Afghanistan, politics and the lives of British soldiers.

Just in case you weren't sure about why it is that British soldiers are dying in Afghanistan, you should have worked it out by now. If like me you occasionally felt able to convince yourself that they were dying so that girls could go to school and farmers could grow something other than poppies, then Obama's announcement on the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan would have put paid to that delusion. In his press conference this week Barak Obama made it perfectly clear that for him the mission in Afghanistan is entering its endphase and his objective now is to get his troops home as quickly as possible.

For the US the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were never about anything other than revenge and for one or two, oil and money. George Bush took them into war with two 'muslim' nations, in revenge for the attack on the Twin Towers and for a decade the people of Afghanistan and Iraq have paid in blood for the crimes of the Salafi jihadist. American soldiers have been prepared to die in Afghanistan and Iraq because the muslim world was perceived to have committed an attack on their nation and retribution was required.

For us it was different, any original desire to hit back following 9/11 was replaced by two paralell and often contrasting discourses of nation building and fighting terror. The latter in particular has been the cornerstone of the UK government's justification for the loss of their soldiers lives. Yet the intelligence does little to support this position, for a long time now Afghanistan has been superseded by Pakistan, the Yemen and of course the UK, as potential sources of terror. Whilst, Tony Blair's belief, that war could make the world a better place and that the rights and lives of the people of Afghanistan could be improved at the point of a gun, was to prove nothing more than an aspiration and a delusion.

For differing reason's and having travelled along different paths, the UK and US governments have reached the same crossroads in Afghanistan. Each government knows that they no longer have a reason or desire to be in Afghanistan, each wants out and each will do what it must to bring their troops home without losing face. Paradoxically it will be easier for Obama, with the death of Osama bin Laden, the American people may well have laid to rest at least some of the ghosts of 9/11 and the political gaze of the nation and its leader will inevitably turn inward. As he approaches the end of this presidency Barak Obama has come to realise that he doesn't want to make the world a better place, he wants to make the USA a better place.

For the UK, Afghanistan should have been a watershed, it should have been the place where we came to terms with the reality of our place in the world, but it wasn't. Our leaders still continue to believe that we have some ill defined obligation to punch above our weight in world affairs, that we have a right and a duty to export the benefits of British influence. But the good in a future world order, will not come from the helicopter gunship diplomacy of the West, it will come from the refusal of individuals to be oppressed by their governments and in the long term the empowerment of the United Nations.

But in the meantime because of the delusions of their leaders, British soldiers will continue to die in pursuit of the confused motivations of their politicians and generals; who time and again will send them to war without a mandate from the people who will be doing the dying. There is a common perception that the British soldier is one of the best in the world  and that may well be true - but as the example of British involvement in Afghanistan makes clear, that could never be said of the people who lead them.

Learning Difficulty Week and the Cow Sign at Rickney

Its the end of Learning Difficulty Week and I was surprised that it came so soon after Carer's Week and if I had the time, I might wonder who plans these things, who decides that this week is for people with learning difficulties. For my son and I it was just another week. It was another week in which he was defined by his difference. By his humming loudly to himself, and jumping up and down, excited and animated by the excellence of an idea that had crossed his mind. It was another week in which we went to photograph the cow sign at Rickney for the thousandth time and again I learn't that each time we return, its a little different.

It was another week in which his wicked father made him go to school - despite his insistence that he shouldn't. It was another week in which a trip to a supermarket became an unspoken war of stares, where the rude gaze of shoppers was returned in silence by a glowering father, threatening, brooding  making it very clear that use of the word would not be met by reasoned argument or the indignance of the politically correct but by the rage of a man who is no longer willing to tolerate the personal, institutional and cultural oppression of a community and of a son.

It was also a week of relative silence. There were more blogs last week, more articles about the importance of carers and remarkable statistics about how much we save the government. But this week there have been few and those were mainly about the casual abuse of learning disabled people by those who don't understand that the way that we think about a person can hurt and sometimes kill them. So, in memory of all the people with learning difficulties who have died when they didn't need to; from Gerhard Kretschmer to Fiona Pilkington and an awful lot of others whose early deaths were not from hate but from indifference. For all the people whose voice remains unheard and whose community is still institutionally oppressed - happy learning difficulty week- we're off to take a photograph of a cow sign at Rickney.

Philip Davies and the Conservative Brand

The thing about what Philip Davies said, was not so much what he said, but that in so many circles it was treated seriously and that he felt able to repeat it again and again. He obviously believed that he had the approval of his supporters, despite the fact that his rationale was evidently discriminatory from the outset and as such he was arguing for something that at the moment would be against the European Convention on Human Rights. In taking a stance against the convention he may well be right to believe that he has the support of the Conservative grass roots.

Nevertheless, in arguing against a minimum wage that is inclusive of all communities Philip Davies is arguing against equality and fairness for all of the people who live in this country. He is arguing that some people are worth less than others and that the contribution of somebody with a learning disability is less valuable to the society in which we live. The problem with his rather simplistic rationale is the difficulty that we have in measuring the value of people, irrespective of whether or not it is morally defensible to do so.

It might well be that a business that only employed one sector of the community might be able make more bits of this or that. But for businesses and other kinds of organisation adding value isn't just about the cheapest way of doing things. For example its cheaper to use child labour but we don't do it and we could exploit children and people with learning difficulties to do things that are dangerous, but any company that did so, would go out of business because it would be seen as abhorrent.

In contrast to this, a company that is perceived to work inclusively with its whole community is a company that is likely to receive the support of that community and in the long term make more money. Adding value to an organisation and to a brand is much more complex than Philip Davies and his supporters would seem to believe.  And the reason that people with learning difficulties have problems in getting work is because not enough businesses understand this.  

Philip Davies is having a couple of days of fame at the expense of people who are vulnerable and easily exploited. Far from being clever and adding value to the Conservative Brand he has done it a great dis-service, because this version of the politics of spite is not so easy to hide and in the end the people will remember and the Conservatives will be seen again for what they are.

In a perfect world

Its on days like to today, a couple of days after the coalition government voted its Welfare Reform Bill through the Commons that you realise just how little you can trust politicians. In his speech to Carers last night, David Cameron did what he does so well; he thanked Carers for what they do, he shared a little of his own personal experiences, espoused the virtues of personalisation and pointed out for good measure that it wasn't all about what government could do. Which is probably a good thing because in comparison to what carers do the Government really doesn't do that much. David Cameron knows this:

 "if you stopped doing what you're doing, the consequences for the country would be disastrous"

and its on days like today, when you realise that George and David aren't in it with you, that you get tempted. You start to wonder how it would be if the government couldn't take the commitment and the unpaid work of Carers for granted. What would happen if one day we did stop what we were doing and let that government grasp the extent of what it is that they are not doing.

Of course we would never do it, which is why this most conservative of Prime Ministers felt able to say what he did, because he knew that this country's army of  unpaid carers would never actually call his bluff. We would never withdraw our labour from the people we love and nor should we.

But it would be such fun to see their faces, if they woke up one day and realised that they couldn't really afford to build a new generation of nuclear submarines because they had to pay for Carers. Then of course they wouldn't be able to invade Afghanistan, bail out banks and  pay extortionate amounts to speculators to finance the illusion of growth in the economy. In a perfect world we would have politicians who understood what really matters and what doesn't- but unfortunatley we've got David and George neither of whom even live in our world never mind a perfect one.

Ed Miliband in search of...

I'm coming to the conclusion that in the media complex world in which we live political leaders work better in pairs. Margaret Thatcher had Nigel Lawson, John Major had Ken Clarke, Tony Blair had Gordon Brown and David Cameron has got a choice of two depending on whether or not he wants to apportion blame or praise.

Ed Milibands problem is that he stands in isolation. We all know that Ed Balls is and was Gordon's man and there is no way that Ed will be able to convince us that him and Ed ... well need I say more, its just too confusing. The reality is that Ed  and Ed aren't the double act that is going to take Labour into victory in the next election. Much as I like Ed Balls, if Labour are going to win the next election his role will be Prescottian (!) as a bastion of Labour tradition and as a unifier of Labour's broad Church.

The problem is that Ed Miliband is not Tony Blair so Labour isn't looking for a taciturn strategist to run the economy whilst the media friendly leader charms the electorate. Ed Milibands leadership partner has to present a more balanced set of strengths than the either or contrast of Blair and Brown. He or she has to be a little bit more media friendly and perceived as not quite as intelligent and perhaps a little more empathetic.

The problem is that a politician of such quality would inevitably represent a long term threat to Ed Miliband's own leadership. So Ed has to go into the next election knowing that the partner on whom he is dependent upon for success will inevitably become his nemesis. But that is the true quality of leadership and all of  a sudden I'm not thinking quite so badly of Tony Blair.

And who should it be  - now that would be telling.         

Support and Desperation

The green paper Support and aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs and disability ends its consultation period on June 30th. What has surprised me most is the relative silence that has accompanied its presentation given the long term implications of what is being proposed. But then given the skill with which this government  has managed to present its reforms and cuts as a battle against wasting money on the undeserving, it really shouldn't surprise us.

Support and Aspiration is no different and indeed has been particularly successful because it has been able to draw on the support of a great number of families with disabled children. As Ian Birrel ponted out in his Guardian article  "the core aims of Michael Gove's green paper have been broadly welcomed ". They key to that support has been the committment to replace the current plethora of assessments with a single Education, Health and Care Plan.

Under our proposal, by 2014, all children who would currently have a statement of SEN or learning difficulty assessment would be entitled to a new single assessment process and ‘Education, Health and Care Plan’ to identify their support needs.  Support and Aspiration p. 36

This looks fine because by making the Education, Health and Care Plan available to everybody who currently receives a statement of SEN, they will theoretically be making a broader range of support available to families whose child currently has a statement but at the moment is not eligible for additional social care support. On the surface this looks like motherhood and apple pie, but it doesn't add up.

Currently 4.9 disabled children per 1000 children are in receipt of social care services (2008 figures) of one form or another, so 0.49% of all children. This compares with the current number of children with statements of SEN which stands at a national average of 2.7% of all children. Now if we were to presume that the number of statements is going to stay the same the current proposals represent a 500+% growth in the number of children eligible to be assessed to receive social care services as a result of a combined Education, Health and Care Plan. This is self evidently not going to happen.

What is far more likely is that if the green paper is budget neutral the number of children eligible to receive social care services will actually remain the same. For those families this Education, Health and Care Plan will represent a significant improvement in  the co-ordination of the support that they receive. For the other (approx 4/5ths) children who currently have a statement they will not only not receive an EHC Plan but we can assume that they will not receive a statement, given that they won't exist. What they are likely to be left with is " A new single early years setting- and school based category of SEN" and no ability to have their child's educational provision guaranteed by a statement. So for some the green paper will offer improved support, others will be faced with uncertainty and desperation. 

That shouldn't surprise us - like much of what this government does it justifies its reforms by stigmatising those who are least able to defend themselves. Whilst  the proposals are imbued with a sensitive and in-depth understanding of the needs of severely disabled children and their families, that will have its roots in the experiences of David and Samantha Cameron, it funds that sensitivity by removing the support of children and young people whose needs are less complex, less visible and may on occasion, erroneously be attributed to the parenting skills of those who are not middle class. 

We do not know how effective the new system of school based SEN will be in including children without the additional support and protection of a statement, but when viewed in conjunction with reduced protection against expulsion that are a part of Michael Gove's other initiatives, the implications aren't great.

Winterbourne View is "Rubbish"

Some times I really like journalists, some times they do things that really matter to the society in which we live. Panorama did that in their investigation into the Castlebeck run care home in Bristol; and their team, especially Joe Casey, deserves a huge amount of credit for the work they have done in uncovering the systemic abuse of learning disabled people at Winterbourne View.

The programme itself was appallingly and shockingly brilliant, if there can be such a thing. There really isn't much that you can say about the home, the staff who worked there and the organisation that allowed it to take place that isn't self evident, or that hasn't been reflected in the myriad number of comments that have expressed horror at what was made public by Panorama. But once you move beyond the images of abuse, what this programme made clear was that the protection provided by the Care Quality Commission was non existent. It failed to respond to the specific allegations made by former charge nurse Terry Bryan and as Paul Kenyon pointed out, that failure meant that Simon, Simone and the other residents of Winterbourne View had to endure additional months of the most appalling physical and psychological abuse.

But even beyond this failure, the stark and frightening reality for people with learning difficulties is that the system of governance that is in place to regulate their care is totally ineffective in ensuring their well-being. As the regional director of the CQC pointed out, if people are committed to covering up this kind of abuse then it is really difficult for the regulator to identify. The slickness with which Wayne dictated the write up in the incident book illustrated the ease with which the requirements of the regulatory system could be side-stepped by an experienced practitioner.

But it doesn't have to be that way and the solutions really aren't that complex. The people being abused at Winterbourne had the ability to express their views and opinions about the care that they were receiving. But the power that has been vested in the provider and the commissioners who place people in this form of setting, self evidently does not allow people with learning difficulties to have a voice. Even though providers and commissioners are required to do so, by a whole tranche of legislation introduced under the last government. Indeed as a young person of 18, the local authority that placed Simone in that setting had a statutory responsibility to involve her in decisions about her care and of course to protect her from harm. But in practice the reality is that nobody listens and it is the failure of people to listen that more than anything else that puts people with learning difficulties at risk.

Much of the abuse that exists at Winterbourne and across the care system can be prevented by listening to the voice and opinions of the people who are being cared for in a way that is independent of the organisations in which they are placed.  As Peter Kenyon illustrated simply and straight forwardly, when he asked Simon what he thought of Winterbourne View, Simon gave it an unequivocal thumbs down and said it was "rubblish" and if the residents of Winterbourne View had been asked that a lot sooner, none of this would have happened in the first place.