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

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

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