Pledges: Small Businesses, Assisted Dying, Controversials
#16 in my Pledges series
A few more issues I was contacted about. I’ll do one more post to round up the final topics.
Small Businesses And Workplaces
I received a few requests for me to support small businesses if elected. I wasn’t elected, but I still support small businesses!
According to a Federation of Small Businesses email:
“Small businesses across Wales create jobs, spread prosperity and keep our communities vibrant. As you may know, in 2023, 99.3% of businesses in Wales were small and medium businesses (defined as having 0 to 249 employees), accounting for 62.3% of private sector employment and 43.4% of turnover. In Gwynedd, 98.2% of businesses were SMEs in 2023 and in Denbighshire this was 97.5%.”
In many ways I'm a radical advocate for change and equality. I only support small businesses (ideally local and independent) – you'd never find me in a Starbucks, McDonalds or supermarket when there is a local cafe or greengrocers or bakers! I even mentioned that in this 2007 article for Ethical Consumer, and briefly here and here.
Here’s an old 2014 article from a previous website I ran:
On top of that, I am self-employed as my full time job (author). I know exactly what issues we face, and have had battles with the HMRC in the past. I’d love to be involved in radical changes to make it easier to start up and keep going a new small, local business, with preferential treatment over international conglomerates. I know that can be difficult as previous governments have signed awful trade deals like TTIP, but it needs doing if we’re to save local communities and give people back ownership of their futures. (It’s also why I back cooperatives.)
“Small and medium-sized business are the lifeblood of our economy and our communities.”
While on the topic of work, I was asked to defend the right to strike:
“In just a few weeks over 100 candidates have already signed our pledge to Defend the right to strike.
Our national coalition of 14 national trade unions and campaign groups - organised by Strike Map and the Campaign For Trade Union Freedom (CTUF)- is urging all parliamentary candidates during this election to sign this pledge to repeal the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 and other anti-union legislation repealed.
The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 means employers have the ability to issue 'work notices', forcing workers to break their own strikes.
This is the latest law in a long line of anti-union laws, which has left us with some of the most restrictive labour laws in Europe.
Councils, Governments and Headteachers have already condemned this legislation, and both the Scottish & Welsh Government all stating they will refuse to implement it in their areas.
Thanks to the growing campaign around non-compliance of Minimum Service Levels, in just a few months, we have been able to secure 10 council areas that have refused to implement the latest law, whilst we we wait for the next Government to repeal it.
Show your support for workers rights this election, and sign our pledge for candidates.”
It probably doesn’t surprise anyone that I agree. I attend weekly pro-Palestine peace demos and often pick up a copy of Socialist Worker. Trade unions act as some of the co-speakers and I’m in awe of their knowledge and commitment. I’m also from Manchester, which saw the birth of so much worker power and trade union development to counter the abuses of the factory owners. So yes, we all absolutely have the right to strike, and to not have it limited by politicians in the pockets of industry and big business. We are the many, they are the few, and we need to stop them from diminishing our power and our voices.
Green policies from the short version of our manifesto:
Repeal of current anti-union legislation and its replacement with a positive Charter of Workers’ Rights, with the right to strike at its heart along with a legal obligation for all employers to recognise trade unions.
A maximum 10:1 pay ratio for all private- and public-sector organisations.
An increase in the minimum wage to £15 an hour, no matter your age, with the costs to small businesses offset by reducing their National Insurance payments.
Assisted Dying
I received a lot of emails about this. Often worded like the following:
“To Karl Drinkwater,
I’m writing to let you know why, this general election, dignity has my vote. Across the country, dying people are suffering due to the blanket ban on assisted dying. This year all major political parties have committed to making time for an assisted dying bill in the next parliament. Before I vote, I want to know where you stand on this vital issue.
In Dwyfor Meirionnydd alone 77% of voters back an assisted dying law for terminally ill, mentally competent adults. A majority of voters in every constituency across the UK backs law change. If our voices were votes, assisted dying would pass in a landslide.
Under the current law, dying people face unacceptable options. Those who can afford it can pay £15,000+ to travel alone to Dignitas. Up to 650 terminally ill people a year take their own lives at home, with no safeguards or oversight, and more than ten times this number will attempt to do the same. We also know that 17 people a day die in pain despite the best palliative care.
This isn’t safe or fair for dying people. When an assisted dying bill is before the House of Commons, which is expected in the next parliament, I hope my future MP will represent the majority of their constituents and vote for a safeguarded assisted dying law that provides peace of mind to dying people and their families.”
I very much want to give people choice and dignity at the end of life. If I was in pain and terminally ill, I would want to be able to choose when and how I leave the world. Autonomy of the body is the core right I hold, and it would be my choice, no one else’s.
The current legal arrangements are failing those who have expressed a clear wish to end their lives, taking away their ability to die with dignity. Terminally ill people with the financial means and the physical ability are able to go to Switzerland to use that country's assisted law, but those without the means or ability are left to suffer. Some patients are forced to go to Switzerland and end their lives earlier than they would otherwise choose, while they are still able to travel. I agree that we do need a government inquiry into the state of the law, to understand the harm the current ban is causing, and to act on its findings.
I therefore support a humane and dignified approach to terminal illness, allowing people to choose to end their lives to avoid prolonging unnecessary suffering, if this is their clear and settled will. It’s of course essential for proper safeguards to be put in place and any legislation must be properly scrutinised so that vulnerable people are completely protected.
I do agree about the importance of good, well-funded palliative care. Increased resources for palliative care are essential as there is an urgent need for services, staff and care, as well as support for dying and bereaved people. People who are unwell should not be thrust into poverty and the Green Party manifesto makes a firm commitment to improve sick pay and to provide a proper safety net for people at all stages of their lives. If elected as an MP, I would have pushed to deliver a fairer and more caring society that supports people in their toughest times.
We urgently need sustainable funding for hospices and a massive investment in local community services. The Green Party manifesto therefore calls for action to address the crisis in staff retention and bring health spending up to the levels required to restore the NHS to health.
Elected Greens would also push for fair pay for NHS staff. Many experienced nurses are leaving the sector and Ministers must take urgent action to address this with pay and conditions that match the dedication of the NHS staff we need, from birth through to end of life. The combination of run-down community services and our broken social care system has created a real crisis – we have to get things fixed so people at the end of their lives don’t lose out.
I’ve written about my pledges for the NHS here.
We need to invest much more in palliative care, to ensure that everyone is able to receive the best possible treatment as they die. However, we also need to acknowledge that even with the best possible care, there will be those who want to end their suffering. I would support legislation to allow them to do this while ensuring that appropriate and robust legal safeguards are in place.
I also received emails askign for the opposite, to oppose assisted dying.
“Protect the vulnerable by voting against any attempts to introduce assisted suicide or euthanasia. Support better palliative care by backing policies or legislation changes that will increase funding and provision of high-quality palliative care for people at the end of their lives.”
Well, I already answered both of those. I support better palliative care, but also support choice in what happens to our bodies.
Controversials
I wasn’t sure how else to group some of the emails I received, which used loaded questions and statements, and often asked me just to agree or disagree, with no nuance or chance to clarify that most questions are not as simple as the emailer claimed. The way they were worded usually meant that whether you agree or disagree, you would be in the wrong.
Here’s an extreme example where I was asked twelve questions in one email. Often I didn’t respond to such communicationd, but in this case I answered as follows.
“Thanks for contacting me. To be honest, every one of these are things that can't be answered in soundbites without doing injustice to the underlying complications and issues. So I'll just give very quick gut instinct answers. If you want to browse our brief manifesto you'll find it here. And Vote for Policies is a great way of seeing which parties best match your views.
1. Do you believe that there is a climate crisis?
I do believe that humans and our endless consumption are massively harmful to the ecosystem and other life on this planet. We are part of nature, not owners of it.
2. Do you believe that Covid-19 was a deadly pandemic?
I'm no specialist in this area. All I can say is that I had Covid (according to a test) and it was no worse than the flu for me (well, flu was actually worse in two cases).
3. Do you believe that lockdown was necessary in 2020-2021?
It may have achieved a slowdown in spread, but I think if that approach is taken then it was too little, too late. Not all negative, though: the quieter roads meant deer rediscovered where I live, and I saw more neighbours on my river walks during that period than at any other time.
4. Do you believe that the Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective?
I really can't say, as I know so little about them. I've never had a vaccination for anything and consider myself very healthy, but I'm no specialist. I'm not a materialist so have my doubts about a lot of things, and I don't generally trust the for-profit nature of big pharmaceutical conglomerates.
5. Do you support billions of pounds of military supplies and indirect or direct involvement of our armed forces in the war in Ukraine?
I think if we weren't allied to warmongers and pushing NATO to expand to the Russian border, Russia may never have attacked Ukraine in the first place. There's massive hypocrisy in how the US (with the UK as one of its pets) expands its bloody empire and provokes other countries. For example, it has ringed China with US military bases. If China had even one base that close to the US, the US would declare war. I'd have rather changed the culture and put money into good things than more violence, cooperating with other countries rather than competing.
6. Do you regard the tens of thousands of people crossing the English Channel and entering the country illegally as ‘refugees’?
I have no idea how many are crossing the channel and what their status is. I will say the UK has had a bloody hand in destabilising many nations, and we have created a huge amount of refugees in the past. And I don't see why rights should be based on something as arbitrary as where you are born.
7. Do you believe that it is safe for dozens of undocumented male migrants to be housed in our towns?
Documents don't have anything to do with safety. I don't feel safe being in a country where the super rich exploit us all and push to start even more wars for profit. I see them as the real threat, along with their bought politicians.
8. Do you support teaching of transgender ideology to our schoolchildren?
I have no idea what you mean by that. Is it possible to change gender? Yes, as gender is socially constructed. I don't consider that ideology, any more than stating that we all look different.
9. If you do not agree with any of the above, what are you doing to oppose such policy?
N/A
10. 20mph .... good or bad?
Again, I feel like the question isn't really what you want to ask, but I have no idea what the question really is. Should traffic go slower in residential areas than on a motorway? Of course, it would be stupid to suggest otherwise.
11. HS2 ... good or bad?
A waste of money and destroyer of huge amounts of land. It should never have been started in the first place.
11. EU ... rejoin or stay out?
12. Finally, what is a woman?
I suspect you already know the answer to that.
If you are genuinely unsure how to vote, try the VoteForPolicies site I mention. Feel free to browse my statement - you will either be angry and vote for someone else, or reassured and vote for me. I always say vote for what you believe in, and that may not be me.
And then an email which echoed question 12, sent by another constituent:
“As a voter in the General Election in the constituency in which you are a parliamentary candidate, I am writing to ascertain your position on women’s rights.
Girls and women’s rights are a vital responsibility of any government. Can I rely on you to ensure that my rights and those of my family are protected in:
Single sex toilets and changing facilities
Single sex protection for women in prison and refuges
Single sex sports
Same sex care in hospital, home and care settings
The provision of factual, age appropriate sex education that does not confuse children
Like many women, I have watched with dismay as public institutions and local authorities, have dismantled basic safeguarding principles in the name of an ill-defined concept of inclusivity. Gender ideology has been introduced unchecked into the civil service, the NHS, schools and other services, without proper scrutiny or equality impact assessments being undertaken. Data collected by the police and the judiciary records gender rather than biological sex. Women and girls expecting single sex services are confronted by men in their changing rooms, refuges and hospital wards.
The privacy, dignity and safety of women and girls is at risk in the prevailing climate, and I hope I can trust in your support to ensure those rights will be safeguarded. I write to ask how you, as my elected representative, would do that, and I hope I can rely on your support.
I look forward to hearing your views on the above points.”
I work on the assumption that there is a biological sex (primarily male/female, but there are other options here as nature is not to be confined, and human ingenuity can also make changes) and there is socially constructed gender (which is very much a spectrum). I don’t consider any moral significance to where people fall within either system, but to consider one without the other is always going to mean the debate will be partial. And to try and reduce both sex and gender into one is bound to lead to confused thinking. But it’s not an area I know a lot about, I have to admit, which is why I listen, and continue to do so.
A lot of the things raised hinge on how sex is defined and categorised. And that ties back to the discussions sometimes seeming to miss out clarity in their starting points. And they do not fully consider the implications, or even to question the basic assumptions that have already been made.
Just one example: it’s common to separate male and female sports, presumably based on the idea that women are always weaker. (I recently watched a TV series where men and women competed equally, and some of the women proved far more capable than men.) But I always used to wonder why the sports themselves just don’t get changed. For example, weightlifting. Currently men and women get separated and within each sex the winner is whoever lifts the most weight. But what if the system was changed, so that it was whoever lifted the greatest percentage of their own body weight? Then it wouldn’t matter how big you were, or what your sex was, you could still be the strongest. It’s just a different way of taking the starting point into account. Or the time I went to France I remember a bar that had separate toilets. So instead of big male/female communal rooms, everyone just got a private toilet room (all doors visible from the bar). So everyone had privacy and didn’t need to share. It made me wonder why that wasn’t more common.
All the topics in the email need discussing. To just dismiss them only leads to more anger and resistance, especially when some of the underlying concerns are perfectly valid. I think on both sides of this debate there has been more emotion and anger than discussion, and it misses out on the opportunity to evolve a unified cultural viewpoint. Topics like this divide us and absorb attention and resources from fighting the real enemies, like inequality, war, and capitalism/consumerism. There needs to be more work to bring both sides together in mutual understanding so this topic can be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction.