Cross posted at Rage against the Coalition
This is a letter I wrote to Ed Miliband yesterday. I don't pretend to be the worlds best writer or the most knowledgeable in these matters. I believe the majority will agree with me.
Dear Mr Miliband,
My name is Helen and I have Multiple Sclerosis. Because of this I claim ESA. I am writing to you because I am deeply worried about the cuts that have been announced by the ‘coalition’. They claim that they will support the most vulnerable yet the reforms they have announced will have an appalling effect on people like me.
The vast majority of ESA/IB claimants are not scroungers. We are honest, ordinary people with horrible, debilitating illnesses that force us to have to claim benefits. We know that there are people out there who claim the benefits they are not entitled to but they are a minority. We dislike the frauds as much, if not more, than everyone else since they give us all a bad name.
But labelling us all as scroungers is not only wrong, it’s unjust and it is making us very uneasy. Living life in fear is not the way anyone should have to live but thanks to the coalition and the right wing press this is how it is for us.
None of us asked to be ill, to have conditions that affect our lives and we would happily give up all of our benefits if you would take our illnesses with them.
Illness does not care what class you are, it doesn’t care how much your income is, what job you do, how many hours you work. It’s doesn’t care if you are male or female, young or cold, well educated or illiterate. It can happen to anyone, at any age, at any time. I never imagined for a moment it would happen to me.
Health related benefits should not be linked to out of work benefits. The help that an able bodied person requires to find work is not on the same level as the needs of the disabled. To try and force a disabled person into work that is wrong for them is criminal. Because their health will be affected.
The Tories and their rightwing supporters are selfish. They care only about themselves and money. And they assume that everyone else is like that, which is why they cannot believe that so many of us are genuine claimants. But being a socialist means you care about others, not just yourself. It means you look out for those less fortunate than yourself, even if their issues do not relate to you. You may not be disabled but you need to look after the interests and welfare of those who are.
Iain Duncan-Smith has told the world that unless you earn a wage you are contributing nothing to society. He has effectively told us we are worthless. We cannot depend on someone like that to look out for our welfare.
The previous Labour Government did nothing to help us. The coalition government is determined to punish us. Our hopes rest with you. I beg you to remember that while I may be disabled, I am still a human being. I don’t deserve to be punished for the crimes of a few. Being disabled is hard enough.
Please help to show the world that we are not all the same, that we don’t deserve to be branded scroungers and we shouldn’t be punished as such. I would ask you to meet with some of us. See our faces. Hear our stories. Gain an understanding of who we are and what we need.
Stand up for the sick and disabled and you will have our vote.
Thank you for your time,
Helen Thomas
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.
Thursday, 2 December 2010
Wednesday, 1 December 2010
Disability hate crime
Cross posted at Rage against the Coalition
Disability hate crime figures for 2009 - 1,402.
That's 1,402 separate occasions where people have suffered simply because they are disabled.
Call me whatever you want but I believe this figure will rise in the next dew years. The ConDem government and the right wing press label us as scroungers. No matter what the condition is, we have been targeted.
Inflammatory headlines in the Sun and the Daily Mail scream at people that we are undeserving, feckless and work shy.
So I don't feel very confident that those already predisposed to look down their noses at us will see through the propaganda.
After all, the headlines have been screaming about immigrants and the level of race crime has risen.
So I fully expect the number of disability hate crime to rise too. I only hope that I am wrong.
Source
Disability hate crime figures for 2009 - 1,402.
That's 1,402 separate occasions where people have suffered simply because they are disabled.
Call me whatever you want but I believe this figure will rise in the next dew years. The ConDem government and the right wing press label us as scroungers. No matter what the condition is, we have been targeted.
Inflammatory headlines in the Sun and the Daily Mail scream at people that we are undeserving, feckless and work shy.
So I don't feel very confident that those already predisposed to look down their noses at us will see through the propaganda.
After all, the headlines have been screaming about immigrants and the level of race crime has risen.
So I fully expect the number of disability hate crime to rise too. I only hope that I am wrong.
Source
IDS blames benefit claimants for the defecit
A couple of months ago I was interviewed for a piece in Disability Now about The Sun's hateful campaign against benefit claimants.
I said:
Today The Sun and the government have gone one step further than subtly hinting that benefits claimants are to blame for the recession as The Sun has Iain Duncan Smith quoted as saying:
Yes there is some element of fraud and there always will be. However the academic Jane Tinkler from LSE points out that the fraud rate for benefits is less than 1%. According to CityWire tax evasion costs the Treasury 15 times more than benefit fraud. Yet the government and the tabloids continue to portray us as the villains.
The Sun also post some manipulated facts about the process of applying for Incapacity Benefit.
They say:
Yes, filling in a form and sending it off is part of the process, but it's not the only part. I claimed Incapacity Benefit in the 2007-2008 year so I know something about the process in the time period specified. At first I had to submit sick notes from my GP. My GP would sign me off for 3 months at a time so every 3 months I had to go back. This was until the DWP sent me the aforementioned form, the IB50. The IB50 doesn't just ask you "are you sick? Yes/no." It's a very long, detailed form. It took me days to fill it in. It asks about your mobility, your sanity, your continence, your communication, your ability to dress and undress yourself, and pretty much anything else you can think of. But you don't just get the form, you also have to go for a medical where a doctor stares at your deformed bits to ascertain that you were telling the truth on the form.
Today's Sun article also says:
Which reminds me of the Daily Mail article in August that indirectly gave me the idea for Where's the Benefit?
I claimed (the now defunct) Severe Disablement Allowance (replaced by Incapacity Benefit) from the age of 16 until I got my first job when I was 22. You see, having impaired mobility I couldn't do bar work, stacking shelves in a supermarket, or any of the other fairly physical jobs people without a university degree tend to get. Which essentially meant I was unable to work until I was part-way through my degree thus educated enough for people to employ me to do a "thinking" job, the only kind I'm physically capable of.
Eugenics have progressed a lot since I was born and now a lot of disabled children don't make it as far as birth. Despite a lot of disabled babies being aborted there's not really a reduction in the number of disabled children around because medical advances mean that premature babies that wouldn't have survived in the past now do, but they're often left with cerebral palsy and other impairments. More children survive accidents and illnesses like cancer nowadays, but are left too ill or impaired to work so claim Incapacity Benefit when they turn 16. Despite his family money, had Ivan Cameron lived to see 16 he'd have been eligible to claim IB from his 16th birthday.
The fact that we have more young people claiming incapacity benefit than any other industrialised country is almost certainly linked to the excellence of our health service and we should be proud that children who'd have died from an accident, illness or premature birth in another country are still alive to claim incapacity benefit 16.
I came across today's Sun article through the fabulous (and award winning!) Disability Hate Crime Network because of their concerns that such hateful propaganda could fuel a rise in disablist hate crime. With our government and one of our biggest newspapers stating that incapacity benefit claimants effectively caused the deficit which the government are blaming all the cuts on, is it any wonder visibly disabled people are getting called "scrounger" and told to get a job by bus drivers?
I said:
“A lot of people, including Sun readers, lost a lot in the recession. The Government is using benefit claimants as a scapegoat for the country’s financial problems. The Sun sees [the campaign] as a way of boosting the egos of their readers, thus boosting their readership, by attacking the people perceived as responsible for all the losses the readers felt.”
Today The Sun and the government have gone one step further than subtly hinting that benefits claimants are to blame for the recession as The Sun has Iain Duncan Smith quoted as saying:
Paying a fortune to the five million on handouts - like X Factor reject Wagner Carrilho - is a major reason the UK's deficit soared to a crippling £155billion, Tory minister Iain Duncan Smith told The Sun.
From: www.thesun.co.uk
That's right: It's not because the bankers messed up and we bailed them out, it's not because Osborne lets his chums out of their multi-billion pound tax bills, it's because people like me have the audacity to eat.Yes there is some element of fraud and there always will be. However the academic Jane Tinkler from LSE points out that the fraud rate for benefits is less than 1%. According to CityWire tax evasion costs the Treasury 15 times more than benefit fraud. Yet the government and the tabloids continue to portray us as the villains.
The Sun also post some manipulated facts about the process of applying for Incapacity Benefit.
They say:
Mr Duncan Smith only discovered the worrying new statistic that 47 per cent of people on incapacity benefit had been signing themselves on in the last few days.
In the most recently available figures, from the financial year 2007-08, they told him that nearly half of claimants were passed by simply filling in a form and sending it off.
Yes, filling in a form and sending it off is part of the process, but it's not the only part. I claimed Incapacity Benefit in the 2007-2008 year so I know something about the process in the time period specified. At first I had to submit sick notes from my GP. My GP would sign me off for 3 months at a time so every 3 months I had to go back. This was until the DWP sent me the aforementioned form, the IB50. The IB50 doesn't just ask you "are you sick? Yes/no." It's a very long, detailed form. It took me days to fill it in. It asks about your mobility, your sanity, your continence, your communication, your ability to dress and undress yourself, and pretty much anything else you can think of. But you don't just get the form, you also have to go for a medical where a doctor stares at your deformed bits to ascertain that you were telling the truth on the form.
Today's Sun article also says:
Britain was branded the sick man of the world last week after a report found we have more young people on incapacity benefit than any other industrialised country.
Which reminds me of the Daily Mail article in August that indirectly gave me the idea for Where's the Benefit?
I claimed (the now defunct) Severe Disablement Allowance (replaced by Incapacity Benefit) from the age of 16 until I got my first job when I was 22. You see, having impaired mobility I couldn't do bar work, stacking shelves in a supermarket, or any of the other fairly physical jobs people without a university degree tend to get. Which essentially meant I was unable to work until I was part-way through my degree thus educated enough for people to employ me to do a "thinking" job, the only kind I'm physically capable of.
Eugenics have progressed a lot since I was born and now a lot of disabled children don't make it as far as birth. Despite a lot of disabled babies being aborted there's not really a reduction in the number of disabled children around because medical advances mean that premature babies that wouldn't have survived in the past now do, but they're often left with cerebral palsy and other impairments. More children survive accidents and illnesses like cancer nowadays, but are left too ill or impaired to work so claim Incapacity Benefit when they turn 16. Despite his family money, had Ivan Cameron lived to see 16 he'd have been eligible to claim IB from his 16th birthday.
The fact that we have more young people claiming incapacity benefit than any other industrialised country is almost certainly linked to the excellence of our health service and we should be proud that children who'd have died from an accident, illness or premature birth in another country are still alive to claim incapacity benefit 16.
I came across today's Sun article through the fabulous (and award winning!) Disability Hate Crime Network because of their concerns that such hateful propaganda could fuel a rise in disablist hate crime. With our government and one of our biggest newspapers stating that incapacity benefit claimants effectively caused the deficit which the government are blaming all the cuts on, is it any wonder visibly disabled people are getting called "scrounger" and told to get a job by bus drivers?
Cold Weather Payments
For those readers on qualifying benefits, you can check whether or not you are yet eligible for any Cold Weather Payments on this direct gov website.
Payments are made when the average temperature for where you live is recorded as, or forecast to be, zero degrees Celsius or below over seven consecutive days.
Also from direct.gov, who qualifies for Cold Weather Payments:
You get £25 for each seven day period of very cold weather between 1 November and 31 March and it is paid automatically, you do not need to apply for it.
So, if you want to check whether you are due to receive one, you can do so here.
Cross-posted at incurable hippie blog.
Payments are made when the average temperature for where you live is recorded as, or forecast to be, zero degrees Celsius or below over seven consecutive days.
Also from direct.gov, who qualifies for Cold Weather Payments:
If you are in receipt of Pension Credit, Income Support, Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance or Income-related Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), you may also be able to get Cold Weather Payments.
You get £25 for each seven day period of very cold weather between 1 November and 31 March and it is paid automatically, you do not need to apply for it.
So, if you want to check whether you are due to receive one, you can do so here.
Cross-posted at incurable hippie blog.
Tuesday, 30 November 2010
The Government Is Implicated In Creating Negative Attitudes To Disabled
This is a guest post by Sharon Brennan, originally posted here
It is the 40 years since the first Disability Act was enacted and to mark the occasion the BBC commissioned a survey into the public's attitude to disabled people. Interestingly 90% of people thought the Government should do more to help disabled people into work. I found this outlook really refreshing as I recently wrote a piece for the Guardian discussing the need for the Government to recognise that disabled employment must be a two way conversation: disabled people must be willing to work but employers must be willing to hire. Despite the Government refusing to discuss the fact that it is harder for disabled people to find work, it was great that the average person recognises it as a problem.
Where the BBC survey results were less positive, were in its findings that 40% of people think disabled people would "refuse work even when they have been found capable of doing it". This figure rose to over 50% amongst young respondents and those on low incomes.
Clearly there is a negative perception of disabled people in the UK, which can undoubtedly be attributed in part to right-wing media representation of the disabled. The Daily Mail is notorious for this. A recent front page screamed, "75% of claimants are fit to work", and carried on: "Tough new benefits test weed out the workshy".
You expect this kind of thing from the Daily Mail. But what shocked me is that the 75% figure came from a press release from the Department of Work and Pensions. And the figure is wrong. So it amounts to blatant Government propaganda.
The Government has reached its 75% figure by adding together 39% of people found fit to work and the 36% of people who have removed their claim during the assessment process. This 36% figure is problematic as there is much anecdotal evidence that those withdrawing their claims are those suffering from mental illness who find the process too frustrating and to have a negative impact upon their health condition. The truth is that the Government has no idea what happens to these 36% of people, as it doesn't track those who withdraw their claim. Which also means that the Government has no idea why they stop the process, although of course the Mail is quick to claim its because they were merely 'trying it on'.
But lets turn out attention to the number of successful appeals against ATOS's decision. When you follow the 'Notes to editors' link on the DWP very own press release it reveals a more in-depth report which shows that every month on average 40% of appeals against ATOS are upheld and they are awarded ESA. On average one third of claimants found 'fit to work' appealed against their decision and 40% were successful with their appeal. So if you do the math, once the whole process including appeals is complete, the DWP is wrong to say 39% are fit to work. In fact, 34% are found fit to work. So overall, at best 70% of ESA claimants are 'fit to work' although my guess this would be lower still if those 36% who dropped out of the process were given the right support to continue with their claim.
Let me remind you that the Government has access to this data, I've taken it directly from its own report. Yet although the release quotes Grayling saying he is "determined to get the medical test right" the successful appeals against the test are entirely omitted from his ESA headline statistics. 5% may be a small difference, but it is a difference none-the-less when you think that this current Government is so focused on transparency and providing accurate information to its citizens.
So it is clear that for some reason the Government has decided to spin the statistics associated with who is and isn't fit to work. It seems to suit their current agenda for the public to think that the majority of ESA claimants are 'scroungers'. Perhaps they realise they can only get the public to accept their massive welfare cuts if the public think the money is going to the undeserving.
And this might explain why, in today's BBC survey, the number of people who think disabled people choose not to work rises amongst those people who are most struggling to get by in life or get a job. So the Government at least seems to be doing well at one thing: pitting one set of welfare cut losers against another.
Monday, 22 November 2010
Disability and employment
According to this post from the Employer's forum on Disability, the Work Capability Test will be a "disadvantage for disabled people because of a lack of employer readiness and the recession"
We all know this is true. The ConDem's keep insisting they will protect the most vulnerable but the fact is they don't see the majority of us as vulnerable.
If you can do a little then you can work. Never mind that you don't know when you can do that little bit, or that doing it might mean you have to then rest for the next few hours, or the fact the the little bit you can do may be of no use to an employer.
The article is completely right when they say that employers lack the willingness to employ us. And I don't just mean that in financial terms. They may have to pay out nothing for adjustments but the mere fact that someone has a disability often means that they will be less 'reliable, for want of a better word, than an 'abled' person. Hospital appointments, sickness, reduced hours and many, many other things have to be taken into consideration.
At a time when each job vacancy is being chased by hundreds of people, employers can take their pick. And most of them will choose a worker that doesn't have health problems.
This is the reality that we face every day. And it's a reality the ConDems refuse to acknowledge.
Cross-posted at Rage against the Coalition
We all know this is true. The ConDem's keep insisting they will protect the most vulnerable but the fact is they don't see the majority of us as vulnerable.
If you can do a little then you can work. Never mind that you don't know when you can do that little bit, or that doing it might mean you have to then rest for the next few hours, or the fact the the little bit you can do may be of no use to an employer.
The article is completely right when they say that employers lack the willingness to employ us. And I don't just mean that in financial terms. They may have to pay out nothing for adjustments but the mere fact that someone has a disability often means that they will be less 'reliable, for want of a better word, than an 'abled' person. Hospital appointments, sickness, reduced hours and many, many other things have to be taken into consideration.
At a time when each job vacancy is being chased by hundreds of people, employers can take their pick. And most of them will choose a worker that doesn't have health problems.
This is the reality that we face every day. And it's a reality the ConDems refuse to acknowledge.
Cross-posted at Rage against the Coalition
Sunday, 21 November 2010
Isolated people in care homes - government will exacerbate the problem
This is cross-posted from arbitraryconstant.
The BBC reported recently on the results of a survey by the Residents and Relatives Association. The top finding was that some 40,000 older people in care homes are "socially isolated".
We shouldn't be surprised by this, and the aim of any effective social care system should be to keep individuals out of care homes for as long as possible. Not only does this cost the tax payer less money, but it means the individual (and their families) are happier.
There are 5 relevant points to make about this finding in the context of the current political climate.
1. In the Comprehensive Spending Review, George Osborne said he is going to end the payment of the mobility component of the Disability Living Allowance for people in residential care. This is a vital support for people who get it since it enables them to access opportunities in their local community or, even at the most fundamental level, move freely around the care home. Thus, this decision on the mobility component of DLA will exacerbate people's social isolation in care homes.
2. As has been well documented, the coalition government is looking to introduce medical tests for Disability Living Allowance from 2013, with a view to saving approximately 20% of the current DLA bill. DLA is a vital non-work related benefit that supports people to meet the extra costs of disability. If this support is removed it will harm people's ability to live independently and thus increases the likelihood of people moving to a care home earlier than they or their families may wish them to.
3. The Independent Living Fund is currently closed to new applicants. The ILF precisely supports people eligible for social care support to live independently in their own homes and communities, indeed going further than DLA does in providing this targeted support. Whilst the future of the ILF remains in doubt, this is another factor that increases the likelihood of people moving to a care home.
4. In the run up to the general election, the Tories suggested individuals make a one-off payment of £8,000 and can then live in whichever care home they wanted to. I was worried at the time that the Tories thought the solution to providing social care for people is to move them out of their own home and into residential care. I hope today's finding continues to convince them of the error in that thinking.
5. The coalition government has said that the take-up of cash payments by individuals - taking the cash equivalent of a service provided by the local authority in order to take more choice and control over how care and support is arranged - has not happened fast enough. And they're right. Supporting people to take more of the care and support as cash payments will enable people to live independently, in their own homes or communities, and therefore not be subject to the social isolation prevalent in care homes.
That there is social isolation for 40,000 people in care homes is not surprising to anyone with a passing knowledge of the social system. To date, the coalition government's decisions on a range of disability benefits and funding streams makes it more and not less likely that people will be in care homes, and so face the possibility of social isolation.
The BBC reported recently on the results of a survey by the Residents and Relatives Association. The top finding was that some 40,000 older people in care homes are "socially isolated".
We shouldn't be surprised by this, and the aim of any effective social care system should be to keep individuals out of care homes for as long as possible. Not only does this cost the tax payer less money, but it means the individual (and their families) are happier.
There are 5 relevant points to make about this finding in the context of the current political climate.
1. In the Comprehensive Spending Review, George Osborne said he is going to end the payment of the mobility component of the Disability Living Allowance for people in residential care. This is a vital support for people who get it since it enables them to access opportunities in their local community or, even at the most fundamental level, move freely around the care home. Thus, this decision on the mobility component of DLA will exacerbate people's social isolation in care homes.
2. As has been well documented, the coalition government is looking to introduce medical tests for Disability Living Allowance from 2013, with a view to saving approximately 20% of the current DLA bill. DLA is a vital non-work related benefit that supports people to meet the extra costs of disability. If this support is removed it will harm people's ability to live independently and thus increases the likelihood of people moving to a care home earlier than they or their families may wish them to.
3. The Independent Living Fund is currently closed to new applicants. The ILF precisely supports people eligible for social care support to live independently in their own homes and communities, indeed going further than DLA does in providing this targeted support. Whilst the future of the ILF remains in doubt, this is another factor that increases the likelihood of people moving to a care home.
4. In the run up to the general election, the Tories suggested individuals make a one-off payment of £8,000 and can then live in whichever care home they wanted to. I was worried at the time that the Tories thought the solution to providing social care for people is to move them out of their own home and into residential care. I hope today's finding continues to convince them of the error in that thinking.
5. The coalition government has said that the take-up of cash payments by individuals - taking the cash equivalent of a service provided by the local authority in order to take more choice and control over how care and support is arranged - has not happened fast enough. And they're right. Supporting people to take more of the care and support as cash payments will enable people to live independently, in their own homes or communities, and therefore not be subject to the social isolation prevalent in care homes.
That there is social isolation for 40,000 people in care homes is not surprising to anyone with a passing knowledge of the social system. To date, the coalition government's decisions on a range of disability benefits and funding streams makes it more and not less likely that people will be in care homes, and so face the possibility of social isolation.
Saturday, 20 November 2010
The end of secure social housing?
It's news today (Guardian, BBC) that the ConDems are planning to introduce a social housing system where councils will check the finances of tenants every 2 years. If the tenant has too much money they will be evicted.
I've had impaired mobility since I was born, but it's only been within the last 5 years that I've become too ill to work. 6 and a half years ago when I applied for social housing on medical grounds I was in work and probably had too much money to get social housing on financial grounds.
Had I remained healthy (my osteogenesis impairs my mobility but it doesn't make me "unwell") thus continued working then 2 years into my tenancy I'd have still had the financial means to live in the private sector so under this new system it'd have resulted in my eviction.
The only realistic housing prospects for mobility impaired people in the UK at the moment are either social housing or to buy your own home. Private sector rented properties are almost exclusively inaccessible. When I moved into this flat I may have been able to afford private sector rents, but I certainly couldn't afford to buy. And buying or getting a council flat were the only options for living somewhere where my home itself didn't break my bones for me.
If councils start evicting people who can afford private sector rents it's going to have a massive impact on disabled people. Being evicted from an accessible council flat and having to move into an inaccessible private sector property may mean having to give up work if you literally can't get out of your front door to get to work each day. If I was well enough to work and I had a choice between getting a job and getting evicted from my not-accessible-but-better-than-anything-in-the-private-sector home or remaining unemployed but getting to keep the flat where I've got a sort-of-accessible kitchen and a sort-of-accessible bathroom then I'll choose the latter, thanks.
I realise that at the moment they're only planning on implementing this system for new tenants so it won't affect me immediately. But if I ever get rehoused to somewhere that's really, properly accessible then my new tenancy will be limited by the conditions. Which, should someone come up with an effective treatment for my chronic health problems, will leave me stuck between a rock and a hard place with regards to finding work or keeping my home.
Of course, while disabled people may be the most harshly affected due to the lack of accessible private housing, it's an issue that will affect everybody. This two year old CiF piece explains how losing your home if your financial situation improves will lead to people rejecting opportunities to improve their situation. Even the usually ridiculous and vicious Nadine Dorries agrees that limiting social tenancies will lead to reduced aspirations in an attempt to stave off losing ones home. (And the right wing Daily Mail reported it!)
Cameron and Co are absolutely right that something needs to be done about the fact that there's too little available social housing. As someone that lives in a sort-of inaccessible flat because there's too little accessible social housing I'm more aware of that than most. But evicting people with a few grand in the bank is not the answer because of the demotivating factor. If they really want to fix the problem they need to build more housing to replace what Thatcher's Tory government sold off in the 1980s.
I've had impaired mobility since I was born, but it's only been within the last 5 years that I've become too ill to work. 6 and a half years ago when I applied for social housing on medical grounds I was in work and probably had too much money to get social housing on financial grounds.
Had I remained healthy (my osteogenesis impairs my mobility but it doesn't make me "unwell") thus continued working then 2 years into my tenancy I'd have still had the financial means to live in the private sector so under this new system it'd have resulted in my eviction.
The only realistic housing prospects for mobility impaired people in the UK at the moment are either social housing or to buy your own home. Private sector rented properties are almost exclusively inaccessible. When I moved into this flat I may have been able to afford private sector rents, but I certainly couldn't afford to buy. And buying or getting a council flat were the only options for living somewhere where my home itself didn't break my bones for me.
If councils start evicting people who can afford private sector rents it's going to have a massive impact on disabled people. Being evicted from an accessible council flat and having to move into an inaccessible private sector property may mean having to give up work if you literally can't get out of your front door to get to work each day. If I was well enough to work and I had a choice between getting a job and getting evicted from my not-accessible-but-better-than-anything-in-the-private-sector home or remaining unemployed but getting to keep the flat where I've got a sort-of-accessible kitchen and a sort-of-accessible bathroom then I'll choose the latter, thanks.
I realise that at the moment they're only planning on implementing this system for new tenants so it won't affect me immediately. But if I ever get rehoused to somewhere that's really, properly accessible then my new tenancy will be limited by the conditions. Which, should someone come up with an effective treatment for my chronic health problems, will leave me stuck between a rock and a hard place with regards to finding work or keeping my home.
Of course, while disabled people may be the most harshly affected due to the lack of accessible private housing, it's an issue that will affect everybody. This two year old CiF piece explains how losing your home if your financial situation improves will lead to people rejecting opportunities to improve their situation. Even the usually ridiculous and vicious Nadine Dorries agrees that limiting social tenancies will lead to reduced aspirations in an attempt to stave off losing ones home. (And the right wing Daily Mail reported it!)
Cameron and Co are absolutely right that something needs to be done about the fact that there's too little available social housing. As someone that lives in a sort-of inaccessible flat because there's too little accessible social housing I'm more aware of that than most. But evicting people with a few grand in the bank is not the answer because of the demotivating factor. If they really want to fix the problem they need to build more housing to replace what Thatcher's Tory government sold off in the 1980s.
Thursday, 18 November 2010
Personal budgets: 1 million disabled to get full control
The coalition government has set out plans to empower 1 million adults in need of social care with personal care budgets by 2013 so that they can choose the services they need, Care Services Minister Paul Burstow announced yesterday, as he launched the document "A vision for adult social care: Capable Communities and Active Citizens'.
Full report at E-gov Monitor.
Full report at E-gov Monitor.
Tuesday, 16 November 2010
Disability Rights: Justice Commissioner Vivianne Reding Unveils EU Commission's Disability Strategy For The Next Decade
"Disabled Europeans must receive equal treatment and have equal access in all spheres of life is the main thrust of the European Commission's new disability strategy which was unveiled in Brussels earlier today." reports Egov monitor.
Monday, 15 November 2010
Another punishment?
As if cuts to IB, ESA and DLA weren't weren't enough, Mr Duncan-Smith is at it again. He plans to introduce an initiative called 'slivers of time', an ultra flexible way of working, aimed at disabled people and lone parents.
From the Guardian:
Sounds good right? I mean, I'm sure that I would be capable of doing a few hours each week - so where's the problem?
The problem is that I don't know which hours I would be able to work. The hours would still have to be arranged - say, 2 hours on a Monday, 2 hours on a Wednesday. But what if I'm just not feeling up to it when those days arrive? Would I be able to change those hours? How am I supposed to know when to change them to? Would the employer let me do this all the time? I can't see any employer putting up with that. They need to know they have enough staff and when those staff are working, employing someone who won't know if they'll be able to work or not isn't likely to be high on their list.
Unless an employer is happy for their worker to turn up as and when they are able, I can't see how this will work at all.
And I know that many disabled people will worry that if they don't comply they will be sanctioned. After all, the ConDems seem determined to push people into work whether it is right for them or not, whether they have tried or not, so will we be punished if we can't do this?
And as for people who care for a dependent, are they supposed to know when said adult will be well enough to not need them for a few hours? Or perhaps the Government is expecting them to book a carer for a few set hours so they can work? This would seem a little, no, a lot, ridiculous.
Funnily enough none of these points have been addressed. I wonder if Ms Miller will question them on our behalf. Time will tell. But I'm not holding my breath
Cross posted here
Source
From the Guardian:
Slivers of time, a social enterprise founded by the former BBC producer Wingham Rowan, is designed to tap into the pool of people who cannot work the usual hours expected even of the average part-time employee. It is aimed at parents with young children, disabled people who may not be available for work for most of the week, people who care for a dependent adult or the long-term unemployed who want to ease slowly back into work.
Its proponents claim the reform would mean that a disabled or lone parent would be able to book a few hours of work a week on their terms.
Sounds good right? I mean, I'm sure that I would be capable of doing a few hours each week - so where's the problem?
The problem is that I don't know which hours I would be able to work. The hours would still have to be arranged - say, 2 hours on a Monday, 2 hours on a Wednesday. But what if I'm just not feeling up to it when those days arrive? Would I be able to change those hours? How am I supposed to know when to change them to? Would the employer let me do this all the time? I can't see any employer putting up with that. They need to know they have enough staff and when those staff are working, employing someone who won't know if they'll be able to work or not isn't likely to be high on their list.
Unless an employer is happy for their worker to turn up as and when they are able, I can't see how this will work at all.
And I know that many disabled people will worry that if they don't comply they will be sanctioned. After all, the ConDems seem determined to push people into work whether it is right for them or not, whether they have tried or not, so will we be punished if we can't do this?
And as for people who care for a dependent, are they supposed to know when said adult will be well enough to not need them for a few hours? Or perhaps the Government is expecting them to book a carer for a few set hours so they can work? This would seem a little, no, a lot, ridiculous.
Funnily enough none of these points have been addressed. I wonder if Ms Miller will question them on our behalf. Time will tell. But I'm not holding my breath
Cross posted here
Source
Friday, 12 November 2010
Stealth Cuts – Other ways we are being hurt – Part 2
While massive spending cuts hit us all, my council – Waltham Forest - has taken the step of asking its residents where they should make savings. A friendly green website presented me with 8 different categories such as “children’s services” and “your streets” and invited me to make cuts of £55m. Suddenly I realised the mammoth scale of this undertaking – the way that no facilities or services can escape unscathed. However, I gave myself the challenge of maintaining adult social care at its current rate.
Don’t get me wrong; I don’t think adult social care is currently even adequate in my borough. I have been told that if someone can manage to give themself a flannel-bath, then they are not entitled to any kind of care. Of course this doesn’t take account of any inability to cook safely, nor to take out the rubbish or manage laundry! But simply trying to juggle cuts while keeping rates of social care at their current level made me aware of the huge task that councils are facing.
Each topic came with a slider – I simply had to pick categories and drag them to save money, and the website would let me know the impact of my actions. For example as I removed all funding from “Sport & Leisure” I was informed that the impact would be "reduced support to voluntary sector sports clubs, reduced sports activities in parks and estates and reduced sports activities and participation in competitions and events". While any cutback is a shame, I don’t feel guilty in removing sports activities when compared to helping disabled people to eat, be clean and maintain independence.
However, although there are eight categories and sliders to adjust, it is instantly clear that some categories will have little impact in making the £55m of required savings. After all, the total budget for Housing & Homelessness is just £4.85m. For Culture, Learning & Community Libraries the budget is £6.91m. In fact, if I set 6 of the 8 sliders to zero – removing all funding in those categories whatsoever – I still need to save another £28m. This money can only come from Children’s Services & Education, or the Adult Social Care that I am fighting to protect. In fact if I maintain adult care at its current level, the system shows me that I have no choice but to cut Children’s Services by more than 25%, removing several social workers and forcing large numbers of at-risk children to stay in their home rather than go into care – something which the real world would not tolerate. My changes would even impose the removal of care packages for disabled children; it seems that whichever way I go, with the huge quantity of cuts required, there will be a direct impact on disabled people one way or another.
Because adult social care comprises such a very large proportion of a council’s expenditure, it’s natural that many people will think that this is an obvious way to make savings. And although any such cutback is abhorrent to my mind, it may be essential in order for our councils to stay solvent. I am pleasantly surprised that although adult social care draws so much money, respondents to Waltham Forest’s website have only voted for a 7% reduction in our services. “Only” 7%. If the council implement cutbacks based on this consultation, they will “only” ...increase charges for their services (when many service users may be on benefits and unable to contribute financially for their care) ...reduce programmes to support vulnerable people and their carers ...and make staffing cuts so there will be even longer delays for assessments than there are at the moment.
Wow. Yet when I play with the figures myself, I can see that this may be a lucky escape - no matter how bad it seems, things can always be worse!
Unfortunately, in the three weeks that this website has been running, only 733 people have responded. That’s a quarter of 1% of everyone who lives in the area. How disappointing, that we are offered this opportunity to have our say and shape service provision for the future, and yet barely anyone bothers? It’s not for want of publicity, as a flyer went out with “Waltham Forest News”, a council newspaper delivered to every household in the borough.
I am utterly opposed to cuts of services and benefits which help disabled and older people to remain independent. I am increasingly concerned about these “stealth” cuts made by boroughs, where there is no right of appeal. But even I must admit that I can’t see what the solution is, other than to hope the economy recovers quickly, and that disabled people are the first to have their services reinstated when more funds are available.
In the meantime, I fear hearing about the human side of these cuts. I already see case studies in the local paper, I know people who are struggling, and situations where older or disabled neighbours have to provide food for one another. I know this is already happening on my own doorstep and I am dreading the situation getting worse. It seems the councils are between a rock and a hard place. All we can do is tell them to cut anything, everything, but adult social care.
Don’t get me wrong; I don’t think adult social care is currently even adequate in my borough. I have been told that if someone can manage to give themself a flannel-bath, then they are not entitled to any kind of care. Of course this doesn’t take account of any inability to cook safely, nor to take out the rubbish or manage laundry! But simply trying to juggle cuts while keeping rates of social care at their current level made me aware of the huge task that councils are facing.
Each topic came with a slider – I simply had to pick categories and drag them to save money, and the website would let me know the impact of my actions. For example as I removed all funding from “Sport & Leisure” I was informed that the impact would be "reduced support to voluntary sector sports clubs, reduced sports activities in parks and estates and reduced sports activities and participation in competitions and events". While any cutback is a shame, I don’t feel guilty in removing sports activities when compared to helping disabled people to eat, be clean and maintain independence.
However, although there are eight categories and sliders to adjust, it is instantly clear that some categories will have little impact in making the £55m of required savings. After all, the total budget for Housing & Homelessness is just £4.85m. For Culture, Learning & Community Libraries the budget is £6.91m. In fact, if I set 6 of the 8 sliders to zero – removing all funding in those categories whatsoever – I still need to save another £28m. This money can only come from Children’s Services & Education, or the Adult Social Care that I am fighting to protect. In fact if I maintain adult care at its current level, the system shows me that I have no choice but to cut Children’s Services by more than 25%, removing several social workers and forcing large numbers of at-risk children to stay in their home rather than go into care – something which the real world would not tolerate. My changes would even impose the removal of care packages for disabled children; it seems that whichever way I go, with the huge quantity of cuts required, there will be a direct impact on disabled people one way or another.
Because adult social care comprises such a very large proportion of a council’s expenditure, it’s natural that many people will think that this is an obvious way to make savings. And although any such cutback is abhorrent to my mind, it may be essential in order for our councils to stay solvent. I am pleasantly surprised that although adult social care draws so much money, respondents to Waltham Forest’s website have only voted for a 7% reduction in our services. “Only” 7%. If the council implement cutbacks based on this consultation, they will “only” ...increase charges for their services (when many service users may be on benefits and unable to contribute financially for their care) ...reduce programmes to support vulnerable people and their carers ...and make staffing cuts so there will be even longer delays for assessments than there are at the moment.
Wow. Yet when I play with the figures myself, I can see that this may be a lucky escape - no matter how bad it seems, things can always be worse!
Unfortunately, in the three weeks that this website has been running, only 733 people have responded. That’s a quarter of 1% of everyone who lives in the area. How disappointing, that we are offered this opportunity to have our say and shape service provision for the future, and yet barely anyone bothers? It’s not for want of publicity, as a flyer went out with “Waltham Forest News”, a council newspaper delivered to every household in the borough.
I am utterly opposed to cuts of services and benefits which help disabled and older people to remain independent. I am increasingly concerned about these “stealth” cuts made by boroughs, where there is no right of appeal. But even I must admit that I can’t see what the solution is, other than to hope the economy recovers quickly, and that disabled people are the first to have their services reinstated when more funds are available.
In the meantime, I fear hearing about the human side of these cuts. I already see case studies in the local paper, I know people who are struggling, and situations where older or disabled neighbours have to provide food for one another. I know this is already happening on my own doorstep and I am dreading the situation getting worse. It seems the councils are between a rock and a hard place. All we can do is tell them to cut anything, everything, but adult social care.
Stealth Cuts – Other ways we are being hurt – Part 1
The Government Spending Review has received plenty of press attention, and there have been announcements of cuts and changes to national benefits, such as caps on housing benefit, and removal of the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) mobility component for people living in residential homes. But there are yet more blows to follow as councils tighten their belts – some of which have already started.
For example, although some people are automatically entitled to a Blue Badge or a travel pass (e.g. if they receive the higher rate of DLA mobility component), many other people who have a need but can’t tick a box will receive these at the council’s discretion. However, councils are beginning to tighten the criteria and there is no statutory right of appeal, meaning that many people could find they no longer qualify when they come to renew these essential transport benefits, and can do nothing about it.
In London, where public transport is complex, there is an additional concession – the Taxicard. This enables the holder to a reduced fare in certain black taxis, making it easier to get about if you are unable to access the buses or tubes – and until now different boroughs have implemented the scheme in different ways, but this is due to be harmonised with everyone being entitled to 104 trips a year. That’s equivalent to going out and back once a week, but is it realistic to expect someone with mobility impairments to undertake all their shopping and chores for the week in a single trip? Worse, I hear rumours that Taxicard may soon be closed to new applicants – for good. This is an essential service for many Londoners who need to get around, but can’t afford to pay the full cost of taxis. If you think you may qualify, I can only encourage you to apply as soon as possible, before any changes come into force.
Joined up thinking has gone out of the window. Councils used to offer extra taxicard trips in certain circumstances, but now anything which requires discretionary funding has been withdrawn. A case in point is ‘Andy’, a person with learning difficulties, who entirely relied on their taxicard to get about. Sure, they could physically get on the bus, but wouldn’t know where to go once on board, or even which bus to catch. They soon used up their taxicard allowance for a year but instead of being given additional trips to accommodate their access needs, this year they were told “you have a bus pass, you have to use that instead”. The last I heard, what should have been a simple bus ride turned into a long and confused expedition... Surely in this case it makes sense to give them extra taxi allowances rather than issue a bus pass?
Also in London, I’m told that the Borough of Barking has withdrawn their community transport scheme, which used to bring disabled people to meetings and take them shopping.
For example, although some people are automatically entitled to a Blue Badge or a travel pass (e.g. if they receive the higher rate of DLA mobility component), many other people who have a need but can’t tick a box will receive these at the council’s discretion. However, councils are beginning to tighten the criteria and there is no statutory right of appeal, meaning that many people could find they no longer qualify when they come to renew these essential transport benefits, and can do nothing about it.
In London, where public transport is complex, there is an additional concession – the Taxicard. This enables the holder to a reduced fare in certain black taxis, making it easier to get about if you are unable to access the buses or tubes – and until now different boroughs have implemented the scheme in different ways, but this is due to be harmonised with everyone being entitled to 104 trips a year. That’s equivalent to going out and back once a week, but is it realistic to expect someone with mobility impairments to undertake all their shopping and chores for the week in a single trip? Worse, I hear rumours that Taxicard may soon be closed to new applicants – for good. This is an essential service for many Londoners who need to get around, but can’t afford to pay the full cost of taxis. If you think you may qualify, I can only encourage you to apply as soon as possible, before any changes come into force.
Joined up thinking has gone out of the window. Councils used to offer extra taxicard trips in certain circumstances, but now anything which requires discretionary funding has been withdrawn. A case in point is ‘Andy’, a person with learning difficulties, who entirely relied on their taxicard to get about. Sure, they could physically get on the bus, but wouldn’t know where to go once on board, or even which bus to catch. They soon used up their taxicard allowance for a year but instead of being given additional trips to accommodate their access needs, this year they were told “you have a bus pass, you have to use that instead”. The last I heard, what should have been a simple bus ride turned into a long and confused expedition... Surely in this case it makes sense to give them extra taxi allowances rather than issue a bus pass?
Also in London, I’m told that the Borough of Barking has withdrawn their community transport scheme, which used to bring disabled people to meetings and take them shopping.
Where will the axe fall next? It could be your council.
Thursday, 4 November 2010
Round-Up Post
There are plenty of must-read articles and blog posts which I haven't had the time or the spoons to cover. All of the following are well worth a look.
- Scope are running a survey about the real costs of being disabled, which you can fill in here.
- "On the Shoulders of the Vulnerable", an article from Morning Star with information about ATOS and how ESA medicals are failing disabled people, especially those of us with mental health problems.
- A Guardian article, Housing Benefit Cuts: What's the Real Truth?
- Laurie Penny in the New Statesman writes Strictly Come Scrounging, Anyone?, about The X Factor vision of society [which] blames the poor for their predicament.
- Hopi Sen and Left Futures point out the contradiction in David Cameron criticising those claiming over £20,000 in housing benefits, compared to his own expenses claims for his second home.
- Crisis, a national charity for single homeless people, have created a comprehensive, myth-busting press release full of information on how the government are 'peddling myths' to sell the Housing Benefit cuts.
- Lenin's Tomb deconstructs a Daily Mail article decrying 75% of Incapacity Benefit claimants as 'fit to work'.
- The same article is looked at on This Is My Blog, who looks in depth at 'abandoned claims' and why they might really happen.
- Susannah posts a plea for help, describing how the removal of the Mobility Component of DLA from people in residential care will directly affect her brother.
Friday, 29 October 2010
Twitter round up
As I mentioned before it can be hard to find the spoons to write here, but what's really easy and uses little energy is tweeting. So sometimes I post links to articles on Twitter that don't get covered here on the main site. And that's not good for our non-tweeting readers who end up missing stuff.
So I thought I should start doing a regular (or as regular as I can manage) round up of relevant news stories that we've tweeted.
There's been quite a lot about the housing benefit cuts. The Guardian reported that councils are planning for an exodus of families from London. Boris Johnson, the Tory Mayor of London, told the BBC that he will not accept "Kosovo-style social cleansing" of the capital due to a government cap on housing benefits. (And as many Tweeters pointed out, when BoJo is standing up for the poor you know there's something really wrong.) Unsurprisingly many MPs distanced themselves from Johnson's comments and Vince Cable accused the mayor of using "inflammatory language". The Independent report that the government is determined to push ahead with the plans regardless and that Cameron thinks the cap is "fair".
The next big issue is the planned removal of the mobility component of DLA from people resident in care homes. BenefitScroungingScum appeared on BBC Radio Leeds to talk about the issue. @beccaviola tweeted that having her Motability vehicle while she was stuck in a care home was the thing that stopped her killing herself. RADAR released a statement that they're strongly opposed to the plan.
The big twitter story of the week has been the Vodafone tax bill story that we reported last month. Protesters managed to shut down both a Leeds branch of the store and Vodafone's flagship store on Oxford Street. There are more protests planned for tomorrow (scroll down to the comments for a slightly more accessible plan if travelling all over London isn't that ideal for you). Johann Hari wrote a column about just how effective protesting can be. @kimkali wondered if all those made homeless by the cuts are going to move in to their local Vodafone store.
Other tweets of note:
And finally: The CAB are conducting some research into the ESA medicals process. If you're claiming/about to claim have a look at their Fair Welfare campaign page.
So I thought I should start doing a regular (or as regular as I can manage) round up of relevant news stories that we've tweeted.
There's been quite a lot about the housing benefit cuts. The Guardian reported that councils are planning for an exodus of families from London. Boris Johnson, the Tory Mayor of London, told the BBC that he will not accept "Kosovo-style social cleansing" of the capital due to a government cap on housing benefits. (And as many Tweeters pointed out, when BoJo is standing up for the poor you know there's something really wrong.) Unsurprisingly many MPs distanced themselves from Johnson's comments and Vince Cable accused the mayor of using "inflammatory language". The Independent report that the government is determined to push ahead with the plans regardless and that Cameron thinks the cap is "fair".
The next big issue is the planned removal of the mobility component of DLA from people resident in care homes. BenefitScroungingScum appeared on BBC Radio Leeds to talk about the issue. @beccaviola tweeted that having her Motability vehicle while she was stuck in a care home was the thing that stopped her killing herself. RADAR released a statement that they're strongly opposed to the plan.
The big twitter story of the week has been the Vodafone tax bill story that we reported last month. Protesters managed to shut down both a Leeds branch of the store and Vodafone's flagship store on Oxford Street. There are more protests planned for tomorrow (scroll down to the comments for a slightly more accessible plan if travelling all over London isn't that ideal for you). Johann Hari wrote a column about just how effective protesting can be. @kimkali wondered if all those made homeless by the cuts are going to move in to their local Vodafone store.
Other tweets of note:
- @girlonetrack: So the coalition government cuts our public services, yet finds £2bn to read our emails? http://bit.ly/stopthesnooping
- @johannhari101: You pay your taxes. Sign the petition to make multi-millionaire George Osborne pay his: http://bit.ly/a3EOmJ
- @nusuk: Spending Review Cuts Briefing: Disabled Students. Read more at http://bit.ly/915awh
- @batsgirl: New Blog Post: Abandoned Claims http://batsgirl.blogspot.com/2010/10/abandoned-claims.html
- @andyholland01: George Osborne is a very stupid man hiding behind the deficit http://bit.ly/boaOUc
- @libcon: The disability benefit reforms fail the liberal test http://bit.ly/9fXXxw
- @libcon: Osborne gifts £40bn to super-rich in Swiss deal http://bit.ly/aWfbIf
- @TheSliverParty: RT @hangbitch The three pro-spending cuts retailers we're boycotting in November http://bit.ly/aroO4Q and why http://bit.ly/cyQ5Ma
And finally: The CAB are conducting some research into the ESA medicals process. If you're claiming/about to claim have a look at their Fair Welfare campaign page.
Thursday, 28 October 2010
More vlogs
Well, it seems that vlogging is the new blogging. Here are 3 videos that have been made by members of our writing team in the last few days.
This time last week I posted BenefitScroungingScum's first video. Here is number 2:
And number 3:
A couple of days ago Blu did a "day in the life" twitter diary which Incurable Hippie turned into a silent video:
Finally, it's not a vlog, it's a clip from his live TV show last Friday. But Paul O'Grady on the subject of cuts is worth a watch:
Parts of that last video have been transcribed by The Guardian's MediaMonkey, but I'm afraid not in its entirety.
This time last week I posted BenefitScroungingScum's first video. Here is number 2:
And number 3:
A couple of days ago Blu did a "day in the life" twitter diary which Incurable Hippie turned into a silent video:
Finally, it's not a vlog, it's a clip from his live TV show last Friday. But Paul O'Grady on the subject of cuts is worth a watch:
Parts of that last video have been transcribed by The Guardian's MediaMonkey, but I'm afraid not in its entirety.
Tuesday, 26 October 2010
People with autism fear for the future
A group called Autism Campaigners Together (ACT NOW) are, like all of us, deeply concerned about the cuts. On 18 October members handed in a petition to Downing Street and also launched their Impact Assessment for the cuts announced to date (note, this does not cover the second tranch of cuts, announced last week on 20 October).
Here is a link to ACT NOW's Impact Assessment, detailing the fears of people with Autistic spectrum condition, particularly regarding the introduction of a medical assessment for Disability Living Allowance. The report includes many illustrative quotes, such as:
“It is difficult to imagine that services and provision for adults with autism can actually get any worse, just about nothing exists for them now. It's difficult to see where cuts can be made - my son currently gets no support as the school age support service here has no staff. So the service we've been told he needs doesn't exist.”
“I am Autistic. My nervous system is so hypersensitive which means things are much much brighter, louder and my skin far more sensitive than the average person. A normal sound or sensation for an average person can register anywhere from 30-50 times more powerful for me I have a total lack of sensory filter. I am terrified that people like myself with invisible conditions will end up homeless or worse. I barely leave my home due to
my condition. I think this Government is picking on the vulnerable.”
“Many children and adults with autism, my own included, are terrified at the thought of seeing a doctor. Why is it necessary for a child with a lifelong disability to need a doctor’s assessment? What is the doctor going to assess if my child just sits very quietly in front of the doctor because he is scared of him? I can see a lot of disabled children and adults having benefit withdrawn because of this.”
The Impact Assessment clearly highlights existing issues with support for people with autism and the fact that things cannot afford to get worse: they find it hard to get benefits as it is, without any change to the way DLA is assessed; they may want to work but the support isn’t there; many parents have become full-time carers for their children and are not able to work as a result. Some of the comments from are heartbreaking. For anyone who wants to better understand the challenges for people with autism and their families when navigating the benefits system, this report is essential reading.
One professional is quoted as saying: “We should not be reducing their access to benefits; this will have the effect of increasing anxiety and put them at increased risk of mental health problems. Instead we need to invest in positive approaches in all areas. Cuts now in financial support will lead to a massive increase in costs in the future when services have to pick up the pieces when it all goes wrong.”
ACT NOW is calling for talks with David Cameron to discuss their concerns. I hope they are successful but I won’t be holding my breath...
Here is a link to ACT NOW's Impact Assessment, detailing the fears of people with Autistic spectrum condition, particularly regarding the introduction of a medical assessment for Disability Living Allowance. The report includes many illustrative quotes, such as:
“It is difficult to imagine that services and provision for adults with autism can actually get any worse, just about nothing exists for them now. It's difficult to see where cuts can be made - my son currently gets no support as the school age support service here has no staff. So the service we've been told he needs doesn't exist.”
“I am Autistic. My nervous system is so hypersensitive which means things are much much brighter, louder and my skin far more sensitive than the average person. A normal sound or sensation for an average person can register anywhere from 30-50 times more powerful for me I have a total lack of sensory filter. I am terrified that people like myself with invisible conditions will end up homeless or worse. I barely leave my home due to
my condition. I think this Government is picking on the vulnerable.”
“Many children and adults with autism, my own included, are terrified at the thought of seeing a doctor. Why is it necessary for a child with a lifelong disability to need a doctor’s assessment? What is the doctor going to assess if my child just sits very quietly in front of the doctor because he is scared of him? I can see a lot of disabled children and adults having benefit withdrawn because of this.”
The Impact Assessment clearly highlights existing issues with support for people with autism and the fact that things cannot afford to get worse: they find it hard to get benefits as it is, without any change to the way DLA is assessed; they may want to work but the support isn’t there; many parents have become full-time carers for their children and are not able to work as a result. Some of the comments from are heartbreaking. For anyone who wants to better understand the challenges for people with autism and their families when navigating the benefits system, this report is essential reading.
One professional is quoted as saying: “We should not be reducing their access to benefits; this will have the effect of increasing anxiety and put them at increased risk of mental health problems. Instead we need to invest in positive approaches in all areas. Cuts now in financial support will lead to a massive increase in costs in the future when services have to pick up the pieces when it all goes wrong.”
ACT NOW is calling for talks with David Cameron to discuss their concerns. I hope they are successful but I won’t be holding my breath...
Sunday, 24 October 2010
'Not Really Disabled'
This is a guest post by pinkpjs
Since May one of the most successful things to be achieved by the
condems seems to be the legitimisation of scapegoating and targeting
of disabled people so wiping away years of struggle for equality and
social justice by disabled people and effectively taking us back to
some very dark days when we are perceived not as human beings but as
'useless eaters' only this time we are undeserving liars and cheats as
well.
The extent of this was made more apparent to me two days after
listening in disbelief to the cheers greeting Osbourne's shock and awe
attack on services and benefits that we depend on for our health and
wellbeing.
As part of my job I had to attend a meeting with a manager working with
the DWP who told me that their role was to support disabled people to
receive benefits they are entitled to.
I asked them about the changes to DLA in particular and the impact of
people in residential care and was shocked to be told that 'they don't
really need the mobility allowance as most of them rarely go out except
to medical appointments and then the staff are more than happy to take
them, so it is only fair that they shouldn't get this'.
Then, the response to my question about any other changes to DLA which
the condems have hinted at, was 'well, we all know that many people
currently getting this really aren't disabled and shouldn't be getting
it'.
I was left quite speechless at the blatant way this manager in their
professional capacity expressed their opinions which I'm assuming are
not based on fact but on propaganda, especially as this leads me to
believe this could effectively mean that clients will not get benefits
they are entitled to.
Also, they do not know me and do not know that I have a hidden mental
health impairment and have had years of struggle to both get and keep
jobs and receive DLA which they presumably think I am not entitled to
but which actually supports and enables me to work.
They also do not know that I have been in a residential treatment unit
and depended on the mobility component of DLA in order to maintain
contact with my family and especially my children and my friends which
was vital to my recovery and to mine and my children's right to family
life, especially as I was 50 miles away from my home.
They did not know that I have many disabled friends who would see their
attitudes as deeply disciminating and offensive.
And now Labour have stated they support the condems over this I feel
that politicians think it is fair to deny disabled people hope.
Since May one of the most successful things to be achieved by the
condems seems to be the legitimisation of scapegoating and targeting
of disabled people so wiping away years of struggle for equality and
social justice by disabled people and effectively taking us back to
some very dark days when we are perceived not as human beings but as
'useless eaters' only this time we are undeserving liars and cheats as
well.
The extent of this was made more apparent to me two days after
listening in disbelief to the cheers greeting Osbourne's shock and awe
attack on services and benefits that we depend on for our health and
wellbeing.
As part of my job I had to attend a meeting with a manager working with
the DWP who told me that their role was to support disabled people to
receive benefits they are entitled to.
I asked them about the changes to DLA in particular and the impact of
people in residential care and was shocked to be told that 'they don't
really need the mobility allowance as most of them rarely go out except
to medical appointments and then the staff are more than happy to take
them, so it is only fair that they shouldn't get this'.
Then, the response to my question about any other changes to DLA which
the condems have hinted at, was 'well, we all know that many people
currently getting this really aren't disabled and shouldn't be getting
it'.
I was left quite speechless at the blatant way this manager in their
professional capacity expressed their opinions which I'm assuming are
not based on fact but on propaganda, especially as this leads me to
believe this could effectively mean that clients will not get benefits
they are entitled to.
Also, they do not know me and do not know that I have a hidden mental
health impairment and have had years of struggle to both get and keep
jobs and receive DLA which they presumably think I am not entitled to
but which actually supports and enables me to work.
They also do not know that I have been in a residential treatment unit
and depended on the mobility component of DLA in order to maintain
contact with my family and especially my children and my friends which
was vital to my recovery and to mine and my children's right to family
life, especially as I was 50 miles away from my home.
They did not know that I have many disabled friends who would see their
attitudes as deeply disciminating and offensive.
And now Labour have stated they support the condems over this I feel
that politicians think it is fair to deny disabled people hope.
Another Video Against Disability Benefit Cuts
Following this video, I was inspired to make a video too. I didn't want to post it here until I had a transcript, but that's not been forthcoming so far, so for now, here's the video.
If anybody would like to transcribe it for us, that would be great. Alternatively I will try to get one done. So apologies to those for whom this is not yet accessible. Transcript now added below the video.
[The last few days I've watched the videos from BendyGirl at Benefit Scrounging Scum, and I loved them, I thought they were brilliant. But I never thought it was something I could do, until in her second video she pointed out how important it is for everyone to speak out.
Like many, many people I am frightened by the proposed changes, the cuts, to disability benefits, and what's going to happen to services and the third sector.
The thought of withdrawing mobility rate... the thought of withdrawing the mobility section of DLA for people in care homes is disgusting. The thought that just because somebody was living in a care home, they no longer need to go anywhere, they no longer need mobility equipment, is just obscene.
The changes in housing benefit rules so that people under 35 in private rented accommodation can't get full housing benefit if they live on their own is disgusting.
And limiting ESA to one year, when so many people were fighting against the very principle of ESA at all, and now to have to change that fight to at least, it was perhaps better than nothing, and if people are going to be put on it because they are considered fit to work, even though we know that many, many people who are not fit for work are being put on ESA, the fact that that's now limited to one year, and nobody seems to know what would happen after that.
When we are in a recession, and people – everybody who isn't working is finding it difficult to find jobs, and the strange assumption that the few jobs that there are will go to disabled people, is just not unfortunately how this society works. Disablism means that disabled people are discriminated against every day, and that includes the disabled person who is well enough to work can find it more difficult to find that job because employers are frightened, or don't want to make changes, or don't know what it means.
I'm frightened. And I'm also, like many other people, very confused. I watched the budget on Wednesday, and I was thankfully using twitter at the same time because there were many aspects that I didn't understand, or that I thought I must have misheard. And that there was a group of us all watching and using twitter at the same time made it more accessible to me, I guess.
But there are many unanswered questions. I've heard of people ringing the DWP to say, 'What's this about ESA being stopped after a year?' and the DWP not being able to answer, because they don't know.
The Housing Benefit cuts, I've heard so many different stories about who it's being cut for. So it's not just that the changes are frightening, it's that they're very unclear, and people don't know where they stand.
When I first became ill and went on benefits, I just got Income Support, and it was a horrible time. With paying part of my rent out of that, and with making debt repayments out of that, I had £15 a week for food, and electricity, and transport. For months I lived on... I used to buy these tins of Irish Stew from Kwik Save, and they were disgusting, but they were really cheap, and I figured it was as close to a balanced diet as I could get because it had meat and potatoes in it. And for months, every day, I had one meal a day, and that consisted of Kwik Save Irish Stew and as much bread as I could eat. Every day. For months. I couldn't afford sanitary towels, I couldn't afford shampoo.
I didn't know about other benefits. And someone told me about DLA and I applied for it, and I eventually got it, and it was one of the key... it was key for me, it was vital. Because my health was bad enough anyway, it was vital for me because I could afford to eat more than Irish Stew. I could afford to go to places on the bus. And I'm talking medical appointments. Before that I was missing medical appointments because I couldn't afford to get there. I could get taxis. I could get ready meals when I wasn't well enough to cook.
Getting DLA literally changed everything for me. And makes, still makes, such a difference. It means that I can afford the extra things I need because I'm disabled. Like taxis. Like ready meals when I can't cook. Like mobility aids, and other aids I use. DLA, along with everything, is being threatened. With ATOS taking over the medicals. And after what they've done with the ESA medicals that's frightening, and many people who need DLA are going to lose it.
Everything that is happening since the new government came in is frightening to disabled people. And I'm not a Labour supporter. I know that various important Labour politicians have come out and said that they would be doing what the Conservatives are doing with regard to disability benefits. So I'm not falling into the trap of saying, 'the coalition government is awful, Labour is the answer', because they are... although they are fighting some aspects of the budget, they are supporting the disability benefit cuts.
I feel like I'm being punished for being disabled. The press and the government are doing a really good job at the moment of whipping up hatred, whipping up this image of disabled people being scroungers, of disabled people not really being disabled, and being workshy and lazy. The government and certain parts of the press are promoting this strongly and I can feel, in the atmosphere, that this is affecting people's views. And with the further cuts, this gets worse and worse.
What depresses me is not my illness. What depresses me is not my impairment. What depresses me is how I am treated because of it. That's what makes everything so much harder. We do need to speak out. Because disabled people are being scapegoated and it's horrible. And for non-disabled people, you don't know what's round the corner. I became disabled. Many people become disabled. It could be you in a few years, with no care packages, with no benefits, with no support. With people thinking... with people thinking you're lazy or can't be bothered, or exaggerating. Nobody's immune from disability. And there are some people in the government, the Prime Minister included, who really should know that through their own lives. I am so... I'm frightened, and I want to give a message of hope, but at the moment it's hard to find one.
So I'll agree with BendyGirl that the hope... maybe we have to get hope from each other... from knowing it's not just us, it's not just me that's frightened, it's not just me that's confused, who doesn't know what's happening and what's going to happen.
We're all in this together.]
If anybody would like to transcribe it for us, that would be great. Alternatively I will try to get one done. So apologies to those for whom this is not yet accessible.
[The last few days I've watched the videos from BendyGirl at Benefit Scrounging Scum, and I loved them, I thought they were brilliant. But I never thought it was something I could do, until in her second video she pointed out how important it is for everyone to speak out.
Like many, many people I am frightened by the proposed changes, the cuts, to disability benefits, and what's going to happen to services and the third sector.
The thought of withdrawing mobility rate... the thought of withdrawing the mobility section of DLA for people in care homes is disgusting. The thought that just because somebody was living in a care home, they no longer need to go anywhere, they no longer need mobility equipment, is just obscene.
The changes in housing benefit rules so that people under 35 in private rented accommodation can't get full housing benefit if they live on their own is disgusting.
And limiting ESA to one year, when so many people were fighting against the very principle of ESA at all, and now to have to change that fight to at least, it was perhaps better than nothing, and if people are going to be put on it because they are considered fit to work, even though we know that many, many people who are not fit for work are being put on ESA, the fact that that's now limited to one year, and nobody seems to know what would happen after that.
When we are in a recession, and people – everybody who isn't working is finding it difficult to find jobs, and the strange assumption that the few jobs that there are will go to disabled people, is just not unfortunately how this society works. Disablism means that disabled people are discriminated against every day, and that includes the disabled person who is well enough to work can find it more difficult to find that job because employers are frightened, or don't want to make changes, or don't know what it means.
I'm frightened. And I'm also, like many other people, very confused. I watched the budget on Wednesday, and I was thankfully using twitter at the same time because there were many aspects that I didn't understand, or that I thought I must have misheard. And that there was a group of us all watching and using twitter at the same time made it more accessible to me, I guess.
But there are many unanswered questions. I've heard of people ringing the DWP to say, 'What's this about ESA being stopped after a year?' and the DWP not being able to answer, because they don't know.
The Housing Benefit cuts, I've heard so many different stories about who it's being cut for. So it's not just that the changes are frightening, it's that they're very unclear, and people don't know where they stand.
When I first became ill and went on benefits, I just got Income Support, and it was a horrible time. With paying part of my rent out of that, and with making debt repayments out of that, I had £15 a week for food, and electricity, and transport. For months I lived on... I used to buy these tins of Irish Stew from Kwik Save, and they were disgusting, but they were really cheap, and I figured it was as close to a balanced diet as I could get because it had meat and potatoes in it. And for months, every day, I had one meal a day, and that consisted of Kwik Save Irish Stew and as much bread as I could eat. Every day. For months. I couldn't afford sanitary towels, I couldn't afford shampoo.
I didn't know about other benefits. And someone told me about DLA and I applied for it, and I eventually got it, and it was one of the key... it was key for me, it was vital. Because my health was bad enough anyway, it was vital for me because I could afford to eat more than Irish Stew. I could afford to go to places on the bus. And I'm talking medical appointments. Before that I was missing medical appointments because I couldn't afford to get there. I could get taxis. I could get ready meals when I wasn't well enough to cook.
Getting DLA literally changed everything for me. And makes, still makes, such a difference. It means that I can afford the extra things I need because I'm disabled. Like taxis. Like ready meals when I can't cook. Like mobility aids, and other aids I use. DLA, along with everything, is being threatened. With ATOS taking over the medicals. And after what they've done with the ESA medicals that's frightening, and many people who need DLA are going to lose it.
Everything that is happening since the new government came in is frightening to disabled people. And I'm not a Labour supporter. I know that various important Labour politicians have come out and said that they would be doing what the Conservatives are doing with regard to disability benefits. So I'm not falling into the trap of saying, 'the coalition government is awful, Labour is the answer', because they are... although they are fighting some aspects of the budget, they are supporting the disability benefit cuts.
I feel like I'm being punished for being disabled. The press and the government are doing a really good job at the moment of whipping up hatred, whipping up this image of disabled people being scroungers, of disabled people not really being disabled, and being workshy and lazy. The government and certain parts of the press are promoting this strongly and I can feel, in the atmosphere, that this is affecting people's views. And with the further cuts, this gets worse and worse.
What depresses me is not my illness. What depresses me is not my impairment. What depresses me is how I am treated because of it. That's what makes everything so much harder. We do need to speak out. Because disabled people are being scapegoated and it's horrible. And for non-disabled people, you don't know what's round the corner. I became disabled. Many people become disabled. It could be you in a few years, with no care packages, with no benefits, with no support. With people thinking... with people thinking you're lazy or can't be bothered, or exaggerating. Nobody's immune from disability. And there are some people in the government, the Prime Minister included, who really should know that through their own lives. I am so... I'm frightened, and I want to give a message of hope, but at the moment it's hard to find one.
So I'll agree with BendyGirl that the hope... maybe we have to get hope from each other... from knowing it's not just us, it's not just me that's frightened, it's not just me that's confused, who doesn't know what's happening and what's going to happen.
We're all in this together.]
Saturday, 23 October 2010
What the coalition really means by "fairness"
The new government likes to talk about fairness. We keep hearing about how it's supposedly at the heart of coalition policy. But when Cameron, Clegg and co talk about fairness, what do they really mean?
You may think they mean protecting the most vulnerable people in society, as promised in Cameron's inaugural speech. Yet the people losing out from the cuts are those with disabilities, low-income earners, mothers, children and people who need legal aid.
So perhaps you think the coalition talks about fairness, then doesn't walk the talk. But I don't think that's quite it. I don't think they're saying one thing and doing another. I think people are misinterpreting what they're saying.
I keep remembering the time I saw David Cameron talking about inheritance tax on TV, possibly during the pre-election debates. There was a phrase that he kept using: "people who've done the right thing".
You may think "fairness" means equality of opportunity and support for the vulnerable, rather than a society that rewards the rich and penalises the poor. But that's not what the coalition really means by "fairness", and Cameron's talk of "people who've done the right thing" says it all.
This coalition does not understand that people who are out of work cannot simply pop to the Jobcentre and find a new job at the drop of a hat (given stats show there are thousands more jobseekers than there are jobs), or that disabled people can't just magic an expensive wheelchair out of thin air.
Because this coalition is run by people who think the amount you earn determines your worth to society - and that the amount you earn reflects how hard you work. This coalition thinks that people on low incomes simply do not work as hard and so have no right to expect to be able to afford decent accommodation.
This coalition believes that the more money you have, the more deserving you are. That the more you earn, the more you are "doing the right thing". When they talk about fairness, they're talking about being fair to the people who have everything, not those who have nothing. And there's nothing fair about that.
You may think they mean protecting the most vulnerable people in society, as promised in Cameron's inaugural speech. Yet the people losing out from the cuts are those with disabilities, low-income earners, mothers, children and people who need legal aid.
So perhaps you think the coalition talks about fairness, then doesn't walk the talk. But I don't think that's quite it. I don't think they're saying one thing and doing another. I think people are misinterpreting what they're saying.
I keep remembering the time I saw David Cameron talking about inheritance tax on TV, possibly during the pre-election debates. There was a phrase that he kept using: "people who've done the right thing".
You may think "fairness" means equality of opportunity and support for the vulnerable, rather than a society that rewards the rich and penalises the poor. But that's not what the coalition really means by "fairness", and Cameron's talk of "people who've done the right thing" says it all.
This coalition does not understand that people who are out of work cannot simply pop to the Jobcentre and find a new job at the drop of a hat (given stats show there are thousands more jobseekers than there are jobs), or that disabled people can't just magic an expensive wheelchair out of thin air.
Because this coalition is run by people who think the amount you earn determines your worth to society - and that the amount you earn reflects how hard you work. This coalition thinks that people on low incomes simply do not work as hard and so have no right to expect to be able to afford decent accommodation.
This coalition believes that the more money you have, the more deserving you are. That the more you earn, the more you are "doing the right thing". When they talk about fairness, they're talking about being fair to the people who have everything, not those who have nothing. And there's nothing fair about that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
