Campaigning against the government's distressing war on disabled benefit claimants. All posts represent the opinions of their respective authors and not WtB as a whole.
Sunday, 13 November 2011
Friday, 11 November 2011
Disabled people occupy the UK / Occupy LSX access info
It's that time of the week when I remind you about joining occupations on Sunday.
I'm afraid that living in London I've only been able to scout out access info for Occupy LSX. Perhaps if you visit one of the other occupations you could post access details in the comments below?
If you're worried about getting cold and needing to get inside and warm up: The occupation is simply surrounded by cafés. There's all your big chains (Starbucks, Costa, Pret, Paul, etc) within sight of the tents. Tents are actually erected outside Starbucks, Paul and Tea, you can get from the occupation into these outlets within 10 paces.
Accessible toilets: There's an accessible toilet in Tea (I noticed it through the window as I was pushing past, I didn't go inside and scope out the interior of the cubicle). There's also an accessible toilet in One New Change (which is apparently open 24 hours). I wouldn't be surprised if other cafés also contained accessible toilets but they were the only 2 I found. The Costa across the street has a toilet, but not an accessible one; it's in the basement with no lift. Might be useful to know for anyone that can do stairs but is likely to need the toilet urgently. There are Portaloos on site but I didn't see an accessible one. According to the Changing Places website, the nearest Changing Places toilet is at the Tate Modern 0.45miles away.
I also understand the people who want to camp at the occupation for a night can ask in the Welcome Tent and be allocated an available tent. I can't see why someone with fatigue issues couldn't get allocated a tent for one hour if needed.
Hope to see you on Sunday.
I'm afraid that living in London I've only been able to scout out access info for Occupy LSX. Perhaps if you visit one of the other occupations you could post access details in the comments below?
If you're worried about getting cold and needing to get inside and warm up: The occupation is simply surrounded by cafés. There's all your big chains (Starbucks, Costa, Pret, Paul, etc) within sight of the tents. Tents are actually erected outside Starbucks, Paul and Tea, you can get from the occupation into these outlets within 10 paces.
Accessible toilets: There's an accessible toilet in Tea (I noticed it through the window as I was pushing past, I didn't go inside and scope out the interior of the cubicle). There's also an accessible toilet in One New Change (which is apparently open 24 hours). I wouldn't be surprised if other cafés also contained accessible toilets but they were the only 2 I found. The Costa across the street has a toilet, but not an accessible one; it's in the basement with no lift. Might be useful to know for anyone that can do stairs but is likely to need the toilet urgently. There are Portaloos on site but I didn't see an accessible one. According to the Changing Places website, the nearest Changing Places toilet is at the Tate Modern 0.45miles away.
I also understand the people who want to camp at the occupation for a night can ask in the Welcome Tent and be allocated an available tent. I can't see why someone with fatigue issues couldn't get allocated a tent for one hour if needed.
Hope to see you on Sunday.
DLA: just a form filling exercise? If only it was that easy!
In the early hours of this morning, this is the appalling story with which the Daily Mail were leading. “Disabled benefit? Just fill in a form”.
They report that “Almost 200,000 people were granted a disability benefit last year without ever having a face-to-face assessment. A staggering 94 per cent of new claimants for Disability Living Allowance started receiving their payments after only filling out paperwork.”
The Mail goes on to explain that – shock horror – disabled people had completed DLA forms, and many of them had also provided evidence from their doctor. Yet because they had not had a physical assessment, there is apparently something wrong with this process. Another reason to erode disabled people and suggest that we are a drain on society. You can feel the implication that we are living on handouts because it’s easy, rather than because it’s essential.
How dare the Mail suggest that we “just” fill out a form! That form and notes comprise 55 pages – 38 of which have to be completed by the claimant. This involves a lot of writing, and having to be able to think straight and focus over a long period of time. It can require a huge effort, particularly if you have disabilities which affect communication, or your physical ability to write or type. Also, as the form focuses on activities which you can no longer manage, or need help to achieve, it is a depressing process – making you realise how disabled you really are. It can be soul destroying.
Perhaps the Mail ought to look at that form in more detail. That tiresome, frustrating, difficult form! Big, isn't it? Detailed, isn't it? Daunting, isn't it?
As well as the form itself, there is the need for supporting evidence. It helps if you include letters from specialist doctors, and for my own application I also provided a diary of a week in my life, and statements from people who knew and lived with me, describing the help they have to give. I know my GP was also approached by the Department of Work and Pensions to confirm the information I provided. I had to not only explain the sort of help I needed, but provide independent evidence.
Fellow claimant Mary told me: “I have usually had to go for an interview but once got a 2 year award on "just" the DLA form. That form included sections to be filled out by all sorts of people involved in my care and treatment - GP, specialist consultant, main carer and so on - plus the instructions on the form required me to submit with it a copy of my (then) current repeat prescription and formal social services care plan. Perhaps that can be described as "just a form" but it’s hardly as if I got my DLA based purely on my own testimony.”
The form and supporting information provided will be detailed, and sometimes the decision makers will have a straightforward task – for example if someone is both deaf and blind. Often the information provided will be enough for the Department of Work and Pensions to make an award straight away. So yes, many people do get awarded DLA on the basis of “just” paperwork. But if somebody has significant impairments, sufficient to tick the boxes for the decision makers, and this is documented by their GP or other medical professionals, surely it would be a waste of time and money to haul them in for interview?
Form filling is exhausting, depressing, frustrating, and repetitive, but we force ourselves to jump through these hoops because we need the support. The money to cover taxi fares for someone who is unable to carry their shopping home on the bus. The money to pay for incontinence pads and other medical supplies. The money to buy a few hours’ time from a cleaner or assistant. We are certainly not doing it for an easy life!
And then there are the cases where people don’t get the award they are entitled to based solely on the paper application, and have to attend in person for a tribunal. In fact, most of the people of whom I know have applied for DLA actually had to appeal before they received the award they deserved. Take Robin - he has regular reviews of his DLA, and after having been found eligible for support twice based on the same information, he was then turned down in June this year. He is waiting to go to tribunal in December, and told me: “The DLA decision maker considered my regular loss of speech production or speech comprehension, and my struggle to safely cross roads because I can't accurately judge distance or speed both non-issues. Well to me they are significant issues, and I regularly have significant difficulties because of communication problems, and I've nearly been run over more times than I can count.” Without the money provided by DLA, he is struggling to cover the additional costs caused by disability.
If you need more evidence of why DLA is so critical to the lives of disabled people, just read “the real difference made by DLA” or head over to twitter and see entries with the hashtag #myDLA to learn why this benefit is life changing.
Surely these stories make the point that, where possible, making a decision on a DLA award based “just” on paperwork is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. And where more evidence is needed, or the claimant appeals the decision, a face-to-face interview will be held.
Well, Daily Mail? What’s so unreasonable about that?
It is hard enough to get a DLA award as it is. Please, don't say we've got it easy.
They report that “Almost 200,000 people were granted a disability benefit last year without ever having a face-to-face assessment. A staggering 94 per cent of new claimants for Disability Living Allowance started receiving their payments after only filling out paperwork.”
The Mail goes on to explain that – shock horror – disabled people had completed DLA forms, and many of them had also provided evidence from their doctor. Yet because they had not had a physical assessment, there is apparently something wrong with this process. Another reason to erode disabled people and suggest that we are a drain on society. You can feel the implication that we are living on handouts because it’s easy, rather than because it’s essential.
How dare the Mail suggest that we “just” fill out a form! That form and notes comprise 55 pages – 38 of which have to be completed by the claimant. This involves a lot of writing, and having to be able to think straight and focus over a long period of time. It can require a huge effort, particularly if you have disabilities which affect communication, or your physical ability to write or type. Also, as the form focuses on activities which you can no longer manage, or need help to achieve, it is a depressing process – making you realise how disabled you really are. It can be soul destroying.
Perhaps the Mail ought to look at that form in more detail. That tiresome, frustrating, difficult form! Big, isn't it? Detailed, isn't it? Daunting, isn't it?
As well as the form itself, there is the need for supporting evidence. It helps if you include letters from specialist doctors, and for my own application I also provided a diary of a week in my life, and statements from people who knew and lived with me, describing the help they have to give. I know my GP was also approached by the Department of Work and Pensions to confirm the information I provided. I had to not only explain the sort of help I needed, but provide independent evidence.
Fellow claimant Mary told me: “I have usually had to go for an interview but once got a 2 year award on "just" the DLA form. That form included sections to be filled out by all sorts of people involved in my care and treatment - GP, specialist consultant, main carer and so on - plus the instructions on the form required me to submit with it a copy of my (then) current repeat prescription and formal social services care plan. Perhaps that can be described as "just a form" but it’s hardly as if I got my DLA based purely on my own testimony.”
The form and supporting information provided will be detailed, and sometimes the decision makers will have a straightforward task – for example if someone is both deaf and blind. Often the information provided will be enough for the Department of Work and Pensions to make an award straight away. So yes, many people do get awarded DLA on the basis of “just” paperwork. But if somebody has significant impairments, sufficient to tick the boxes for the decision makers, and this is documented by their GP or other medical professionals, surely it would be a waste of time and money to haul them in for interview?
Form filling is exhausting, depressing, frustrating, and repetitive, but we force ourselves to jump through these hoops because we need the support. The money to cover taxi fares for someone who is unable to carry their shopping home on the bus. The money to pay for incontinence pads and other medical supplies. The money to buy a few hours’ time from a cleaner or assistant. We are certainly not doing it for an easy life!
And then there are the cases where people don’t get the award they are entitled to based solely on the paper application, and have to attend in person for a tribunal. In fact, most of the people of whom I know have applied for DLA actually had to appeal before they received the award they deserved. Take Robin - he has regular reviews of his DLA, and after having been found eligible for support twice based on the same information, he was then turned down in June this year. He is waiting to go to tribunal in December, and told me: “The DLA decision maker considered my regular loss of speech production or speech comprehension, and my struggle to safely cross roads because I can't accurately judge distance or speed both non-issues. Well to me they are significant issues, and I regularly have significant difficulties because of communication problems, and I've nearly been run over more times than I can count.” Without the money provided by DLA, he is struggling to cover the additional costs caused by disability.
If you need more evidence of why DLA is so critical to the lives of disabled people, just read “the real difference made by DLA” or head over to twitter and see entries with the hashtag #myDLA to learn why this benefit is life changing.
Surely these stories make the point that, where possible, making a decision on a DLA award based “just” on paperwork is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. And where more evidence is needed, or the claimant appeals the decision, a face-to-face interview will be held.
Well, Daily Mail? What’s so unreasonable about that?
It is hard enough to get a DLA award as it is. Please, don't say we've got it easy.
Call for #myDLA podcast submissions
Today there are a couple of DLA hate stories in the right wing press. Tweeters have started using the hashtag #myDLA to share in a sentence or two how important their DLA is an how they use it.
I think it would be awesome of we could do an audio version of this; especially as - of course - not everyone uses Twitter but might want to tell their story.
How to submit:
Record your submission as an audio file. You can use your laptop's built in mic, the "voice notes" function on your iPhone, or your digital dictaphone if you have one.
Ideally we'd only want your submission to be a sentence or 2 long. The shorter they are the more we'll be able to cram in. You don't have to speak in perfect Queen's English, it doesn't matter if you say "erm". You can mention your name or you can be anonymous; it's totally your call.
You can talk about your trials claiming DLA to counter stories about people filling in a form. You can talk about what you spend it on. Anything that conveys how important it is to you.
Once you've recorded your brief submission then Email it to wheresthebenefit *at* gmail *dot* com. I'll try and put it together ASAP.
I can't promise that all submissions will be included; it will depend on how many I get. I'll reiterate the point from above: The shorter the submissions are the more I'll be able to squeeze in.
Thanks all for your contributions. The end result can be found here.
Wednesday, 9 November 2011
Not In My Name.
Yesterday I wrote about why Workfare is exploitative and unfair, especially for disabled people. Today I want to talk about something insidious and disturbing within the plans for rolling this system out, and this is the details of who stands to benefit.
Firstly, there are big companies who have signed up, unsurprisingly, to get people to work for them without a need to pay them, such as Poundland, Matalan, Tesco and Primark.
Secondly, there are public sector organisations who want to benefit from unpaid labour, such as the local councils of Barnsley, Blackpool, Bromley, Chester, Dudley, East Riding, Gateshead, Greenwich, Hartlepool, Islington, Kensington, Medway, Neath Port Talbot, Newham, North Lanarkshire, Northumberland, Portsmouth, Renfrewshire, Stoke-on-Trent; numerous further education colleges; and several NHS trusts.
And thirdly, and perhaps most disappointingly, is the depressingly large number of charities and third sector organisations who are seeking to benefit from people being forced to work without pay, at threat of loss of their benefits.
Just some of the organisations who the DWP state will be involved in delivering the Work Programme, are:
Action for Blind People
Autism West Midlands
Disability Information Bureau
Disability Works*
Enable
Hammersmith and Fulham MIND
Leonard Cheshire Disability
Papworth Trust
Remploy
RNIB
Rochdale and District MIND
Royal Mencap Society
Royal National College for the Blind
Scottish Association for Mental Health
Shaw Trust
The Mind Consortium (Hull and East Yorkshire MIND)
Warrington Disability Partnership
These are the organisations from the list that stood out to me as disability organisations. Organisations ostensibly to represent and fight for the rights of disabled people.
Last year I wrote about Disability Works, a "collaboration of national third sector disability organisations including Leonard Cheshire, Mencap, Scope, Mind, Action for Blind People, United Response, Pure Innovations, Advance UK and Pluss". I argued in May that the Hardest Hit organisers could not represent me or fight for my rights when they also stood to benefit from the proposed changes in welfare reform.
Now Disability Works are amongst all of the above voluntary sector disability organisations who are seeking to benefit from workfare. Along with all the other charities above, and with all the problems Workfare will cause for disabled and non-disabled people, we simply cannot trust these organisations to have our best interests at heart. They, along with Primark and Tesco, aim to profit from labour which is unpaid, unfair, and is carried out against a threat of a loss of benefits.
These big disability charities do not represent me, they do not have my interests in mind, and they do not speak for me.
Not in my name.
Firstly, there are big companies who have signed up, unsurprisingly, to get people to work for them without a need to pay them, such as Poundland, Matalan, Tesco and Primark.
Secondly, there are public sector organisations who want to benefit from unpaid labour, such as the local councils of Barnsley, Blackpool, Bromley, Chester, Dudley, East Riding, Gateshead, Greenwich, Hartlepool, Islington, Kensington, Medway, Neath Port Talbot, Newham, North Lanarkshire, Northumberland, Portsmouth, Renfrewshire, Stoke-on-Trent; numerous further education colleges; and several NHS trusts.
And thirdly, and perhaps most disappointingly, is the depressingly large number of charities and third sector organisations who are seeking to benefit from people being forced to work without pay, at threat of loss of their benefits.
Just some of the organisations who the DWP state will be involved in delivering the Work Programme, are:
Action for Blind People
Autism West Midlands
Disability Information Bureau
Disability Works*
Enable
Hammersmith and Fulham MIND
Leonard Cheshire Disability
Papworth Trust
Remploy
RNIB
Rochdale and District MIND
Royal Mencap Society
Royal National College for the Blind
Scottish Association for Mental Health
Shaw Trust
The Mind Consortium (Hull and East Yorkshire MIND)
Warrington Disability Partnership
These are the organisations from the list that stood out to me as disability organisations. Organisations ostensibly to represent and fight for the rights of disabled people.
Last year I wrote about Disability Works, a "collaboration of national third sector disability organisations including Leonard Cheshire, Mencap, Scope, Mind, Action for Blind People, United Response, Pure Innovations, Advance UK and Pluss". I argued in May that the Hardest Hit organisers could not represent me or fight for my rights when they also stood to benefit from the proposed changes in welfare reform.
Now Disability Works are amongst all of the above voluntary sector disability organisations who are seeking to benefit from workfare. Along with all the other charities above, and with all the problems Workfare will cause for disabled and non-disabled people, we simply cannot trust these organisations to have our best interests at heart. They, along with Primark and Tesco, aim to profit from labour which is unpaid, unfair, and is carried out against a threat of a loss of benefits.
These big disability charities do not represent me, they do not have my interests in mind, and they do not speak for me.
Not in my name.
Tuesday, 8 November 2011
Cuts Kill. Again.
In the video above you hear the story of a couple and their fight of being caught up in a system where they could not get any benefits because the woman's learning disabilities were undiagnosed. Unable to get either JSA or disability benefits, they lived in one room, and walked 12 miles once a week to get free food from a food bank.
“The job centre decided Helen couldn’t sign on as she was incapable of employment, as she has no literacy and numeracy skills. However the incapacity people wouldn’t recognise her disabilities until she has been properly diagnosed, which led to month after month of seeing specialists, we’re in a catch 22 situation.It has been reported today that the couple in the video above have been found dead in an apparent suicide pact. How many more people will die from these cuts before the government acts?
“We’re living hand to mouth.”
Workfare: Exploitative and cruel, especially for disabled people
Some disabled people are completely fit for work, but cannot find any, so claim Jobseekers' Allowance. This is particularly an issue because disabled people face many barriers to work, including inaccessible workplaces, employer prejudice and employers being ignorant of, or refusing to adhere to the Equalities Act in relation to reasonable accommodations.Increasingly, however, disabled people who are not fit for work are finding themselves claiming Jobseekers' Allowance, when they are reassessed and fail to meet the limited criteria for ESA. The result of this is that more and more people are signing on, but also unable to work, for health reasons.
The Guardian has published a press release from the DWP, which states,
People who have been unemployed for more than two years and haven't secured sustainable employment could be referred onto compulsory community work placements under plans being considered by the government.
Under the proposals people who have been supported intensively through the Work Programme for two years yet have still not entered sustainable employment, may have to do community work or ultimately they could lose their benefit entitlement.
Ministers believe a minority of jobseekers struggle to engage with the system fully, are unable to hold down a job and therefore require a greater level of support.
The government is to test compulsory community work coupled with more intensive support through Jobcentre Plus in four key areas ahead of rolling out the scheme
nationwide in 2013.
This is fundamentally unfair. We are in a position as a country where unemployment rates are rising, and job opportunities are shrinking. If someone has failed to get a job in 2 years, it is most likely to be due to circumstances outside their control, and to then force them into unpaid labour, against the threat of losing their pittance of an income from JSA, is exploitative.
For disabled people, even moreso. People who are disabled but genuinely fit for work will still require adaptations, accommodations, and accessibility. These people are less likely to have found a job in 2 years because of the reasons I explained above. And will the people who are happy to take unpaid labour also be happy to accommodate people with complex needs and requirements?
And those who have been found fit for work but are, in fact, not at all fit for work, will be in the most trouble. All of the above, on top of not being well enough to do it. Will their regular sickness absences or inability to be reliable cause them to lose their benefit entitlement? I would imagine so, according to what the press release says.
Workfare is exploitative and unfair to everybody who is forced to do it. For disabled people it has added layers of unfairness, which have the potential to leave, yet again, the most vulnerable abandoned without financial support.
Cross-posted at incurable hippie blog. Thanks to @m_s_collins for prompting me to write this.
[The image is a black and white photograph taken at a protest in New Zealand against a Workfare programme. There are numerous people with placards saying, "The rich get rich at the expense of the poor" and "Real jobs not workfare". It was taken by SocialistWorkerNZ and is used under a Creative Commons Licence]
Guest post: BBC bashes benefit claimants two weeks running
This is a guest post by @indigojo_uk and originally appeared here.
I’m a little late writing about this, but I watched John Humphrys’ programme on BBC2, The Future State of Welfare, a few days after it was broadcast (I was working a night shift the actual night), and last week the BBC broadcast a Panorama programme, Britain on the Fiddle, which exposed people claiming benefits while driving Bentleys, owning yachts and houses in France, and running pubs. In between the “damning exposé” of the wealthy benefit cheats, they also showed people being caught using blue (disability parking) badges illegally (in one case, when the disabled person was not present). This was obviously done to make it look like the programme was defending the interests of “the little people” against the cheats, but it was entirely irrelevant to the rest of the programme.
Humphrys’ programme started by interviewing various people who were claiming benefits and giving some recollections about “his day” when he was growing up in Splott in Cardiff. Apparently back then, not working carried some degree of stigma, and there was one man in the neighbourhood who did not work, for some unspecified reason, and he was shunned by the community for that. The reason could, of course, have been quite genuine — he may well have had a disability or some health problem that he did not feel comfortable discussing with all and sundry. He interviewed various benefit claimants, including a family of several children with a single mother, a long-term unemployed family in an ex-industrial northern town where the father had calculated that working would not make him much better off than staying on benefits, a family from Spain who were on housing benefit so they could live in Islington, and a woman with ME who had been failed by her ATOS assessment (although she easily won on appeal).
The whole thrust of Humphrys’ argument was the need to cut the benefits bill, ignoring the issue of whether what the bill pays for is worth paying for or necessary. The reason why a modest flat in a district close to central London, where the work is, costs so much was conveniently glossed over (it was nothing like that expensive twenty years ago, before prices and rents became inflated by the sale of council properties and buy-to-let mortgages). Why a man in a northern town regards the work that is available as not worth doing was not asked (the fact is that there were serious jobs in the north until the factories and mines were closed down, and a large town like Middlesbrough cannot survive with just supermarkets and council jobs). The history of unemployment and benefits in the UK is a history of political decisions — unemployment figures (derived from numbers of dole claimants) used to threaten workers not to go on strike or demand rights, incapacity benefits later used to artificially reduce unemployment numbers, and so on. None of this is of the current claimants’ making, so we saw someone who had never had to worry about finding a job, not for a good few decades at least, making someone from a community which had been deliberately impoverished look like a scrounger. If you have ever had the notion to tell someone, “I’ve worked hard all my life”, you should consider yourself lucky that you had the opportunity to do that. Some people do not.
Humphrys also travels to New York to interview officials and charity workers involved with the “workfare” scheme there, and those dealing with its fallout. Early on, he presents it as a system whereby benefits are delivered only to those who prove that they are looking for work — the same is true of Jobseekers’ Allowance in the UK, in which claimants are required to keep a diary of their ongoing search for work, and are given jobs to apply for. Towards the end, he showed some of the soup kitchens and charity food outlets that have appeared in New York to serve people who are unable to receive welfare as their two-year allowance has run out with no work in sight. He also interviewed two women who had been in white-collar jobs and made redundant, and were afraid for the future as they had found themselves unable to get any more work. This provided some counter-balancing to the sermons from middle-class men in suits about personal responsibility (one of them claimed that people went back on welfare because they lacked the personal organisation to keep a job. But it did not seriously examine why people lost jobs and could not find anything else: people will not employ them, often because they are “overqualified”, and it might be assumed that they will not stay if employed, or they do not have experience, or the social skills the human resources department decrees that the job requires.
Last week’s Panorama really did bring the programme to a new low — the 30-minute format is something I have criticised again and again (such as here) as it lends itself to sensationalism rather than to serious investigation, but this just was not Panorama — it was more like a cheap prime-time infotainment piece, a bit like Saints and Scroungers without the “saints” (who were often people who helped the poor and disabled find benefits they were entitled to). The aim was obviously to show that the benefit bill was as high as it was because of fraud, and that “fraud costs all of us”, but the over-investigation of fraud can sometimes detract from the purpose of the benefit and make life very difficult for real claimants, so as to satisfy the mid-market tabloids. Nobody would object to someone who had been found out claiming benefits when they are not living in the country, or were perfectly well-off in their own right, or not as disabled as they claim to be, being punished or having their benefits cut, but some benefits are in fact not means-tested and the programme did not make that clear. It also did not mention that the rate of disability benefit fraud is extremely low, and therefore the cost of welfare is not being significantly inflated by fraud; it is just high because there is a lot of disability, and some people’s needs are severe and complex.
What makes this all the more disgusting is that excuses are being manufactured to “cut the benefits bill” at a time of scarcity when many people are falling into poverty. The same cannot be said of the introduction of Jobseekers’ Allowance under John Major — that happened in 1996, after the early 1990s recession had ended, although with much the same media baiting of the “workshy”. This time round, it is benefits as a whole that are being attacked, with the media — not just the newspapers which support the Tories because their wealthy owners tell them to, but the BBC which is paid for by public subscription — joining in the chorus. We have a welfare system partly to make sure people do not fall into destitution, partly to make sure that people with disabilities and other complex needs can live dignified and productive lives, and partly to pay for the costs of ideological trends (such as globalisation) and political decisions. If we wish to cut the benefits bill, we need to get people working, and that means reducing our reliance on imported manufactured goods, for a start. People who can work, and are offered a serious job (that is, one with prospects), will do so. Those who cannot, because of their own or a dependent’s disability (or because of prejudice, or some other genuine reason), must be supported. The alternative is to lose our status as a civilised country.
I’m a little late writing about this, but I watched John Humphrys’ programme on BBC2, The Future State of Welfare, a few days after it was broadcast (I was working a night shift the actual night), and last week the BBC broadcast a Panorama programme, Britain on the Fiddle, which exposed people claiming benefits while driving Bentleys, owning yachts and houses in France, and running pubs. In between the “damning exposé” of the wealthy benefit cheats, they also showed people being caught using blue (disability parking) badges illegally (in one case, when the disabled person was not present). This was obviously done to make it look like the programme was defending the interests of “the little people” against the cheats, but it was entirely irrelevant to the rest of the programme.
Humphrys’ programme started by interviewing various people who were claiming benefits and giving some recollections about “his day” when he was growing up in Splott in Cardiff. Apparently back then, not working carried some degree of stigma, and there was one man in the neighbourhood who did not work, for some unspecified reason, and he was shunned by the community for that. The reason could, of course, have been quite genuine — he may well have had a disability or some health problem that he did not feel comfortable discussing with all and sundry. He interviewed various benefit claimants, including a family of several children with a single mother, a long-term unemployed family in an ex-industrial northern town where the father had calculated that working would not make him much better off than staying on benefits, a family from Spain who were on housing benefit so they could live in Islington, and a woman with ME who had been failed by her ATOS assessment (although she easily won on appeal).
The whole thrust of Humphrys’ argument was the need to cut the benefits bill, ignoring the issue of whether what the bill pays for is worth paying for or necessary. The reason why a modest flat in a district close to central London, where the work is, costs so much was conveniently glossed over (it was nothing like that expensive twenty years ago, before prices and rents became inflated by the sale of council properties and buy-to-let mortgages). Why a man in a northern town regards the work that is available as not worth doing was not asked (the fact is that there were serious jobs in the north until the factories and mines were closed down, and a large town like Middlesbrough cannot survive with just supermarkets and council jobs). The history of unemployment and benefits in the UK is a history of political decisions — unemployment figures (derived from numbers of dole claimants) used to threaten workers not to go on strike or demand rights, incapacity benefits later used to artificially reduce unemployment numbers, and so on. None of this is of the current claimants’ making, so we saw someone who had never had to worry about finding a job, not for a good few decades at least, making someone from a community which had been deliberately impoverished look like a scrounger. If you have ever had the notion to tell someone, “I’ve worked hard all my life”, you should consider yourself lucky that you had the opportunity to do that. Some people do not.
Humphrys also travels to New York to interview officials and charity workers involved with the “workfare” scheme there, and those dealing with its fallout. Early on, he presents it as a system whereby benefits are delivered only to those who prove that they are looking for work — the same is true of Jobseekers’ Allowance in the UK, in which claimants are required to keep a diary of their ongoing search for work, and are given jobs to apply for. Towards the end, he showed some of the soup kitchens and charity food outlets that have appeared in New York to serve people who are unable to receive welfare as their two-year allowance has run out with no work in sight. He also interviewed two women who had been in white-collar jobs and made redundant, and were afraid for the future as they had found themselves unable to get any more work. This provided some counter-balancing to the sermons from middle-class men in suits about personal responsibility (one of them claimed that people went back on welfare because they lacked the personal organisation to keep a job. But it did not seriously examine why people lost jobs and could not find anything else: people will not employ them, often because they are “overqualified”, and it might be assumed that they will not stay if employed, or they do not have experience, or the social skills the human resources department decrees that the job requires.
Last week’s Panorama really did bring the programme to a new low — the 30-minute format is something I have criticised again and again (such as here) as it lends itself to sensationalism rather than to serious investigation, but this just was not Panorama — it was more like a cheap prime-time infotainment piece, a bit like Saints and Scroungers without the “saints” (who were often people who helped the poor and disabled find benefits they were entitled to). The aim was obviously to show that the benefit bill was as high as it was because of fraud, and that “fraud costs all of us”, but the over-investigation of fraud can sometimes detract from the purpose of the benefit and make life very difficult for real claimants, so as to satisfy the mid-market tabloids. Nobody would object to someone who had been found out claiming benefits when they are not living in the country, or were perfectly well-off in their own right, or not as disabled as they claim to be, being punished or having their benefits cut, but some benefits are in fact not means-tested and the programme did not make that clear. It also did not mention that the rate of disability benefit fraud is extremely low, and therefore the cost of welfare is not being significantly inflated by fraud; it is just high because there is a lot of disability, and some people’s needs are severe and complex.
What makes this all the more disgusting is that excuses are being manufactured to “cut the benefits bill” at a time of scarcity when many people are falling into poverty. The same cannot be said of the introduction of Jobseekers’ Allowance under John Major — that happened in 1996, after the early 1990s recession had ended, although with much the same media baiting of the “workshy”. This time round, it is benefits as a whole that are being attacked, with the media — not just the newspapers which support the Tories because their wealthy owners tell them to, but the BBC which is paid for by public subscription — joining in the chorus. We have a welfare system partly to make sure people do not fall into destitution, partly to make sure that people with disabilities and other complex needs can live dignified and productive lives, and partly to pay for the costs of ideological trends (such as globalisation) and political decisions. If we wish to cut the benefits bill, we need to get people working, and that means reducing our reliance on imported manufactured goods, for a start. People who can work, and are offered a serious job (that is, one with prospects), will do so. Those who cannot, because of their own or a dependent’s disability (or because of prejudice, or some other genuine reason), must be supported. The alternative is to lose our status as a civilised country.
Thursday, 3 November 2011
Panorama - The Price of Hate
Dear Panorama Team,
As a disabled benefit claimant who sails, I'm wondering whether Panorama will be making a programme on the number of disabled people who will suffer hate attacks as a result of tonight's programme? Personally I'm into double figures with hate attacks from complete strangers who only need to see my crutches to know I'm a fraud and a scrounger and a fake. No need even to know if I'm claiming any benefit - disabled, guilty as charged.
I'm now scared to leave the house tomorrow, isn't that a proud addition to Panorama's legacy!
DavidG
(Sent to Panorama's email address 22:00 3-11-11)
As a disabled benefit claimant who sails, I'm wondering whether Panorama will be making a programme on the number of disabled people who will suffer hate attacks as a result of tonight's programme? Personally I'm into double figures with hate attacks from complete strangers who only need to see my crutches to know I'm a fraud and a scrounger and a fake. No need even to know if I'm claiming any benefit - disabled, guilty as charged.
I'm now scared to leave the house tomorrow, isn't that a proud addition to Panorama's legacy!
DavidG
(Sent to Panorama's email address 22:00 3-11-11)
Monday, 31 October 2011
Threat to legal aid for disability benefit appeals
The BBC carrys a worrying story today.
“Warning over legal aid cuts for disabled people” the article leads. “Ministers are being urged not to restrict legal aid for disabled people wanting to challenge benefit decisions”.
News comes of yet another way that government is looking to save money – this time on a £2bn legal aid bill which it claims is “unaffordable” – money needed by disabled people to get legal assistance when benefit claims go against them.
This action is being questioned by a group of 23 charities including Scope, Mind, Mencap, RNIB and Leonard Cheshire.
A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Justice told the BBC that the review of legal aid meant that it would be “targeted at the most serious cases”.
I would argue that ANY situation where you could potentially lose your benefits is a “most serious case”. Indeed, given the comments on this blog and my own (FlashSays) it can at times be life and death.
Comments on my blog include Roger, who wrote “Since this all began [cuts to benefits for disabled people] I have began to feel totally paranoid and at times have given thought to killing myself mainly due to the daily pain I endure but also due to the uncaring way this government is treating us.”
James Gilbert simply said: “If my benefits are cut I don’t know what I would do”
You only have to read one article - Suicide is part of the disability debate – to know how important it is for disabled people to receive benefits. As well as keeping them alive (funding a roof over their heads, food, heat and light) it also validates that person. “Yes, we know you are disabled. We believe you.”
The nature of disability can be such that it makes it hard to complete benefit application forms. People can have memory problems or find it hard to concentrate. They may have physical problems with writing or typing, or they may not be able to construct clear sentences. I know that when I am struggling with pain I find it harder to think, and this affects my ability to write coherently – it is clear to see when I review letters I’ve written, I can easily tell which were done on a “good pain day” and which on a “bad pain day”. But some people don’t get good days, only bad ones – and yet through this they are expected to complete long booklets explaining why they are entitled to benefits.
Disabled people should of course be supported to appeal when a benefit decision goes against them. It’s already been proven that less than 0.5% of Disability Living Allowance applications are fraudulent, for example – these are the government’s own figures. Therefore, when claimants find a decision goes against them, and come forward asking for help to appeal, they are almost certainly going to be genuine, people who really do need help. Likewise with Employment and Support Allowance.
Commenters on my own blog and this one have said that the whole application process (including the fear of perhaps having to appeal) is so stressful that they have decided not to apply and to try to live in poverty without the benefit they are entitled to. Surely people should be given legal assistance to appeal, and feel supported by the government, rather than being forced to live in poverty because they feel beaten by the system?
It is critical that legal aid is available for those who need to challenge benefit decisions. A third of disabled people aged 25 to retirement live in a low-income household – and twice as many disabled people live in poverty compared to those who are able bodied. Without legal support when benefit decisions go against them, this shocking figure is surely set to grow.
Paul Reekie and Christelle Pardo have already killed themselves when their benefits were cut. How many will follow?
Providing this legal aid really could be a matter of life or death.
“Warning over legal aid cuts for disabled people” the article leads. “Ministers are being urged not to restrict legal aid for disabled people wanting to challenge benefit decisions”.
News comes of yet another way that government is looking to save money – this time on a £2bn legal aid bill which it claims is “unaffordable” – money needed by disabled people to get legal assistance when benefit claims go against them.
This action is being questioned by a group of 23 charities including Scope, Mind, Mencap, RNIB and Leonard Cheshire.
A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Justice told the BBC that the review of legal aid meant that it would be “targeted at the most serious cases”.
I would argue that ANY situation where you could potentially lose your benefits is a “most serious case”. Indeed, given the comments on this blog and my own (FlashSays) it can at times be life and death.
Comments on my blog include Roger, who wrote “Since this all began [cuts to benefits for disabled people] I have began to feel totally paranoid and at times have given thought to killing myself mainly due to the daily pain I endure but also due to the uncaring way this government is treating us.”
James Gilbert simply said: “If my benefits are cut I don’t know what I would do”
You only have to read one article - Suicide is part of the disability debate – to know how important it is for disabled people to receive benefits. As well as keeping them alive (funding a roof over their heads, food, heat and light) it also validates that person. “Yes, we know you are disabled. We believe you.”
The nature of disability can be such that it makes it hard to complete benefit application forms. People can have memory problems or find it hard to concentrate. They may have physical problems with writing or typing, or they may not be able to construct clear sentences. I know that when I am struggling with pain I find it harder to think, and this affects my ability to write coherently – it is clear to see when I review letters I’ve written, I can easily tell which were done on a “good pain day” and which on a “bad pain day”. But some people don’t get good days, only bad ones – and yet through this they are expected to complete long booklets explaining why they are entitled to benefits.
Disabled people should of course be supported to appeal when a benefit decision goes against them. It’s already been proven that less than 0.5% of Disability Living Allowance applications are fraudulent, for example – these are the government’s own figures. Therefore, when claimants find a decision goes against them, and come forward asking for help to appeal, they are almost certainly going to be genuine, people who really do need help. Likewise with Employment and Support Allowance.
Commenters on my own blog and this one have said that the whole application process (including the fear of perhaps having to appeal) is so stressful that they have decided not to apply and to try to live in poverty without the benefit they are entitled to. Surely people should be given legal assistance to appeal, and feel supported by the government, rather than being forced to live in poverty because they feel beaten by the system?
It is critical that legal aid is available for those who need to challenge benefit decisions. A third of disabled people aged 25 to retirement live in a low-income household – and twice as many disabled people live in poverty compared to those who are able bodied. Without legal support when benefit decisions go against them, this shocking figure is surely set to grow.
Paul Reekie and Christelle Pardo have already killed themselves when their benefits were cut. How many will follow?
Providing this legal aid really could be a matter of life or death.
Amendment to keep Legal Aid for welfare cases - Today
Legal help with welfare benefit appeals would be retained under Liberal Democrat amendment to the Legal Aid Bill.
Campaigners urge last minute emails to MPs
A Liberal Democrat amendment to the Legal Aid, Sentencing, and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which is being debated at Report Stage this Monday 31st October, would see legal help for people appealing or reviewing benefit decisions retained. Under current government plans all welfare benefits advice will be cut from legal aid, along with many other areas of law including much of employment, debt and housing advice. Charities like Citizens Advice, Law Centres, and advice agencies use legal aid to fund much of their work in this area.
Part of a motion on welfare reform passed at Liberal Democrat conference called on government to "reconsider the exclusion of welfare benefits casework such as this from the scope of legal aid." A group of Liberal Democrat backbenchers have put down the amendment, including Tom Brake MP, Co-Chair of the Home Affairs Parliamentary Party Committee. The other signatories are Stephen Lloyd MP, David Ward MP, and Mike Crockart MP.
Help with appeals is vitally important, particularly at a time when the benefits system is being radically changed. The introduction of Employment and Support Allowance has been beset with bad decision making - 40% of those appealing were successful. Yet in terms of the number of people affected, this will be dwarfed by the estimated 18 million people who will be caught up in the move to Universal Credit.
Campaign group Justice for All is urging people to email their MP urgently to ask them to speak during the debate and vote in favour of the motion. You can do this via their website at www.justice-for-all.org.uk
Justice for All have also produced a pair of videos, highlighting why help with appeals is so important. They feature three women who have had help from local advice agencies in appealing wrong decisions. They are available to embed herehttp://www.youtube.com/user/justice4allcampaign
The amendment is number 149, the full text is available herehttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2010-2012/0235/amend/pbc2352610a.3619-3625.html
Campaigners urge last minute emails to MPs
A Liberal Democrat amendment to the Legal Aid, Sentencing, and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which is being debated at Report Stage this Monday 31st October, would see legal help for people appealing or reviewing benefit decisions retained. Under current government plans all welfare benefits advice will be cut from legal aid, along with many other areas of law including much of employment, debt and housing advice. Charities like Citizens Advice, Law Centres, and advice agencies use legal aid to fund much of their work in this area.
Part of a motion on welfare reform passed at Liberal Democrat conference called on government to "reconsider the exclusion of welfare benefits casework such as this from the scope of legal aid." A group of Liberal Democrat backbenchers have put down the amendment, including Tom Brake MP, Co-Chair of the Home Affairs Parliamentary Party Committee. The other signatories are Stephen Lloyd MP, David Ward MP, and Mike Crockart MP.
Help with appeals is vitally important, particularly at a time when the benefits system is being radically changed. The introduction of Employment and Support Allowance has been beset with bad decision making - 40% of those appealing were successful. Yet in terms of the number of people affected, this will be dwarfed by the estimated 18 million people who will be caught up in the move to Universal Credit.
Campaign group Justice for All is urging people to email their MP urgently to ask them to speak during the debate and vote in favour of the motion. You can do this via their website at www.justice-for-all.org.uk
Justice for All have also produced a pair of videos, highlighting why help with appeals is so important. They feature three women who have had help from local advice agencies in appealing wrong decisions. They are available to embed herehttp://www.youtube.com/user/justice4allcampaign
The amendment is number 149, the full text is available herehttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2010-2012/0235/amend/pbc2352610a.3619-3625.html
Friday, 28 October 2011
Disabled people occupy the UK
It's a simple fact that a lot of disabled people can't camp out at the various occupations around the UK. Fatigue, sensitivity to cold, the access issues presented by camping or just having too many hospital appointments to go to make occupying impossible.
Disabled New Yorkers have started going down to Occupy Wall Street on Sunday afternoons at midday for a few hours. https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=126877490750232 - a few hours on a Sunday is a very different proposition to camping full time.
Many non-disabled activists simply don't know or care how shafted disabled people are by issues like the welfare reform bill. Last week Where's the Benefit asked OccupyLSX for some solidarity and for them to support the Hardest Hit protests; they didn't.
So taking inspiration from New Yorkers I think we should join our local occupations for a couple of hours every Sunday afternoon. We need to go down to the occupations and tell them about the issues affecting us. We need to make sure the occupiers understand what we're facing and to get them to support us. Tell the crowd about the welfare reform bill and how you'll be affected. Tell them about how cuts to Access to Work mean that when your current equipment breaks (because wheelchairs, etc, don't last forever) that you might have to give up work. Tell them about how cuts to care packages will limit your independence. Hand out flyers for Where's the Benefit, DPAC, Broken of Britain, Black Triangle, CarerWatch or any of the other grassroots groups you feel do well at disseminating info about our issues.
Disabled people are around 18% of the population. The occupations claim to represent the 99% that didn't break the economy, but unless we participate the occupations are only really representing 81%.
The occupations in London have been the most newsworthy, but there are others around the country:
Norwich: http://www.occupynorwich.co.uk/
Nottingham: https://twitter.com/#!/OccupyNotts
London: http://occupylsx.org/
Bristol: http://occupybristoluk.org/
Birmingham: http://www.occupybirmingham.co.uk/
Sheffield: https://occupysheffield.org/
Glasgow: http://www.occupyglasgow.org/
Belfast: http://occupybelfast.blogspot.com/
Cardiff: (in planning stages) https://www.facebook.com/occupycardiff
Edinburgh: http://occupyedinburgh.org/
Manchester: http://www.occupymanchester.org/
Newcastle: http://occupynewcastle.org/
Like New Yorkers we will aim to participate for as long as the occupations are ongoing. And like New York we'll meet at midday on Sundays EXCEPT this weekend when we'll be following on from the DPAC conference in London by going down to the London occupation on Saturday 29th at 4:30pm instead of Sunday. Standard Sunday excursions will commence the following week.
Facebook event. The Twitter hashtag will be #DPoccupyUK
Disabled New Yorkers have started going down to Occupy Wall Street on Sunday afternoons at midday for a few hours. https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=126877490750232 - a few hours on a Sunday is a very different proposition to camping full time.
Many non-disabled activists simply don't know or care how shafted disabled people are by issues like the welfare reform bill. Last week Where's the Benefit asked OccupyLSX for some solidarity and for them to support the Hardest Hit protests; they didn't.
So taking inspiration from New Yorkers I think we should join our local occupations for a couple of hours every Sunday afternoon. We need to go down to the occupations and tell them about the issues affecting us. We need to make sure the occupiers understand what we're facing and to get them to support us. Tell the crowd about the welfare reform bill and how you'll be affected. Tell them about how cuts to Access to Work mean that when your current equipment breaks (because wheelchairs, etc, don't last forever) that you might have to give up work. Tell them about how cuts to care packages will limit your independence. Hand out flyers for Where's the Benefit, DPAC, Broken of Britain, Black Triangle, CarerWatch or any of the other grassroots groups you feel do well at disseminating info about our issues.
Disabled people are around 18% of the population. The occupations claim to represent the 99% that didn't break the economy, but unless we participate the occupations are only really representing 81%.
The occupations in London have been the most newsworthy, but there are others around the country:
Norwich: http://www.occupynorwich.co.uk/
Nottingham: https://twitter.com/#!/OccupyNotts
London: http://occupylsx.org/
Bristol: http://occupybristoluk.org/
Birmingham: http://www.occupybirmingham.co.uk/
Sheffield: https://occupysheffield.org/
Glasgow: http://www.occupyglasgow.org/
Belfast: http://occupybelfast.blogspot.com/
Cardiff: (in planning stages) https://www.facebook.com/occupycardiff
Edinburgh: http://occupyedinburgh.org/
Manchester: http://www.occupymanchester.org/
Newcastle: http://occupynewcastle.org/
Like New Yorkers we will aim to participate for as long as the occupations are ongoing. And like New York we'll meet at midday on Sundays EXCEPT this weekend when we'll be following on from the DPAC conference in London by going down to the London occupation on Saturday 29th at 4:30pm instead of Sunday. Standard Sunday excursions will commence the following week.
Facebook event. The Twitter hashtag will be #DPoccupyUK
Thursday, 27 October 2011
Vigil Against Hate Crime: Friday 28th October
The vigil will take place in Trafalgar Square tomorrow evening from 7:30pm to 9pm, with a 2 minute silence in memory of victims at 8pm.
The vigil was founded by 17-24-30 in 2009 following the homophobic murder of Ian Baynham in the square. Since then it has widened to remember/support victims of all hate crime; including disablist hate. Speakers this year include Beverley Smith from the Disability Hate Crime Network.
Disablist hate crime is on the up due in no small part to the rhetoric being peddled by the government and press in attempt to whip up support for welfare reform. People are getting called a "scrounging cunt" in the street or being followed down the road by someone shouting "fucking DLA stick" at them, making this vigil so relevant for us.
For more info see http://hatecrimevigils.wordpress.com/ or the Facebook event page.
The vigil was founded by 17-24-30 in 2009 following the homophobic murder of Ian Baynham in the square. Since then it has widened to remember/support victims of all hate crime; including disablist hate. Speakers this year include Beverley Smith from the Disability Hate Crime Network.
Disablist hate crime is on the up due in no small part to the rhetoric being peddled by the government and press in attempt to whip up support for welfare reform. People are getting called a "scrounging cunt" in the street or being followed down the road by someone shouting "fucking DLA stick" at them, making this vigil so relevant for us.
For more info see http://hatecrimevigils.wordpress.com/ or the Facebook event page.
The Hardest Hit Protest, Leeds
It takes a lot to make the disabled community take to the streets, mainly because its so difficult for us. If you had eavesdropped my twitter feed last week you would have seen my conversations and musings dominated by The Hardest Hit as we all shared protest survival strategies. We knew there would be a price to pay in our health for attending but as one of my friends put it, "protesting will hurt me but not protesting will hurt me more".
For every one of us attending an event there were hundreds who were unable to go because they were too ill or disabled, too poor, too busy caring for someone or just couldn't use our inaccessible public transport. They sent messages of support, they were with us in spirit.
I'm not an activist or a disability campaigner, I'm just an ordinary person struggling with some pretty serious mental health problems. I am, like most other ill and disabled people, one of the hardest hit by the cuts.
I travelled to Leeds to join the Hardest Hit protest because this Government wants to stop my benefits, remove my services, call me a scrounger and force me from my home. For many of us this protest is personal, we're not just fighting for fairness - we're fighting for survival.
Over two hundred of us gathered in the sun in Leeds. We marched along The Headrow bringing the city centre to a standstill. Shoppers stood and watched as we marched with our wheelchairs, our Assistance Dogs, our mobility scooters, our carers, our children, our friends and our banners. Speeches were made by disability activists, charity sector workers, trade union members, NUS members, a local MP and ordinary people facing huge challenges. The message from all of them and the people listening was clear - these cuts are unfair, we are afraid and we are angry.
There is a 'perfect storm' facing ill and disabled people. We are already struggling to survive from day to day. Our NHS services are being cut and the voluntary sector agencies who would offer us support are losing their funding. The benefits of those of us who cannot work are being cut or removed and those of us who do work are losing the practical and financial support necessary to make working possible. The additional cuts proposed in the Welfare Reform Bill will leave us and our carers more impoverished, isolated and vulnerable. On top of this, ill and disabled people are being labelled as scroungers and benefit cheats, vilefied by the media and treated with suspicion by the public. Disability hate crime is increasing, people are facing abuse and harassment on a daily basis and many are afraid to leave their homes.
This Government has promised to support disabled people who are in genuine need - but only if THEY can define 'support', 'disabled', 'genuine' and 'need'. This is a cynical disability denying ploy to remove support from the people who need it. This Government is merely transferring funds from ill and disabled people and carers to private companies making millions from 'welfare reform'.
One of the most disturbing things is how badly informed most people still are about this. The public still think that disability benefits are a 'lifestyle choice' and believe we are all driving around in BMWs. Sadly many disabled people and their carers are still unaware of quite how badly the cuts will affect them. The media is not listening to the disabled community, some of the Hardest Hit events attracted over a thousand protesters but there was barely any BBC television or radio coverage. The future for society's most vulnerable is bleak. We are 'all in it together' its just that some of us are deeper in it than others.
Attending the protest left me with mixed feelings. I was proud to stand in solidarity with the hundreds on the streets of Leeds, the thousands in cities across the UK and the tens of thousands who were there in spirit.
But I was also sad and angry that this country should need an event like The Hardest Hit at all.
Guest post by Vanessa Teal
Guest post by Vanessa Teal
Tuesday, 18 October 2011
The Hardest Hit Protests - Saturday October 22nd 2011
Disabled people, those with long-term conditions and their families are being hit hard by cuts to the benefits and services they need to live their lives. The Hardest Hit campaign, organised jointly by the Disability Benefits Consortium (DBC) and the UK Disabled People’s Council, brings together individuals and organisations to send a clear message to the Government: stop these cuts. You can find our key messages in this document. Key messages on the Hardest Hit
Take action this October
Following our protest in May, when an estimated 8,000 people marched on Parliament, further events are taking place across the UK this month. These events are designed to raise awareness amongst the general public, the media and politicians of our key messages. Click here to find your nearest event.
Regardless of whether or not you are able to attend one of the events taking place on October 22, 2011, there are still lots of ways you can get involved to support this campaign. We need your help to really make an impact. It won’t take much time out of your day, but it will make a massive difference to the success of our campaign.
You can:
1. Write to your MP and invite them to attend their local event. We want as many MPs to know what’s about the campaign as possible.
2. Lobby your MP in the week leading up to the event by attending a constituency surgery or writing to your MP, you can help make sure that they are aware of our campaign and the arguments against welfare reform.
3. Write to the editor of your local newspaper. By doing this, you are helping us advertise the events and making sure that as many people as possible know they are happening.
4. Send a Press Release to your local paper, not only will you be sharing your concerns about Government cuts but making sure that as many people as possible know the event is happening.
5. Be a case study. Your story is the most important. Tell decision makers and the media why you support this campaign and help us show the human face of welfare reform.
1. Write to your MP and invite them to attend their local event. We want as many MPs to know what’s about the campaign as possible.
2. Lobby your MP in the week leading up to the event by attending a constituency surgery or writing to your MP, you can help make sure that they are aware of our campaign and the arguments against welfare reform.
3. Write to the editor of your local newspaper. By doing this, you are helping us advertise the events and making sure that as many people as possible know they are happening.
4. Send a Press Release to your local paper, not only will you be sharing your concerns about Government cuts but making sure that as many people as possible know the event is happening.
5. Be a case study. Your story is the most important. Tell decision makers and the media why you support this campaign and help us show the human face of welfare reform.
Thursday, 13 October 2011
Take action against companies profiting from workfare! Oct 19th
Via Boycott Workfare:
1pm, Wed 19th October 2011 outside the annual Welfare to Work
Conference at the Business Design Centre, Upper Street, Islington, N1
0HQ
This year’s Welfare to Work Conference will bring together
politicians and private companies making millions from the welfare to
work industry. The agenda reads like a who’s who of welfare abolition.
We’re not fooled by “Welfare to Work”: It means people forced to do
unpaid work for multi-million pound companies such as Asda and
Poundland. People risk losing the meagre £67 a week Jobseeker’s
Allowance if they do not work for such companies without pay.
Conference speakers will include James Purnell, who introduced the
idea of workfare under Labour, and the Tory peer Lord Freud, multi
millionaire ex-banker and self styled ‘welfare expert’. This is a
convention for those promoting the idea of an unpaid workforce, whilst
making millions from it.
Join us as we make sure the conference doesn’t go as smoothly as planned!
http://www.boycottworkfare.org/
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=257927247582905&ref=ts
Thursday, 6 October 2011
Scottish Welfare Reform Bill Debate
This is a guest post by Michael S. Collins, about the Scottish Welfare Reform Bill debate. He wrote this yesterday evening, after the debate had taken place.
So today, the Scottish parliament stood on what had been called potentially their finest hour. If in doubt, start posts with hyperbole. Nevertheless, it was an important moment, as Holyrood got ready to debate the infamous Welfare Reform Bill, proposals which have divided people, even from the same party.
Before the debate, there was a statement on the fuel poverty allowance, followed by queries from several MSPs including Patrick Harvie. The most interesting news to stem from that was the idea that the heating bill scheme was to be extended to that long misused service to society, carers. The feeling seemed to be, on the whole, we aim to keep our promises in this area, even if 'them down South' try to slash our budget.
Deputy SNP leader, and regular sight in Govan, Nicola Sturgeon opened the Welfare debate with as clear a statement on government policy as we shall hear for some time. "We want a welfare system which is fair to all." She followed up with an attack on a system which allowed genuine claimants to be found "capable of work". It was her conclusion that "We must recognise some people are unable to work and must be able to life comfortably on benefits." The Big Society was on the other channel, but Call Me Dave politics this was not.
Jackie Baillie opened the debate for the Labour party, who were mostly to agree with the SNP policies with a few tweaks. "Attacks on the welfare state is nothing less than an excuse to cut." She said, before turning to former Scottish Tory leader David McLetchie. In a pre-emptive strike, she warned him not to bring up the "13 years of Labour misrule" agenda once more, before throwing a dig in at the nearly entire missing Liberal Democrats: "Beveridge would be ashamed to see the Liberals cosy up to this".
Alongside Patrick Harvie's earlier assertions that he planned to argue against the WRB, so far the score suggested it was SNP / Labour / Green for, Tory against, and Lib Dems unaccounted for.
We now handed the debate over to Mary Scanlon of the Scottish Tories, one of that famous breed of formidable Sexagenarian / Septuagenarian Conservative women which populate parts of Scottish politics. At this point we got a lot of Labour mentions. Labour's legacy. Thirteen years. Unelected Prime Minister (though, the evidence that polling for Labour in 2005 rose after the "Vote Blair Get Brown" campaign suggests the general public didn't really disagree with that idea at the time). You know the jist. A lack of "the mess we inherited" in all but name. "39% claimants gave up claims as they didn't need it anymore." Other such familiar claims were made.
Liam McArthur of the Lib Dems, and the only Liberal Democrat available, had the floor now. "I do not accept the Welfare Reform Bill means the dismantling of the welfare state and benefits system" he started. Then he went into the usual Liberal defence of the Conservative policies. Nothing new to report there.
Bob Doris took the floor.
"We must speak out against the Bill, which is unfit for purpose, even if we can't prevent it."
"A savage attack on the most vulnerable groups in our society. [WRB] is cutting cash at any price. It is not a price worth paying."
A female MSP rose to speak next. The tag team of the washing machine and the sound problems on Holyrood.tv meant I never caught who it was, so anyone who knows, please let me know.
"Welfare state is a sign of compassion" she said, expressing that "Social ails" stemmed from the events of the 1980s. "We need safeguards for those who play by the rules and need nothing more than help from the state at their time of need."
Mark McDonald, SNP, was next to refute the claims that the SNP were sensibility and nae sense, as he noted that he had met "many voluntary groups and charities" who "have made sensible ideas for reform that wouldn't hurt the vulnerable."
"60% of genuine claimants rejected, being overturned on appeal suggests something wrong with the system."
"If it is your mistake, you'll be punished. If it is the UK governments mistake, you'll be punished."
He followed this remark up with a reference that 'Sir Humphrey Appleby' would be proud of this system, endearing himself to Nigel Hawthorne's legion of fans and politicos alike. His parting dig - "Now is the time and the hour for the Liberals to show their 'civilising' impact on the Tories" - was given with expert timing. McDonald is a new SNP MSP, elected in May during the landslide, who famously showed up at his count in jeans and T-shirt, so utterly unconvinced he was of his own victory. Here he made an impassioned speech.
Margaret Burgess, SNP, was swiftly to steal the show, however.
Key points?
She spoke with the full authority of years of experience, and with the full passion of someone who had first hand seen the hopelessness and victimization of the vulnerable in the name of society.
For fear this is turning into the SNP propaganda society, up next was Siobhan McMahon, a young Labour MSP of whom I was unaware of. It is hard to argue that her opening gambit was not one of the most strongest in the debate. "I have (a form of) cerebal palsy. It is surprising how easy it is to forget how you can't do normal things." She added: "I am better off than many others though, and it is for them I am passionately opposed to the [WRB]." McMahon showed an effective and well honed use of the orators mantel, noting of those who screamed about 'unnecessary benefits' that "Benefits cheats in this suspicious society invade their dreams like so many sprites and goblins." A brilliant use of rhetoric. The SNP may have held the floor and had the most condemnations of the ConDemNation (sorry, couldn't resist), but this was the most flowery and brilliant Footian quote of the day. Siobhan McMahon went on to warn that Scotland will "suffer disproportional by this reform, due to our high level of disabled people", and that, as an example against those who say looking harder for work is the solution to all our welfare woes, "Only 12% of people with aspergers in this country are in employment."
Annabelle Ewing, SNP and Winnie's daughter, was up next. She had "Concerns about devolved areas - housing benefits, carers etc - to be adversely effected by this [WRB]." She said there was "New assessment tests" but "little optimism the flaws of the Work Capability tests will be learned." She reiterated that she was "infuriated that disabled and sick are 'made to feel like second class citizens'".
Kezia Dugdale (Labour) took charge next. Her key points:
Christine McKelvie (SNP) was up to reiterate the SNP policy that "UK benefits system is needlessly complex", and "doesn't ensure people better off in work". We need to " treat systems not causes." She was damning of the Tories: "Instead of lifting poverty, the Tories plan to plunge more poor families into it."
Our sole Lib Dem summed up. Liam McArthur (Lib): "No one can identify what welfare reform would look like in independent Scotland. Still need to reduce budget."
David McLetchie finished for the Conservatives, stating that "Responsibility should be at the heart of our benefits system. Tinkering the edges of broken system wont work.". He was also, sadly, the only man to bring immigration as a sniping point. I may be rather cruel as I suggested that his whole debate could be summed up as "I agree with the SNP, but...". Given he was odds to stress both his support of certain sections of the policy but also his full support of the Tory reform, it wasn't unfair though. Players of David McLetchie Bingo - "Labour inheritance", "SNP record", "problems of independence" - would have had a happy day at the office though.
Drew Smith, the rather nervous Labour MSP, summed up for his side: "We see merit in simplifying system for those who can't..." He then talked up Universal Credit. He seemed genuinely terrified of Mary Scanlon, staring a hole through him constantly and trying to interject.
Alex Neil, the Secretary for Capital Investment, summed up for the SNP. He blamed everyone - the Labour, Tory and Lib Dem parties - for slashing capital spending. He pointed out the sole Lib Dem in the Chamber, and stressed that "No one is opposed to welfare reform. Purpose in reform isn't to do down vulnerable society, it is to make a fairer society." He also got in a less than subtle dig at the Labour party: "When Labour are in government, they introduce Tory policies. When they are opposition, they oppose the policies they introduced".
All the amendments went to division (ie, no clear decision) in the Chamber, so were voted on. The amendments of Mary Scanlon and Liam McArthur for the Tory and Lib Dems were rejected, and the combined SNP/Labour/Green alliance saw through Nicola Sturgeon and Jackie Baillie's amendments, to be proposed for the Welfare Reform Bill. That being, that matters which effect Scottish people should be ratified by the Scottish parliament before coming into effect.
It was nice to see Labour and the SNP unite on a principle. This didn't stop them digging at each other in much a Tom and Jerry style, but like Tom and Jerry, they united when someone else threatened them. In this, it was the WRB.
So was it Holyrood's finest moment? Rome wasn't built in a day and it will be hard to tell for some time if it was the making of anything but futile gestures.
It was, however, a delight to see some genuine factual, passioned but mostly good spirited debate on a matter which effects so many people, not just in Scotland, but in the UK today.
So today, the Scottish parliament stood on what had been called potentially their finest hour. If in doubt, start posts with hyperbole. Nevertheless, it was an important moment, as Holyrood got ready to debate the infamous Welfare Reform Bill, proposals which have divided people, even from the same party.
Before the debate, there was a statement on the fuel poverty allowance, followed by queries from several MSPs including Patrick Harvie. The most interesting news to stem from that was the idea that the heating bill scheme was to be extended to that long misused service to society, carers. The feeling seemed to be, on the whole, we aim to keep our promises in this area, even if 'them down South' try to slash our budget.
Deputy SNP leader, and regular sight in Govan, Nicola Sturgeon opened the Welfare debate with as clear a statement on government policy as we shall hear for some time. "We want a welfare system which is fair to all." She followed up with an attack on a system which allowed genuine claimants to be found "capable of work". It was her conclusion that "We must recognise some people are unable to work and must be able to life comfortably on benefits." The Big Society was on the other channel, but Call Me Dave politics this was not.
Jackie Baillie opened the debate for the Labour party, who were mostly to agree with the SNP policies with a few tweaks. "Attacks on the welfare state is nothing less than an excuse to cut." She said, before turning to former Scottish Tory leader David McLetchie. In a pre-emptive strike, she warned him not to bring up the "13 years of Labour misrule" agenda once more, before throwing a dig in at the nearly entire missing Liberal Democrats: "Beveridge would be ashamed to see the Liberals cosy up to this".
Alongside Patrick Harvie's earlier assertions that he planned to argue against the WRB, so far the score suggested it was SNP / Labour / Green for, Tory against, and Lib Dems unaccounted for.
We now handed the debate over to Mary Scanlon of the Scottish Tories, one of that famous breed of formidable Sexagenarian / Septuagenarian Conservative women which populate parts of Scottish politics. At this point we got a lot of Labour mentions. Labour's legacy. Thirteen years. Unelected Prime Minister (though, the evidence that polling for Labour in 2005 rose after the "Vote Blair Get Brown" campaign suggests the general public didn't really disagree with that idea at the time). You know the jist. A lack of "the mess we inherited" in all but name. "39% claimants gave up claims as they didn't need it anymore." Other such familiar claims were made.
Liam McArthur of the Lib Dems, and the only Liberal Democrat available, had the floor now. "I do not accept the Welfare Reform Bill means the dismantling of the welfare state and benefits system" he started. Then he went into the usual Liberal defence of the Conservative policies. Nothing new to report there.
Bob Doris took the floor.
"We must speak out against the Bill, which is unfit for purpose, even if we can't prevent it."
"A savage attack on the most vulnerable groups in our society. [WRB] is cutting cash at any price. It is not a price worth paying."
A female MSP rose to speak next. The tag team of the washing machine and the sound problems on Holyrood.tv meant I never caught who it was, so anyone who knows, please let me know.
"Welfare state is a sign of compassion" she said, expressing that "Social ails" stemmed from the events of the 1980s. "We need safeguards for those who play by the rules and need nothing more than help from the state at their time of need."
Mark McDonald, SNP, was next to refute the claims that the SNP were sensibility and nae sense, as he noted that he had met "many voluntary groups and charities" who "have made sensible ideas for reform that wouldn't hurt the vulnerable."
"60% of genuine claimants rejected, being overturned on appeal suggests something wrong with the system."
"If it is your mistake, you'll be punished. If it is the UK governments mistake, you'll be punished."
He followed this remark up with a reference that 'Sir Humphrey Appleby' would be proud of this system, endearing himself to Nigel Hawthorne's legion of fans and politicos alike. His parting dig - "Now is the time and the hour for the Liberals to show their 'civilising' impact on the Tories" - was given with expert timing. McDonald is a new SNP MSP, elected in May during the landslide, who famously showed up at his count in jeans and T-shirt, so utterly unconvinced he was of his own victory. Here he made an impassioned speech.
Margaret Burgess, SNP, was swiftly to steal the show, however.
Key points?
- The [WRB] "will have long term detrimental effect to Scotland."
- "I worked as an advisor. People want to work, not wanting to work is untrue, they are not getting the help they deserve."
- "20% less will get help even if they need it. That is wrong."
- The circle of ESA/JSA/ESA/bad decisions "badly effects mental health of the most vulnerable."
She spoke with the full authority of years of experience, and with the full passion of someone who had first hand seen the hopelessness and victimization of the vulnerable in the name of society.
For fear this is turning into the SNP propaganda society, up next was Siobhan McMahon, a young Labour MSP of whom I was unaware of. It is hard to argue that her opening gambit was not one of the most strongest in the debate. "I have (a form of) cerebal palsy. It is surprising how easy it is to forget how you can't do normal things." She added: "I am better off than many others though, and it is for them I am passionately opposed to the [WRB]." McMahon showed an effective and well honed use of the orators mantel, noting of those who screamed about 'unnecessary benefits' that "Benefits cheats in this suspicious society invade their dreams like so many sprites and goblins." A brilliant use of rhetoric. The SNP may have held the floor and had the most condemnations of the ConDemNation (sorry, couldn't resist), but this was the most flowery and brilliant Footian quote of the day. Siobhan McMahon went on to warn that Scotland will "suffer disproportional by this reform, due to our high level of disabled people", and that, as an example against those who say looking harder for work is the solution to all our welfare woes, "Only 12% of people with aspergers in this country are in employment."
Annabelle Ewing, SNP and Winnie's daughter, was up next. She had "Concerns about devolved areas - housing benefits, carers etc - to be adversely effected by this [WRB]." She said there was "New assessment tests" but "little optimism the flaws of the Work Capability tests will be learned." She reiterated that she was "infuriated that disabled and sick are 'made to feel like second class citizens'".
Kezia Dugdale (Labour) took charge next. Her key points:
- "If the Tory government is about the bigger picture, why does the [WRB] gain from broken marriages?"
- "One of the most abhorrent aspects of bill is changes to child maintenance proposals ie Lone parents needing to pay their own."
- "Child care costs, contrary to popular belief, does not pay to work."
Christine McKelvie (SNP) was up to reiterate the SNP policy that "UK benefits system is needlessly complex", and "doesn't ensure people better off in work". We need to " treat systems not causes." She was damning of the Tories: "Instead of lifting poverty, the Tories plan to plunge more poor families into it."
Our sole Lib Dem summed up. Liam McArthur (Lib): "No one can identify what welfare reform would look like in independent Scotland. Still need to reduce budget."
David McLetchie finished for the Conservatives, stating that "Responsibility should be at the heart of our benefits system. Tinkering the edges of broken system wont work.". He was also, sadly, the only man to bring immigration as a sniping point. I may be rather cruel as I suggested that his whole debate could be summed up as "I agree with the SNP, but...". Given he was odds to stress both his support of certain sections of the policy but also his full support of the Tory reform, it wasn't unfair though. Players of David McLetchie Bingo - "Labour inheritance", "SNP record", "problems of independence" - would have had a happy day at the office though.
Drew Smith, the rather nervous Labour MSP, summed up for his side: "We see merit in simplifying system for those who can't..." He then talked up Universal Credit. He seemed genuinely terrified of Mary Scanlon, staring a hole through him constantly and trying to interject.
Alex Neil, the Secretary for Capital Investment, summed up for the SNP. He blamed everyone - the Labour, Tory and Lib Dem parties - for slashing capital spending. He pointed out the sole Lib Dem in the Chamber, and stressed that "No one is opposed to welfare reform. Purpose in reform isn't to do down vulnerable society, it is to make a fairer society." He also got in a less than subtle dig at the Labour party: "When Labour are in government, they introduce Tory policies. When they are opposition, they oppose the policies they introduced".
All the amendments went to division (ie, no clear decision) in the Chamber, so were voted on. The amendments of Mary Scanlon and Liam McArthur for the Tory and Lib Dems were rejected, and the combined SNP/Labour/Green alliance saw through Nicola Sturgeon and Jackie Baillie's amendments, to be proposed for the Welfare Reform Bill. That being, that matters which effect Scottish people should be ratified by the Scottish parliament before coming into effect.
It was nice to see Labour and the SNP unite on a principle. This didn't stop them digging at each other in much a Tom and Jerry style, but like Tom and Jerry, they united when someone else threatened them. In this, it was the WRB.
So was it Holyrood's finest moment? Rome wasn't built in a day and it will be hard to tell for some time if it was the making of anything but futile gestures.
It was, however, a delight to see some genuine factual, passioned but mostly good spirited debate on a matter which effects so many people, not just in Scotland, but in the UK today.
Wednesday, 5 October 2011
Bns Jane Campbell wants our views on PIP
Here is a copy of a mesage we just received from Baroness Campbell. I'm too tired to tweak and make this shiny, so if you can just leave your opinions in the comments thread, it would be much appreciated :
"As you will see from yesterday we talked about the importance of language. So I'm thinking of challenging the title PIP. I think it should remain Disability Living Allowance, after all that's what it's about, disabled People's extra cost of living. It shouldn't not based on independence (defined by professionals) conditionality.
The condition that one should become "personally independent", which is likely to be defined in a medical model way, will not result in the independence disabled People have demanded over the years (i.e. independent living is about having choice and control over your life like that of non disabled people.
It includes all things in your life like work, education, raising your family, leisure, personal mobility etc) If the government want to continue encouraging us take responsibility over our lives, then they must give us the right to make our own decisions as to how DLA money should be spent.
It must not be measured by able-bodied people's assumptions as to what it is to be independent. Could you ask your networks what they think. I believe disabled people want to keep disability living allowance as a universal allowance.
We want to continue the principle that once you become eligible it is left up to you (personal responsibility) as to how you spend it to minimising the extra costs of being a disabled person, therefore we shouldn't be constantly reassessed as to how our so called independence is going. I'm thinking of demanding we keep the language that means disability living. And as we know, living must be defined by the person whose life it is. (Disabled people are the experts in their own situation)
I could put this down as an amendment, but I need support from the outside world, to make it important and powerful.
"As you will see from yesterday we talked about the importance of language. So I'm thinking of challenging the title PIP. I think it should remain Disability Living Allowance, after all that's what it's about, disabled People's extra cost of living. It shouldn't not based on independence (defined by professionals) conditionality.
The condition that one should become "personally independent", which is likely to be defined in a medical model way, will not result in the independence disabled People have demanded over the years (i.e. independent living is about having choice and control over your life like that of non disabled people.
It includes all things in your life like work, education, raising your family, leisure, personal mobility etc) If the government want to continue encouraging us take responsibility over our lives, then they must give us the right to make our own decisions as to how DLA money should be spent.
It must not be measured by able-bodied people's assumptions as to what it is to be independent. Could you ask your networks what they think. I believe disabled people want to keep disability living allowance as a universal allowance.
We want to continue the principle that once you become eligible it is left up to you (personal responsibility) as to how you spend it to minimising the extra costs of being a disabled person, therefore we shouldn't be constantly reassessed as to how our so called independence is going. I'm thinking of demanding we keep the language that means disability living. And as we know, living must be defined by the person whose life it is. (Disabled people are the experts in their own situation)
I could put this down as an amendment, but I need support from the outside world, to make it important and powerful.
Tuesday, 4 October 2011
1st Committee Session Of Welfare Reform Bill Today - Ppl Needed To Attend URGENT!
Are you based in or around London and interested in the impacts of the Welfare Reform Bill on all our lives? If so please try to attend the first committee session today in the Houses of Parliament. It is open to the public so just turn up, go through the security checks and make your way to Committee Room 4A. The room is larger than normal, chosen to allow access and there is also an overspill room with live feed link should it be needed.
We understand that this is short notice and a big ask, but the more people who can attend, even if only for a short period of time, the better. We need to show the government that they cannot quietly slip this destructive bill through without disabled people, sick people and carers speaking out about what they are doing to us.
We understand that this is short notice and a big ask, but the more people who can attend, even if only for a short period of time, the better. We need to show the government that they cannot quietly slip this destructive bill through without disabled people, sick people and carers speaking out about what they are doing to us.
Sunday, 2 October 2011
Conservatives: Protecting the vulnerable? #cpc11
When I contacted my Conservative MP a year ago to express my concern about government policy towards sick and disabled people, he told me that "I see something different, I see the vulnerable protected."
I still can't see that.
Conservatives,
Your ministers and special advisers constantly give incorrect information to the press and in speeches. You give misleading statistics to the press, and you leak it in advance to press that are sympathetic to conservative policies. That leads to headlines that seriously harm those reliant on benefits. Your language is itself harmful. You talk of benefit cheats, and scroungers, and the benefit lifestyle, and yet you ignore your own official statistics which show how tiny the levels of fraud really are. You ignore the massive damage done to the vast majority of claimants by your portrayal of those forced to rely on benefits and your constant references to deserving and undeserving; genuine and fake. Rhetoric from conservatives and the press has led to an increase in hate crimes such as stoning of people in wheelchairs and verbal abuse against those who need to use crutches or walking sticks. That has directly led to many disabled people being terrified of leaving the house.
You legislate on the assumption that with mobility aids, disabled people are on an equal footing with everyone else when moving around. They aren't. Shops have steps in their doorways. Pavements lack dropped kerbs, leaving those who are on wheels or cannot manage a change in level to make extended detours. Cars and vans are routinely parked blocking ramps and dropped kerbs. Bus drivers refuse to lower their bus to allow wheelchair users on, or pretend not to see them. Trains and buses allow only one wheelchair on the whole vehicle. Those who need an electric wheelchair for use outdoors are denied one because they have no need to use one at home. Others wait months or even years to be supplied with one.
You continue the broken system of assessing people that was introduced by Labour. The concept of the Work Capability Assessment is broken in itself as the impact of most health problems cannot be assessed in 45 minutes by a health care professional who has no knowledge of the problems that the patient has. Atos continue to recommend that people go in the Work Related Activity Group and attend Work Focused Interviews at the Job Centre when they will be seriously harmed even by attending the Job Centre, IF they manage to do so, and never mind the fact that there are no available jobs that are suitable for them and competition for the unsuitable jobs is more than five to one and up against healthy people.
You are time-limiting contribution-based ESA with no regard for the actual length of time that a person will be sick for. The prospect of losing that income causes stress and seriously damages the mental and physical health of many of those people, leading to even longer recovery times.
You are introducing Personal Independence Payments to replace DLA, but apart from assessing people more often which is highly damaging to the health of those who are permanently sick or disabled, you are reducing the budget by 20%. The costs of being sick or disabled have NOT gone down by 20%!
Conservative cuts to council budgets have come directly out of budgets for personal care. People who can barely get out of bed have been left to shop and cook for themselves; others have been given incontinence pads and told to soil themselves rather than receive help to get to the toilet, and this despite having full control over their bowels but simply being unable to walk. Forcing people to lie in bed for hours in their own faeces and urine is now conservative policy.
You reassured me that the vulnerable would be protected. You were wrong. You are attacking the vulnerable. You are abandoning those in need. Your policies leave people more sick, more disabled, blamed for needing your help. You should be ashamed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
