Sue Marsh from Diary of a Benefit Scrounger, reports on a concerted effort in the right-wing press to prevent any real debate over benefits.
Sue Marsh blogs at Diary of a Benefit Scrounger
Today, the Daily Express and Daily Mail are full of cheating, scrounging sick people.
The Express screams: “Blitz on Britain’s benefits madness”, contrasting those on “sickness handouts” with “hard working taxpayers”.
According to the the Express, Tory MP Philip Davies joined the outcry, saying:
“People are sick to the back teeth of being taken for a ride by people sponging and scrounging and abusing the system.”
While the Mail screams:
“Scandal of 80,000 on sickness benefits for minor ailments… including diarrhoea.”
To accompany the claim that “drug addicts” have been allowed to claim, they included a picture of someone snorting white powder through a rolled up note.
The papers go on to list “blisters”, “headaches”, “depression”, and “problems with scholastic skills” as evidence that there are hundreds of thousands of people living the good life at “taxpayers” expense who have nothing really wrong with them.
For a moment, let’s forget the fact that only the first ailment a person lists on their claim form is taken into account in these figures. Let’s ignore the fact that someone with “nail disorders” might also have cancer or kidney failure. Let’s ignore the fact that someone classified under “drug abuse” might also suffer from schizophrenia or multiple sclerosis..
I have “diarrhoea” but why? Well, because of the 32 growths I’ve had to have removed from my guts and the seven major operations to remove rotten lengths of bowel, leaving me with half as much intestine as your average ill-informed hack.
My friend has “blisters.” She suffers from the rare skin disease Epidermolysis Bullosa. Her skin blisters and comes away at the lightest touch, leaving her scarred and in constant, terrible pain.
“Headaches?” Cluster headaches (also referred to as “suicide headaches”) are thought to be one of the worst pains known to man, not something to be confused with a hangover.
I could go on, but I’m sure you’re beginning to see why these horrible articles, fuelled by “statements” today from Chris Grayling, minister for Work and Pensions and our very own prime minister, only serve to turn a sensitive, delicate subject into a form of attack. They aim to pitch one condition against another whilst asking more fortunate citizens to view those who are unwell with mistrust and contempt.
Perhaps there is a legitimate debate to be had over which conditions “hard working tax-payers” are willing to support. There is certainly some validity in the claim that many sick or disabled people would love help and support to find a job.
However, surely none of us agree that this is the way in which to conduct that debate? Surely allowing our politicians and our media to whip up hate and prejudice against a particular group of society is something we should all be ashamed of?
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
148 Responses to “Right-wing hate campaign clouds debate on benefits”
Oscar Davies
RT @leftfootfwd: Right-wing hate campaign clouds debate on benefits, or why Tory populism is hideous and wrong http://bit.ly/f9qXNM
Anon E Mouse
Sue Marsh – Well people who don’t want to pay the deficit seem happy to pay the price of a new school every twenty minutes of every hour of every day. Others are not.
But you’re ignoring my question with all your bluster about compassion – it’s an unattractive Labour trait – Gordon Brown did it when rumbled for bullying that woman in 10 Downing St where he denied ever hitting anyone. No one ever said he did.
Just as no one has ever said who should or shouldn’t decide what is or isn’t compassionate.
Your final response is also indicative of Labour again. Set up a hypothetical situation and focus on that entirely rather than answer a perfectly reasonable question.
The question Sue Marsh is do you think it is right to treat alcoholics the same way that Downs Syndrome children are treated?
And by the way in your scenario I would judge each case on it’s merits…
Ed's Talking Balls
I see your point in terms of numbers, Sue. I’m afraid it still cannot excuse fraud, however. £1 wasted on a fraudster is £1 that could have gone to a deserving cause.
On that topic, I feel scandalousbill has been unnecessarily scathing of Anon E Mouse’s point. While the concept of ‘self-inflicted’ illnesses is actually very complex indeed (i.e. how far do you go back in someone’s life – see Sue’s example above, which is all too real) there have to be some conditions which the state cannot provide for. This alludes to the ‘legitimate debate’ which Sue mentioned in her article.
I would say that those who are morbidly obese, for instance, shouldn’t receive benefits. At the very least, if they are to continue to do so, they should lose them immediately if they make no attempt to help themselves.
There is a huge range of conditions which affect vast numbers of people. While I’m in no position to judge who needs what help and how much, I would hope that experts could provide a view. That’s one of the functions of the House of Lords (at least, it should be within their remit, but I don’t want the views of Blair’s/Brown’s/Cameron’s pointless cronies on anything…)
Stuart Kershaw
RT @Nickbloke: Right-wing hate campaign clouds debate on benefits | Left Foot Forward #TBofB http://t.co/kl1MhaX – Such blatant lies. S …
Ash
Anon –
“We had thirteen years of “Tough on the causes of crime” which continued to rise.”
No it didn’t. It continued to fall (a trend that, in fairness, began in the last years of John Major’s government).
https://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/07/its-official-crime-fell-43-during-labours-time-in-power/