Skip to main content

The WOWpetition; time for fairness for the sick and disabled

A new war against poverty has been launched in the form of a petition. The WOWpetition calls for the repeal of the Welfare Reform Act and its pernicious attack on those receiving disability benefits. If you believe in fairness I urge you to sign this petition. It is a reasonable petition.  It calls for a debate. It asks parliament to reconsider.  It asks for an assessment of the impact of the government's welfare reforms on the sick and disabled. The British Medical Association has expressed its concerns about the impact of work assessments and the role doctors are being asked to play if employed by ATOS, the company contracted to do the assessments. I have considered in a previous post the cruelty and unethical nature of the disability assessments.

This should not be a party political issue. The criteria and assessment are clearly not working. With over 40% of appeals against the decisions made by ATOS being successful, it is clear that the regime is not working. Hundreds of thousands of sick and disabled people have been wrongly assessed. It is a brutal regime and the criteria and decisions are not transparent. It is time parliament looked again at this brutal regime.

And 'brutal' is the right word. Earlier this year, an investigation published by the Commons Works and Pensions Select Committee found that some patients had their benefits stopped as a punishment for not being able to attend an assessment because they were too ill or there had been an administrative blunder. This is a disgrace.

Liberal Democrats expressed their concerns about ATOS and the assessments at their party conference yet they continue to give support through the coalition. It is time they stood up for the sick and disabled.

A century  ago a reformist Liberal government sowed the first seeds of the welfare state. Introducing his reforming budget in 1909, David Lloyd George talked of waging war against poverty.

"This is a war budget. It is for raising money to wage implacable warfare against poverty and squalidness. I cannot help hoping and believing that before this generation has passed away, we shall have advanced a great step towards that good time, when poverty, and the wretchedness and human degradation which always follows in its camp, will be as remote to the people of this country as the wolves which once infested the forests."

The reformist Liberal Government of 1906-11 ushered in a fundamental change in how the British government considered its responsibilities to the people. It took a responsibility for poverty, its causes, consequences and its prevention. It enacted legislation focussed on four vulnerable groups: the old, the young, the sick and the unemployed. They introduced old age pensions, allowed local authorities to provide free school meals for poor children. They set up juvenile courts and borstals rather then sending young people to prison. They introduced the first National Insurance Act in 1911 providing compulsory health insurance and labour exchanges to help the unemployed find work. The idea was to provide basic support rather than total provision. Indeed, a criticism was that the reforms didn't go far enough.   But it was a start. Whatever the intention, the seeds of the welfare state were sown. It prepared the ground for the building of the post war Welfare State by the Labour government of 1945 and the foundation of the National Health Service. It transformed the lives of all of us.

It is time we waged another war. A war for fairness.







Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As