In my previous post I talked briefly about a poll I undertook on LinkedIn. While working on a local campaign here in Peterborough (UK), I observed how inaccessible some of the canvassing material seemed to be. The poll asked if campaign literature should be made more inclusive by making them available in alternative formats such as braille for the visually and signed political broadcasts, for the hearing impaired. The results were overwhelmingly favourable with 77% of voters saying that they thought this was an "important and interesting" idea.
I understand that braille can be expensive so I am exploring more imaginative, affordable avenues such as podcasts: If the visually impaired are unable to see, they may be able to listen to what political candidates have to say instead. You might be interested in having a look at the comments made at the bottom of the graph http://polls.linkedin.com/p/78690/jiekb. Take particular note of the arguments made by Jeffrey Smith on the one hand and myself on the other. Perhaps you have something to add to this debate?
That same week I had also put out a poll which asked whether in multicultural societies, various social and protected groups should have campaign literature made specifically for them. My argument is intended to be neither patronising, negative or discriminatory. As a man who has himself been profoundly deaf since a young age, I am aware we have different issues and interests which may not be able to be sufficiently addressed by 'one size fits all' round robin literature. In Peterborough, we have a growing Asian community. Should they be able to have their own say? There were race riots in the City just the other week. Should we not be reassuring them by telling them how we will sort it out? Should they not be included in the debate about solutions? What about the disabled. Are we not the ones who know for sure how accessible a local shop, public building or transport is? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts about this controversial topic.
Views are definitively polarised in the opposite direction to my poll on alternative formats. Out of over 100 LinkedIn members 83% voted 'No'. Someone from a political think tank commented how this approach may lead to hypocrisy with political parties making different, contradictory pledges to various groups. The same person added that while benefitting from a brief bump in public opinion, the media and the opposition will soon jump all over you for the reasons just laid out. I accept that this is a risk which should be taken into consideration. Yet this need not be the end of the argument.
Once again using immigration, a subject of great divisiveness in the UK, this conflict may be avoided by keeping the politics of race out of the question - reach out to immigrants - say we embrace difference; we embrace diversity; that at the same time we are united by a common Britishness. Applied correctly, immingration makes us richer as a nation. To natural born citizens, we don't then have to say we're against immigration. Make it clear that we do not condone neither will we tolerate, racism, but say that it must be carefully managed for reasons of cost. We're a small island with limited resources. Walking around the nearby town of Boston, I remember observing immigrants selling the Big Issue, a magazine sold by the homeless on street corners. Is this really the best thing for either us or them? Is it sensible policy to import unemployment at extra cost to the state?
One thing is important - subjects like this need to be talked about - we shouldn't avoid these questions because they're controversial or hard so lets talk...
No comments:
Post a Comment