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”
Sue Marsh
Anon E Mouse – I do wish you wouldn’t be so aggressive. I thought I DID answer your question with my example – but just to be very clear, yes, I do think that alcoholics should be treated the same was as down’s syndrome children. Alcoholism IS a genetic condition, so to the other comment yes, you can be born with it. Very few alcoholics stay ill for ten years without some underlying abuse or mental health problem, that was my point.
If you want to debate with me, so you think you could acknowledge when I DO make a point and engage with it rather than your “typical Labour” this and that?
scandalousbill
Anon,
You say,
“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?”
First point, is we all are, or should be, equal before the law. Whether you believe a person who smokes a joint is a criminal is an individual opinion. The law, at this point, regards this person as a criminal. However, when we use that criterion as the correct basis for denial of fundamental rights, whether in the extreme case of rendition, torture or other abuse, to obtain confession or information even if it saves other victims, we risk becoming as bad or worse than those we incarcerate.,
Rights are universal, to deny them to a sector of the population, or to an individual, reflects back upon those who implement the denial as well, regardless of the justification purported to rationalize the implementation.
Ed's Talking Balls
I’m quite happy that you have contempt for my attitude. I can live with that.
It won’t surprise you in the least to hear that I hold your views in contempt also.
People are different; conditions are different; the causes of these conditions are different; discrimination does occur in society and, in many cases, this is perfectly right, precisely because people are different; healthcare is a very difficult term to define; money is finite; there are competing demands of this limited pool of money; funding all treatments for all people at all times is absolutely impossible; some people (successfully) attempt to defraud the system; some people exacerbate their conditions and make no attempt to help themselves.
Given that I firmly believe the statements above to be true, I stand as firmly as ever behind my opinion.
And, for the record, I never once attempted to label all benefit claimants as the same (i.e. lazy, greedy, looking for a quick buck, etc). That would be nonsense. I have been very consistent in believing them to be entirely different and that is precisely my point.
joe kane
Where I live has nothing to do with my arguments about the problems of a modern society needing modern approaches to solving using modern health service.
Conservatives have no idea how to run a modern society or how to deal with its modern problems. They live in the Victorian past of rich philanthropists blaming all societies ills on the individual. How convenient they make a packet exploiting modern advances in science, technology and management then, when their money-grubbing exploitation leaves social chaos and social problems in its wake, they take refuge in defunct moralisms and blame the victims they are largely to blame for creating.
Hence the reason they call themselves ‘conservative’, as they live in the morality of an extinct past, but are more than willing to take advantage of modern society when it suits them, except when it comes to paying their taxes of course, which go towards cleaning up the damage their selfishness and greed causes.
“And you believe these people should be treated the same as someone with MS. Charming.”
– It’s not a question of either, or. It’s both. This is a modern society with modern problems. There are plenty of resources and skills to solve all or most of society’s afflictions. Only small-minded readers of the right-wing British tabloids ‘think’ otherwise, for want of a better verb to describe their utterly petty vindictive anti-social attitudes towards their fellow human being.
Sue Marsh
Now, here we go. Our dear leader, DID make an awful lot of speeches about getting treatment for drug abuse. This treatment is VERY costly.
There wouldn’t be a problem at all in throwing alcoholics off benefits if all the rehab centres had been built, if all the counsellors and funding were in place to help them, but they’re not are they?