ED-Sigh - An Impassioned Plea for EDI to Remain a Salient Part of our Political Makeup

EDI has been a salient topic in the pubs and supermarkets of Britain recently, thanks to the victories of Reform UK in the council elections, amongst other things. One of the things that drove Reform’s victory was the impact of performative politics. Performative politics worked for the Liberal Democrats with their stunts in a more benevolent way. But with the coverage of Farage in the mainstream media being far greater than that of Ed Davey, we can see what kind of performative politics the media wants to amplify. Many may not have heard of the abbreviation before the dogeification of the US Government, however, having had previous experience of working at a local authority, EDI was at the core of my work and is at the core of my beliefs. Equity, Diversity and Inclusion matters, and during this article, I will make an impassioned plea for it. EDI is personal, political and societal in its nature. It’s about both visible and invisible barriers, and if these were addressed, disabled people wouldn’t exist, as their concerns would be greatly alleviated. If we merely glance at statistics for our local and national infrastructure, it should shame us. In London, only 22% of the London Underground network allows for step-free access from the platform to the street. Whilst EDI doesn’t have a dramatic impact on solving this issue on its own, it provides an amplification of these concerns, which may have lifechanging impacts going forward. 

We haven’t scratched the surface on EDI, as, in difficult situations, it is still perceived as an optional set of guidelines to follow. I have personal experience of this at a local government level, and it makes no sense. The word co-production is at the heart of many local government organisations and charities, and yet, you probably don’t know what it means. Co-production is about working with disabled people to create policy, to shape infrastructure, and to make society a safer place for disabled people. It’s not even always followed, due to the large amount of work and scrutiny that is required to ensure it is done properly. The fact that it is not is a danger to us all, and is primarily due to a lack of funding. At my local authority, there were three permanent members of full-time staff doing the work of 6-10 employees in a private sector organisation. 

Caring also factors greatly in this field. For me I am classified as a carer for one of my relatives, who has an invisible disability. This invisible disability has impacted her life to a large extent. The responsibility of people around those impacted by EDI is all the greater, if those in power seek to lessen the importance of EDI. Equally, the desire for parity on State Pension age eligibility, which has fuelled the WASPI movement, has set many vulnerable people with EDI concerns back. 

Already, workers hide their disability for fear of impact, either unemployment or other stigma. These people might have coping mechanisms for their disabilities, but in times of difficulty, coping mechanisms are little comfort. Although the cited article is from 2021, little has improved. Having worked in HR myself, EDI is a hugely complex topic to navigate, not least because the encyclopaedic knowledge of the variety of disabilities there are just isn’t there. Even common disabilities, like my own (Autism), are grossly misunderstood due to flawed interpretations in the media, and so EDI is very much still necessary! Prominent voices such as Trump, and in the UK the thankfully inimitable Farage (and his minions) have called for those involved in EDI to be made redundant, sometimes with hilarious consequences. 

Part of the problem with this is an understanding of disability as a whole by such figures. People who have first-hand experience of disability usually are not the same people who make claims of neurodiversity being over-diagnosed. I don’t know if Nigel Farage has disabled relatives (he certainly has disabled constituents), but if he does, he should know that this is a rancorously outrageous thing to say. It should be greeted with the vitriol it deserves, and yet the media have for quite some time given Reform UK amplification, before they even had parliamentary seats. 

It would be mildly amusing if these policies didn’t have consequences but the consequences of cutting EDI will mean less money to educate people about disability. There will potentially be a lessening of the statementing of children who need it (many who already receive support are not statemented), and will lead to the inevitable segregation of people with disability. We cannot protect those in need from this, as the cheerleaders for EDI won’t be in place to help combat the rise of those who are grossly uneducated about what they are speaking about. This isn’t to say that they are uneducated overall, but more that they don’t understand or don’t care to reflect the nuances within the political debate. This is a wider problem that exists within discourse on political issues at the moment - look at the trans debate as an example; a tiny minority of the population (0.54%) weaponised and exaggerated for political gain. T’was ever thus, and the politicians will ensure it remains this way, for now.

Image: Eliot Lord

Licence.

No image changes made.