Skip to main content

Why the Daily Mail and government are wrong on disability benefits

The Daily Mail has given its support to the government's 'crackdown' on disability benefits. In an editorial it argued something must be awry if 'Britain spends more on disability than almost any other developed country'.

The use of the word 'crackdown' to describe the government's policy is of course deliberate. You 'crackdown' on cheats. The argument is that because Britain spends more on disability benefits, then the difference must be accounted for by benefit cheats; those who don't need or deserve them. The Daily Mail doesn't consider that perhaps Britain spends more because it has moved forward in its approach to disability.  We are not behind but ahead of the game. It is not the first time The Daily Mail has made this case. But is it true? The answer as usual depends on how you read the statistics. And it is a lot more complex than the Daily Mail would have us believe.

Making comparisons with other countries is not straightforward. Different countries have different approaches to welfare expenditure, with different mix of private and public or central government spending.  In the UK, central government spending may be higher as a per cent of GDP, but this does not mean that overall spending on welfare is greater. Looking at overall expenditure on welfare  we  get another picture. According to OECD figures, the UK is ranked significantly below many other European countries including France, Germany and Italy on the amount spent on welfare.

Given that the overall spending is not greater than other comparable countries, then the Daily Mail's argument is at best specious. You cannot assume that because central government spending on benefits is higher that this means there is no genuine need. The Daily Mail could argue for a different mix of spending, but it would need to develop what this should be. Simply calling for a 'crackdown' is loaded with prejudice and little detailed analysis.

There is a genuine issue about helping disabled people to work. In recent  reports the OECD concludes that more needs to be done. But the objective is not simply to cut the benefits budget, but to find a mix of policies that will assist those with disabilities into productive work. The assessment regime introduced by the UK government does little other than force disabled people off benefits. It is a cruel and blind regime. That so many rulings are overturned on appeal indicates that the process is flawed and takes little account of the circumstances of those involved.

Cutting benefits does nothing to enable people to work. The OECD considers two disability policy indicators, benefits and employment integration (enabling people to work). Acting on the one without the other is a recipe for injustice. Furthermore the ratio of benefits to integration is a better index of comparison between countries than simply how much is spent on benefits.  On this measure the UK had been scoring well with a reasonable mix of policies designed to help disabled people into work. Contrary to the claims made by the Daily Mail, the benefits ratio was not significantly greater than the US or Japan and by 2007 the UK scored highly on its integration index, representing a fundamental shift from the position in 1990. The OECD highlighted the progress made by the UK in just two decades. This was because the previous government had already adopted a strong employment policy approach.

The Daily Mail editorial takes little or no account of this in its prejudiced approach. It would rather select its statistics from the OECD to fit its own agenda. It would rather promote the scandalous approach of the government in stigmatising those on benefits.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

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

When Finance Drives Destruction

Tackling climate change means stopping the funding of rainforest destruction, says a significant study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund.  The UK's financial services have provided directly over £8.7 billion to 167 different traders, processors, and buyers of forest-risk commodities (cocoa, rubber, timber, soy, beef, palm oil, pulp & paper) from 2013 to 2021.   With direct and indirect investment,  the figure rises to a staggering £200 bn.  Whilst not all that investment is in destructive projects,  the study concludes there is little transparency on the risk.  Finance is the oil in the economic machine.  But it also drives decisions. We all know the importance of money. We borrow to invest. So much depends on it, such as company pensions.  Do we really know what our pension pots are doing? We invest for the future. But what kind of future? Is all investment good?  Much investment is bad. Investment drives the nature of our economy. It drives our decisions as individuals,