Articleprofitsrevealed.com

As a major part of the Coalitions broader Project of
Welfare Reform, the Coalition Government intentionally singled out disabled
people for the most extreme stringent cuts in benefit entitlement, alongside
the important area of re-assessments of eligibility for state support. This
specific Welfare Reform seems to now cast doubt on David Cameron’s aspiration
that those with the “broadest shoulders should bear the greatest load” of the
regime of deficit reduction and associated cuts to both welfare and public
services (2010). Historically, disabled people traditionally have most often
been considered part of the ‘deserving’ poor and these welfare reforms can be
considered as part of a wider re-conceptualisation of the boundaries between
‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ poverty.

The coalition has loudly proclaimed a tough message on
the necessity of addressing the public sector deficit yet while assuring that
the most vulnerable and those in ‘genuine’ need will be protected. At the same
time, the coalition argues they are in the best position to finally address the
historic problems of welfare ‘dependency’ and entrenched poverty, with a
progressive programme of welfare reform with key focus on reducing benefit
complexity and introducing incentives to work (cf. Department for Work and Pensions
2010c). While proclaiming a ‘fair’ approach to cutting the budget deficit is
rhetorically appealing and politically pragmatic, there are many unanswered
questions regarding how far the discourse of protecting the vulnerable and then
actually lifting people out of poverty, matches the policy detail.

One of the poorest of the groups which seems
particularly vulnerable to the impact of the government’s package of welfare
reductions, housing sector reform and public sector cuts are disabled people,
who stand to lose some £9bn in welfare and services during this parliament
alone (Wood and Grant 2010). Disabled people are already twice more likely to
be living in absolute poverty than non-disabled people (Disability Benefits
Consortium 2011), and they thus enter today’s age of coalitions’ austerity
measures from a particularly vulnerable and precarious starting point (Wood and
Grant 2010). Indeed, there appears to be a blatant collision between David
Cameron’s promise that those with the broadest shoulders will bear the greatest
load (2010b), and the reality that many disabled people (certainly not
traditionally known for their ‘broad shoulders’) look set to be
disproportionately affected by the government’s reforms. However, it is perhaps
not surprising that the coalition have singled out disabled people as a target
group in efforts to tackle the state finances, given that they represent a
particularly large proportion of working-age adults on out-of-work benefits
(Williams 2010; Lindsay and Houston 2011). Furthermore, the coalition, like New
Labour before them, are committed to assisting claimants to make the transition
from economic activity to paid work with disabled people identified as a target
group in this effort (Houston and Lindsay 2010).

Only last August, the Department for Work and Pensions
(DWP) admitted that its claim that there had been a 30% rise in people on
disability living allowance over eight years was in fact “distorted”. Some in
the media had confidently reported that people were either junkies, alcoholics
or faking their disability to get the welfare payment – hence it’s supposed
escalating cost to the taxpayer. In fact, the rise is closer to 16% (Randeep
Ramesh, guardian.co.uk).

Blogger Mason Dixon (guardian.co.uk) points out that
if this information had been released when it was signed off, in May 2011, it
would have been released while MPs were debating the welfare reform bill. But
having concealed the real figure and created a blatant lie, the government is
pressing ahead with cutting a billion pounds from the welfare benefits (Randeep
Ramesh, guardian.co.uk).

Another deceiving trait of poor people is that they
are workshy. To substantiate such prejudice, ministers point to the number of
people who have been shifted (after a controversial medical test) from
incapacity benefit to employment and support allowance. When the Department of
Work and Pensions statistics came out last month, the media reported with glee
that only 7% of all applicants had been judged unfit for work. The Daily Mail dubbed
them “the shirking classes”. Justified perhaps, except it was not true. Sir
Michael Scholar, chair of the UK Statistics Authority, said in a letter to
ministers earlier this month that the DWP had been producing data that was “not
as clear as it should be” (Randeep Ramesh, guardian.co.uk).

Then there is the frequent media claim of a Shameless
generation – swaths of the country where no one works because “scroungers” are
paid not to by the government. Declan Gaffney, a former adviser to the DWP
under Labour, has sifted through the census data to show that last year only 47
“super-output areas” – each corresponding to about 1,500 people in England –
had more than half the population in receipt of out-of-work benefits. These
represent a tiny 0.63% of all welfare claims (Randeep Ramesh, guardian.co.uk).

In truth, the welfare bill, as a percentage of GDP, is
roughly the same as when Labour took power in 1997 – despite a recession,
inevitable higher unemployment and the spluttering economy. But to convince voters
that Britain is broken, the prime minister is pushing social policy based on
Tory ideology rather than evidence (Randeep Ramesh, guardian.co.uk). It is a
believed the welfare reform policy will do little to help the poorest and most
vulnerable and needy people who need the financial support the most, and
ultimately the coalition governments’ policies is targeting the most vulnerable
in todays society, yet the richest 10% (including most of the millionaire
coalitions cabinet ministers are now finally financially cushioned from the
financial restraints) are becoming more influential within the coalition
government lobbying system.

Some campaigners are repeatedly
pointing out, there are also real dangers contained within the clauses of the
welfare reform bill. One of many campaigners states “It’s grossly
unacceptable,” says Helen Longworth, head of policy for UK poverty at
Oxfam UK, “and it flies in the face of any level of human dignity.” She’s
talking about the three-strikes-and-you’re-out rule being imposed on those the
tabloids write off as ‘benefit scroungers’. George Osborne made much of this
policy when in opposition. The idea has changed very little since then – those
who persist in refusing to accept work or otherwise flaunt the rules will have
their benefit payments suspended for a three-year period.

It’s the demeaning idea of destitution as a policy tool
which so outrages Oxfam. “To threaten to leave people with nothing is
absolutely unacceptable, no matter what they’ve done,” Longworth insists.

The coalition government has argued the three strikes rule
step will only be used in extraordinary circumstances. Campaigners fear the
reality won’t match this. Governments historically do have a nasty habit of
letting people down on this. The £9,000 cap on tuition fees was only supposed
to be used very rarely, but well over half of higher education institutions
will be using it for most of their courses. Emergency legislation which was
supposed to be only used for anti-terror laws was used to rush through Michael
Gove’s Academies Act in summer 2010. As Longworth asks: “If it would only
need to be used so rarely that it’s almost tens of people, rather than
hundreds, why put it in the bill at all?”

There are other serious implications with the proposals,
too. Under current plans the universal credit will be paid to one person within
each household. This appears to ignore the adverse risks of financial abuse
taking place. Last year’s research by Platform 51 found one in three women had
experienced this kind of domestic abuse. This can lead to affected women going
without a meal to ensure their children can eat or pay the bills.

Finally there is what is referred to as the conditionality
issue – the fundamental requirement that claimants will be only eligible for
benefits if they play by the rules. Oxfam is worried that the process is more
of a collaborative process rather than just being rule by diktat. “If you
do something by choice, rather than force, it’ll be much easier,”
Longworth explains. If claimants get the ability to influence what kind of work
constitutes reasonable employment, she suggests, the overall results will be
more effective and humane.

Longworth is more depressed
about the reforms. “It seems to be all punishing by the stick,” she
says. “The rich get given precious carrots and the vulnerable and the poor
get beaten with sticks.”

Desmo Boss writes exclusively for http://www.membershipsites4u.com/articles and
http://www.membershipsites4u.com/blog site membership scripts website, and the
instant article suite website http://www.membershipsites4u.com/ias Instant
Article Suite

Related Blogs