Always the Pall-Bearer, never the Corpse - Lord Freud & The Risk-Taking Poor

This week, Lord Freud, parliamentary Undersecretary for the Department of Work and Pensions, has been talking once again about the lifestyle choices of benefit claimants and the fact that poor people simply don't take enough risks.

In an interview for House Magazine, where he speaks sensibly about the need for better guidance and clarity within the system, Freud continues to reveal his profound naivety about the lives of people on low incomes. 

“You know, the incapacity benefits, the lone parents, the people who are self-employed for year after year and only earn hundreds of pounds or a few thousand pounds, the people waiting for their work ability assessment then not going to it – all kinds of areas where people are able to have a lifestyle off benefits [sic.] and actually off conditionality.”

Clearly, none of these situations are ones of choice.  Nobody chooses to be incapacitated for work, the majority of lone parents are not even single, let alone impoverished, out of choice.  The self-employed example is an interesting one, because it puts such a porky pie to this rhetoric of risk.

Being a creative type, I've known many self-employed people on very low incomes. I've come across three categories of circumstances:

• People who are earning a very small amount, but have other support, such as a decent pension, a high-earning spouse or financial support from other family. Sometimes these people are hobbyists who produce more steampunk tea-cosies than they can give away, some are pursuing a lifelong dream and others are just pleased to earn a few quid commission on tupperwear or sex-toys.

The risks these people take are highly variable, but they're not close to needing benefits.

• People on benefits who are earning such a small amount that they are only able to reduce the amount they claim on benefits, but are working hard with a view to becoming completely free of benefits at some time in the future.
• People who are earning just enough to stay off benefits for now.  I know these people include at least one of the Where's the Benefit? gang and what they have achieved is pretty amazing.

These second two categories of people are all major risk-takers.  Having helped close friends with the paperwork in these circumstances and having done small amounts of paid writing work myself, I can tell you that any unconventional work, including self-employment, does not mix with the benefits system; until you have done the work, been paid and filled in multiple forms, it is sometimes impossible to know

• how much form-filling is necessary (after writing one piece, I endured a six month paper trail with the DWP, taking up far more time and energy than the work itself.)
• whether you're going to inadvertently break a rule and get into trouble.
• whether your capacity for a little work is going to bring you under suspicion for fraud. 
• at what point you'll lose your benefits.
• how difficult it could be to get back on benefits, if you lose them and need them again.

Meanwhile, the benefits system is much stricter - and less sensible - than the tax system when it comes to expenses and overheads. Often, money is counted as earnings if it passes through your hands, even if you have to spend it to keep your business going. Some of this stuff actually looks like it might improve with the new systems, but it's still a mess now and it always has been. 

So why would anyone bother?  Well, only because they can't do conventional work, but they have the skills and just enough energy to do something. These are usually disabled people, or those caring for disabled people, who have much less time or energy, or much less reliable time and energy, than they'd need to work even part time, employed by someone else.

Providing that there is work available, it would surely be far easier and far less of a risk to do conventional work, if one has the capacity to do so. The idea even benefits claimants who are actively working, thus reducing the amount of benefits they claim and contributing to the economy, can be described as lazy or cautious, is completely ludicrous.

Freud said,

"...people who are poorer should be prepared to take the biggest risks, they’ve got least to lose."

This is nonsense. This is like saying we should recruit soldiers from people who are sick and have shortened life expectancies, because they have less to lose - what's a limb here or there if you're heart's going to give out any minute?  We need our soldiers to be healthy because, as well as being better equipped for the job, they are unlikely to lose as much - they are much less likely to be killed than someone with pre-existing ill health. Similarly, in terms of major financial risk-taking, that's entirely for the likes of Freud and his peers, who have a soft plump pillow of inherited cash and savings beneath them.

When people on benefits are afraid of taking work, it is because they are afraid of being left with literally no income or savings. Of being left homeless and hungry, with absolutely nothing. Sometimes even nothing minus debt.

And finally, on the subject of terrible analogies, Freud defends his massive personal privilege that some  consider disqualifies a person to pontificate about the behaviour of those so very much less fortunate than themselves.

"I think you don’t have to be the corpse to go to a funeral, which is the implied criticism there."

This is true, but you're more likely to be welcome if your understanding of the world hasn't filled you with complete contempt for the deceased and his loved ones.

It helps if you have some understanding of mortality.

What's wrong with time-limiting Contributory ESA?

Another summarising primer on these issues for people who aren't necessarily aware of what's going on with UK disability benefits. If you know all about this already, click here for what we need to do about it today.

There are a few reasons why ESA has not become a national scandal, and one of those is that it sounds complicated. But it is vitally important, if you live in the UK it effects you and I am to try to keep this simple, so please bear with me.

Employment Support Allowance is replacing all the old incapacity benefits. It is awarded to people who are considered unable to work due to illness, injury or disability. There are various different levels of benefit, depending on one's level of impairment and National Insurance contributions.

The most serious issue about ESA in the Welfare Reform bill is that for most people on the benefit, there will be a time-limit of one year. These are people who

• (a) are considered unable to work but not considered incapable of work-related activity (people in the "Work Group"). Most people on ESA fall into this category, and it includes people with all manner of severe, chronic and even life-threatening conditions.

• (b) have paid enough National Insurance to be put on the "Contributory" rate. So all of these people have either worked and paid taxes for many years or else became disabled at a very young age. Most people who become incapacitated for work do so in middle-age, so most people on ESA, as with the old Incapacity Benefit, had worked for most of their lives up until that point. 

After a year, all a person's benefit will be means-tested. This means, if they have a working partner or any savings, then they will not have any income of their own. Those disabled people affected by this change were informed last April, before any parliamentary votes on the matter, that they would lose their benefit after one year. This is going to start effecting people's lives in three months time.

There are four very serious problems with this proposal

1. Hardship

Wealthier people, whose partners have well-paid jobs are unlikely to experience real hardship. Single people without savings will not become much poorer. However, the Disability Alliance calculates that on average, a person on this benefit will lose £50 per week. Many people will lose closer to £100.

A partner's income begins to effect benefits at £7500 a year - that's about a twenty-four hour working week at minimum wage. That's still a rather poor household, who cannot afford to lose a penny.

Benefits for people out of work due to ill health have always been higher than unemployment benefit because

• (a) Disabled people have very limited opportunities to improve their situation, which is likely to be longer-term or lifelong - the government's own statistic is that 94% of the ESA "Work" group will not be in work by the end of their first year.
• (b) Disabled life is more expensive. We have fewer opportunities to live frugally, such as turning down the thermostat, washing ourselves, our clothes and bed linen less often, cooking from scratch, selling the car etc.. Meanwhile, partner's of disabled people often can't afford to take on extra hours or a second job, even if they are not an official "carer". 

Often, people dismiss arguments about hardship on the grounds that poor people get “their rent paid” and all sorts of other goodies. First off, if you don't qualify for a means-tested benefit, you don't automatically qualify for Local Housing Allowance, Council Tax Benefit, Free Prescriptions and so on. Not all poor people rent - they may have a nearly-paid mortgage at the point the main breadwinner gets sick. And these days, social housing is extremely hard come by and Local Housing Allowance isn't stretching to cover many private rents, especially not accessible accommodation. When the cuts kick in, there will be a shortfall of £150 a month between the cheapest place I could physically live in my area and the amount of Local Housing Allowance I would be eligible for.

2. Hopelessness


Becoming incapacitated for work involves many losses and a loss of income, together with a more frugal lifestyle is inevitable. Nobody asks that those unable to work should be paid anything like what a person could earn in work.

However, some disabled people have savings or money they've inherited.  People affected by the time-limit will face the prospect of having to live off this money, which either they or someone else had worked hard for, resisting all the temptations they might have spent it on.

There has always been some irony in the disincentives to save money for people who might end up on means-tested benefits, but for disabled people, who crucially, have no other means of improving their situation, this seems particularly unfair. Especially, when the three most common scenarios for a disabled person with savings would be either

• (a) They worked very hard for many years and lived very frugally until they became disabled or
• (b) Because of their care needs, they were unable to move out their parents' home, so had low living expenses and chose not to squander their low incomes or
• (c) Someone else, feeling that the disabled person's future looked bleak, gave or left them a lump sum towards their future security and independence.

3. Pressure on Sick People.

There's no condition in the world, physical, sensory, mental or intellectual, which might benefit from a ticking clock. In fact, I believe the presence of a time limit could be deadly dangerous in two ways:

• (a) An increased risk of suicide. When my physical health has been so bad that I have felt like giving up, I have often found deadlines useful. I have thought, “If it is still like this next month, I will kill myself and it'll all be over and done with.” I have experienced depression at times, but usually such deals have been made on the grounds of being thoroughly fed up. Friends with chronic mental illness have talked about doing the same thing in order to put off that terminal decision, whilst leaving the option open for later. However, I also know people who set a date and then proceeded to make a serious attempt on their lives. And this is when the deadline merely signified, “It's gone on too long now.” rather than, “It's gone on too long and I am about to lose all my income."

Last January, Aliquant wrote this post about how, feeling cornered by the benefits system, suicide seemed quite rational. It's a powerful post because Ali was so articulate; she simply couldn't cope with the risk of more homelessness, further hardship or having to jump through any more hoops. Soon after, 5 Quid for Life was set up, a charity to help people like Ali survive when things go wrong. Since then, the benefits situation has been implicated in at least ten suicides.

• (b) A disincentive to self-management. Looking after your health, when your health is poor, is jolly hard work. Taking unpleasant medication, getting the right amount of exercise, preparing and eating the right food, resting and sleeping when you need to, visiting the appropriate healthcare workers, getting new complications and injuries treated and resisting naughty behaviours that will set you back, can feel like a full-time occupation. If you know that after a year, you're going to lose all income, unless your health significantly deteriorates, then you've got another major disincentive to look after yourself. I don't believe for a minute that anyone would choose to make themselves more ill, to suffer more and to deal with more health-related rigarmorale, even to shorten one's life expectancy. But a system is being created where being a good patient, hard as that is, could actually cost you money. 

I actually find it very distressing when people with far more energy than me fail to look after their health, although looking after is subjective and it is absolutely none of my business anyway. It's probably natural to worry about things that have happened to me happening to other people. However, as some disabled people involved in anti-cuts activism work themselves into the ground and expend twice as much energy in a week than I have in any given year, I am able to reassure myself that, as long as they stay alive, they'll probably wind up too sick to be effected by the time-limit. This situation is all kinds of wrong. There shouldn't be any advantage to getting sicker.


4. Damage Caused to Relationships

Money can't buy you love and poverty doesn't destroy it, but relationships can become a lot tougher when when one partner has literally no income and crucially, no means of bringing in money if they want to. I see three effects of this:

• (a) The time-limit interferes with the future relationships of single disabled people. Lisa has written about how the combination of poverty and disability dramatically reduces one's romantic chances, and the prospect of complete financial dependence will make this worse. Means-tested benefits force claimants to either restrict themselves to very casual and discreet relationships or else to place themselves in complete financial dependence on a partner the moment they begin living together – a moment which is rarely well-defined. 

• (b) The time-limit threatens to undermine existing relationships. Sue has described her fears of becoming a burden on her husband. As Shana Pezaro described, desertion is not an uncommon experience in the face of chronic illness, especially among heterosexual women, and the prospect of total financial dependence will only add to this problem. Some families, especially those with children, may even find that they would be financially better off if they occupied two different households. 

• (c) The time-limit makes disabled men and women, who are already more likely to experience domestic abuse, even more vulnerable. Disabled people are already twice as likely to experience domestic violence. If you have no income at all, then it becomes easy for an abusive partner to completely deny you access to money, to complain about or restrict your expenditure, whether on food or phone calls, bus fare or medicines. It becomes easy for an abuser to tell you what a burden you are, and how you owe them or deserve to be mistreated, when you are both financially and practically dependent on them.   

Unemployed single parents of small children have long had this problematic status, where benefit rules prevent them from having romantic relationships which progress out in the open and at their own natural pace and where the prospect of complete financial dependence can make a person feel as if they are less valuable. This is one of the major reasons that make such families particularly vulnerable to dysfunctional and abusive relationships.


The government's motives for this are deeply cynical.


Years back, when ESA was first discussed by the then Labour Government, the disability blogosphere and messageboards were awash with anxiety about sick people being pressured into work that they just couldn't get. I wrote a post on BBC Ouch! explaining that logically, we had nothing to fear. If Employment Support Allowance was to have a "Work Group", the government simply had to get these people into work. If vast numbers of us were placed in this Work Group, who didn't have a hope of getting a job, we would become bad statistics.

The Conservative Government came up with a way round this, which is to make these people disappear. Anyone on this band of ESA with savings or a working partner will simply disappear after twelve months.  They will not add to the unemployment statistics because they have been declared unfit for work. They will not be claiming any benefit at all.

Here is the link I gave you at the top: This is what we need to do now.

Cuts and hate crime

The IPCC report into Leicestershire police's failing to tackle the disablist hate that resulted in Fiona Pilkington killing herself and her daughter Francecca Hardwick is to be released today.

Several news sources have written about this. The Guardian have this quote from Professor Alan Roulstone from Northumbria University:

"There's a whole series of problems stacking up. There will be other Pilkingtons, sadly."

Roulstone then goes on to explain:

"With the current cuts, hate crime is slipping down the agenda. It wouldn't be right to name police forces, but certainly more than one force has said to me they don't have the money for training updates. Police officers understanding disability is a challenge, and very few forces manage to roll out training which makes sense to officers at the ground level."

This article, along with all the others I've seen, acknowledge that police cuts will result in disablist hate crime not being handled appropriately, but what the articles don't mention is that the benefit cuts and surrounding rhetoric are fuelling an increase in disablist harassment.

Our own incurable hippie wrote about being followed down the street by a man shouting "fucking DLA stick" at her. Then this blogger wrote about being called a "scrounging cunt" in the street.

When it comes to hate the cuts are hitting us from every side. They're making us more likely to be subjected to harassment and it less likely for the authorities to take that persecution seriously. As for the subject of suicide, just have a flick through WtB and you'll see a significant percentage of posts have comments following them in which readers express their intention to kill themselves when they lose their benefits.

#badd2011 Vulnerability

The government keep banging on about how benefit reforms will still see the "most vulnerable" supported.

But what do they mean by "vulnerable"? Innately I don't think of myself as vulnerable, I'm confident and articulate enough to stand up for myself (metaphorically at least). Despite my brittle bones I've stepped into the middle of a physical fight to break it up on many an occasion because I felt the benefits of doing so outweighed any "vulnerability" on my part. (And for the record it's never resulted in me getting punched. Something about people not wanting to hit a speccy disabled girl.)

But this government, with their cuts and their propaganda, are making me vulnerable.

Is this disablism though? Abso-bleeding-lutely when so many of the cuts and so much of the hate is aimed at us.

I'm vulnerable because I'm facing a future with no income because the DWP keep deciding ill people are allegedly "fit for work". If I end up losing everything how can I go on living? Other disabled people have already killed themselves because they lost their income. I'm not suicidal at the moment, I have no reason to be. But I'm vulnerable to finding myself suicidal in the near future because of the government.

Lets imagine I do get to keep my income replacement benefit (currently IB, soon to be ESA) and housing benefit. I'm still at risk of losing my Disability Living Allowance. DLA is a benefit paid to cover some of the extra costs of being disabled. Without my DLA I won't be able to shop to get food in. I currently have a Motability car, which I will lose if I'm one of the 1 in 5 DLA claimants who'll lose their money. I know some people who don't/can't drive who use their DLA to pay for online supermarket deliveries, without my DLA that'll be out of my price range. So I'm vulnerable to, you know, starvation thanks to the government's disablist cuts.

Then there's care funding. At the moment I don't get direct payments. I've toyed with the idea of applying but because there's so much paperwork involved it's less work to just struggle with domestic tasks myself and then guzzle painkillers in a House-esque fashion afterwards. As I smash up more joints that balance will change and I'll eventually pass the tipping point where the paperwork will become the easier of the two options. I used to live in one of the few local authorities in the country that provided care packages for people assessed as having less than "substantial" needs. Not any more. It's one of the things that got cut in my local council's budget this year. So if I sustain an injury (likely what with having brittle bones) I'm vulnerable to getting completely stuck and being unable to manage simple things like cooking because the council won't give me any assistance.

Thanks to the propaganda we see daily in papers like the Daily Mail and Express - encouraged by the government with their "scrounger" rhetoric and DWP press releases filled with half truths - I'm now more vulnerable to hate crime and being falsely accused of benefit fraud.

These brutal, unnecessary, unfair and disablist cuts are creating a raft of vulnerable people like me. People who are only vulnerable because of this government's actions.

If they truly cared about protecting us they wouldn't have put us in this position in the first place.

Talk is Easy

So the Lib-Dem Spring Conference is over and the activists have headed back to their constituencies, patting themselves on the back for telling their leaders they have to be something more than just a Tory sock-puppet when it comes to things like the NHS and DLA Mobility Component.

Talk is easy, but the Liberal Democrats currently stand complicit in a massed attack on the benefits disabled people need to enable them be truly equal in our society. It isn’t just DLA Mobility Component where we are under attack, it’s the threat to DLA as a whole, with an expected 20% cut in the people eligible for the replacement benefit — does the Government somehow have Lourdes and St Bernadette on tap to manage the miracle cures needed? Or is the truth that 1 in 5 people are going to see their benefits slashed without any change in their acute need for those benefits (and with ATOS running the assessments it’s likely to be 4 in 5 refused, not 1 in 5).

Then there’s ESA, where Lib-Dems like Danny Alexander railed against the inequity of ATOS WCA assessments in opposition, but suddenly became rabid supporters in government. I’m one of those ESA claimants, so let me put a human face on the benefit scrounging scum Cameron and IDS would have people believe we are. I didn’t opt out of Alarm Clock Britain, it opted out of me. I worked through 20 years of disability, often working even while curled up in pain on the office floor, until my employer decided disabled people were just too much of a bother and got rid of me. Every employment consultant I spoke to told me to forget about the private sector, that discrimination in recruitment of disabled people is so rife I would be wasting my time, that the public sector was only a little better. I claimed JSA, but DWP is incapable of dealing with claimants who are either disabled people or highly qualified and God help you if you are both. It took a complaint to the Minister for Disabled People to get them to admit I couldn’t be treated like everyone else and they only way they could do that was by placing me on ESA.

I passed my ESA WCA, despite ATOS destroying six weeks of my life at the first attempt (and claiming that I had failed to attend rather than admit that they had failed to provide the needed reasonable adjustments), the second attempt was nearly as bad and it was only when I became visibly physically distressed from the amount of pain I was in that the doctor stopped trying to force my situation into his computer generated script and deigned to treat me like an individual. And yet, sometime early next year, because I’m claiming Contributions Related ESA, my household income will drop to precisely zero, never mind that my disability is actually becoming worse, not better.

Then there is the savaging of the Independent Living Fund and all the other disability related benefits that are under threat, many gatewayed by DLA or the other benefits that are already being undermined, or funded by Local Authorities who have seen their budgets slashed and see us as an easy target with little political muscle to defend ourselves. We see the results in the replies here and on other disability sites when disabled people talk about the fear they are living under, far too many about how they are contemplating suicide if the cuts go through. That’s a proud legacy for the Liberal Democrat’s first year in office.

Talk is easy, votes count.

Absolutely Outrageous!

Or not...

I'm feeling quite sad this week that the general public, and more specifically anti-cuts campaigners, all consider books and trees to be far more important in the grand scheme of things than I - a human being - am.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of libraries and trees. As a child I always had my nose in a book. Always. And that was partly a disability-related thing: I couldn't run around or ride a bike, I spent a lot of time in bed with broken bones. Reading was something I could do and could do well. Very well. I could read books by myself before I started school and had a reading age far advanced of my chronological age.

The library was a huge part of my life. I couldn't possibly own all the books I read, if I did my mum and I would've had no room to move our wheelchairs around because there would just be piles of books everywhere. My local library used to have competitions in the summer holidays to see who could read the most books and it was genuinely gutting that I never won (I suspect the kids who beat me must've cheated and not read the books they claimed to have read).

Libraries don't just loan out books, they also loan CDs and DVDs. In the days before sites like Spotify allowed you to listen to an album before you bought it I'd often get CDs out of the library to try before buying. And obviously as a film geek I've taken hundreds of videos and DVDs out of the library. As a teenager I recall hunting high and low for a film I wanted to see that had been deleted on video and eventually stumbling across it on the World Cinema shelf of Cambridge's Central Library.

At this point it's almost impossible to live a life completely free from the internet. There are people who can't afford to have internet at home, or their computer broke and they can't afford to fix it, and so have to go to the library to access information that people reading this blog can probably find out sat in their pyjamas in their living room. And I think we've all experienced moving house and not being able to get the new broadband set up for a fortnight so we've had to go to the library in the interim period.

Then there's forests. I have to confess wandering around a forest of a Saturday afternoon doesn't hold much allure for me because such spaces are often not the most wheelchair accessible of places. But trees turn carbon dioxide into oxygen and I'm a big, big, fan of breathing. Certainly when I've had allergic reactions which have resulted in asthma attacks I've been quite distressed by not being able to breathe. So yay trees!

Despite my passion for libraries and my need for oxygen-producing trees I'm not sure I'd prioritise books and greenery over human lives. Yet that's what's currently happening in the anti-cuts movement. I want to make it absolutely clear that I do not support the closure of libraries or the sale of the forests. I am not suggesting that we close libraries and sell forests to save benefits. I am opposed to all the government's cuts.¹

Loss of benefits kills people. People like Paul Reekie and Christelle Pardo. A blogger called Aliquant has expressed her plan to kill herself if her transition from IB to ESA doesn't go smoothly. Here on WtB we've had plenty of people express their intention to kill themselves if they lose their benefits. Some of the examples are here and here.

I've written in the past on my own blog about how disabled people are seen as the lowest of the low, and that's still going on. Last week Melanie Phillips wrote a homophobic article in the Daily Mail. There was an outcry. Her name was a trending topic on Twitter and I must've read several hundred "gay agenda" jokes at her expense. As a lesbian I was among the horrified many (though part of me was looking forward to homosexuality becoming mandatory as she promised; I might get laid occasionally...) and shared in the collective outrage.

The following day the Mail published this article full of inaccuracies about the number of Incapacity Benefit claimants found fit for work. The outrage was limited to a tiny handful of disabled people. There were no trending topics and no jokes at the expense of Gerri Peev (the article's author) for being a disablist arse. In fact because there's been such prevalence of these misleading articles a lot of people of an anti-cuts bent probably believed it to be true rather than accepting the reality that it's just designed to incite hatred against disabled people. (In case you're wondering the fraud rate for Incapacity Benefit - according to the DWP's own figures - is 1%. See the table on page 8 of this report.)

The contrast in response to these two articles in the space of two days really made me feel like less of a human being because no-one's willing to speak out against this disablist prejudice. I speak out against racism, plenty of heterosexuals spoke out against Melanie Phillips' homophobia, but where were the non-disabled people speaking out against this disablist bile?

The issue is on my mind today because today there has been a national day of action to save libraries. It's been all over the news and twitter. That we as a culture value books more than disabled people is clear when you contrast today to the day of action against benefits cuts a fortnight ago.

457,500 people signed the save forests petition. Only 4000 and change have signed the save DLA petition. Really puts into perspective how much the general public prefers trees to disabled people.

I realise that most people support causes they understand. The campaign to save libraries will attract high-profile figures like authors because libraries introduce readers to their books. So famous people offer their endorsement to the "save libraries" campaign which has a top down effect; their fans become involved in saving libraries, which means there's enough people campaigning to get the story in the news, which means even more people campaign.

The same goes for forests. Most people off the telly will have enjoyed a walk through some trees with their dog at some point. So they tweet their support for the "save forests" campaign. Their fans then sign petitions and spread the word, which again results in newsworthyness so the campaign spreads like headlice in Downing Street.

Between health problems and discrimination limiting career options there aren't that many famous disabled people to set the snowball rolling down the hill. I explained in this post how we need non-disabled people to stand beside us and why it's important insurance for their own futures to do so. But still non-disabled people choose to prioritise libraries and trees over their fellow human beings whose lives are at risk from benefits cuts.

First They Came - Pastor Martin Niemöller

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialist
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

It'd make me happy beyond anything if this post could be seen as a 'call to arms' (not least because if the anti-benefits-cuts movement gained momentum it might save some lives), so please pass it on. Don't just dismiss me as a moaning scrounger but remember I could be your neighbour, your sister's friend, the customer in your café, the person you smile at on the bus every morning: We are real people being attacked by these cuts with no-one standing up for us.

"A call to arms? What do you expect me to do?" The Broken of Britain always have campaigns on the go that you can participate in from your desk. They've currently got details of several motions you can ask your MP/MSP/AM to sign. Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) are where to look for information on getting out in the streets and protesting. Then there's us: We'll always have news and intelligent comment to keep you informed, and if you follow us on Twitter you'll be kept up to date on all news, petitions, protests and motions around disability benefits issues.

I want some outrage, dammit!

---

¹ Retrospectively emboldened for emphasis because people were still accusing me of being in favour of closing libraries and selling forests to save benefits.

The Daily Mail's Deserving Few (Scroungers not welcome)

 Guest post from Rich of Arbitrary Constant

I'd love to know what it's like being someone with the mindset of a Daily Mail reader. It must be fascinating to be outraged by something today that is the exact opposite of the thing you were outraged by yesterday.

The subject of benefits is ripe ground for this: on the one side you have the "benefit scrounging scum" who are displaying frankly extraordinary skill and expertise in amassing small fortunes at the expense of your average hard-working taxpayer. On the other, you have "our brave lads" and "heroes" whose sacrifice and commitment to our way of life the government isn't valuing by scrimping and saving on the measly difference of a few quid a week.

Into this melting pot of prejudice, hypocrisy and knee-jerk reaction enters the "hero officer blinded by gunman Raoul Moat", David Rathband. The DWP has assessed him as being eligible for the lower mobility component of Disability Living Allowance, £18.95 a week, compared to the higher rate of £49.85.

Predictably, the Daily Mail is appaled by this decision, branding it "paltry" and quoting Mr Rathband as follows:

If only they knew how hard it is being blind. I need help just to get to the end of my garage. Each day is a challenge to get about. As a blind person you have to learn a route in your mind, if it's walking to the shops and back, and it's taken me six weeks just to do that. How on earth does that make me mobile? I'm going to appeal the decision. I don't know if I'll win or not but this is a point of principle.

This, of course, from the the paper which gave us:
— George Osborne's remedy for a crippling benefit (bonus points for particularly distasteful use of language)
— The boom towns transformed into benefit blackspots
— 76% of those who say they're sick 'can work': Tests weed out most seeking incapacity benefit
— Osborne begins crackdown on incapacity benefit cheats with plans to treble assessments
— Just one in six incapacity benefit claimants 'is genuine' as tough new test reveals TWO MILLION could be cheating (extra style points for use of capital letter for emphasis)

All in all, this amounts to the usual, ill-informed hypocrisy of the Daily Mail. Only it could glowingly quote a hero talking about the "principle" of the positive difference benefits makes in their day-to-day life, whilst at the same time lambasting every other benefit recipient as a "scrounger".

With all due respect to Mr Rathband and the difficulties he will undoubtedly face for the rest of his life, there are plenty of people in far worse a position than him who are being targeted by the coalition government's wilful confusion of Disability Living Allowance as an "out-of-work benefit" and the Daily Mail's gleeful coverage of people that fit the bill.

Perhaps the Daily Mail should recognise how hard it is being a disabled person by ensuring everybody gets the right level of welfare support they need, rather than just those it happens to think are the most deserving.

Cuts to DLA 'The easiest bit of welfare reform to sell'

Benefit Scrounging Scum

The coalition’s assault on what the Conservatives refer to as “broken Britain” is underway. The government has announced for the first time how many of the UK’s 2.6m recipients of disability benefits it estimates will be reclassified as fit-to-work in this parliament. The answer: a cool 500,000 or 23 per cent of the total.

Although this will generate political heat among those affected, it is the easiest bit of welfare reform to sell. Britain’s out-of-work disability benefits have been abused. The last government belatedly recognised this and started to introduce a more rigorous system. But many of the 2.2m people who still claim the old benefit elected to do so because it is more generous than the dole."

Financial Times, September 16th 2010

This article in yesterday's Financial Times* makes very clear the ethos behind the Coalition government's slash and burn attacks on sickness related benefits, that cuts to disability benefits are perceived as the "easiest bit of welfare reform to sell" . The FT don't distinguish between the different types of sickness related benefits so I assume the figure of 2.2million people claiming what they describe as 'the old benefit' refers to Incapacity Benefit, the predecessor to Employment and Support Allowance brought in by New Labour. It seems equally safe to assume that the 2.6million they refer it is actually the 2.9 million Disability Living Allowance recipients, some 1.25 million of which are adults who claim both DLA and IB.

The official Department of Work and Pensions fraud rate for Disability Living Allowance makes it very clear that only 0.5% of the total number of claims are fraudulent. That's approximately 14,500 fraudulent claims out of an overall 2.9million.  So, less than 15,000 Disability Living Allowance awards are fraudulent and the coalition are determined to reduce the numbers claiming DLA by half a million. Playing fast and loose with the DWP's own statistics and assuming they're wildly underestimating the problem of fraudulent claims, which seems particularly unlikely, if an overall fraud rate of, say 5%, 10 times that of the official rate were assumed, that would still only be one hundred and forty five thousand fraudulent claims out of a total 2.9 million. Still some three hundred and fity five thousand short of the half a million proposed reduction.

The agenda is clear. To vastly restrict eligibility to DLA, already the most rigorously assessed and difficult to claim benefit of all.

So much for David Cameron's claim that "Those that can should, and those who can't we will always help. I want to make sure that my government always looks after the elderly, the frail, the poorest in our country." David Cameron, 11th May 2010

*10 articles available to view per month if free registration completed.

800,000 claimants face losing their incapacity benefit – The Times, Friday 10 September 2010

800,000 claimants face losing their incapacity benefit – The Times, Friday 10 September 2010*

George Osborne: said to be demanding up to £10 billion more from the £170 billion social security budget

Jill Sherman Whitehall Editor

Hundreds of thousands of people are likely to lose sickness benefits under a new assault on the welfare state, The Times has learnt.

The Treasury is considering means-testing incapacity benefit — given to those considered too sick to work — a change under which 800,000 people on modest to high incomes would lose it altogether. The entitlement, which is available to those who have paid national insurance contributions, costs the taxpayer more than £6.5 billion a year and goes to more than 2.5 million people.

Millions of disabled and sick people have been on the benefit — which is between £68 and £96 a week — for years and are able to stay on it until they retire, irrespective of their income or that of their partner.

Disability and poverty groups warned yesterday that means-testing would fly in the face of the principle of paying national insurance to fund benefits. They argued that the disabled and mentally ill were becoming the main victims of the Treasury’s spending cuts.

“It would be grossly unfair if someone who had worked for over 30 years and had paid [national insurance] throughout suddenly found the benefit taken away at the moment they needed it,” said Sue Royston, social policy officer for Citizens Advice.

Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, has agreed to £11 billion savings a year. But George Osborne, the Chancellor, is said to be demanding up to £10 billion more from the £170 billion social security budget. Mr Osborne indicated yesterday that he had already identified £4 billion affecting those on “out-of-work benefits”.

“People who think it’s a lifestyle choice to just sit on out-of-work benefits — that lifestyle choice is going to come to an end. The money won’t be there,” he said.

One Whitehall official told The Times that means-testing incapacity benefit, which could save up to £2 billion a year, was being considered. “We are seeking more on incapacity benefit,” he conceded. “If more cuts are made to the welfare budget we should be able to reduce the bigger cutbacks to other Whitehall departments.”

Other benefits under threat include those going to pensioners, such as winter fuel payments and TV allowances, which could save £2.7 billion if scrapped.

Under the latest plans being considered, those on incapacity benefit — or employment and support allowance, which is replacing it — would receive it for a time-limited period of six months to a year. After this, those on higher incomes — generally those with working partners — would lose the benefit, and those on lower incomes would lose part of it. Those on the lowest incomes would still receive income support.

Mrs Royston argued that people would lose all entitlement to incapacity benefit if their partner had an income of about £8,000 a year or had savings of more than £16,000, if the present rules for other means-tested benefits were applied.

“This is causing enormous concern,” she said. “If someone who has worked for years became seriously ill and his partner earned over £150 a week, he would get nothing, despite his contributions.”

Treasury officials believe that many people remain on sickness benefits until they retire even if they could do some type of work.

Figures from the Office for National Statistics, published this week, show that in more than 840,000 households all members of the household over 16 are too sick to work. In a further 612,000 households, at least one member is too sick to work.

The Government is already clamping down on payments to the disabled and has pledged to introduce more rigorous medical tests for all incapacity benefit claimants by next March, but the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is already having trouble finding enough doctors to carry out the checks.

The severely disabled, who receive disability living allowance to help to pay for carers, are also facing medical tests for the first time.

Sources at the DWP yesterday made it clear that negotiations were still going on but did not rule out reducing or scrapping benefits for those on higher incomes. “We are presently looking at a range of options for welfare reform and any decisions will be made in the context of the spending review,” a spokesman said. “Our reforms will ensure that the most vulnerable in our society are protected.”

Richard Hawkes, the chief executive of Scope, the disability charity, condemned the plans to means-test incapacity benefit, claiming that people would be denied the support they had paid for.

“People will effectively be penalised for working hard, saving and contributing to society,” Mr Hawkes said. “The Government has made much of its commitment to ensuring that the impact of cost savings is spread fairly, but this feels like another example of disabled people bearing the brunt of cuts.”

*No link provided as The Times is now behind a paywall.

CAB Report on the Coalition Budget 2010

The Citizens Advice Bureau has written a report on Key welfare changes and their impact on low income households.

It makes for very depressing reading, and while it does not look specifically at disability benefits, it reports on the reductions and changes in Housing Benefit, JSA and tax credits, all of which are claimed by many disabled people. For instance,

From 2013/14 any claimant on JSA for more than 12 months will have their HB entitlement cut by 10 per cent. This will continue until they have “left the benefit system and been in work for a while”.
This seems a crude measure as it appears that it will apply even where the tenant is fully complying with their JSA requirements to actively seek work. The cut will fall hardest on those who face disadvantage in the labour market, such as people in poor health or with a disability who have failed the harsher medical tests for incapacity benefit and employment and support allowance, and have therefore been moved onto JSA.

It also explains why changing benefit levels from rising in line with the Retail Prices Index, to the Consumer Prices Index, will result in a reduction in the value of benefits and tax credits.

At the end of the study the report highlights scenarios illustrating the impact of the cuts on specific households, and several of the case studies include the issues of people who are ill or disabled. For instance,

A 50 year old man with mild learning disabilities and literacy issues has done manual work all his life until arthritis in his knees, hips and shoulder forced him to stop work. He has worked and paid contributions all his life until that point. He pays rent of £110/week and council tax of £18/week.
He claimed ESA but was found fit for work, so is now claiming JSA. The number of jobs he will be able to do is severely limited. He also has no access to his own transport and finds public transport very difficult because of the arthritis. His Jobcentre Plus personal adviser finds it difficult to suggest jobs for him. He has been out of work since his arthritis made it impossible to continue in his job two years ago and he has been claiming JSA for a year.
After housing costs he has a disposable income of £65.45 a week (his JSA). After a year as a result of changes in up-rating of JSA and also the LHA rates, his disposable income is likely to drop in real terms to about £64. However he may well also lose a further £8 off his HB as the 30th percentile rate is used to calculate the LHA rate. If he is unable to find a job after a year he will lose a further £10 a week of his HB. If he can not find somewhere cheaper to live he will have a disposable income after housing costs of about £46, a 30% reduction. Even if he can find somewhere cheaper to live, his disposable income will drop to £54, a 17.5% reduction.
If he had been allocated to the work-related activity group for ESA, his income would be £91.30 a week.

(cross-posted at incurable hippie blog)

BBC Documentary Seeking Families with Disabled Children on Benefits

Disability Now posted on twitter that the BBC is looking for families with disabled children to feature in a new documentary focusing on the effects of benefit cuts.

They have sent me further information so that I could post the request here, in case any readers are interested in taking part.



[Image text reads: MY LIFE DOCUMENTARY. BBC One is making a film about children growing up in low income families. We are looking for chatty children, happy to talk about family life, having fun, where they live, school, hopes and dreams...

If you are, or if you know a child aged 7-12 years who you think might like to take part, then please call / text Tim on 07968 721299 and I'll call you right back!

Check out www.truevisiontv.com/mylife for more details.]

BBC ONE: My Life (1hr)

True Vision is a BAFTA award-winning production company renowned for making documentaries about important and often sensitive social issues. Our films have led to concrete political and social change regarding homelessness, unemployment, addiction and domestic violence - please visit www.truevisiontv.com for more details.

Eleven years ago our BBC documentary 'Eyes of a Child' compassionately told the story of children growing up on the edges of society. It caused a sensation and in the following weeks Tony Blair announced a raft of measures designed to eradicate poverty in the UK by 2020 - with an interim target of halving the number by 2010.

While some excellent work has been achieved with those closest to the poverty line, it is still estimated that 4 million children still live in poverty today. 'My Life' will provide 4-5 children living in households where the family struggle to make ends meet, (throughout the UK) the opportunity to present their world through their eyes, highlighting the things that affect them including housing, their local area, unemployment and access to education as well as their hopes and dreams despite living in tough circumstances.

It will be a powerful and important film which will give a voice to the children who are facing the toughest start in life compared to most. It will also help to ensure that child poverty remains at heart of future social policy in this historical year.

We are looking for children aged 8-12 (perhaps up to 14) throughout the UK who have plenty to say about their lives, their homes and their family. The filming would follow them over a couple of months (in short sensible bursts of filming that best tell their story) so that we can present a narrative for each which the audience can really engage with. Parents and siblings may well be involved but the vast majority of filming would focus on one or two of the children.

Given the nature of this documentary, we have a child protection policy which has been approved by the BBC for this project. All staff involved have been CRB-checked, have signed up to a strict protocol and solid experience working with children and families. At all times, whether gathering research in an informal capacity through to filming with a child, their safety and wellbeing is paramount

****
Firstly I'd like to say that we are acutely aware of how difficult is to find contributors willing to discuss some very personal difficulties, furthermore ones that they may not be proud of - but I can honestly say that our previous contributors have all been happy with the final films, because they take a long time to make allowing a strong level of trust to develop. I also accept that not everything needs to be out in the public domain, so certain details can be withheld and we also show the film to contributors for fairness and accuracy prior to broadcast.

Recently there have been several documentaries made regarding social imbalances - perhaps most notably 'How the Other Half Live' - although the programme fulfils a purpose, I have to admit some personal dissatisfaction about the format used. We are perhaps slightly old-school and rather than have a life-swap scenario or celeb come in and view life through their experiences, our intention is to give the microphone to the kids and hear their voice, their thoughts and witness their lives - ultimately achieving a more 'real' picture of what life is like.

The film is meant to be a statement on Child Poverty/Social Deprivation - I cannot hide from this, or find contributors who are unaware of this - but I suppose my approach to potential contributors is to target the specifics underneath these banners, ie housing, education, family life, health, aspirations etc. Hopefully it won't be all doom and gloom though, and I'd like it to be a process that the kids enjoy, and can feel a strong sense of achievement & satisfaction from.

Finally I also wish to acknowledge that there is good work being done to alleviate social problems, I would say that there has been a lot of investment to improve certain parts of the country and perhaps the timing of this film will be important as expected cutbacks will hinder ongoing progress.

So if you are interested, check out their website, or call or text Tim on 07968 721299.

Clutching at Straws

This extract of this morning's Today Programme on Radio 4 makes very interesting listening. It becomes clear by the end that the government has not done an Equality Impact Assessment on the Budget and its cuts, as required by equality law. And in a misrepresentation that's easy to miss if you're not already aware of how DLA works, Mark Hogan appears to claim that the Tory government is reforming Disability Living Allowance so that it's no longer means tested. Um. It never has been.

Oh, and apparently it will help people to have their housing benefit cut because now they'll be able to look for cheaper housing and have more income as a result. Whichever civil servant thought up that argument must have been very drunk at the time.

The Tories: clutching at the most ridiculous straws to prove what can't be proven. The Budget, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has found, affects the poorest most. It's an unfair Budget, and you can't talk your way out of that.

Thanks to @oxfordbloo for tweeting the link and alerting us to the DLA misrepresentation.

The human cost of benefit cuts

I'd not heard of writer Paul Reekie until last month. But now, for me, he has come to represent the reason why Where's the Benefit? is needed and why these attacks on disabled people must stop.

The first time I'd heard of him was when I read this story in The Scotsman. The article contains this extract of a letter from Reekie's publisher Kevin Williamson to the Chancellor George Osborne:

"I thought I would let you know that Paul took his own life. He didn't leave a note but he laid out two letters on his table. One was notifying him that his housing benefit had been stopped. The other was notifying him that his incapacity benefit had been stopped.

"The reason I'm writing this letter is just so you know the human cost of attacking those on benefits."

"The letter will be binned and forgotten, but there will be loads more folk in Paul's shoes over the coming years trying to cope with unemployment, depression, house repossessions and stress."

Friends of Paul set up the Black Triangle - Anti-Defamation Campaign In Defence of Disabled Claimants on Facebook in memory of him. The 'info' page explains the name:

The Nazis forced people with mental and other disabilities to wear black triangles in the extermination camps during the Holocaust.

The generic classification they used was "Arbeitsscheu" - literally "Workshy".

Any loss of life is tragic. I hope that at least his death can serve as a wake up call to those attacking us that their actions do have very real consequences. Ultimately I would like to see Paul's death prevent any more disabled people being put in the economic position where they feel that death is their only option.

"You Could Direct Traffic"

Image shows a man in a full body cast being interviewed for his incapacity benefit medical with the caption "you could direct traffic"

 Matt Cartoon in The Telegraph, Mon 16th August 2010.

Guest Post: Benefits Who?

This is a guest post from Blu.

Slowly but surely over the last few years, I've watched tolerance and understanding of mental health issues evaporate in the benefits system - not that there was much there to start with. The latest portfolio of idiots in power appear to view mental health as something that's guaranteed by the ability to earn money, and those whose mental health is poor need only to take the tablets, stop thinking about those damned problems, and just get on with earning already.

If only it were that easy, I'd currently be preparing for the start of a new teaching term whilst nursing my Seychelles tan and planning for a long weekend away in Singapore in October. I've got the qualifications. Schools are crying out for teachers. The pay is far more than any amount of DLA, ESA, IS or other benefits combined. So why don't I just 'pull myself together', 'get a grip' and 'stop scrounging'?

I have mental health issues. Big, f*ck-off issues. And yes, they prevent me from working. But I know, I'm making it all up, because mental health problems are easy to fake, aren't they? And what a great way to scrounge some benefit money whilst I'm at it! I should get up off my arse, stop making excuses and WORK, DAMMIT.

It's at this point that many people would go into detail as to why they can't work, and what caused them to be this way. I lost patience with justifying myself a long time ago. I shouldn't have to carry a potted medical history around with me to prove to all comers that yes, I am actually ill and deserving of benefits. It's nobody's business but my own. Unfortunately, in the current climate of ‘pick on the poor’ my right to privacy is winging its merry way out of the window, to be replaced by ‘work-focused interviews’, medicals by unqualified staff and financial compulsion (not forgetting the baying masses who believe what they read in the Daily Mail).
Treatment for my condition is my choice – or so I thought. So you can understand my ire when, after re-applying for DLA a couple of years ago, I received a letter stating that my benefit had been revised to a lower level...and when I called to ask why, I was told that the reason for this was because I wasn’t under the care of a hospital psychiatrist.

In other words, if you don’t take treatment, we’ll cut your money.

This was a new one on me. Having patiently explained on the multitude of DLA forms my reasons for not using the NHS psychiatric services – because they don’t listen to me, because they only want to give me tablets and not tangible help, because I never see the same member of staff twice, because having to explain your history and feelings week in and week out to a different person every time actually makes mental health issues worse, not better, and because I won’t make myself worse by being forced to talk about my history and feelings with someone I don’t know and who patently isn’t interested anyway – I’m told that my reasons are invalid, and I must receive NHS psychiatric care (subtext: or you’re either trying to stay ill, or you’re not really ill anyway and a psychiatrist would find you out).

I couldn’t quite believe it. But the (admittedly very helpful) lady on the other end of the phone at DLA Central confirmed that it was true – I couldn’t receive the level of DLA I’d been previously getting if I wasn’t seeing some sort of mental health professional. I noted that she’d softened from ‘hospital psychiatrist’ to ‘mental health professional’. I mentioned that I was currently attending the Rape Crisis Centre for counselling (which I had also included on the DLA forms). This, apparently, was enough. She filled in an appeal for me. My DLA was reinstated at the previous level, although no explanation was received as to why non-NHS counselling was ignored as ‘treatment’ in the first instance.

I thought it was a one-off. And then I read the mass of legalese that made up the newfangled ESA benefit small print. Lo and behold, the benefits office are now perfectly within their rights to remove a claimant’s benefits if said claimant refuses to take treatment ‘recommended by a healthcare professional’. Given that the government and benefits agencies seem to regard anyone who can spell ‘disability’ as a healthcare professional nowadays, that doesn’t bode well for the ongoing treatment of people with mental health issues, thinks I.

Why shouldn’t people with mental health issues be forced to take NHS psychiatric (or psychological) treatments? It’ll make them better, and able to go back to work, won’t it?

For a start off, no-one should be forced into medical treatments they don’t want, don’t consent to, or that may make their condition worse. Forcible medical treatment happened under regimes like Hitler’s and Stalin’s. It shouldn’t happen in a supposedly free country like the UK. That the basis for such compulsion is financial rather than ideological (although I’d dispute that the two were that much different) makes no odds. Forcing people in any way to take medical treatments that they don’t want is assault, pure and simple.

Added to that, there’s the way in which the NHS has been increasingly co-opted by the government in the last few years. CBT used to be absolutely impossible to get in the Midlands city where I used to live. A friend of mine who had a serious phobia spent years begging and pleading with various doctors and mental health services for CBT to be made available in the area, as it would’ve been the best thing to help her. It’s available now, of course – so available, in fact, that every wallah with any form of mental health issue (and a fair few physical ones too) is packed off to CBT. Hey, if it works for a phobia of buses, it must work for every other form of anxiety, right?

Perhaps your experience of CBT has been positive. I’m not doubting that it helps some people and some issues. But CBT is in no way the cure-all the government seems to crow that it is. I’m very wary of the way in which it’s being pushed on all people with mental health issues, because many mental health issues are caused by very real physical and societal problems. Changing the way the person with mental health issues thinks about these problems smacks of blaming (and silencing) the victim, rather than dealing with the problem. Of course, it’s cheaper that way – which is why, I suspect, CBT is being recommended for absolutely everything and its dog. Blame it on your head. Think differently. Get a grip. Get a job. It doesn’t take much to join the dots.

Outside of CBT, the waiting lists for psychiatric and psychological treatments are astronomical. You’ll need an assessment, which involves going through past history and current issues with someone whom you’ve never met before and may not ever see again. Unsurprisingly, this has the potential to leave people with mental health issues in serious crisis. Yet there’s no after-care – and if the current coalition government has its way, there’ll be precious little in the way of voluntary or charity-based support available either. If you manage to sit though the months of waiting to get a regular appointment with psychiatry or psychology, there’s no guarantee that you’ll see the same person twice (this seems to be the case especially in psychiatry) – and going through your history yet again with someone you don’t know or trust is at best not helpful, and at worst positively damaging. You might not want to take certain medications, based on potential side-effects. You might not want to talk about particular subjects. You might not want to go through any of this at all, as placing your very survival in the hands of someone you don’t know or trust is an incredibly vulnerable position to be in. Most people who don’t have mental health issues would find that uncomfortable. For someone like an abuse survivor, for example, such a situation may feel like the height of terror. But the benefits system doesn’t care if this negatively affects you. Whether or not it makes you better is besides the point – you have to show that you’re willing to ‘get over it’, shut up, take the tablets, IMPROVE, dammit, and WORK. Pretend that everything’s okay for someone else’s benefit, when it so obviously isn’t. I’ve been here before. And I’ve learnt through hard experience that the only way out is to shout – loudly – that the emperor is indeed in the nip.

All this DWP compulsion does is create more of a barrier to treatment for people with mental health issues, rather than less. I don’t want to talk to someone I don’t know about personal and uncomfortable things. I’m even less likely to want to talk to them if we both know that the only reason I’m there is to check up that I’m not faking, and that I’m trying to get better. I already know I can’t trust the DWP to take me seriously. Setting the NHS up for the same thing is a grave mistake – especially as the DWP’s medical ‘assessments’ take not one jot of notice of your NHS medical records anyway!

The current benefits ‘shake-up’ is designed to save money, pure and simple. People with mental health issues will be a prime target because they’re easy to dismiss. Our disabilities aren’t always visually obvious, and the government quite clearly thinks that this means we’re lying about having them. Conversely, if we do have them, then we’re evidently unable to think clearly and make our own decisions – therefore our views should be ignored. As people who are either lying or incapable, we can then be made to take treatments that will make us capable of being financially productive, and anyone who disagrees or can’t manage this is proven to be the very worst of benefit scrounging ungrateful scum.

Which leaves me wondering what will happen to those of us whose mental health conditions leave us, for whatever reason, outside of their glorious ‘Arbeit macht Frei’ future.

It's not benefits that are outrageous, it's the cuts.

The Guardian reports on attacks on people who have been on disability benefits for 10 years or more.

Employment Minister Chris Grayling described the figures as "outrageous" and promised action to get people off benefits and back into work.

There is a shocking lack of acknowledgement or awareness that if someone has been on disability benefits for 10 years are probably pretty ill, have significant impairments, or face massive barriers.

"Thousands of people who have simply been cast aside by a welfare system that does nothing but put them in a queue for benefits and then forgets about them.

"Well those days are over. We will no longer accept a system which writes people off at a drop of the hat and expects the taxpayer to foot the bill."

With statements like that, they appear to be trying to cloak their attacks in the guise of concern for the benefit recipients, but it is a thinly disguised threat where the biggest concern is clearly the 'taxpayers footing the bill'.

It shows a complete lack of comprehension of the reality of the day to day lives of those who have been on long-term sickness benefits, and of why people are in this situation. There are many things the government could do to improve disabled people's lives and, yes, their chances of eventually getting back to work, but cutting off benefits helps no-one.

To put the £4.2 billion in context, we also know that £16 billion worth of benefits go unclaimed every year.

(Cross-posted at incurable hippie blog)

ESA: It Doesn't Add Up

The government now has two different, simultaneous official responses to the medical tests for Employment Support Allowance (ESA), which replaced Incapacity Benefit in 2008 for those who cannot work due to illness or disability. These responses, unsurprisingly, contradict each other.

On the one hand, Chris Grayling wants the rules "tightened" to make it harder to claim benefits. He seems particularly concerned about people who start a claim for ESA and then discontinue it before they reach the top of the queue for their medical test (apparently without considering legitimate reasons why this might happen, such as an improvement in health). That's Official Government Opinion on ESA Medicals Number 1. As usual, the rhetoric is that we must weed out as many 'scroungers' as possible. As usual, important relevant facts are missing - in this case, that the level of benefit received while waiting for a medical assessment is the same low rate that Jobseekers' Allowance claimants receive. I'm not entirely sure the figures add up, either.

Yet a few months ago, a group of nineteen disability- and welfare-related organisations, led by the Citizens' Advice Bureau (CAB), released a report calling for a review of the medical test for ESA. In particular, the report highlighted concerns over a low success rate among ESA claimants - rates which Disability Alliance clearly states here. It also offered evidence of the "limited effectiveness of the assessment", and poor treatment by medical assessors, which they claim especially fails those with more complex medical conditions. Examples of CAB clients who had failed the test included "people in the advanced stages of Parkinson's Disease and Multiple Sclerosis, people with severe mental illness, and [people] awaiting open heart surgery." Lisa and incurable hippie have already posted about cases that demonstrate the problems associated with the target-driven medical assessors who conduct the ESA medicals. This report confirms that these are far from being isolated cases.

In response to the report and the organisations' concerns, the government has now agreed to an urgent review into the Work Capability Test, the medical assessment for ESA. In response to comments from the review group, Grayling appeared to support the review. He said that he understood claimants' concerns and anxieties, and that the tests needed to be "applied sensitively". So that would be Official Government Opinion on ESA Medicals Number 2, then.

The review group will report on the Work Capability Test towards the end of this year. We might expect a responsible government to reduce the negative rhetoric that the group has already complained about, and leave further ESA-related comments until after the publication of their report. Which makes Chris Grayling's comments this week all the more concerning. Even more worrying is the way the government uses similar statistics as those that led to calls for a review. Remember that concern in the CAB report over the low success rate among people claiming ESA? The government thinks it just demonstrates how many people are capable of work.

In fairness to the media, there are some newspapers that have highlighted the ways in which the government has spun these figures to its own advantage. This article also highlights the fact that four in ten appeals by people who have been refused ESA are successful. This may not be a huge percentage, but it certainly suggests that significant numbers of claimants are unfairly becoming victims of the government's cost-cutting approach. No wonder there's so much anxiety around the ESA medical assessments. Anxiety that won't help those who already have long-term illnesses, or mental health problems, or acute life-threatening conditions - or who are already living in fear and poverty as a result of the War on Welfare Claimants.

Our caring Tory government: capable of viewing the same results of ESA testing as both a serious concern for the poor sick people who are being refused help and a triumph for the scroungers who are being rooted out. But mainly the second one.

Don't forget that you can contribute towards the review of the Work Capability Test, as incurable hippie posted recently, if you have any experiences that you think would be useful to the group conducting the review process.


Thanks to members of the BBC Ouch messageboard for sharing some of the links in this post.

Link round up

Some of these links range from a few weeks to a few months old. But I think they're important to post here to give a bit of background as to what's been going on in the War on Welfare Claimants thus far, which prompted us to create this blog.

In May this year BBC Scotland took a look at ESA and its failings. I think the most pertinent element of the piece is the hypocrisy in how Vicki Bell was "assessed" by ATOS. (Incurable Hippie posted a similar case on here yesterday.)

One of the readers of Iain Dale's Diary wrote to him and expressed their concerns about DLA reform. The point the reader emphasised was that they're more financially valuable to Osbourne claiming DLA than not. Of course, that's not true for all of us: Some of us, even on DLA, remain unable to work so offer no financial value to Osbourne despite being rich in human value. But it's excellent news that this reader convinced Iain Dale that we do have some value to society because his is a well respected voice in the Tory party. (This year's Pink List described him as "More influential outside politics than in.")

Anne Begg MP talked to Disability Now about the attack on DLA. Quite worryingly she seems to be under the impression that "The one benefit which we have in this country which actually operates on the social model of disability is DLA," which demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of the social model. Yes the DLA assessment currently focusses on what you can and can't do, rather than on diagnosis alone, but that does not make it a social model assessment. It appears that Begg has misunderstood what the medical model actually means, and in turn assumes that the social model must be the opposite. This fab post by Lady Bracknell explains why the term "medical model" can be a bit of a misnomer and might shed some light on how Anne Begg got confused. Misunderstandings of a sociological construct aside, it's good to see that someone in parliament is fighting our corner.

Comment is Free on guardian.co.uk have been great ambassadors for our cause. Articles they've published recently on the subject of disability benefits includes: Disability allowance exists for a reason by Anne Wollenberg, Cutting disability benefits is not 'fair' by Jackie Ashley, Why should I again prove my disability to satisfy George Osborne? By Rhydian Fôn James, and Disabled people are not scroungers by Emmanuel Smith. Especially important is Anne Wollenberg's piece which explains that DLA is not an out-of-work benefit something our government keeps forgetting.

Having been called a scrounger by our press and politicians so many times I felt compelled to write a blog post explaining exactly why I get the benefits I do. It seems particularly relevant today seeing as how this morning I received a letter telling me I'm being summonsed to a Pathways to Work interview next week and if I don't show up my benefits will probably be stopped.

The ever fierce Disability Bitch accepted responsibility for the recession and has agreed to make some cuts to save the government some money.

Spoof news website Newsarse.com published a piece titled "Osborne to put coma patients to work as draft excluders". Sad thing is that given the current climate it wouldn't be too surprising to see that as a genuine headline on a real news site.

Bitch and Newsarse may be humorous sites but for my money, the funniest thing I've read since these attacks began was this piece quoting Yvette Cooper on the Tories' plans to cut DLA. Why is that so hilarious? Because the two-faced woman was a vociferous advocate of ESA, the problems with ESA having been established in my first link.