NUS Higher Education Coalition Budget Cuts Conference 29th June 2010

I went to this event to represent the NEC and tap into issues that may affect the NUS Disabled Students’ Campaign and University of Sheffield Union of Students. What took place was a majority verdict that a broader conversation had been outlined that pushes forward with a national demonstration and making a bigger and better activist base more advantageous, particularly to those less politically orientated. I would certainly advocate the latter as it can often be too crushing to be stuck in the political quagmire, even though it is necessary.

We spoke little on the effect of the budget cuts in the arena specific to disabled students, as the event covered ‘the student body’ in its entirety, although I would argue that a majority of channels that University funding goes towards will affect the students I represent at some point during higher education. We discussed at length the lists of such channels including:

• Student numbers
• Student support services
• Quality control & monitoring
• IT provision Courses
• Bursaries & Scholarships
• Estate Management & Rents
• Staff Costs

It was our role to decipher what was most likely to be cut, and why, and if there ‘channels’ that affected all or most of the others which one would it be? Overall a very valuable insight and at first, an appreciated clash of viewpoints and judgements (leading to a negotiation of compromise). The majority of the conference concerned workshops and speeches by NUS full time officers (Aaron Porter and Usman Ali), Student Union Sabbatical Officers (Liverpool Guild of Students), and the UCU.

One workshop of note was coping with cuts to the student experience, where three different Unions gave their perspective of forthcoming reductions in University spending. I listened to in the workshop, and later spoke to RUSU officers, about the proposed cutbacks at Reading University to disability support, among other services. An outcome of this conference has been to ask for more information about this case specific occasion, but am fully aware that this is likely to be a repeated issue nationwide as budgets are tightened and disabled students are affected. Kings College London also referred to a similar situation. One to note is that in instances where disability support is reduced financially, the effect on the student is not always that their support measures are cut, but instead are delayed. That is one importance difference to define and the conference helped in that respect.

Finally, something that could affect us is the clash between widening participation by increasing student numbers versus a financial reduction. Would we get into a situation where participation is proudly endorsed with more students yet the student experience is compromised and people graduate disenchanted? It is imperative that the government sticks with the internal statistics, percentages and goals for disabled students that come to university, regardless of the amount of places each year.

I did get a little cheesed off at times at the characters wandering around with petitions as the guest speakers took stand to voice their part and considered this insensitive. I too disappreciated the slightly robotic applause at times that appeared to be operated on a puppet string, But on the whole this was very engaging, both as a networking event (even though I remained mostly quiet and reserved) and as an opener of new opinion. It also made a case in hand that if Student Unions are to do a national demonstration about Higher Education funding, then they aught to do so effectively, organised in advance and a date set quickly for it to be successful. Mobilising the troops must commence.

The Budget difficulties over Disability Living Allowance (DLA)

Disability Living Allowance (DLA) is a lifeline for many people with an additional support need. It is not an employment related welfare provision, instead it is ‘assistance payment’ to help people with a disability continue their daily lives and cover the financial cost of extremities placed on them in the environment we live in. To many, it is a brilliant resource and I consider it to be one of the better items of public welfare support.

The recent Coalition Government ‘Emergency Budget’ announced greater measures of medical assessment for DLA claimants, and in a classic case of a clash of belief and political expression a lot of debate has come out of the woodwork as to the impact of this proposal. For me they have taken the wrong viewpoint to suggest that flouters are a drag on government spending, instead the so called ‘flouters’ are placing disadvantage (in many ways) on other DLA claimants. I read with much interest two articles in the Guardian by Anne Wollenberg (23 Jun 2010) and Rhydian Fon James (24 Jun 2010) covering this issue. Anne claims that DLA application is not easy, partially to which I agree. The forms are a mass sprawl of idiotic questions (for example, “if you regularly stumble or fall, how many times approximately have you done so in the past year?”), but the key issue I have is a method of a form itself. The majority of individuals are honest, but a form allows for exploitation, and equally not every claimant of DLA necessarily has to keep on the same level of payment and there is the opportunity to declare change of circumstances. But it can often be difficult to see this level of honesty among claimants.

To those who fear that an assessment will kill off chances of receiving DLA for hidden disabilities, I partly share your concern, but see my comments about the assessment professional. What the form also does is include questions that deliberately make claimants think to dramatise their situation, or at least you get the feeling that people must be heightening their case just to be listened. After all, with a high rejection rate, people will resort to advanced actions. I detest this about forms and questionnaires in general, in many fields of work. They are so badly formatted, judged and written. In the case of DLA this can mean that the ‘possibly deserving’ can be crowded out, the crafty can get through, and the noticeably deserved get through as well albeit sometimes not as highly as envisaged. I want to see this change. I want greater levels of DLA rates.

You cannot ignore the fraudulent applications, plus as I suspect more ‘geared’ applications, as they are a major injustice for other people with a disability as money is being taken ‘out of the pot’ for them by claimants who have either exaggerated their claim or have vastly improved health and support in other means that would comply with a lower rate of DLA payment. I’m not interested in the argument that it is affecting government spending, the theme the coalition has taken. I am purely discussing the effect one’s actions can have on other people because that is what I am passionate about in the concerns of my work. It is a case of biting the hands that feed you and really disheartens me. It does go on, and I’m sure you might read this and be sick of hearing about this kind of viewpoint, but I am sick of taking a blind eye to it. From experience it actually makes ‘striving for equality’ and ‘mobilising the non-disabled population’ more difficult if you profess the insignificance of flouting the system, as it incites more anger and against the minority of flouters, and in turn against disabled people in a lot of cases. It sadly is a revolving circle. This is not codswallop, I have seen it when working with the student body, working population alike.

With this into consideration a medical assessment should be appropriate for medium and higher rates of DLA, besides what have we got to hide? The only issue I concede to have is that certain people would be anxious to being assessed, but it comes as part and parcel of applying for support and needing to be consulted on the matter. I have spent a lot of time working on customer service principles, advisory services and counselling and the three combined would have to be in place at the assessment stage to support personal indifferences in making the appointment to be ‘examined’, ‘discussed’ and ‘briefed’.

The second article considers DWP monitoring into fraudulent applications, to which I have a degree of difficulty agreeing with, as it depends on how far the term ‘fraudulent’ extends, and I am unsure whether the DWP only includes in those figures people who aren’t disabled yet are claiming for DLA. “All for the sake of 15,500 fraudsters –who are likely to have been put on the lowest possible rates in any case – the entire caseload will be punished.” Firstly, the lowest rate is still a significant amount of money, again taking it from others in greater need of the DLA, others in the queue of applications who are delayed by that person dramatising their case.

Where this DLA situation comes in with the ‘marginalisation’ of disabled people is a tricky one, because I firmly believe that if you are applying for a financial support (in the same way as for a financial incentive, of which DLA is not one), you have to verify your position first. In a similar scenario, I strongly condemned the ease at which banks were able to lend out money to people without effective verification as to their financial standing before the recession took hold. I don’t believe in flinging money out without evidence based verification.

In an ideal scenario I would propose that added tiers be placed in the DLA system, rather than a simple ‘low, medium, high’ format, it should be done as ‘zones 1-5’. A new lower rate (zone 1) of a smaller financial quantity and regular assessments should be tied in to look at whether your support needs are maintained, advancing/progressing or in some cases improving. Additionally the existing lower rate would be retained as Zone 2 similar in financial value and more applicants be reassessed onto this rate where it is clear their means suit this level, and the medium and top rates increased in value (zones 3 and 4) but the criteria amended so that greater scrutiny is given before these grades can be selected for claimants. A new Zone 5 system for the very highest needs should be introduced to serve the existing claimants with high or sensitive support needs that the current DLA does not cater for fully, for example to cover the costs of a lack of social care. In my opinion, this system would still provide value for money and directing the support to those who need it the most, while reassessing claimants who have had a change in circumstances that means even the current low rate is a higher proportion of money to their needs arising from the costs of their condition.

I dismiss the idea that a set ‘rate’ of DLA continually is a right to people, but agree that a rate variable to need is. When the extremities of a condition ensures that a person cannot lead their life properly, it is a right to have the government on side to necessitate that life change financially. But it has to be appropriate to living within people’s means.

I would like to see greater clarification and legislation on what the Disability Living Allowance should be paid for, for example, but only in a proportion of a claimants payments. I see no problem in having to comply on certain basic rules for an allowance I am receiving from the state and not having to pay back. Surely this is an item of fairness?

The professional that should be an assessor should not be the computerised call centre operative. It should be an experienced person with background in both the medical and social model of disability. Regardless of your opinion on either, it is imperative they have clear knowledge of the two. I would detest a situation whereby DLA applicants are assessed in the robotic way that the likes of Student Finance England operate. Could the Disabled Students Allowance (DSA) assessment process, despite its sometimes lesss than savvy procedures, be carried over? I’ll leave that for you to decide.

There is little money left, aside from the age old debate of War and Trident scheme costs and the idea we could pull out of the Middle East tomorrow, and pay for things like this, which I don’t want to be entangled. I would ideally love to see DLA budgets remain at the same rate, but instead I have proclaimed these ideas to highlight that a redistribution of funds is needed instead and savings would only be made at the lower end of the claimant scale. It is unfair to directly hit those of greatest need. I do consider DLA as a welfare payment that can achieve savings, but that the rhetoric of ‘scroungers’ affecting the government financial bill is the wrong way forward. Instead I profess that it is they and a government ambiguity as to what DLA stands for who are spoiling the environment DLA brings to disabled people. I consider that the internal distribution of DLA funds should be changed to push funding towards those assessed in 2013-14 to be in the greatest need, and a new zonal system launched for claimants with slightly more stringent criteria. Even a DLA payment that is £10 above what a person’s needs (multiplied for many people in similar position) can be a substantial cost and instead of total withdrawal of state spending this should be redirected to higher zone claimant provision.

All I ask for is honesty – to downgrade when appropriate, upgrade when appropriate, and for a greater proportion of the allowance to be directed at given uses. I also ask for the government not to be unwise in determining who should be the assessor and what background they should have. In any case, they should be extremely aware of different disabilities and the environments forming the social and medical models of disability (pros and cons of either). I also ask the Government to be aware that it will be nigh on impossible without a high level of expertise in the assessment process to provide DLA in the correct amounts effectively.

Please appreciate that my post is not going to be for everybody to agree on, but in the interests of working to mobilise people to reduce prejudice it is hard to exercise that any financial welfare, DLA included, or indeed a financial contribution/payment in any industry should be given without a better method of verification.

Thanks for looking,

Chris

Lets slow down and think this through before joining a Theresa May equality bandwagon…

Hang on lets steady on with the Theresa May hate mail, the notion of going straight to facebook and vent your anger….The very rise of facebook had been a wonderful thing for petitions but I fear that a compulsive need to set up a page or group, regardless of how many members will now do absolutely nothing, because there are so many groups out there. Instead of verbally going for it, how weak is ‘venting your anger’ or ‘standing up for your rights’ on a page?

Here is my position on the issue.

 

I thought that if you are working representing a ‘body’ or ‘party’, personal judgement or judgment of the constituency should not figure, except for the voting process. A bit like me in planning, I could be for sake of argument strongly against gypsy sites or affordable housing in rural areas (Im not in reality), but in the interests of the planning system I cannot involve personal vote. A bit like working for NUS and promoting ways of reducing/keeping tuition fee cap when i personally believe in paying properly for university. That is my responsibility and Theresa May is also working in her Secretary of State responsibility. She has said she has changed and while I am sure many will be divisive on that viewpoint, apart from the voting record there is little grounds now that the role has been given to judge on those views while in the job as Secretary of State. If something happened tomorrow that reflected that voting record then fair play.Her voting record looks poor but I am equally annoyed when someone has the means to justify their case everyone is out to continually lambast them. Its the same when someone has a wonderful voting record but people still berate them because they are of the wrong party, the wrong class etc. The past government has on the whole been far more inclusive, I accept, but I believe anyone who is personally challenged on such an issue would be lost for words. It was ill informed to suggest the role of equalities minister but fair for home secretary for Theresa and her space-suit. We have to remember that her vote against the repeal of section 28 was undertaken in 2000 under the Hague government, a year after tory Shaun Woodward was sacked for wanting repeal of the section – that event on its own gives rise to the values of the conservatives at that time which were clearly wrong. Attitudes to equality were more taboo then, labour had only really began its more inclusive and diverse regime and there was a long way to go. Finally, please for goodness sake can we refer to ‘equality’ as equality and not merely ‘gay rights’, or ‘women’ individually, that is a problem with going off on a tirade on facebook, on twitter, in person. The sack Theresa May groups are a classic principle of this in that they have only been created on basis of her views of homosexuality. Clearly research is not properly undertaken before opinion is broadcast. Please remember that equal opportunities includes all at risk to injustice, otherwise you become exclusionary alike the insinutation to the MP you are trying to berate. Hypocritcal?

Thanks for looking,

Chris

Coalition Government and Tuition Fees

Today it has been outlined by the Liberal Democrats that they would abstain on a vote on tuition fees which would (more than likely) pave the way for Conservative Party reform and fees hikes for students.

I write tonight’s post under the premise that my views are not, unless stated, representing views of the National Union of Students and the ‘Vote for Students’ Campaign.

My position (as outlined in previous posts) is that I agree with paying tuition fees for University at the current amount but would not be prepared to accept anything more than a very nominal increase (and we are talking hundreds of pounds here by that insinuation) on student society as a whole. Higher education is not a right but the social welfare support and financial assistance is a right in Higher Education. However, in the role I am working in, my position is far outweighed and I will be staunchly against further rises but not supporting any cuts to fees, until a valid and agreeable strategy for paying for a free education system by a government is established.

There are a lot of people disenchanted with the lib dems for going against their promises. I did sign the ‘vote for students’ on the premise of not increasing the cap on tuition fees and not to side with any Lib Dem policy on making higher education free of charge. As such I feel a little misled that I have signed the campaign with the wrong intentions. Lib Dems did not shout this out as a major policy objective (we never heard of it on the news and speeches, only in the manifesto) it was instead the determined and respected work of the NUS that highlighted this policy objective. I accept that Lib Dem MPs have gone against the principles of ‘vote for students’ by abstaining, which would open up tuition fee rises when campaign is to protect the existing charge and for no rise. But I reject the idea that the Lib Dem Manifesto (separate to the action of signing the pledge) has ‘betrayed’ us, as their objectives lacked funding to cover it (as in many typical vague manifesto policies), and their idea of free education went against ‘vote for students’ attempts to find a fairer funding system. A system that goes from fees to no fees is fair to students but not fair to a lot of other people, although I appreciate that the NUS is working in its interests. This will have to be something that we agree to disagree on. I agree with taxpayers paying for maintenance/welfare support in the current system but not all fees outright for students to go to university and aspire to whatever they want to be (myself included) at the expense of souls who do not want to go to university and look to be devalued in the production line of University targets.

I am a positive leaner towards the NUS blueprint model advocating for payment after University as shown on their website (see below), although feel a little devalued that I took the very inspirational ‘vote for students’ campaign in a slightly different light to how opinions are being broadcast across social networking and media at the current time.

In summary I support that students have been misled by lib dems going against the ‘vote for students’ campaign solely on fee rises and not the principles of free higher education, but disagree fully with the opinions I have seen that the party has gone against their manifesto as their suggestion was never fully costed and no manifesto policy (i regard) is ever set in stone.

Please feel free to comment, as I know we have very differing senses of opinion on this sensitve matter.

Chris

Full details of the NUS blueprint model can be found here: http://www.nus.org.uk/PageFiles/5816/NUS_Blueprint_Summary_report_final.pdf

Blog Post – General Election: Where I stand for on each issue

What I stand for on May 6th 2010 General Election

Blog Post: Why I will vote Liberal Democrat and not Conservative on May 6th

Voting Liberal Democrats on the 6th May

Good afternoon everyone,

I have chosen today, while procrastinating on an increasingly dry essay about the essence of development control in the UK, to announce (much in a fashion akin to our newspapers) my support for political parties in the election. I may only be reaching my first ever national election but I’ve long had a view on political matters outside the work environment. I’ve usually tied to the Conservative Party on many occasions and was for a long while including voting locally in Sheffield (even if it made little difference here), because I hold many views that are traditional in nature and I am keen to protect rural affairs, something I see the tories as being advantageous in achieving. I consider myself as a one nation conservative biased towards the centre rather than the right, focussing on civil liberties. But I recognise a lot of the background to other viewpoints within the tories is over a compulsive tory desire to favour those on a higher income. It is a very divided political party.

For the election on May 6th I have decided to vote for Liberal Democrats. No party in the running explicitly wows me, although a few consistently anger me (British National Party, UKIP and the Monster Raving Loony Party, to name but a few).

Why have I made this decision?

I took a long and hard look over the past couple of years and assessed who I had the most trust in, and while the Conservatives under Cameron (but particularly Osborne) had faced a degradation of my trust, the Labour and Lib Dem outlook had risen susbstantially. It was a mixture of the expenses/banks scandal, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, pursuit of ID cards and a lax immigration policy that particularly took me off the Labour consideration but the mire of additional University places and targets for 50% to go to University+ forcing it into a “production line of education” was the final straw. I do however strongly promote the positive values of the Labour Party in the SureStart childrens centres, NHS, social housing methods and a lot of the reforms to Town Planning that have took place. I disagree with the Conservatives and Lib Dems that centralisation to planning has been an inherently bad thing, and I support the introduction of the Infrastructure Planning Commission.  But poor Gordon Brown is saddled with the dregs of Blair’s reign. Blair too is one fundamental reason why New Labour is not a preference to me, I have severe distaste in such an unjust profiteer and it has unfortunately tainted the reputation of his successor. After all lest not forget that Mr Brown was very central to Blair’s successes and failures being Mr Moneybags at the time…

I support the Liberal Democrats for this election with a word of caution, a premise of trying something new, and that if it does not work out I will expect to be very disappointed. But if we don’t try and see whether their values work by doing the usual “oh they will not win here so I won’t bother voting for them” then we will never change from the same old drivvle. I say that with caution as well – we know that Liberal Democrats are not an extreme party with specific threats so I feel open to say ‘try something new’.

 I support them because of a favour to end the Trident programme that we strategically cannot afford and do not need. I am pleased with their views on disability and with that being such a large proportion of my work remit I am happy to support the Lib Dems more than any other party in establishing schools that are more integrated for special educational needs than now.  I am for their proposals to increase tax on aviation and wealthy estates to fund a dismissal of income tax for those earning under 10,000 pounds. While I find University is becoming a production line, with endless Labour policy of increasing the numbers and devaluing higher education,  I see an increasing difficulty over tuition fees among the student population and the Liberal Democrats are the only party specifically saying what they will do clearly (to eradicate such a policy). It may take 6 years but this is a considerable investment to take back on the government’s side and I abstain on this with caution. I personally think that I should have to pay for University (though not as much as current fees or what the Browne Review may state) but I know my opinion is in a minority of interests. But the rise of numbers at university dilute the benefits of getting a higher wage (greater competition in jobs etc) and any tuition fee rises will ensure (regardless of the small amount paid each month) that people will be paying off debt for an entire eternity. I am fiercely against finance deals and it is on this basis that I reject tuition fee rises. I also reject free higher education. But the other parties weaknesses has ensured I can forgo lib dems on this matter, and in the next 4 years I might well vote differently.

 

The idea to abolish the Child Trust Fund is a good idea because there were many children who missed out when the system was introduced and it created an unnecessary divide between those who had the fund and those ill prepared without it. We need empty homes to be resolved as many are simply sitting there rotting, and I see that the Liberal Democrats are the only party to really mention this properly. Finally I think that their plans for the restructure of the Royal Mail and the Post Office are a sensible compromise between privatising the whole interests and taking on the burden of deep difficulties within Royal Mail. I was for the change in working practices but against a lot of post office closures and strikes and this policy may maintain some confidence after the company returned to profit over the last year.

But I appreciate that the Lib Dems are far from perfect as well – I vehemently oppose their somewhat idiotic preference towards adopting the Euro and increasing EU powers on crime/terror/employment matters. But I accept that the EU has been good for some things, particularly in the arena of Environmental protection – it would be foolish to do away with the directives imposed on our aviation, our carbon emissions, and so forth (even though it requires further thought and urgency). I show distasted at their priority to allow illegal immigrants the right to stay after being here for 10 year unnoticed, even if it is a failure of the government to recognise it. But I support the regionalisation of immigration policy to divert economic attention to where it is needed. 

Why have I lost faith in the Conservatives?

Look below and I’m sure you will find the answer… 

The reason why the Conservatives have put me off

I believe that certain figures in the party are single handedly, apart from the odd homophobic or foreign bank account traditionalist tory (5 of whom I count in newspapers), ruining the efforts of the Conservative Party, which I feel are good in many ways. In 2005 when Cameron took leadership I had far higher hopes than I do now – the supposed ‘modernisation’ of the party was a bold and approved way forward to challenge the stuffy and inappropriate morals of the party that were a residue of the Thatcher reign. I also really agreed with the reappointment of William Hague to a higher role in Parliament. But I am a person that very much relies on trust and expressions of leadership, and while I am in agreement with many of the vote for change policies (referendum on EU, avoiding the Euro, expansion of surestart, reduction of immigration to a lower level, married couples/civil partnerships a tax break) there is a lot wrong with the way they are conveyed with Cameron and Osborne, there is not enough clout there and the reforms aren’t as radical as first promised. Additionally, there are a lot of wayward ‘golden oldie’ traditionalists in the Conservative Party that are intent on undoing the move to more centrist policy aims, and I really don’t like that.

There is no sense of conviction, trust, or honesty in their language. What they say brings an aura of slyness and worry, and that is a great shame because my principles still tie strongly with the party. I find less slyness and worry in what Mr Clegg or Mr Brown say, even if I do get bored of the statistitian view from the latter about jobs left, right and centre. I sense there is always a lack of information from the party (yes all are guilty of this, but the Tories bring more suspicion to the issue, even vagueness of the Lincolnshire Independents in my local area is more open). I was particularly put off from 2009 when the first issues during the recession were brought up by the Tories on public spending and Mr Osborne refused to answer questions effectively. This is something that both Labour and Conservative parties are particularly guilty of. Remember the Jack Straw monstrosity in the Nick Griffin question time episode? I do disagree with some of the policies they possess, such as reinforcing segregation between special schools and mainstream schools as this is a backwards step for inclusion. I also oppose a cut of inheritance tax on the richest estates and reject the proposterous idea of a ‘big society’ fund.

.

A time may come for me to vote for Conservative once again; a time may come when I might even vote for the Labour party. I am traditionalist by policies, but not necessarily a loyalist. I go by the principles of trust, and giving a fair chance. I found the faux-Obama ‘change’ speeches from the Conservative Party boring, but only because the change was not that radical, and I don’t find it in Gordon “I’ve had to pick up the nasty bits of the Blair years while he’s buggered off to make money out of it” Brown. Should the Tories go full hog, abandon the old hat veterans of the party that spring nasty surprises in the news that go against the Cameron modernisation, and should the wayward culture that appears more vociferous under the current tories be reduced, then i’d be prepared to vote for them.

.

I am not jumping on a Clegg bandwagon. Indeed I am sick of this X-Factor reality show esque “Clegg factor”, “Clegg Mania” nonsense appearing on our television screens, but the actual reality is that the Liberal Democrats have long been second fiddle (but not last) in my values and beliefs, and recently the gap has closed and the Tories have been superseded. Ask me in 2008 and I would have been Conservative; ask me in 2009 and I would have been Conservative; ask me in 2010 and I am cautiously Liberal Democrat.

Thanks for looking