Reply #9: The thing that first alerted me to the fact that Tony was a Tory...

[LeftishBrit]

was that he cut benefits to working disabled people, ignoring the fact that for disabled people, being able to work generally *costs more money* (e.g. they are more likely to need to own a car, or to take taxis).

I think that we can agree that, with the one exception of the passage of the Disability Discrimination Act, most recent governments have ranged from rather bad to absolutely fucking awful on disability issues. There are, I think two reasons for this. One is that disabled people are easy to ignore or exploit, because they lack collective power. They are usually poorer than most of the population; often not in a position to raise hell and demand their rights (though happily some have); and don't even have a powerful union to back them. On the whole, disabled people, especially those with mental health problems, are less likely to vote, or at least are seen as less likely to vote, so that politicians are less likely to be inhibited by the thought that 'there goes the disabled people's vote!' than by the equivalent for some other groups.

This first reason encompasses all political parties. The second is most explicitly associated with the Tories, especially the Thatcherite branch: it is a harshly moralistic idea that it is *good* to be 'tough' with people seen as 'weaklings'; that all they need to do is pull themselves together and 'get on their bikes'; and that depriving them of their benefits is really doing them a favour. Such Tories of course tend to think this of the poor in general, but disability, especially invisible disabilities, can bring out some of the pure venom. For example, the 'workshy' allegation in the Daily Mail article in the OP, or the more wordy, and utterly vile, comments in the Ed West article that I linked:



'Of the 2.5m on this benefit, nearly 1.1 million people are unable to work due to mental disorders and behavioural problems, with the number of people off work suffering stress trebling under Labour, and half a million people now off because of “Depressive episodes”. ..

There are, of course, people for whom the world of work is just too much, but there is no effective system that can justly help them without eventually collapsing under its own weight. Most of these psychological problems are spectrum disorders, some of which we all suffer from to a certain extent – many of us are anxious, stressed, depressed and drinking too much, but we labour on nonetheless, accepting these woes as part of life. This makes it extremely hard for the state bureaucracy to disprove someone is eligible to claim – for example, has anyone heard of a doctor telling someone who is “stressed” to just pull themselves together, rather than signing them off? Add to this the fact that incapacity benefit pays out more than jobseeker’s allowance, and you have a recipe for disaster.

And disaster is what it is, trapping the weak into a life of idleness on £70 a week. Socialists are often accused of promoting a “nanny state” but that is unfair to nannies – what we have now is a state that acts like indulgent parents to grown-up children.'

This sort of attitude to 'the weak' is as far as I am concerned, one of the most evil things in the universe, and one of the few things that makes me wish I wasn't an atheist, as I don't even have the comfort of believing that such people will have their come-uppance in the afterlife! ('What you did not unto the least of these...') It is a central reason why I hate Thatcher and Thatcherism so much!

So that there are two villains to fight: the pragmatic, politically selfish dismissal of disabled people as a powerless group, easy to shortchange; and the harshly moralistic desire to *punish* 'weak' (and poor) people. For the first villain, disabled people are collateral damage in the fight for power; for the second they are the actual enemy.

The first villain can and should be fought by giving disabled people more of a political voice; promoting more advocacy and self-advocacy. There is more than there was - but still not enough. The second is even more heartbreaking, and harder to fight.


I am glad to say that the first comment on West's article is scathing:


'Quack-hack preaches prejudice and hatred of all things disabled', would be an altogether more honest title for this article of propaganda.

Having maligned any source of disagreement, the Quack-hack dazzles us with his stunningly in-depth knowledge of all things medical, not least of which being his knowledge of the finer workings of the mind. To think that we have such a shortage of adequate mental health provision in this Country. But for why?...

Hearing voices? Simply tell them to be quiet, problem solved. Agoraphobic, can't get a foot outside the door? Stick a leg out the window and enjoy the breeze. Heart failure, cancer, three months to live? That's three months to work, don't even think of dropping or he'll have to get the whip out...

How staggeringly ingenious, revolutionary and yet so deliciously simple. I am amazed that no other hack has discovered such puritanical tripe before now. In order to save billions from NHS Budgets, could the almighty (he who must not be disagreed with) Mr Ed West, also stamp out some other pesky nuisances.

Perhaps he could tell tumours to stop growing. As that's really rather naughty of them, silly tumours! Could he tell germs to stop spreading, viruses to stop infecting and mutating. That should do to start with...'


Maybe there is hope for the human race after all!