The Phoney War

The calm before the storm arrived last week, as the urgency which once accompanied our work was temporarily lifted. Yet make no mistake, this will change once the PM signals for the Queen to dissolve Parliament and initiate the General Election timetable. I am looking forward to this with  great anticipation and am eager to get stuck into the kind of work which takes place during this time. I will of course have to be discreet about much of the details but promise to provide some interesting blog reports. 

Preparations for the campaign continue to go well with more of the usual being completed. I am keen to learn more and will accept whatever new challenges come my way. Meanwhile, I hope you don't mind me asking if you ever had a disabled person apply for a job and wondered whether they could manage a simple phone call? Or take the other perspective, have you as a disabled person, wondered whether a barrier such as this or requesting your right to reasonable adjustments would harm your job prospects? This is not to forget the extra anxiety which comes from any legal action the DDA provides for if these rights are not met. This was a step in the right direction, yet we are already disabled enough without it being underlined in a court of law. I know from personal experience this kind of anxiety but it really need not be this way.

According to the UKCAE website (http://www.ukcae.com/), over 20% of the workforce are disabled and with an ageing populalation, this proportion is expected to increase. More needs to be done to alleviate this two-way anxiety. Perhaps then we will see more disabled people off benefits and into employment. Nevertheless I was pleased that I found myself in a position to demonstrate that this was no barrier for me, when Stewart kindly offered me his Blackberry in order to call Matthew. I hope I can continue to show that I have the potential to be a full and contributing member of his staff.   

I am encouraged by the determination of some politicians and of organisations such as UKCAE to address the issue of equality at work and of those in protected groups who persist in the fight for a more inclusive society. Yet a bigger effort is required to empower employers to recruit the disabled at cost and for people like myself to be able to strive for professional success with real confidence and conviction. There are plenty of organisations that supply equipment to the disabled at work, but perhaps there needs to be more financial support for businesses in making those 'reasonable adjustments'. This is just one idea. What do you think needs to be done?       

On Inclusive Campaign Literature

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.

Take a look at the following link  http://polls.linkedin.com/p/78382/xxdwo.

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...