn.mp@parliament.uk, richard.benyon.mp@parliament.uk, bercowj@parliament.uk, annie.winsbury@parliament.uk, luciana.berger.mp@parliament.uk, jake.berry.mp@parliament.uk, officeofclivebettsmp@parliament.uk, mhairi.black.mp@parliament.uk, ian.blackford.mp@parliament.uk, bob.blackman.mp@parliament.uk, kirsty.blackman.mp@parliament.uk, woodsr@parliament.uk, paul.blomfield.mp@parliament.uk, crispinbluntmp@parliament.uk, nick.boles.mp@parliament.uk, bonep@parliament.uk, bottomleyp@parliament.uk, andrew.bowie.mp@parliament.uk, tracy.brabin.mp@parliament.uk, ben.bradley.mp@parliament.uk, karen.bradley.mp@parliament.uk, ben.bradshaw.mp@parliament.uk, altsale@parliament.uk, mickey.brady.mp@parliament.uk, , brennank@parliament.uk, jack.brereton.mp@parliament.uk, andrew.bridgen.mp@parliament.uk, steve.brine.mp@parliament.uk, deidre.brock.mp@parliament.uk, james.brokenshire.mp@parliament.uk, alan.brown.mp@parliament.uk, brownl@parliament.uk, nickbrownmp@parliament.uk, fiona.bruce.mp@parliament.uk, bryantc@parliament.uk, buckk@parliament.uk, robert.buckland.mp@parliament.uk, richard.burden.mp@parliament.uk, alex.burghart.mp@parliament.uk, richard.burgon.mp@parliament.uk, conor.burns.mp@parliament.uk, alistair.burt.mp@parliament.uk, dawn.butler.mp@parliament.uk, byrnel@parliament.uk, vince.cable.mp@parliament.uk, ruthcadburymp@parliament.uk, alun.cairns.mp@parliament.uk, lisa.cameron.mp@parliament.uk, alan.campbell.mp@parliament.uk, fieldingm@parliament.uk, ronnie.campbell.mp@parliament.uk, dan.carden.mp@parliament.uk, carmichaela@parliament.uk, james.cartlidge.mp@parliament.uk, mcconaloguej@parliament.uk, maria.caulfield.mp@parliament.uk, alex.chalk.mp@parliament.uk, sarah.champion.mp@parliament.uk, douglas.chapman.mp@parliament.uk, tobias.ellwood.mp@parliament.uk, chris.elmore.mp@parliament.uk, charlie.elphicke.mp@parliament.uk, bill.esterson.mp@parliament.uk, george.eustice.mp@parliament.uk, chris.evans.mp@parliament.uk, evansn@parliament.uk, david.evennett.mp@parliament.uk, michael.fabricant.mp@parliament.uk, michael.fallon.mp@parliament.uk, paul.farrelly.mp@parliament.uk, farront@parliament.uk, marion.fellows.mp@parliament.uk, suella.fernandes.mp@parliament.uk, fieldf@parliament.uk, fieldm@parliament.uk, jim.fitzpatrick.mp@parliament.uk, colleen.fletcher.mp@parliament.uk, caroline.flint.mp@parliament.uk, , vicky.ford.mp@parliament.uk, kevin.foster.mp@parliament.uk, yvonne.fovargue.mp@parliament.uk, ione.douglas@parliament.uk, vicky.foxcroft.mp@parliament.uk, mark.francois.mp@parliament.uk, lucy.frazer.mp@parliament.uk, george.freeman.mp@parliament.uk, mike.freer.mp@parliament.uk, james.frith.mp@parliament.uk, gill.furniss.mp@parliament.uk, marcus.fysh.mp@parliament.uk, hugh.gaffney.mp@parliament.uk, galerj@parliament.uk, mike.gapes.mp@parliament.uk, barry.gardiner.mp@parliament.uk, mark.garnier.mp@parliament.uk, gauked@parliament.uk, ruth.george.mp@parliament.uk, stephen.gethins.mp@parliament.uk, nusrat.ghani.mp@parliament.uk, gibbn@parliament.uk, patricia.gibson.mp@parliament.uk, michelle.gildernew.mp@parliament.uk, preet.gill.mp@parliament.uk, cheryl.gillan.mp@parliament.uk, paul.girvan.mp@parliament.uk, john.glen.mp@parliament.uk, mary.glindon.mp@parliament.uk, roger.godsiff.mp@parliament.uk, , goodmanh@parliament.uk, robert.goodwill.mp@parliament.uk, michael.gove.mp@parliament.uk, patrick.grady.mp@parliament.uk, luke.graham.mp@parliament.uk, richard.graham.mp@parliament.uk, bill.grant.mp@parliament.uk, helen.grant.mp@parliament.uk, peter.grant.mp@parliament.uk, jamesgraymp@parliament.uk, neil.gray.mp@parliament.uk, chris.grayling.mp@parliament.uk, chris.green.mp@parliament.uk, damian.green.mp@parliament.uk, kate.green.mp@parliament.uk, greeningj@parliament.uk, lilian.greenwood.mp@parliament.uk, margaret.greenwood.mp@parliament.uk, dominic.grieve.mp@parliament.uk, nia.griffith.mp@parliament.uk, andrew.griffiths.mp@parliament.uk, john.grogan.mp@parliament.uk, gwynnea@parliament.uk, , louise.haigh.mp@parliament.uk, kirstene.hair.mp@parliament.uk, , luke.hall.mp@parliament.uk, fabian.hamilton.mp@parliament.uk, stephen.kerr.mp@parliament.uk, afzal.khan.mp@parliament.uk, gerard.killen.mp@parliament.uk, stephen.kinnock.mp@parliament.uk, sothcottt@parliament.uk, julian.knight.mp@parliament.uk, kwasi.kwarteng.mp@parliament.uk, peter.kyle.mp@parliament.uk, eleanor.laing.mp@parliament.uk, lesley.laird.mp@parliament.uk, ben.lake.mp@parliament.uk, norman.lamb.mp@parliament.uk, lammyd@parliament.uk, john.lamont.mp@parliament.uk, officeofmarklancaster@parliament.uk, pauline.latham.mp@parliament.uk, ian.lavery.mp@parliament.uk, chris.law.mp@parliament.uk, andrea.leadsom.mp@parliament.uk, karen.lee.mp@parliament.uk, phillip.lee.mp@parliament.uk, jeremy.lefroy.mp@parliament.uk, edward.leigh.mp@parliament.uk, chris.leslie@parliament.uk, letwino@parliament.uk, emma.lewell-buck.mp@parliament.uk, andrew.lewer.mp@parliament.uk, toby.willmer@parliament.uk, clive.lewis.mp@parliament.uk, lewisi@parliament.uk, , ianlg@parliament.uk, david.lidington.mp@parliament.uk, david.linden.mp@parliament.uk, emma.littlepengelly.mp@parliament.uk, stephen.lloyd.mp@parliament.uk, tony.lloyd.mp@parliament.uk, rebecca.longbailey.mp@parliament.uk, julia.lopez.mp@parliament.uk, jack.lopresti.mp@parliament.uk, jonathan.lord.mp@parliament.uk, loughtont@parliament.uk, caroline.lucas.mp@parliament.uk, lucasi@parliament.uk, holly.lynch.mp@parliament.uk, mccabes@parliament.uk, elisha.mccallion.mp@parliament.uk, kerry.mccarthy.mp@parliament.uk, mcdonaghs@parliament.uk, andy.mcdonald.mp@parliament.uk, stewart.mcdonald.mp@parliament.uk, stuart.mcdonald.mp@parliament.uk, mcdonnellj@parliament.uk, barry.mcelduff.mp@parliament.uk, mcfaddenp@parliament.uk, conor.mcginn.mp@parliament.uk, alison.mcgovern.mp@parliament.uk, liz.mcinnes.mp@parliament.uk, craig.mackinlay.mp@parliament.uk, catherine.mckinnell.mp@parliament.uk, rachel.maclean.mp@parliament.uk, patrick.mcloughlin.mp@parliament.uk, jim.mcmahon.mp@parliament.uk, anna.mcmorrin.mp@parliament.uk, john.mcnally.mp@parliament.uk, macneila@parliament.uk, stephen.mcpartland.mp@parliament.uk, esther.mcvey.mp@parliament.uk, justin.madders.mp@parliament.uk, mahmoodk@parliament.uk, shabana.mahmood.mp@parliament.uk, maina@parliament.uk, alan.mak.mp@parliament.uk, seema.malhotra.mp@parliament.uk, kit.malthouse.mp@parliament.uk, mannj@parliament.uk, scott.mann.mp@parliament.uk, gordonmarsdenmp@parliament.uk, sandy.martin.mp@parliament.uk, rachael.maskell.mp@parliament.uk, paul.maskey.mp@parliament.uk, paul.masterton.mp@parliament.uk, chris.matheson.mp@parliament.uk, mayt@parliament.uk, paul.maynard.mp@parliament.uk, ian.mearns.mp@parliament.uk, mark.menzies.mp@parliament.uk, johnny.mercer.mp@parliament.uk, huw.merriman.mp@parliament.uk, robertsonl@parliament.uk, gavin.robinson.mp@parliament.uk, robinsong@parliament.uk, mary.robinson.mp@parliament.uk, matt.rodda.mp@parliament.uk, andrew.rosindell.mp@parliament.uk, douglas.ross.mp@parliament.uk, danielle.rowley.mp@parliament.uk, lee.rowley.mp@parliament.uk, chris.ruane.mp@parliament.uk, amber.rudd.mp@parliament.uk, lloyd.russellmoyle.mp@parliament.uk, david.rutley.mp@parliament.uk, joan.ryan.mp@parliament.uk, antoinette.sandbach.mp@parliament.uk, liz.savilleroberts.mp@parliament.uk, paul.scully.mp@parliament.uk, bob.seely.mp@parliament.uk, andrew.selous.mp@parliament.uk, naz.shah.mp@parliament.uk, jim.shannon.mp@parliament.uk, shappsg@parliament.uk, alok.sharma.mp@parliament.uk, sharmav@parliament.uk, sheermanb@parliament.uk, alec.shelbrooke.mp@parliament.uk, tommy.sheppard.mp@parliament.uk, paula.sherriff.mp@parliament.uk, gavin.shuker.mp@parliament.uk, tulip.siddiq.mp@parliament.uk, simpsond@parliament.uk, keithsimpsonmp@parliament.uk, chris.skidmore.mp@parliament.uk, skinnerd@parliament.uk, andy.slaughter.mp@parliament.uk, ruth.smeeth.mp@parliament.uk, officeofangelasmithmp@parliament.uk, cat.smith.mp@parliament.uk, , eleanor.smith.mp@parliament.uk, henry.smith.mp@parliament.uk, jeff.smith.mp@parliament.uk, julian.smith.mp@parliament.uk, laura.smith.mp@parliament.uk, nick.smith.mp@parliament.uk, owen.smith.mp@parliament.uk, royston.smith.mp@parliament.uk, karin.smyth.mp@parliament.uk, gareth.snell.mp@parliament.uk, nicholas.soames.mp@parliament.uk, alex.sobel.mp@parliament.uk, anna.soubry.mp@parliament.uk, john.spellar.mp@parliament.uk, , mark.spencer.mp@parliament.uk, keir.starmer.mp@parliament.uk, chris.stephens.mp@parliament.uk, andrew.stephenson.mp@parliament.uk, jo.stevens.mp@parliament.uk, john.stevenson.mp@parliament.uk, bob.stewart.mp@parliament.uk, iain.stewart.mp@parliament.uk, rory.stewart.mp@parliament.uk, jamie.stone.mp@parliament.uk, deans@parliament.uk, wes.streeting.mp@parliament.uk, mel.stride.mp@parliament.uk, graham.stringer.mp@parliament.uk, graham.stuart.mp@parliament.uk, julian.sturdy.mp@parliament.uk, rishi.sunak.mp@parliament.uk, swayned@parliament.uk, paul.sweeney.mp@parliament.uk, jo.swinson.mp@parliament.uk, hugo.swire.mp@parliament.uk, symsr@parliament.uk, tamim@parliament.uk, alison.thewliss.mp@parliament.uk, derek.thomas.mp@parliament.uk, gareth.thomas.mp@parliament.uk, nick.thomassymonds.mp@parliament.uk, ross.thomson.mp@parliament.uk, emily.thornberry.mp@parliament.uk, maggie.throup.mp@parliament.uk, timmss@parliament.uk, kelly.tolhurst.mp@parliament.uk, justin.tomlinson.mp@parliament.uk, michael.tomlinson.mp@parliament.uk, craig.tracey.mp@parliament.uk, tredinnickd@parliament.uk, annemarie.trevelyan.mp@parliament.uk, trickettj@parliament.uk, elizabeth.truss.mp@parliament.uk, tom.tuggendhat.mp@parliament.uk, anna.turley.mp@parliament.uk,

karl.turner.mp@parliament.uk, derek.twigg.mp@parliament.uk, stephen.twigg.mp@parliament.uk, liz.twist.mp@parliament.uk, chukka.umunna.mp@parliament.uk, vaizeye@parliament.uk,

vazk@parliament.uk, shailesh.vara.mp@parliament.uk, valerie.vaz.mp@parliament.uk, martin.vickers.mp@parliament.uk, theresa@theresavilliers.co.uk, broxbourne@tory.org, robin.walker.mp@parliament.uk, thelma.walker.mp@parliament.uk, wallaceb@parliament.uk, david.warburton.mp@parliament.uk, matt.warman.mp@parliament.uk, giles.watling.mp@parliament.uk, tom.watson.mp@parliament.uk, catherine.west.mp@parliament.uk, matt.western.mp@parliament.uk, helen.whately.mp@parliament.uk, heather.wheeler.mp@parliament.uk, whiteheada@parliament.uk, martin.whitfield.mp@parliament.uk, philippa.whitford.mp@parliament.uk, craig.whittaker.mp@parliament.uk, john.whittingdale.mp@parliament.uk, bill.wiggin.mp@parliament.uk, hywel.williams.mp@parliament.uk, paul.williams.mp@parliament.uk, chris.williamson.mp@parliament.uk, gavin.williamson.mp@parliament.uk, phil.wilson.mp@parliament.uk, barronj@parliament.uk, rosie.winterton.mp@parliament.uk, wishartp@parliament.uk, sarah.wollaston.mp@parliament.uk, mikej.wood.mp@parliament.uk, john.woodcock.mp@parliament.uk, william@williamwragg.org.uk, jeremy@jeremywright.org.uk, mohammad.yasin.mp@parliament.uk, nadhim.zahawi.mp@parliament.uk, daniel@danielzeichner.co.uk,

 

 

 

 Posted by at 20:50
Feb 252018
 

for anyone who can’t get to a protest please email your MP fromThursday March 1st onwards. A template letter is below. Even if you can get to a protest you may also want to email your MP.

 

Dear MP name,

Universal Credit is the punishing regime due to be more widely imposed on people with low incomes both those in and out of work.

UC has too many flaws to be simply paused and fixed – it must be stopped and scrapped.

Universal Credit is an economic and political disaster bringing further distress and impoverishment to those forced to endure it.  To date at least £15.8 billion has been wasted on its implementation although only £1 billion is likely to be saved by 2020.

Seven million households will be affected, including over one million low paid part-time workers. For the first time ever people in work could face being sanctioned (having their benefits stopped) if they don’t prove to the job centre that they’re searching for better paid work or more hours. Pensioner couples will also be affected if one of them is under pension age.

No civilized Government should impose this on its citizens and no opposition party should want to simply pause and fix it.

Areas already subjected to UC have reported serious hardship with visits to food banks soaring along with rates of people sanctioned and left without any income for 3 months or more.

Just some of the many problems with UC are listed below.

General Problems

  • UC is based entirely on conditionality for those both in and out of work. Failure to meet these conditions can lead to the imposition of cumulative sanctions which could last 3 years.
  • Everyone will have to accept the Claimant Commitment and log in daily to Universal Job match account and complete your to do list and journal. There is harsh conditionality within Universal Credit such as 35 hour per week job searches.
  • Even with the changes brought in at the end of last year claimants face a 5 week wait which in many cases seems to be 3 months or longer for their first payment.
  • Loss of Mortgage interest payments which will now mean people have to take out a second loan if they are buying a home.
  • Hardship Loans are repayable meaning the full amount of money someone is entitled to isn’t paid for months as 40% of their entitlement can be taken away to repay a loan.
  • With UC, housing benefit isn’t paid straight to the landlord but to the claimant who may be in need of money to use in an emergency. In pilot areas this has resulted in up to 60% of claimants going into rent arrears.
  • Letting agents are already refusing to rent to anyone claiming UC.

 

For Disabled People

  • UC is claimed and managed entirely digitally which is difficult or impossible for many disabled people. Any mistakes on the form will likely lead to loss of benefit or a claim being disallowed.
  • Health and Work conversations are mandatory and any failure to attend will lead to your claim being closed.
  • People in part time work could be forced to give up work that suits their Disability or family life in order to take up worse paid full time work or risk sanctions,.
  • UC brings in the loss of Severe and Enhanced Disability Premiums which mean single disabled people lose around £2,000 per annum and a disabled couple over £4,000 per annum.

Coercion of Mental Health claimants.

  • As part of the Health and Work Programme we are seeing the use of the DWP nudge unit and psycho compulsion. This effectively means the introduction of forced treatment through the use of IAPT therapists based in job centres. If claimants don’t take the treatment prescribed they face being sanctioned.

Loss of Womens’ Rights

  • Changes to benefit payments will make women financially dependent on men trapping many in endless domestic violence.
  • The appalling Tax Credit ‘rape clause’ means that women can only get Child Tax Credit payments for their first two children unless they can prove they were raped. This involves filling out a detailed 45 page form about being raped..

For those in work, self-employed or on zero hours contracts

  • Even those in work will be expected to look for more hours up to 48 hours a week so you are not reliant on state support or face Sanctions for failing to comply. Warning- if your earnings exceed qualifying levels in a month they can close your claim and your online history will be erased when they close your claim down without warning. Make copies of all your actions to copy into your Journal or To Do List so you have evidenced back up files. To get this reinstated can take 8 months without money.
  • Going on Holiday? Think Again- If you fail to do your job match account even over Christmas and other bank holidays you will have your money stopped and you must always be available for interviews.
  • For every £1 earned Universal Credit takes away 63p meaning people are working for 37p for every pound earned per hour.
  • Self employed people will have to submit their monthly, instead of annual, income before any UC payment, including for housing costs, will be made for that month causing untold chaos and hardship. If they earn too much in any month their claim will be closed and they’ll have to start all over again.

As your constituent I am asking you to support scrapping Universal Credit.

 

Yours sincerely,

Xxxxxxx

address

 Posted by at 20:44
Feb 252018
 
The Alliance for Counselling and Psychotherapy has organised a demo at the New Savoy conference again this year. It’s an early start at South Kensington.

Wednesday 21st March 2018 from 8.15am!

Millennium Conference Centre!

4-18 Harrington Gardens!

South Kensington, London, SW7 4LH

 

The New Savoy Conference is the annual gathering of professional and

charity bodies providing psychological therapies (IAPT) in NHS primary

care.

IAPT is an assembly-line service providing short-term therapies to over

a million people every year. Despite the commitment of its frontline

therapists and psychologists, IAPT is failing the mental health needs of

communities all over England, while working with government policies

that themselves generate psychological distress and social alienation.

Come and join therapists, mental health activists, psychologists and

welfare campaigners. Meet at the Harrington Gardens entrance of the

Millenium Conference Centre (Gloucester Road tube) from 8.15am to

greet conference goers.

 

Contact info@allianceforcandp.org for more information.

Some context:
• The hierarchy of IAPT and psychological services in the NHS who gather at these conferences continue to offer liberal mouthings about DWP welfare reform policies, WCA and PIP, sanctions, coercion around Work and Health. But they’ve actually taken no real action to boycott DWP/Health collaboration, despite all the developments re judicial reviews, UN condemnations, the recent Parl Committee report, and the UC debacle.
In his intro to the conference, in the programme link above, Jeremy Clarke (NS chair) says:
“The second issue is the running sore of welfare benefit reform, and its negative impact on mental health, that undermines whatever benefit we make to population wellbeing. Have we reached a consensus now for how we can turn the tide? The BBC’s Mark Easton will find out”
• The overall theme is depression; there are sessions on the crisis in the IAPT workforce, latest staff survey, impact of targets; session on Work and Health Unit; Wessely’s review of human rights and compulsory treatment; session on Employee Assistant Programmes (often run by people like Maximus); familiar faces in the list of speakers
•The scam of IAPT as a service in local communities. It has a massive evidence base, tons of statistics for every CCG in England including “recovery” rates; ethnicity stats; deprivation stats; etc etc No-one really analyses the figures. For IAPT it seems just collecting the stats is their claim to being evidence based and therefore their claim for funding from the Government. In fact, their stats reveal a shockingly failing provision.
For example, ot of 1,350,000 referrals a year 85% either never enter any kind of therapy, or never finish a course of treatment, or don’t “move to recovery” (as IAPT jargon has it). In my CCG (Tower Hamlets) only 6.6% of referrals to IAPT “recovered” and among the Bangladeshi community who make up over 30% on TH population only 3% “recovered”. Farmer’s Taskforce target for % of population who “need IAPT therapy” is 15%, rising to 25% by 2021. In TH about 2% of the pop were referred/referred themselves to IAPT, of whom as I say 6.6% “recovered”.
IAPT will be a major part of the propaganda around the NHS reorganisation now in progress, via the STPs and the ACOs they are developing . STP management have “the mental health crisis” high on their agenda – certainly their PR agenda – and selling more provision for IAPT services will be a major plank of the campaign. See Hunt on this role for IAPT here.
IAPT is rarely taken to task as a service that is massively failing communities all over England. This is true in the Labour Party as much as any where ekse. This has to stop. It is a propaganda service for neoliberal capitalism and its dissemination of psychological scapegoating and coercion across society
 Posted by at 16:27
Feb 212018
 

Our very committed steering group member Ellen Clifford stayed up until 1am to speak to canadian radio about our concerns on UBI. Also speaking about concerns about UBI was John Clarke from Ontario Coalition Against Poverty. You can hear the discussion here

Democracy North: Are Basic Income Programs Too Good to be True?

A much more detailed and authoratitive study will be published shortly but as others support the concept we wanted to flag up just some of the reasons we’d suggest great caution is needed in relation to a Universal Basic Income.

Concerns with UBI

  • The UK has in place a complex and targeted social security system. UBI trials in countries without the same levels of support infrastructure produce positive results, for example the pilots in Madhya Pradesh showed significant benefits for disabled people such as being able to afford food and medical assistance, as well as providing independent income for disabled people so they are not entirely reliant on families and enabling autonomy. Introducing a UBI in the UK would require that all or some of our present benefits and support systems are replaced which would be a far more complex undertaking. The distribution of gains and losses would depend upon the detail of the UBI scheme.
  • The cost of UBI in the UK at Guaranteed Minimum Income levels would significantly exceed current spending on cash benefits and tax-free allowances. A budget-neutral UBI would therefore require either a UBI below GMI levels, or additional tax increases.
  • Full UBI schemes that are in any way financially feasible result in big losses for disabled people. As a result, supporters of UBI such as the Citizen’s Income Trust now recommend a partial UBI where disability benefits (and housing) are retained as a separate parallel system. In Annie Miller’s 297 page Basic Income Handbook she includes just one page on “The needs of disabled people” (of which half a page is about carers) where she says “Disability benefits are based on need and are therefore a different system from BIs… Both housing and disability benefits are very much in need of revision but are beyond the scope of this book. The interaction between BI and support for these costs (and between them) would need to be considered in developing policy in each area.”
  • Supporters of a partial scheme where disability benefits are retained assure us that no disabled person will be worse off under UBI. We were told the same thing about Universal Credit and that has proved not to be true. The social security system is extremely complex and without detailed modelling setting out exactly how UBI would sit alongside a system of disability benefits sufficient to meet need it is difficult to be confident that it could work in this way without losses. A briefing to Nicola Sturgeon states: “Significant modelling effort would be required to establish levels which did not impact negatively on vulnerable groups.” One key benefit that UBI would most likely replace is ESA yet the rate of ESA for those in the support group is significantly higher than what is considered a feasible UBI level. This brings the prospect of “rough justice” for those who face the most disadvantages. The University of Bath paper presents an idea for a UBI with additional disability and severe disability premiums which when micro-simulated produces strong reductions in inequality and poverty but would be very expensive and require significant increases in income tax. The report authors conclude: “The unavoidable reality is that such schemes either have unacceptable distributional consequences or they simply cost too much.” DPAC members have concerns that the process for proving eligibility for disability premiums could be as problematic as the current system for applying for existing benefits.
  • Not only would running a UBI in parallel to disability benefit systems be complex, there is also the potential danger of increased stigma against those for whom the UBI is insufficient to meet their needs and less public will to fund them.
  • The disability benefits system is not fit for purpose. While proponents of partial UBI schemes propose retaining current disability benefits, disabled people are calling for an urgent overhaul. We are concerned about how the long and complex task of introducing a UBI would impact on the considerable task of reforming social security for disabled people. Attempting to manage both at the same time risks mistakes and as we have seen under welfare reform, where admittedly the many ‘mistakes’ are the result of deliberate ideological policy, mistakes cost lives.
  • Alongside an adequate standard of income, disabled people require other support services in order to enjoy full and equal participation in society. The current crisis in social care is one example of the urgency of the question of how to fund these. If independent living support remains under the administration of local authorities, then in order to end the situation whereby disabled people’s rights are being breached on a daily basis by lack of provision, one obvious solution would be to remove the cap and increase council tax. Increasing council tax alongside an increase in income tax to afford UBI could by very unpopular. Disabled people are calling for independent living support (i.e., social care) to be removed from local authorities and instead administered by a national independent living support system to be paid for out of general taxation. We are concerned that the introduction of UBI funded by increases in income tax will reduce the amount available to fund an independent living support system capable of meeting disabled people’s needs. While many disabled people would be in favour of tax rises to fund welfare provision – particularly corporation tax and a progressive rise in the higher rate of income tax – the use of this for a UBI rather than more traditional forms of disability and unemployment support would mean much of the benefit flowing back to employers rather than those in most need. In functioning as a wage subsidy UBI would act to significantly reduce employers NI contributions. It would be hard to make a case that this is a more progressive solution than simply reversing much of the damage that the Tories have done to current systems.
  • There is also a more general concern about pressures on public spending and negative impacts on social programmes as a result of introducing a UBI. In Hirsch’s paper for the JRF he warns about the need to take account of the fact that income tax is used for public expenditure other than income transfers and the dangers of underestimating the rate of income tax increase required without making cuts in public services.
  • The distributional impacts of a UBI mean that there are winners and there are losers– whereas under the current system the biggest losers tend to be those who face the biggest barriers, eg disabled people and the poorest members of society, some UBI models will benefit low income deciles while increasing inequality for the poorest. This is at odds with what the public generally understand as the aims of a social security system. It also has the potential to divide against each other groups of people who are currently united in our opposition to the rich elite who we see as responsible for growing inequality and poverty.
  • UBI provides a useful contribution to the debate on the future of social security where it adds support and evidence for the need to end conditionality and the impacts of inadequate income and punitive approaches in moving people further from the labour market. However DPAC’s view is that this is the extent of its usefulness.
  • UBI in the wrong hands could be extremely dangerous. Libertarians want to use it to sweep away the welfare state including the NHS while neoliberal governments see it as a way of forcing unemployed workers into insecure low paid jobs. The version of UBI being trialled by Finland’s right-wing government has been described as a “UBI-as-workhouse nightmare”[1]. Ontario Coalition Against Poverty issued a statement supported by Canada’s largest public services trade union saying “The emerging model of basic income reflected in pilot projects and initiatives in a number of countries and jurisdictions is one that would intensify the neoliberal agenda”[2]. John Clarke from OCAP has written ““The neoliberal attack is taking up Basic Income as a weapon. We need to fight it instead of laying down a welcome mat.”
  • UBI compensates for while leaving unchallenged the structures that cause inequality. This is no doubt why Silicon Valley is so much in favour of UBI as a way to tackle the problem of job losses through automation, because it ignores the question of the ownership of the technology. Instead, UBI accepts the status quo. By subsidising low wages there is a danger that UBI could encourage employers to further drive down wages and job security. This is a concern to disabled people who are statistically much more likely to be in low paid work than non-disabled people. A large proportion of politicised disabled people know that capitalism has no reason to accommodate us, in fact the very opposite, and that full disability equality cannot be achieved under the current system. Instead we need a socialist society operating on the principle of from each according to their abilities to each according to their needs.
  • The emancipatory impacts of UBI can only be realised by a level of payment sufficiently high to free us from wage labour. If the conditions were such that we could introduce that, it can be argued that we would then be in a situation where we had arrived at socialism and didn’t need UBI. Introducing a below poverty-line UBI will do little to improve the material circumstances of those who are most in need but would require a big upheaval – bearing in mind that millions are already suffering following the enormous shake up of the social security system introduced since 2010 – while creating a new pattern of winners and losers.
  • Britain is home to the biggest socialist movement in Europe where demands for a living wage, for health and social care support services free at the point of need and a social security system that provides an adequate standard of living free from conditionality are all popular. These are what we need to fight for.

 

 

 

[1] https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/01/ubi-finland-centre-party-unemployment-jobs

[2] https://ocaptoronto.wordpress.com/2017/09/18/the-neoliberal-danger-of-basic-income/

 Posted by at 20:18
Jan 232018
 

Please respond to the latest Office For Rail and Road consultation on Assisted travel. It is really important that they have as many responses as possible so the strength of public opinion cannot be ignored. That is why it is vital everyone responds as an individual or as a family to say they want staff on stations and trains. With 13.3 million people reporting a disability in 2015/16 we all have friends and relatives who will be discriminated against if there are no staff at stations or on trains. Women too will be much more at risk when traveeling.Below is a suggested response or you can send in whatever you want to say. Please share with friends and family and ask them to respond also.

Just e-mail DPPP@orr.gsi.gov.uk with your name and address by 31 January 2018

Suggested text 

Dear ORR 

Assisted Travel Consultation  

I recently read your consultation document

http://orr.gov.uk/rail/consultations/open-consultations/improving-assisted-travel-consultation

and very much welcome that you state “Our vision is to empower confident use of the railway by all”

As you are no doubt aware there are currently a number of proposals to introduce Driver Only Operation on trains.

I believe that passengers deserve more than just a guaranteed driver on a train and that as a minimum there should be a fully qualified and safety critical Guard, as well as the driver.

I believe it is guards and station staff who are absolutely crucial to ensuring confident safe, secure and accessible rail experience for all, but especially the older, vulnerable or disabled passenger. 

I want to see more not less staff at stations and on trains. It is the staff on the railway who assist passengers and provide invaluable information, help, advice, security, safety and re-assurance. They must be retained at stations and on trains if disabled, older and vulnerable passengers are not going to be discriminated against and are free to travel as and when they want, safe in the knowledge that help is close by and they are not alone on the train.

I hope you will take on board my concerns and ensure that these essential staff are retained so that my family and I can have the same access to rail transport as everybody else, to be able to go where everyone else goes and to do so easily, confidently and safely.

Thanking you in anticipation

Add your name

 Posted by at 14:00
Jan 152018
 

Have you experienced barriers to legal action re your Human rights?

Please let me know If you have ever taken legal action regarding your rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 or if various barriers has prevented you from doing this, such as

The lack of:

·        information about how the Human Rights Act 1998 applies to Deaf and Disabled people

·        information about how to take legal action, including how to find a lawyer

·        legal aid or any other finances

Please send your experience to Henrietta.Doyle@inclusionlondon.org.uk by 22 January.

Your experience will help inform Inclusion London’s evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights ‘Defending Rights: attitudes to enforcement inquiry. Information about the inquiry is below:

‘Scope of the inquiry

The United Kingdom has a proud tradition of respect for human rights.

Those rights are supported by political parties, and such rights have long been an integral part of common law, as well as being enshrined in statute by the Human Rights Act 1998.

However much rights may be recognised and protected within the legal framework, there can be barriers to achieving a culture which understands and respects human rights and practical barriers to those who wish to enforce their legal rights.

In this wide-ranging inquiry, the Joint Committee on Human Rights is calling for evidence on factors which may impede individuals from using the UK’s human rights framework effectively.’ 

 Posted by at 21:33
Jan 132018
 
 

 

 

 

This is from a post sent to us asking us to make people aware of the issues

Brighter Berkshire/Conservatives for Mental Health

I am worried about labour politicians being co-opted into promoting Conservative mental health policy in mental health initiatives that have cross party support. There is metal health awareness campaign in Swindon started by a conservative and is using Conservatives for Mental Health to work under. The women who has started it is calling on people from all parties to work together. http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/15559149.Activist_launches_cross_party_campaign_to_tackle_mental_health_issues/ This is the organisation that she is working with https://www.conservativesformentalhealth.co.uk/

There is a mental health awareness raising campaign called Brighter Berkshire that looks quite similar. It says it has cross party support but to my mind shows conservative bias and has Theresa May on the front page and Richard Benyon, Tory MP for Berkshire is heavily involved. They tweeted support for Richard Benyon in the run up to the General Election. They get involved at about the time they were both talking about new Conservative mental health campaigns.

Looking at this closely it seems there is an emphasis on cutting services and putting pressure on getting people back to work as cheap labour. Here is a link to Brighter Berkshire http://brighterberkshire.com/ Unfortunately a small number of labour politicians have got involved and endorsed the campaigns, one being Matt Rodda MP for Reading East.

I am worried that Brighter Berkshire become a model for mental health awareness campaigns across the country and that they will be used to promote Tory policy and make them look good. So I would be grateful if you could discuss this and address it at a national level and warn labour MP\’s to be careful before attaching themselves to any mental health campaigns to make sure they are not biased campaigns or promote Tory policies.

I have set up a facebook group about this. The founder of Brighter Berkshire is on group. https://www.facebook.com/groups/199827027227205/ Feel free to share it around or join.

 Posted by at 20:57
Dec 082017
 

As people are likely to know Phillip Hammond is blaming disabled people being part of the UK workforce for lower productivity rates. This is without any evidence being provided to support this bollocks. So we’d like to reply to Phillip and let him know what we all think about this latest abuse. Please feel free to tweet this post to Tory MPs including @TheresaMay

Apologies to anyone who is sensitive to what some might consider bad language.

Philip Hammond is a prick. We know this, you know this  – everybody knows this. Let’s not encourage him. Assume everything he says is just pure shite. This load of shite is particularly dangerous because it reinforces stereotypes and myths, and enables othering. More dangerously, some people feel empowered to go further than othering and take their frustrations out on people who’ve done nothing but try to live the best lives they can.
Don’t be a prick. Don’t believe or peddle this shite.
And Philip Hammond should fuck off now.
 Posted by at 11:59
Nov 172017
 

 

 

 

 

Support the Budget Day Sack the Tories protests arranged by the People’s Assembly. Meet Downing Street, November 21st from 6pm- 7.30 pm.

https://www.facebook.com/events/1968486683476948/

#SackTheTories – BUDGET DAY PROTEST
Stop the Universal Credit Crisis – Stop Tax Avoidance – Fund Our NHS
Day of action the night before the Budget

November 21st 6pm – 7:30pm, Opposite Downing Street, Whitehall, London

**Universal Credit
The Government’s plans to overhaul the welfare system by forcing people onto Universal Credit have been widely criticised by MPs, charities, and campaigners all warning that this is likely to cause a rise in homelessness, poverty, and unnecessary debt. It will leave thousands without an income for weeks as they wait to be transferred, many will be left thousands of pounds worse off, and there is reduced support for claimants. The Trussell Trust have said that they expect a 30% increase in foodbank use this winter in areas where Universal Credit is rolled out. Child Poverty Action Group have found that Government welfare reform will push 1 million children below the poverty line.

Disabled People face losing £40.10 per week with the scrapping of Disability Premiums from Universal Credit.

Vicious Conditionality which could force people to seek extra work for up to 48 hours per week will affect everyone regardless of whether they are in or out of work, disabled or non-disabled.

The cost of moving to Universal Credit was originally estimated at £2.2bn, however it is now at a staggering £15.8bn and still rising.

**Paradise Papers
Revelations in the Paradise Papers show how companies, politicians and individuals are avoiding paying billions of pounds in tax using offshore tax havens rather than paying their fair share here. Theresa May said she would clamp down on tax avoidance but loopholes are still in operation.

More people than ever are having to rely on foodbanks to feed their families, our NHS is in a funding crisis, public sector workers are still facing a pay cap below inflation, millions can’t access affordable housing while the richest individuals and biggest companies take money that should be spent on dealing with these problems and squirrel it away for themselves. The Government is doing nothing to stop it.

**NHS
Last winter our NHS was driven into the worst crisis in it’s history. We witnessed patients dying in hospital corridors, staff stretched to breaking point and the Red Cross declaring a ‘humanitarian crisis’ in our NHS. This winter looks set to be worse. Head of NHS England Simon Stephens warned the Government last week that unless billions of pounds is found in the budget for the NHS it won’t be able to cope.

#SackTheTories
The People’s Assembly is calling a nationwide day of action the night before the Chancellors Budget is announced. We’re organising ‘Stop the Universal Credit Crisis – Stop Tax Avoidance’ protests in towns and cities across the country. As part of the protests we’re collecting food which will be donated to local foodbanks so their shelves are stocked to deal with the fallout from Universal Credit and the continuation of austerity policies in the budget.

We want to urge the Government to use the Budget to scrap their plans for Universal Credit, to close tax loopholes and force the tax avoiders to pay their fair share, to end the public sector pay cap with an increase above inflation, and to make sure our public services are properly funded.

We will also be using the thousands of pounds that was raised through sales of Captain Ska’s track ‘Liar Liar’ to buy tonnes of food and deliver it to foodbanks across the country. But before it’s delivered, we’ll be displaying all of it right on the doorstep of Downing Street to show Theresa May and Phillip Hammond the effect their damaging policies are having on ordinary people – this will take place as part of the London wide protest on Tuesday 21 November. Join us at Downing Street or at one of the many protests that will be taking place across the country and don’t forget to bring along food for the foodbank collection.

Local Events

Local Events

JOIN AN EVENT NEAR YOU (more to be confirmed):

 

London

6:00pm – 7:30pm, Tuesday 21 November, Downing Street, London

https://www.facebook.com/events/1968486683476948/

 

Manchester

6:30pm, Tuesday 21 November, GMEX Steps, Windmill Street M2 3GX

https://www.facebook.com/events/296804000806920/

 

Southampton

12pm – 2pm, Tuesday 21 November, ASDA – Southampton Central, Western Esplanade, SO14 7EG

https://www.facebook.com/events/842488905918828/

Hull
4:30 PM – 6 PM, Tuesday 21 November, Outside Hull Paragon Station, Kingston Upon Hull
https://www.facebook.com/events/1352958458166560/

 

Eastbourne

Public Meeting and Collection:

7pm, Tuesday 21 November,Crown and Anchor, 15-16 Marine Parade, BN21 3DX

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/sack-the-tories-why-they-have-to-go-tickets-39911046013

 

Swindon

4:00pm – 8:00pm, Tuesday 21 November, Wharf Green Swindon Town Centre SN15 3

https://www.facebook.com/events/201493753726609/

 

Calderdale

6:30pm, Tuesday 21 November, St George’s Square, Hebden Bridge, HX7 8

https://www.facebook.com/events/811335062404833/

 

Hastings

5:30pm, Tuesday 21 November, Outside Lloyd’s Bank, Wellington Place, Hastings, TN34 1NX

 

Merseyside

4:00pm, Tuesday 21 November, Queens Square, Liverpool

 

Milton Keynes

5:00pm, outside Civic offices, Central Milton Keynes

 

Fenland

6.30p.m, TUESDAY 21 NOVEMBER, THOMAS CLARKSON MEMORIAL, WISBECH

Fenland Peoples Assembly

 

Nottingham

12:00pm, Saturday 2 December, Old Market Square, Nottingham, MK18 3

https://www.facebook.com/events/1128093670658916/

 

Derby

Wednesday 22nd November 5.15pm outside… 6pm inside

Demonstration & Lobby re NHS cuts & STP

Derby City Council House, Corporation Street, Derby, DE1 2FS.

saveournhsderby@gmail.com

www.facebook.com/SOSNHSDerbyPage

 

North East

4:45pm – 5:45pm, Tuesday 21 November, Haymarket Metro Station, Haymarket, NE1 7PF

https://www.facebook.com/events/146554449302317/

 

Sheffield

5:30pm, Tuesday 21 November, Sheffield Cathedral

https://www.facebook.com/events/405688823181350/

 

Birmingham

5:00pm, Wednesday 22 November, Waterstones Birmingham

https://www.facebook.com/events/331804610619889/

 

Bristol

6:00pm, Tuesday 21 November, Water Fountains, Bristol City Centre

https://www.facebook.com/events/179907642561572/

 

.

 

 

 Posted by at 17:47
Oct 132017
 

National Disabled People’s Summit

Saturday 4 November 2017; 11am – 4.30pm

NUT headquarters, Hamilton House, Mabledon Place, Kings Cross, London WC1H 9BD

Since 2010 Disabled people have been subject to brutal attacks in every area of our lives caused by the disproportionate impact of austerity measures and the dismantling of the welfare system. In August the United Nations disability committee publicly declared that they are now more worried about the UK than any other country in the entire history of the committee and that UK Government “social cuts” have led to “human catastrophe”. This followed publication at the end of last year of the Committee’s investigation into the UK which found evidence of “grave and systematic violations” of Disabled people’s rights due to welfare reform.

Yet the Tory Government continues to deny there is a problem.

This summit will bring together Deaf and Disabled people from the trade union movement, Deaf and Disabled People’s Organisations and grassroots campaigns to explore how we can more effectively co-ordinate our resistance and organise joint campaigning in identified areas.

The event will be largely workshop based with the aim of each workshop to come up with and agree a campaigns plan that participants will go away and work together to put into action. The idea of the Summit is to inspire concrete activity that will lead to real change.

Workshops: (choose one per session)

Session 1 – Campaign priorities

  • Independent Living
  • Social security
  • Accessible transport
  • Inclusive education
  • Mental health
  • Employment

Session 2 – Organising

  • Protest and direct action
  • Legal challenges/ using the law
  • Art and protest
  • Using the media
  • Intersectionality
  • Trade union organising

The venue is wheelchair accessible, BSL interpretation will be provided and there will be a quiet room. Lunch will be provided (with thanks to the National Education Union). Please book via: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/national-disabled-peoples-summit-tickets-38706991654

If you are unable to attend in person, we will be livestreaming the plenary. For more information or if you have any access queries please contact: ellen.morrison@inclusionlondon.org.uk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Posted by at 17:38
Sep 292017
 

Many thanks to Inclusion London for this useful analysis.

The Court of Appeal’s decision in the Davey case: what it means for DDPOs and Disabled people

Luke’s appeal was dismissed.  This is a devastating outcome for him as he won’t only be stuck at home with minimal support he also risks losing his support team, who were with him for 18 years.  The outcome is also disappointing and worrying for other Disabled people, as this case sends a message to local authorities that they can implement whatever cuts they want as long as they follow the right process.

Tracey Lazard interviewed outside the Royal Courts of Justice with a man in the foreground holding a placard reading 'Right2IL'

On the 1st of September the Court of Appeal handed down its judgement in the case of Davey v Oxfordshire County Council.  In this case Luke Davey, who is a former Independent living fund recipient, challenged a 40% cut to his personal budget after the closure of the ILF.

Luke’s appeal was dismissed.  This is a devastating outcome for him as he won’t only be stuck at home with minimal support he also risks losing his support team, who were with him for 18 years.  The outcome is also disappointing and worrying for other Disabled people, as this case sends a message to local authorities that they can implement whatever cuts they want as long as they follow the right process.

To us the case also clearly demonstrated the limits of judicial review in cases where disabled people are trying to argue against professional opinions of social workers.  Judicial review does not look at whether local authority made the right decision or the best decision; it looks at whether or not the decision was lawful.

The decision

The Court of Appeal confirmed that the decision to cut Luke’s personal budget was reached as a result of a lawful process.  Largely the judges agreed with legal analyses and the findings of Mr Justice Morris, who made initial decision in the High Court. Here are some of the most important points:

  • The duty to promote wellbeing in section 1 has 2 aspects: firstly it requires local authorities to take positive steps to promote wellbeing, and secondly it requires local authorities to pay regard to circumstances listed in section 1.3 of the Care Act 2014.
  • The assessment under the Care Act 2014 is an objective assessment, done by social workers of OT’s for local authorities
  • The wishes of the disabled person may be a primary influence, but they do not amount to an overriding consideration.
  • The UN Convention on the rights of Persons with Disabilities can be used to help interpret the law (with caution), however in this case no particular ambiguity was identified and the balance between person’s wishes and LAs views has been struck in the Care Act itself.  However the Court of Appeal acknowledged that this should not prevent from this point being raised in future proceedings.
  • The judge confirmed that the council was entitled to set a pay of PAs at a lower rate as long as it reflected local market conditions and  that the law did not require it to pay for a more expensive option, which was preferred by an individual. The judges were prepared to accept social worker’s view that the rates reflected local market conditions.  This however potentially puts into questions provisions in the Care and Support Guidance which say that local authorities should choose not the cheapest option, but the one that is best value for money.  The guidance clearly says they should go for an option that better promotes wellbeing and delivers the outcomes for an individual.

Our intervention

Inclusion London intervened in this case.  We wanted to show that the case was not just about Luke’s care package.  It could have an impact on many Disabled people.  Our intervention helped to draw media attention to this case and enable us to talk about our right to independent living in mainstream media.  We also believe our intervention helped to clarify the point that local authorities have to consider what might happen in the future when there is an imminent risk of negative consequences as a result of their decisions.

Besides the fact that Luke lost and the impact this will have on his life, the biggest concern in this judgement from our point of view is the statement about intensity of judicial review in social care proceedings.  The Court of Appeal effectively warned against overzealous analyses of social care assessments.  This is worrying, because life changing decisions are made based on those assessments, and unfortunately there is no other way to properly scrutinise them.  This is why we will continue to lobby for the appeals system, which was meant to be introduced by the Care Act 2014.

The fact that local authorities at the end of the day make final decisions about our needs and how we will be supported is not new.  The law has always said this.  However many of us felt disappointed when we saw the judgement.  This firstly is because the case clearly shows that in the age of austerity, when local authorities have to find significant savings, the provisions of the Care Act about choice and control do not have teeth.  It also is disappointing for us to see how our views can so easily be overridden by professional opinions of social workers and local authorities not being properly scrutinised for some of the decisions they make.

This was the first case brought under the wellbeing duty and it clearly demonstrated the limits of this duty.  It is worth bearing in mind though that the case was mainly lost because of factual evidence. (Luke couldn’t prove that his PAs of 18 years would leave and refuse to work for less)

Lessons for DDPOs

This case clearly shows that local authorities can get away with implementing even very significant cuts if they follow the process set out in the Care Act and can give a logical explanation to their decisions as well as commiting to reviewing the situation and stepping in if things go terribly wrong.

It does not mean however the cuts cannot be challenged; we can and should do this.  Here are some of the basic things you could do to increase a chance of success in your case:

  • Know the process well and challenge when it has not been followed;
  • Ask for explanations early on, ideally with references to the law. Although local authority can submit further explanatory evidence it will be difficult to do so if it contradicts what they said before.  For example if they are suggesting a cut to your support package, ask them to explain how this will promote your wellbeing;
  • Think of evidence.  If we want to challenge cuts, the onus is on us to prove the impact.  Just a statement from a disabled person will not always be enough. The judges will most likely accept social workers view, unless it is irrational;
  • Pay attention to the assessment process, prepare and clearly explain what you mean.  Make sure to ask for a correction of all factual mistakes in the assessment document;
  • Challenge decisions: yes this case was not successful, but it cannot and should not deter others from challenging cuts to their support.

We lost this battle, but we will keep fighting.

 Posted by at 20:18
Sep 252017
 

Disabled People Against Cuts and Black Triangle Campaign are horrified to find that so-called Labour MP and Chair of the Work and Pensions Select Committee Frank Field has put forward the suggestion that disabled people do not deserve to earn the living wage and argues that they are less productive than non-disabled people. These comments have been published in a set of essays in Learning and Work.

http://www.learningandwork.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/LW-Opp-for-All-FINAL.pdf

 

“One idea that has been mooted is to grant a specific

exemption to the National Living Wage to those whose

disabilities are deemed so severe that they will never

be capable of enough output to warrant payment of

the minimum wage, but who might nevertheless enjoy

significant wellbeing gains from involvement in an

appropriate workplace environment.”

Mr Field goes on to say that some disabled people might benefit from this as it would make them more attractive to employers in spite of the obvious potential for exploitation this would entail. We have news for Frank we do not wish to be paid less than non-disabled people for the same work and we are not happy to be exploited by anyone.

Both disability groups are calling for Frank Field to resign or be sacked from his role as Chair and have approached Jeremy Corbyn to insist that Field immediately withdraws this highly offensive comment. To date we’ve had no reply but will be following this up again after the Labour Party Conference has ended.

If this is allowed to pass unchecked by the Labour leadership people will then be entitled to ask whether the party really has fundamentally moved on since it introduced the catastrophic Work Capability Assessment regime under the last New Labour Government.

A DPAC spokesperson said “ This is more or less exactly what Lord Freud suggested about 3 years ago but to find the same offensive idea being pedalled by a Labour MP supposedly opposed to the abuse of disabled people’s human rights is somehow even more offensive. Frank Field’s comments are nothing short of disgraceful.”

How can Labour hope to be trusted as true champions of disability rights when they are represented on a key committee by someone with such retrogressive, Victorian views?

John McArdle from Black Triangle said “Field must now be publicly censured by the Labour Party. The suggestion that disabled people’s labour is worth less than that of other people and the Tory-set minimum – let alone a ‘living wage’ – is an affront not only  to the human dignity of every disabled person in the U.K. and is a stark betrayal of the values of fairness and equality upon which the party was founded. “

Labour still has a mountain to climb before it can convince the majority of disabled people and their friends, families and colleagues that they have truly changed. If they wish to convince us that they are now firmly set upon reversing all these barbaric, deadly cuts to our support and intend to fully comply with the spirit and the letter of the UNCRPD then they must act now to impose party discipline on Field in keeping with their stated intention. As stated elsewhere, we require Labour to now wage war with the Tory Party in defence of our human rights in order to win the next general election by the landslide it deserves. Tolerating the views of frontline Labour politicians whose views are more in accord with Tory politicians than ordinary Labour members and supporters is no longer acceptable and that uncompromising message needs to go out, loud and clear.

You can read Frank’s even more offensive response here https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/labour-mp-told-to-quit-influential-post-after-offensive-minimum-wage-call/

And many thanks to John Pring from Disability News Service for alerting us to this.

Please let Frank Field know what you think about this idea

You can email using this contact form http://www.frankfield.co.uk/contact/contact-information.aspx

or tweet to him

@frankfieldteam

 

 

 

 

 Posted by at 15:33
Sep 252017
 

reposted from OCAP and signed up to by DPAC

The Neoliberal Danger of Basic Income

wolfsheep

Statement for endorsement: We have drawn up the following statement on basic income (BI). It makes the case that, progressive hopes to the contrary notwithstanding, BI is being developed as a measure of neoliberal attack that should be opposed. We invite progressive organizations and individuals who hold positions in agencies and academic institutions, who agree with our arguments, to sign onto the statement. We hope that it will raise a voice of opposition and help develop information sharing and forms of co-operation among those, internationally, who reject the notion that basic income represents any kind realistic response to the neoliberal attack.

Endorsements and other responses can be directed to us at ocap@tao.ca.

The Neoliberal Danger of Basic Income

We, the undersigned, are convinced that the emerging model of basic income, reflected in pilot projects and other initiatives in a number of countries and jurisdictions, is one that would intensify the neoliberal agenda. The hope that there is any realistic chance of ensuring a truly adequate, universal payment, that isn’t financed by undermining other vital elements of social provision, is misplaced in our view.

We are far from wanting to suggest that existing systems of income support are anywhere close to adequate.  They provide precarious sub poverty income under conditions that are marked by intrusive regulations and forms of moral policing.  Moreover, decades of neoliberal austerity have made these systems considerably worse.

However wretched and inadequate present systems may be, the assumption that basic income must or even could be an improvement on the status quo has to be tested by considering a number of factors.  Historically, income support has been provided because those in political power concluded that outright abandonment of those not in the workforce would create unacceptably high levels of unrest and social dislocation. In the far from dead tradition of the English Poor Laws, income support has been provided at levels that were low enough to maintain a supply of the worst paid workers, in forms that were as punitive and degrading as possible. Again, the neoliberal years have seen these features intensified in what we must concede has been a highly effective drive to create a climate of desperation and a plentiful supply of low paid and precarious workers.

If austerity driven governments and institutions of global capitalism are today looking favourably at basic income, it’s not because they want to move towards greater equality, reverse the neoliberal impact and enhance workers’ bargaining power. They realize that a regressive model of basic income can be put in place that provides an inadequate, means tested payment to the poorest people outside of the workforce but that is primarily directed to the lowest paid workers. This would be, in effect, a subsidy to employers, paid for out of the tax revenues and it would be financed by cuts to broader public services. Such a model would lend itself to disregarding the particular needs of disabled people and, as a “citizen’s income,” could readily be denied to many immigrants, especially those left undocumented. Under such a system, you would shop through the rubble of the social infrastructure with your meagre basic income. The kind of pilot projects and other initiatives that are emerging offer severe warnings in this regard (we include some links that provide information on several of these)*.

However, some suggest that while regressive models could be developed and may pose a danger, a progressive and even “emancipatory” form of basic income is possible and realistic as a goal. Often, this is linked to the idea of preparing for a “workless future” in which vast numbers of technologically displaced workers can be provided for. The notion is that a universal payment would be provided unconditionally and that it would be adequate enough so that paid work, if it were an option, would be a matter of choice rather than necessity. While there are a few who suggest this could be won through large scale social action, advocates for a progressive basic income more often seem to assume that capitalist support and acceptance by the state can be won by way of a vigorous lobbying effort.

In our view, a truly adequate and redistributive, let aside transformative, basic income is not possible within the confines of the current economic system. Firstly, the present balance of forces in society, after decades of neoliberalism, does not lend itself to the conclusion that a sweeping measure of social reform, that would reverse this whole agenda, is immediately likely. Beyond this, however, an income support system that removed economic coercion in a way that progressive basic income advocates suggest, would be more than turning back the neoliberal tide. It would actually mean that the state was providing the working class with an unlimited strike fund. It would undermine the very basis for the capitalist job market. It would constitute social transformation, a revolutionary change that is, to say the least, beyond the capacity of any possible social policy enactment.

If basic income as emancipation is not possible, it can only too easily take form as neoliberal intensification.  Yet, sadly, progressive advocates end up offering legitimacy to that regressive alternative but placing hopes in musings about basic income by Silicon Valley billionaires or by presenting cynical pilot projects, set up by austerity driven governments, as flawed but important first steps. However much they wish otherwise, the sow’s ear will not become a silk purse.

If faith in a progressive basic income is misplaced, we wish we could offer a shining and readily attainable alternative but this is not possible.  We are largely fighting a defensive struggle against a virulent agenda to undermine social provision and increase the rate of exploitation. We can only offer the hard slog of building stronger inclusive movements of social resistance, rejuvenating unions and building a working class political challenge to neoliberalism. As we do this, we must fight for free, expanded and accessible public services. We must win decent wages and workers’ rights. We must struggle for income support systems that are based on adequacy, full entitlement and that are purged of intrusive rules and moral policing. We must infuse all of these movements and struggles with a sense of a very different kind of society from the capitalist one we are fighting. This doesn’t have the glitter of the dream of a progressive basic income but it does accept that reality that there is no social policy way around neoliberalism or a long and hard fight against it. The progressive welcome mat for basic income is a very big mistake.

*Links:
https://recoveryinthebin.org/2017/06/25/the-neoliberal-writing-on-the-wall-ontarios-basic-income-experiment/

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/01/ubi-finland-centre-party-unemployment-jobs/

http://basicincome.org/news/2017/02/16732/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/universal-basic-income-scotland-week-cash-payment-life-nicola-sturgeon-first-minister-snp-a7934131.html

 

 Posted by at 15:16
Aug 012017
 

 

The Chronic Illness Inclusion Project is a new research project aiming to capture the views, needs and aspirations of people with chronic illness. Sign up to get involved. In the longer term our ambition is to grow into a user-led organisation.

new project aims to give a voice to people with chronic illnesses that get overlooked and misunderstood by the systems that should be supporting us.

The Chronic Illness Inclusion Project is a research project aiming to capture the views, needs and aspirations of people with chronic illness. It is part of the DRILL programme of user-led research and is supported by the Centre for Welfare Reform. You can sign up to find out more and get involved here

As a sufferer of chronic ill health, I fully support the Chronic Illness Inclusion Project. People with chronic ill health are forgotten by governments when designing policies and never mentioned. We are often hidden by the umbrella term of ‘disabled’. The impacts of chronic ill health are wide ranging, from severe fatigue and cognitive problems, to days spent in lots of pain. The effects have a huge impact on the day to day functioning of a person. Many spend long hours unable to sleep or sleeping for long hours out of sheer exhaustion. You really cannot grasp those impacts unless you are affected by chronic illness. It’s not just the physical issues, you have to store that energy up to even have a shower or even go out for the day and plan well in advance, only to spend the next few days paying the price for small bit of enjoyment. It is time our voices were heard too, instead of our voices being alone in the wilderness. It can be very isolating. I urge people to join and support this campaign.”

– Gail Ward, Disability Campaigner DPAC NE/Black Triangle Campaign

We are inviting people to sign up to our mailing list where we can keep you up to date with activities and opportunities to get involved. Currently we’re planning an online discussion forum for people who are interested in having in-depth discussions about the social and political aspects of living with chronic illness. But in the longer term our ambition is to grow into a user-led organisation. How this happens could be up to you!

It will take time because we are two people with chronic illness working very part time hours. But this is a lottery-funded project where numbers count so by joining us you can help to show what a large and overlooked group we are.

Find out more by signing up to the mailing list

Thanks,

Catherine Hale and Jenny Lyus.

Jul 032017
 

2017 DPAC Week of Action #SummerofDiscontent #NotOneMoreDay #CutsKill

Friday 14th July – Opening ceremony – from 6pm

As the World Para Athletics kick off in London, join us at Queens Elizabeth Olympics Park for our own 2017 DPAC week of action opening ceremony. While Atos continue to be a partner of the IPC, disabled people’s participation in sport and physical activity is declining as a direct result of cuts. Please come to help leaflet those going in to watch the Athletics about the impact of the cuts and how they can get involved in supporting DPAC to fight back.

Meet Stratford station tube at 6pm.

For information on getting to the Park: http://www.queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk/the-park/plan-your-visit/getting-here

For more information about the World Para Athletics or to purchase tickets to attend the events go to: http://www.paraathleticschampionships.com/

 

Sunday 16th July – Carnival Against Cuts

Join DPAC on the Fair Funding for All Schools Carnival Against Cuts. Education cuts are taking learning support away from Disabled pupils and undermining the right to inclusive education.

  • Assemble Victoria Embankment at midday
  • Rally at Parliament Square30pm
  • Family fun, picnics, art, songs, kids’ entertainment and speakers.

Please sign and share the petition: https://www.change.org/p/stop-school-funding-cuts-all-our-children-deserve-a-great-education

For more information and campaigns resources go to: http://www.fairfundingforallschools.org/

 

Tuesday 18th July – National Day of Action

This is the day for local DPAC groups and supporters to organise your own actions on local issues that are most important to you. It could be a protest outside a benefit assessment centre, against the closure of a local JobCentre or library or at the Town Hall to oppose cuts to social care – the choice is yours. Don’t forget to tell the local media and please send us details to help publicise your action.

 

Wednesday 19th July – Lobby of Parliament for Independent Living

The crisis in social care keeps hitting the headlines but the focus is often dominated by older people’s care instead of violations to Disabled people’s right to independent living. Theresa May has promised a consultation on social care later in the year but Disabled people battling cuts to essential daily support need concrete action now. At the last Prime Minister’s Questions before the Summer recess, DPAC independent living campaigners will lobby our MPs to defend our rights to dignity and choice.

Assemble outside House of Commons entrance from 11am.

We are also asking Disabled people to write to their MPs about their experiences of social care cuts and the detrimental impact on our lives.

Thursday 20th July – Turn Up and Go protest

Driver Only Operated trains, the removal of guards from trains and rail staff from stations threaten Disabled people’s freedom to travel. On 10th July DPAC campaigners will be joining RMT staff on their picket lines as they take industrial action to defend our right to access public transport.

On 20th July we are inviting Disabled people to travel together en masse to the Department for Transport’s headquarters in London to deliver a petition demanding out right to ride.

Assemble outside the Department for Transport at 2pm. Department for Transport
Great Minster House ,33 Horseferry Road ,London,W1P 4DR

Please sign and share the petition: https://www.change.org/p/department-for-transport-disabled-people-demand-guards-on-trains

Friday 21st July – Anti-Atos protest

For our final day of action, DPAC will be returning to Atos HQ after a long absence. They no longer hold the contract to run the Work Capability Assessment but they continue to ruin the lives of disabled people through their contract to carry our PIP Assessments, notorious for assessment reports riddled with lies and inaccuracies.

Assemble 12.30 pm outside their offices at 4, Triton Square, Regent’s Place, London, NW1 3HG

Bring rugs, food and noise and let’s party.

 Posted by at 16:23
Jun 092017
 

In spite of all the efforts we’ve made over the past few weeks sadly we haven’t all woken up to a Tory-free Britain but the Tories have sustained considerable damage and if May had any morals she would be resigning.

 

Of course we all know Tories don’t have any morals so she’s not.

 

The only way that the Tories can form a government however is to resort in pure desperation to forming an alliance with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) the Northern Ireland equivalent of the nasty party.

The DUP sound delightful and they are ant-abortion and women’s rights, anti-LBGT rights and like Trump are climate change deniers. Just what any Tory would want as allies.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/who-are-the-dup-10589910

They also seem to have laundered dirty money for the Saudis and been involved in covering up the Kincora child abuse scandal. Mind as they’re all Christians so I’m sure things will be fine.

 

Key Tory ministers are also going, going, gone and in at least 2 of those instances DPAC supporters have been very active and vocal in campaigning to get rid of them. Ben Gummer, Jen Ellison, Simon Kirby and Gavin Barwell have packed their bags and won’t be returning to parliament any time soon. Amber Rudd’s majority has been slashed to a mere 346. Even better news is that in Pembrokeshire Crabb’s majority fell to a mere 314 votes. In Canterbury too a Tory stronghold for over 90 years the Tories were booted out. Their wobbly attempt to seek a larger majority to reinforce their strong and stable governance lies in tatters and there is no doubt at all that they are the laughing stock of Europe.

 

With your help we targeted 50 of the most marginal seats using facebook adverts which we’ll be analysing the use of more fully when time permits. However a quick glance this morning shows that Labour won in Brighton Kemptown, (our Miriam is also chair of the Labour Party there) Croydon Central, Warwick and Leamington, Ipswich, Keighley, Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, Cardiff North, Wrexham and the Fib Dems in Eastbourne. Just a few of the seats we have targeted with our adverts.

 

We are organising a week of action between July 14th– 23rd with final dates to be confirmed. If anyone wants to help with this or has any ideas they’d like to put forward about what we should do please email us as always at mail@dpac.uk.net

 

The Tory-free Britain we all dreamed of may not have happened just yet but we hope that the mass movement for change is something that will keep on growing and nor fizzle out. DPAC will certainly be hoping to help keep this amazing movement growing and hope locally you can all get involved and help to support that.

 

Solidarity everyone and the fight goes on #WeFightOn

 

 Posted by at 12:36