38 degrees
38 Degrees (who were also a part of the Netroots event which attempted to co-ordinate opposition to the cuts, into support for Labour) have come under fire. Like many of those considered central to the 'left' who appeared from nowhere this year, they have come under fire from those whose hard luck stories fuel the desire for the 'more meaningful democracy' the organisation believes it facilitates. The forest 'u-turn' which provided cover for the silence that greeted the welfare reform bill, one of the crowning moments of a site anxious to demonstrate what would happen if you could 'harness' people power through the internet. Another site modelling itself on that prominent stateside astroturf machine, Move On.(much like Netroots actually...lol)
Criticisms from people with disabilities about 38 degrees omission of campaigning on welfare cuts were met with cheerful polite apology but is only the latest in a year of the same thing. This blog post was put up on the site, a testimony about the demonisation the members of 38 degrees have been subject to, as a sign that the site addresses the criticisms levelled. The omission of campaigning on welfare is claimed to stem from a lack of support by the kind of members who were willing to fund the site, and the sites agenda appears to have reflected the type of issues the sites audience finds attractive. Neo-liberalism at the heart of campaigning. Special interest group against special interest group competing for the attention of those who may give that attention for as long as the attention brings congratulations, a ready brek glow and an opportunity to further your own particular political agenda.
Until this year there appears to have been a belief that 'special interest groups', regardless of their actual political affiliation or belief, come under the benevolent umbrella of 'the left'. The role of people within those groups, is to provide sufficiently moving hard luck stories to maintain and keep up the enthusiasm of 'the concerned'. Hard luck stories which should hopefully provide enough collateral for those whose attention must be earned, to throw back when they tire of that particular 'issue' and the moaning about it or if that person falls outside what is expected of them. The role of 'the left' to decide what to do with any political capital created, not to address their own role in the system they purport to fight to change.
The problem from now on will be thus:
Welfare and the services offered by your local authority were masks for inequality. When inequality is laid bare. It brings about serious questions about the history of our public services, about basic equality, democratic representation. How the system has developed to a point where this could happen. The fear, complexity, and sheer depth of the questions at stake will never be sufficiently examined by those whose interest is in is that of someone who believes that 'issue' is just a part of their ideological set. Issues kept seperately so as not to confuse 'the concerned'.
Far from being 'an issue' to be chosen from a clutch of more appealing ones, these are issues at the heart of the inequality which puts our economy at risk now. 'Cuts' happened and the consequences became clear while 'the concerned' were in a tizz about a forest policy that was never happening and the latest provocation by the Daily Mail. The cuts which actually took place this year fundamentally altered the social contract. They raise questions about equality, political representation, the very state of democracy itself. This is not just true for people with disabilities. Gender, age, caring responsibilities, race, class itself. Inequality faultlines ripped open not in an academic sense, but in the lives of people all over the country.
This is happening at a time when it appears our existing political structures are all too flawed to respond to what is happening. This while our economy is driven off a cliff and the future looks bleaker than a not too pretty present. None of these questions can be addressed using the right left spectrum with neo liberalism at it's heart, or using the baggage and dogma of an exclusive sub culture drawing from the same demographics as 'the right'. Inclusion with the left is not the goal of those targeted this year, and unlikely to be a path many will continue to take. The degrading hard luck stories which are cuddly or distressing enough to motivate 'action', don't address the depth and complexity of these issues, but then that was never the point, was it?
David Babbs's surprise at these criticisms seems genuine and I am sure he is perplexed by the whole situation, but those criticising are more concerned with effect than intention. Which will generally make things uncomfortable as the next year unfolds and the layer of our political system which has until now existed to ghettoise and diffuse dissent is unravelled by those it usually feeds off. That discomfort nothing compared to the 'discomfort' experienced if it doesn't happen.
