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”
Anon E Mouse
Ash – I don’t trust the stats I’m afraid and I certainly don’t trust Labour anymore – they deny they are partly responsible for the deficit and I’m still awaiting the WMD in Iraq.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7400372/True-scale-of-violent-crime-rise-revealed.html
Plus so many more but I was making the point that there are constant excuses used like “He went on drugs because his parents didn’t love him”.
So are you saying that makes the criminal engaging in the illegal activity of taking drugs to be as deserving as an MS sufferer who has done nothing wrong? I just don’t think the situations are comparable and neither will the electorate because stopping giving alcoholics benefits for a self inflicted illness is just going to be popular.
Why will no answer me here? The question is simple enough.
Is it fair that the obese person who has spent a life being lazy and eating more pies than John Prescott and Eric Pickles combined, deserves the same consideration of benefits as the MS sufferer?
scandalousbill
Eds Talking Balls,
You say,
“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.
I do not deny the scathing bit at all. The question for both you and Anon is simply this:
In the UK, is access to health a basic human right or a privilege to be accorded by others through their benevolence in accordance to their judgement of your lifestyle? You and Anon support the latter.
I could not disagree more. The fact that you substitute the word obese instead of Immigrant, Black, Gay, Muslim, Republican, Smoker/non Smoker, etc., etc. does not change in any way the discriminatory nature of your position. It is there where we have contention.
Should an obese person who contract diabetes is denied treatment? If you or Anon suffer a heart attack, should a detailed assessment of your lifestyle to date be rigorously carried out before you are given treatments? As Sue Marsh has asked, should smokers who have lung cancer simply be left to die?
The point is that the usage of the 15 point tick box sue alludes to, in determination of who gets, who does not get assistance, not only demeans those who it is inflicted upon, it demeans us for implementing the system in the first place.
To your good health, if you get your way in this area, you will most likely need t.
Ed's Talking Balls
An unnecessary and vindictive sign-off undermines the fair and sensible questions posed in the rest of your post.
First off, healthcare is not a human right. Categorically. It has been considered but, legally, it is not a human right. The problems of enshrining it as such has been demonstrated in South Africa.
Rationing in the NHS is, and has long been, a reality. I am not prepared to ignore this reality, nor the reality that funding for the NHS is finite. Given that rationing is taking place, I would rather it is done in a way which takes into consideration the nature of a patient’s medical condition. That is certainly preferable to, for instance, a lottery system.
This is a difficult area. In truth, ‘difficult’ doesn’t do it justice: these are matters of life and death. But I have an opinion on it and am prepared to stand by it.
Mason Dixon, Autistic
Anon E Mouse stinking up the place again.
“Why on earth wouldn’t you want more money to go to those in genuine need like MS sufferers and less to greedy fat self inflicted obese people.
And please don’t start the “let’s look at the reasons they eat to much” stuff.”
Like those with Prader-Willi Syndrome?
Anon E Mouse
scandalousbill – Firstly when did I say I wouldn’t treat people who are ill? This is a discussion about the payment of disability benefits and nothing more.
Discriminatory? You are saying that people who commit crimes against other people in order to freely and illegally participate in the taking of prohibited substances should be treated equally to people who have disabilities.
Why wouldn’t there be discrimination in that case? Do you not care about criminals and their victims at all?
Are you really saying that the position of the Labour Party activists is that criminals choosing that lifestyle and harming others should be treated equally as law abiding people not choosing their lifestyle and not hurting others?
Go on….