Skip to main content

That was the week.

The news that former Labour prime minister Harold Wilson was to be remembered with a memorial stone in Westminster Abbey was a time to reflect on his achievements. In my article, 'Harold Wilson a memorial to better days', I observed that with time 'heroes may loose their sheen whilst those denigrated may gain respect.' The latter has certainly been true for Harold Wilson. 

The achievements of his two periods of office, but particularly that of 1964-70 are impressive by today's standards. Buffeted by economic winds there was nonetheless a massive improvement in peoples lives with significant reforms. It is difficult now to consider why it has taken so long for us to realise it. Perhaps it is because those of us who lived through and were politically active in those times came out of it all somewhat battle fatigued. We spent a great deal of time campaigning against the war in Vietnam. Wilson kept us out of it!  We argued about the merits of prices and incomes policies. The Unions didn't like it and nor did businesses.  In those days of the Welfare State we believed that social problems required social solutions. We didn't see society as simply an aggregate of individuals pursuing self interest. There was a massive increase in welfare provision, protection for tenants, rent control and building of social housing. All this made a real difference to people's lives. It was the last period when we could say that we were becoming a more equal society, or at least where there was measurable social mobility. Harold Wilson famously said of the Labour movement that it was 'a crusade or it was nothing'. It is time for a renewal of that crusade. 

The Work and Pensions Secretary of State, Ian Duncan-Smith was getting his sums wrong and in an article on 'Why Mr Duncan-Smith's figures on incapacity benefits don't stack up' I explained why.  In short, the system of incapacity benefit assessment being imposed is discredited. It is discredited on the numbers and it is discredited by the yardsticks of fairness, competency and ethics. Many of the decisions appear to be cruel and arbitrary and take little account of the real circumstances of the claimant. 

This was the theme pursued throughout the week. In 'Why the government policies on incapacity benefits are unethical' I  argued that they are unethical because they are poorly conceived, based on false statistics and are harmful.  To make the poor pay for their poverty is unethical. Making the poor pay for the financial crisis brought on by unethical banking is not simply unethical; it is immoral. 

People suffering from mental health problems are often the most vulnerable when seeking help. Mental health can have a major impact on work, housing, relationships and finances. This was the theme of the article 'Work Capability Assessments cause   suffering for the mentally ill'  in which I argued that the assessment regime was not fit for purpose and was likely to cause harm to those suffering mental illness. And the evidence for this was presented and considered in the last article 'The unfairness of ATOS WCA'.  People's lives are a narrative. They are not disjointed bits of data. Disability isn't simply a problem confined to the individual as a physical being but also as a social being.  The social condition can have as much of an impact as any measure of 'disability'; circumstances can be disabling. Any system that fails to take account of this is likely to be unfair and to cause harm. Mental Health organisations have warned of the need for expertise in assessments, yet this has been dismissed. The BMA has expressed its concern that the assessment regime is unjust and is compromising doctors. To date these concerns have been ignored. 

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