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
Mason Dixon, Autistic being dishonest in public forums again. “Like those with Prader-Willi Syndrome?”
As you are well aware PWS is a genetic disorder which can manifest itself in obesity of a sufferer in adulthood.
What on earth does that have to do with the voluntary intake of as many pies as John Prescott and getting fat?
What gives you the right Mason Dixon, Autistic, to brand these sufferers in the same category? Are you a doctor in genetics and therefore qualified to comment on a recognised medical condition?
scandalousbill
Eds Talking Balls,
“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.”
Few would deny that rationing healthcare takes place. However, what you advocate is selective denial, not rationing. It creates a two tiered system of haves and have-nots based upon the prevailing prejudice of the time.
With regard to your statement:
“…healthcare is not a human right. Categorically. It has been considered but, legally, it is not a human right.”
Is compassion, morality or ethics any less viable because there is no legalistic statute to underwrite their specific application? Is genocide simply a cumulative total of killing of individuals in any one nation or location? Does the fact that crimes against humanity lack a formal constitutional base make them unenforceable or inoperable? Convention and practice can be equally valid as jurisprudence.
BTW there was no vindictiveness ntended in this response either.
However, now that you mention it, I do find your approach, to use as your supporting argument for healthcare denial, this highly unrepresentative and, within the context of the many who will be adversely effected, a most rancid, spiteful and sanctimonious polemic, makes it clear that you differ little from what you accuse me of:
“I am adamant that public money must be used responsibly and must only go to worthy causes. Not, for example, to Britain’s fattest man, who voluntarily ingested 20,000 calories a day and now plans to sue the NHS…”
Or are you prepared to demonstrate that “they” are all like that? Self indulgent and just waiting for the opportunity to sue for a few quick quid.
I think contempt would sum up the way I regard your discriminatory attitude.
joe kane
Most of the conditions and ailments people suffer from are the result of modern ways of living and modern society. If we excluded all these people with their mis-named “self-inflicted” illnesses from our GP’s surgeries and hospitals, they would be almost empty in no time.
Taking little or no exercise, eating processed foods and breathing car-polluted urban air are almost guaranteed to give people something horrible at some point.
Then there is the horrific toll of car-related deaths and injuries, which are all the result of lifestyle choices.
I’m surprised the Etonian multi-millionaire do-gooders that run the government aren’t having a go at people for needing dental treatment, as most dentists are treating people on the NHS for problems associated with modern lifestyle choices.
I know two people who have recently died of alcoholism. It is a horrible death. It isn’t a choice. It’s an illness associated with modern society specifically poverty. Same with other addictions whose roots are in the social problem of poverty which, I’m glad to say, the ConDem’s are doing as much as they can to increase. Other causes of addiction include personal trauma and mental illness.
As usual, the ConDem’s policies are only going to increase the problems they are complaining about and condemning. Blame the victims.
Anon E Mouse
scandalousbill – You seem unusually brittle in your responses today and also your last remark to Ed’s Talking Balls is not what he said.
Personally I would get drug takers off drugs instead of leaving them to languish on benefits forever – that seems far more caring than your approach. I may be tough on the causes of drug taking but these people are criminals by choice and people with disabilities are not.
My prevailing prejudice at this time is to be more supportive of the honest unfortunate instead of your system of rewarding the criminal…
Anon E Mouse
joe kane – From your response I would guess you have never lived in an inner city council estate where you hold your breath every time you get home hoping you haven’t been robbed by a drug addict. Again.
And you believe these people should be treated the same as someone with MS. Charming.