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

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

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods.  Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects?  A new report now provides some of the answers. New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism. Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases cau

Therapeutic animal stress

Interacting with animals is known to be therapeutic,  particularly in reducing stress.  But do we consider sufficiently the effects this may have on the animals involved?   We might assume that because it is calming for us, then it must be so for the therapeutic animals, but is this so?  New research suggests that it isn't always without stress for the animals involved.  Positive human-animal interaction relates to changes in physiological variables both in humans and other animals, including a reduction of subjective psychological stress (fear, anxiety) and an increase of oxytocin levels in the brain.  It also reduces the 'stress' hormone, cortisol. Indeed, these biological responses have measurable clinical benefits.  Oxytocin has long been implicated in maternal bonding, sexual behaviour and social affiliation behaviours and in promoting a sense of well-being .  So far, so good.  We humans often turn to animals for stress relief, companionship, and even therapy.  We kno