The state is disabling the disabled

This guest post was written by my boyfriend and carer, Paul. He is only 20 but is my full time carer, I won’t go through the indignities of listing all of the things he has to do for me everyday, but trust me when I say everything, I mean every little thing. I suffer from invisible illnesses so even though many people have told us there is all sorts of help and support available, this simply isn’t true. I get some level of DLA but the real amount of care I need is not recognised by the DWP. The state will not provide the support I need, my parents are ill themselves and not in a position to care for me, and now I am lumped into the category who are thought t be unfairly claiming DLA. I may not look unwell, when my friends see me, it’s hard for them to see any difference in me, but my doctor told the DLA my medical record, how I turned up at her office screaming in pain, and in my pyjamas, but that doesn’t make any difference. The truth behind the cuts to disabled benefits is ugly, and I can’t bear to write about it myself so Paul has written a guest post telling our story in the hope you, the reader, will listen and stand up for all of those too ill to fight for the support they need.

This week the Department of Work and Pensions have announced figures finding that only 7% of incapacity benefits claimants that they have tested are ‘unfit’ to work; 17% could work with the proper support and 39% were moved to Job Seekers Allowance.  Before you sharpen your pitchforks and light the torches I urge you not to take these statistics at face value. These findings are clearly bias at best.

Firstly, consider that the government have committed themselves to cutting the cost of benefits on the state and helping get the sick back to work, giving targets not linked to any research, so for example the government intend to cut say 17 people, they will find a way to cut those 17 people. The government want reduce the Disabled Living Allowance (DLA) bill by 20%, unless they’ve discovered a universal miracle cure for people’s illnesses, it will mean that some of the most vulnerable in society will be placed in an even more precarious position. DLA is not intended for people who are not working, it is given to all disabled people in recognition that they have extra costs and difficulties in their day-to-day life, for example people whose mobility is severely restricted are able to borrow a specially adapted car so that they are able to drive, this obviously helps disabled people into work, it is not free money, it is the support urgently needed. Only those who go through the invasive, degrading and timely system are able to get it. Incapacity claimants receive a higher income than those on Job Seekers and since May 2010 the government has attacked the position of the disabled through cutting. In light of this I find it hard to see how the intentions of the DWP can be viewed as legitimate.

As a carer, I have witnessed the application of disabled benefits and medical testing first hand. I can assure you that the process is far from neutral. The application itself is ripe with questions designed to ‘trip up’ claimants. The most scandalous part, however, is with the medical tester. They are committed under exaggerating the level of an applicant’s illness. They will look at a claimant looking to prove they are fit to work. In my experience, part of the reason why my girlfriend was refused was because she smiled, we were astonished to see that in her report. Even more incredible was that the examiner noted that she seemed very awake and alert even though she was actually sleeping in the waiting room when she was called. Additionally, few people are approved for DLA because of one disability or illness- it is well known that several disabilities are needed to get approved.  As a result a large number of applications will go to appeal, even when it is obvious that they are certainly too ill to work, and 39% will be overturned. The testing is thorough and always pitted against you. The system works on the assumption that you are lying unless you can prove otherwise, even letters from doctors are ignored a lot of the time. The DWP no longer carry out tests at patient’s home, as recognised by a recent parliamentary paper, it is incredibly difficult for a lot of very ill people to even get to the medical examination and often has a negative impact on their health. For Kate, she was pushed incredibly far beyond what her body could cope with at her medical examination in October, and she has never fully recovered, her medication dosage had to be doubled. The idea that 93% of those who had gone through the process, and managed to be approved, would be fit to work and had fooled the DWP is absurd.

The figure for 36% dropping out of the process also needs to be seen in context. Do not interpret this as 36% of claimants dropped out because they don’t have a legitimate claim. A large number of applicants will be suffering from mental health problems meaning they won’t have the capacity to complete see the application through. Unassisted the process can be overwhelming for those unable to work. Social services are very over-stretched so it is not always possible for to get a social worker. I heard of one case where a man whose mind had been classified as that of a three year old  lost his DLA payments, how is sufficient care going to be provided? And who will support the disabled who are no longer able to be independent without the aids they are lent?

For the 17% that could work with sufficient support. What level of support would this require? And where is this support going to come from? If it is employers responsibility to provide the facilities then where is the encouragement to hire someone with such extensive needs? DLA was created to provide this support. And with rising levels of unemployment who will employ a disabled person who will need lots of support, at the cost of the employer?

If these figures tell us anything, it shows us the intentions of the government and the DWP to cut the cost, no matter what the consequences are. Empty statistics such as those published this week are all about justifying the cuts to the public because they know that those on these benefits are not well enough to make their voices heard. Will you stand up for them?

“I’m not a token woman”

Nick Clegg, speaking at the Lib Dem conference this week, told the party that there needed to be more ethnic minority, disabled and female members. He said, “We have some exceptional women in Parliament…but we don’t have enough.” Previously, the party has been against positive discrimination but Clegg now proposes a list of Lib Dem  ministers with 50% of places for female, 20% of places for ethnic minorities and 10% of places for the disabled. This came after the Hansard Society condemned the lack of women in the Coalition, revealing that only 32 out of 184 cabinet committee seats. When this issue was discussed at the Lib Dem 2002 conference, female MPs wore t-shirts with the slogan, “I am not a token woman”, to make a strong point. The idea came from Jo Swinson, who still opposes all-women short lists. Who is right? Does Clegg really want to have better representation in his party and do his part to remove glass ceilings, or is this simply a way for his party to gain popularity again?

Until recently, I had a firm opinion on this topic, all-women short lists are not the way to improve equality, but no I ask myself, how much has society really advanced since equal opportunities and anti-discrimination found its way into law? Little, if Parliament is anything to go by. True that females have become MPs, we have even had a female PM and, from the politicians I have spoken to, treatment of female MPs in the House has improved, but that is not to say that there is no more ground to make.True equality is impossible, but isn’t it about time for institutions, like Parliamentary committees, to be forced into giving equal opportunities?

“We have got fewer women around the Cabinet table than we have had in years- we are going backwards in numbers.” – Ruth Fox, the director of the Hansard’s Society’s Parliament and Government Programme

Opponents will say that discrimination of any kind is immoral, no one should get a job because of their sex, the colour of their skin or because of their disability. And perhaps they are right, all-women short lists may not be the way to solve the issue, Swinson has a point, work needs to be done in order to ensure there are actually women to go onto the short-list. It seems to me though, unless an alternative is found, all-women short lists is a step in the right direction. Perhaps it will encourage women into politics and at least that means that if/when women actually get to that stage then they won’t have a stumbling block.One thing is for certain though, non-intervention has not worked and, at least in politics, the glass ceiling remains.

What do you think?

Don’t pop the champagne quite yet Mr Chancellor

This post is quite late coming, very late in fact, but better late than never. Almost a month ago now, the Office for National Statistics produced the digits for the last quarter. It was good news, very good, the British economy grew by 0.8%, although lower than the 1.2% in the previous quarter, still double the 0.4% predicted. The Chancellor hailed this as proof that his economic plan was working, that the economy was responding positively to the Coalition’s budget.

The praise, however, was not his to take- the majority of growth occurred under the last Labour administration, so in realiy, it is proof that Alistar Darling’s budget was working. Economists, including all  Nobel prize winning economists, agree that this growth created by Labour it now “tailoring off” and is only more solid proof that the current Government is taking un-necessarily harsh cuts. The jury is still out on that one, only time will tell whether the Coalition’s budget will cause the economy to expand fast enough to suck up all the redundancies and heal those who will be losing DLA.

The question we can ask now though, is why did the current Chancellor tell the British public that their country was close to bankruptcy? Why does the Coalition claim that the country was in such a bigger mess than they thought that they broke election promises only weeks after taking office? The truth is that the country was £10billion better off than anticipated, as was the economy, it was growing faster than predicted. There’s a lot left up to interpretation in economics but these are bare facts which speak for themselves and are in direct opposition to what the Government is saying. You cannot help but agree that the Government has tried to scare their citizens so that they will accept the cuts, the broken promises and believe that their way is the only way.


Setting the record straight

The coalition talks a lot about fairness, the deficit they inherited and the necessity for sharp cuts now- reduce the government and create big society. Ministers and MPs use emotive language and simple arguments, the media and the people have responded well to this. We know the cuts and where they’ll hit  but what is the ideology behind the cuts? I’d like to take a closer look at some of the fables ConDem and their spin doctors have created.

  • Britain’s debt can be compared to personal debt– this is simply not true as anyone who knows anything about economics will tell you. Britain does not have credit cards, a mortgage or an overdraft. The deficit cannot be solved solely through cutting spending- personal debt can be repaid by cutting outgoings but a country’s economy is far more complex. It is quite concerning that the Chancellor is arguing differently when every economist would laugh at the idea of this comparison. The draconian  cuts cause unemployment and unless the economy begins to expand much, much faster then there will be less people paying taxes and more dependent on the state, therefore greatly reducing the government’s income. If the markets think there will be high unemployment or people will be spending less then they will fail to expand and Britain will go into a double dip recession. My personal accounts cannot cause a recession.
  • Britain’s structural deficit was out of control. Before the recession, the country’s deficit was about 2.5%- one of the lowest in the world and far lower than the previous Conservative government. Until the election was called both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats agreed with all of Labour’s budgets- the Liberal Democrats actually called for higher spending. During their time in office Labour narrowed the gap between government income and spending in real terms.
  • The Coalition was unaware of the size of the deficit until they came in to government. This is perhaps their best trick. Both parties saw the budget set in March and the projections. After the election, the country was £10billion better off than had been predicted. The facts speak for themselves, it is simply a myth ConDem are using to justify breaking their electoral promises. In the lead up to the election, particularly the Liberal Democrats, made several promises than they would have never have been able to keep, that much was glaringly obvious to anyone who did the sums.
  • The recession was caused by the Labour government’s reckless spending and now they deny the deficit exists. The recession was worldwide and began in America. The government could have stemmed the damage by regulating the banks more. Had they listened to the opposition, the situation could have been much worse. The Conservatives called for de-regulation and criticised the government for holding the City back. Labour have admitted their mistakes but ConDem have just rewritten history and deny these things were ever said. ConDem have, rightly, introduced a bank levy but they are taking a serious gamble by making such deep cuts immediately. As for the argument that Labour have not produced an alternative- they did set out a four year plan to get rid of the deficit while protecting the economy and British people. Now in opposition and with a new leader, Labour doesn’t have the resources to compile a detailed plan and haven’t yet had the time but they will be releasing policies in due course. Both parties when in opposition said the same thing but now government demand that this is not good enough. Going back to the Labour government though, by the time they left office the market had grown by 2% (very good) and Brown’s model has been successfully used across Europe. It is a total lie for Osbourne to say Britain was close to bankruptcy, or that the country was close to a Greece-like crisis. These statements are completely unfounded by any stretch of the imagination and are nothing but scare-mongering. The Keynesian model (which Labour prefer) is widely respected by economists, the Neo-classical model (which ConDem are using) is incredibly dangerous. The government is relying massively on a major expansion of the market of which there is no sign currently, it is not looking likely the markets will even maintain the 2% growth. The Coalition enjoy reeling off reports which support their budget but fail to recognise how often these bodies are wrong, such as in the case of Ireland. The government is making cuts bigger and deeper than any government since the 1920s and are “saving” more captial  by cutting benefits for the disabled than they are from the bank levy- surely fairness (even by their definition) would increase the levy in order to protect the most vulnerable in society. The Chancellor will need to have a plan B as there is a very real danger of Britain going in to double dip recession. A government cannot pull so much money and jobs out of the market without dire consequences- the Coalition has a lot of work to do if it is going to encourage industry and persuade the markets to continue to expand. Comments such as “jump on the bus to Cardiff” (Ian Duncan Smith) will not stop the unemployment void created, firstly, by the recession, and now, by the government.

And lastly, I’d like to finish on the Coalition’s favourite, although very elusive, word- fairness. Is it fair that the tax payer paid for Cameron’d re-decoration of No.10 although he could obviously afford to pay for it himself? Is it fair that the taxpayer paid millions (possibly billions) for security in because Cameron and Osbourne stayed in their homes for over a week after the election? Is it fair that Osbourne spent horrifying amounts on champagne for his party when he became Chancellor but is cutting benefits for the disabled? But most importantly, is it fair that the Coalition keep telling the electorate all the lies I’ve listed above? If the Coalition is to continue its popularity, it must be truthful with the electorate and provide the real reason behind their choices. Reducing the deficit is not an ideology, it is a consequence of an underlying ideology, there is a belief the Coalition hold that informs their choices but who knows what it is? Just citing ‘fairness’ is not enough- what is the Coalition’s definition of fairness?