Basic HTML Version
MEDIA SAVVY
WHO’S BEEN SAYINGWHAT..?
Some people will always need ‘welfare’. What is now commonly imagined,
though, is that those who most need help should be punished for needing it.
This is real emotional austerity. Cold, hard, crossing over the other side of the
street stuff to avoid the poor.
Suzanne Moore,
Guardian
, 2 April
It’s hard to imagine a more repulsive creature than Mick Philpott, the lowlife
benefits scrounger convicted of killing six of his children in a fire. And who
paid for his disgusting lifestyle? We did. Philpott may be the dregs of
humanity. But the welfare system helped him every step of the way.
Sun
editorial, 3 April
His house, his booze, his drugs, his women and his 17 children were paid for by
a benefits system meant to be a safety net for the truly needy… Indeed,
Philpott never even attempted to find a job. The children owed their existence
to his desire to milk the welfare system.
A N Wilson,
Mail
, 2 April
The roll out of the government’s latest benefit cuts binge has begun in four
London boroughs, ushering in a policy marked by that special form of stupidity
so prized by the Thatcherite right. Economic honesty, long-term social cost and
any attempt by the politicians responsible to imagine what life might be like
for people different from themselves have all been sacrificed in deference to
the cheap politics of ignorance, resentment and spite.
Dave Hill,
Guardian
, 17 April
Shipbuilding, steel and coal were sacrificed on the altar of Thatcherism. The
1984-85 pit strike for jobs ended in victory for her. And a terrible defeat for
villages and towns now plagued by despair, joblessness and drugs. Never forget,
never forgive.
Kevin Maguire,
Mirror
, 8 April
Certainly, arresting cannabis users involves more paperwork than it should.
But isn’t the main reason why drug abuse wrecks so many lives that the police
won’t even attempt to tackle it?
Mail
editorial, 1 April
Until we have the guts, as a country, to recognise the catastrophe of our drugs
policy, and challenge the hysteria and immaturity that consigns millions of
people to needless misery, innovations like [consumption rooms] in Brighton
will be welcome but small distractions, a bunch of needles in a giant,
international haystack of our own making.
Amol Rajan,
Independent
, 18 April
Brighton, already reeling from its drug problem, would instantly become a
magnet for drug users and dealers alike. Shooting galleries are also public
health hazards, with increased rates of HIV and hepatitis.
Melanie Phillips,
Mail
, 18 April
It will not be long before your home town has special places where drug
abusers can poke or snort poison into their bodies. These will be legal and paid
for by you and me. It is a stupid idea, of course. People who take such drugs are
selfish parasites in need of deterrence, not patients in need of treatment. The
nicer we are to them, the more of them there will be, as we have proved
conclusively over the past four decades.
Peter Hitchens,
Mail on Sunday
, 21 April
May 2013 |
drinkanddrugsnews
| 11
Media savvy |
Policy scope
www.drinkanddrugsnews.com
POLICY SCOPE
THERE HAS BEEN PLENTY OF DISCUSSION
about the implications of the results of the local
election on 2 May for national politics, as a
barometer of the performance of the national
parties and their leaders. It is easy to forget that
these elections are important outside of the
‘Westminster bubble’ too, because of their
implications for local services. The elections of
councillors in these upper-tier and unitary
authorities will help to determine the
composition of health and wellbeing boards and
police and crime panels for example, local bodies that are making critical
decisions about drug and alcohol services.
The enhanced role of local authorities also emerges as a theme for the
Public Health England (PHE) statement
Our priorities for 2013/14
, published
at the end of April (see page 4). While PHE is the ‘expert national public
health agency’, in reality its influence will depend on its powers of
persuasion and the quality of its ‘evidence-based professional, scientific and
delivery expertise and advice’.
PHE will be important for the future of drug and alcohol services, having
absorbed the former National Treatment Agency (NTA) in April. PHE
includes ‘improve recovery rates from drug dependency’ among its
priorities, and has inherited the personnel, expertise and infrastructure
from the NTA to drive this forward – yet it remains to be seen what it can
do, if anything, should some local authorities disinvest in drug services. The
PHE ‘priorities’ document clearly states that ‘improvement in the public’s
health has to be led from within communities, rather than directed
centrally’ and that ‘PHE will not performance manage local authorities’.
A related question concerns the status of the
Drug strategy 2010
and
Alcohol strategy 2012
in a localist environment. For example, DrugScope
argued that Department of Health guidance for health and wellbeing
boards on local needs assessments and health and wellbeing strategies
should include a list of key national documents to inform local plans. This
recommendation was rejected when the guidance was published in March.
So what weight will these national strategies carry with the people
responsible for service design locally?
There has been a lot of debate about the likely impact of both the
abolition of the NTA and philosophy of localism on drug and alcohol
services, ranging from out and out doom-mongery to a ‘seen it all before’
nonchalance (‘plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose’, as the French have
it), with most plumping for the ‘risks and opportunities’ mantra. We are
now at the business end of the current policy cycle, so we will soon start to
see what happens for real.
Marcus Roberts is director of policy and membership at DrugScope, the
national membership organisation for the drugs field, www.drugscope.org.uk
What will happen when drug and
alcohol services are at the mercy of local
decision-makers, asks
Marcus Roberts
LOCALISM MATTERS