Last month the Leader of the Opposition gave a speech about disability benefits that resurrected the discredited “Skiver v Striver” rhetoric of 15 years ago. This time it is “Makers v Takers”, a slogan which she did not make, but took from US debates in the early 2010s.
This pattern of misrepresenting the poorest is not only a modern phenomenon. In 1753 John Wesley, the founder of Methodism said, “So wickedly, devilishly false is that common objection, ‘They are poor, only because they are idle’. Yet no matter how many times we challenge these wicked falsehoods they evolve and reappear.
Last month’s speech followed the well-worn modern formula. A new ridiculous statistic is produced; this time a think-tanker had tortured a spreadsheet to find the maximum amount a very unusual and very hypothetical person could get from the benefits system and then used this hypothetical to indicate disabled people were actually having it quite easy. The shockingly high poverty, destitution and hunger rates for disabled people in the real world were of course unmentioned[1].
There were also quick shareable soundbites, the most notable of which was that Motability cars are given out for food-intolerances[2] – a lie of the same calibre as “immigrants are eating the dogs” – which has provided social media fodder for those who want to be unpleasant to disabled people.
I have gone through the speech line by line and factchecked the claims, but a blow-by-blow account would give them more respect than they deserve. To take the claims seriously you would really have to want to be fooled. The question is why do so many people want to be fooled and why do politicians so frequently oblige?
What is to be gained by insulting the disabled?
It is important to realise this rhetoric isn’t needed to make the case for change. The speech was clear that the proposed cuts to disability benefits were driven by perceived financial and ideological concerns. I would argue those concerns are misplaced, but they could form part of a respectful and truthful political debate.
The nastiness of “skiver vs striver” is used to solve a political problem. The British public have wanted disabled people to have higher benefits consistently for more than 25 years[3]. Taking money from disabled people is not a good look. The solution is to present people relying on disability benefits as not really disabled, not impoverished and potential cheats who are better off than ordinary workers like you.
None of that is true; 15 years ago implying these things created a climate of fear and hatred towards disabled people which sadly seems to be returning; but the payoff is that it makes cutting benefits for disabled people more palatable.
It is worth noting that as the current Government also tried to convince people that its package of disability benefit cuts would not cause hardship. Rather than directly painting the disabled people losing out as undeserving “takers”, they chose instead to say that more people would move into work. This, they claimed, would minimise the number of people being made worse off, and even make many better off.
These are not new claims to put alongside benefit cuts, but a minute’s engagement with reality shows that while millions would lose out from the cuts, at best only thousands would be helped into work – leaving millions of already disadvantaged disabled people worse off. Again, the political reality that the public don’t want to take from disabled people was dealt with by misrepresenting the reality of disabled people’s lives.
Facilitating deliberate ignorance
In 1786 Charles Wesley wrote the sermon “On visiting the Sick”. Then, just as now, illness and disability were linked to poverty. The opening passage of the sermon says:
“One great reason why the rich, in general, have so little sympathy for the poor, is because they so seldom visit them… Many of them do not know, because they do not care to know: they keep out of the way of knowing it; and then plead their voluntary ignorances an excuse for their hardness of heart. “Indeed, Sir,” said person of large substance, “I am a very compassionate man. But, to tell you the truth, I do not know anybody in the world that is in want.”
The tired rhetoric of “skiver vs striver” is the modern way of “keeping out of the way of knowing” about the poverty and injustice faced by many disabled people in the UK. Its purpose is to allow us to feel like “very compassionate people”, while doing extraordinarily uncompassionate things.
Taking money from the poorest makes them poorer
My next blog will be about the claims that disability benefits are unaffordable[4] and how increases in employment and in poverty are now going hand in hand. But before we can have that conversation it is important to reject the conveniently simple notion that cutting disability benefits will not hurt disabled people or will only hurt people whose disability is trivial or non-existent. We may want to believe that there are pain-free cuts to make, and sadly politicians are willing to tell you this – but it is simply nonsense.
Taking money from the poorest makes poor people poorer. Anyone proposing such cuts must justify their choice acknowledging that reality – anything else looks like “voluntary ignorance”.
[1] Income poverty amongst the disabled is around 33% higher for disabled people, 62% of people classified as destitute have a disability, and 7 in 10 families referred to Trussell food banks contain someone with a disability.
[2] PIP enhanced mobility component which is used to pay for Motability cars. This is not based on any clinical diagnosis, and certainly not food allergies. It is qualified for via a functional assessment – ie to receive the benefit that you can use to access a Motability car you must, amongst many other things, prove to the DWP that you are unable stand and move (aided or unaided) for more than 20m.
It is also important to note the cars are not “given” as PIP is used to pay a lease. There are usually additional payments, including a substancial initial payment, to be made from savings or other income alongside this.
[3] Biannual British Social Attitudes surveys over the 25 years shows that between 2 and 11% want disability benefits reduced, while 46-72% believe they should be increased.
[4] Spoiler alert: as spending on working age benefits has stayed flat as a proportion of GDP for 50 years, the answer is a resounding no!