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”
Mason Dixon, Autistic
You’re a caricature Mouse, projecting every fault you have onto others.
I quoted you saying you didn’t want to hear about “the reasons they eat to much” and pointed out a very clear example of why you don’t want to hear it: it’s inconvenient.
I am not the one making assumptions about people; I am not the one making sweeping assumptions that people with addictions and obesity on IB are cases of ‘self-inflicted’ problems. Some will be, some won’t be; but neither of us have the information available to determine by what degree. So why assume? Ass.
joe kane
#45
Obviously you don’t want to be taken seriously and are just a right-wing troll, but I’ll just make a few points for the benefit of others.
“joe kane – If you feel the urge to respond why don’t you respond to what I’ve said instead of just incoherently ranting here.”
– Such personal attacks are typical of internet trolls, so is ignoring their own accusations and then responding as if they didn’t believe them.
“I never mentioned the government making people poorer you did.”
– Well spotted. It is part of my argument that many modern ailments are caused by poverty and not by personal morals, as you and your fellow pre-industrial, pre-modern Conservatives claim. The social problems that come with a modern wealth technologically advanced society can also be solved by it quite easily if it so chooses to do so. Ignoring them or blaming them on individuals doesn’t make them go away.
“Tobacco and alcohol are both legal substances on which taxes are paid on consumption. To attempt to bring these items into your post is fine but has nothing to do with illegal drug addiction.”
– Just to remind you, it as you seem to have forgotten, it was the ConDem Government which brought drug addiction into the debate about welfare. It is that I am responding to. Maybe you don’t believe such right-wing lies and propaganda after all. Who knows what you’re talking about, as you can’t seem to keep up a coherent and consistent argument from one comment to the next.
“I never mentioned the government making people poorer you did.”
– Again, well spotted. I make this point for a reason which you will find in my arguments if you care to address them instead of letting me know what it is I have written.
Increasing poverty through deliberate government policy will only cause more crime. More poverty causes more ill health. If Cameron is so concerned about either then why is he doing so much to make sure both will increase?
“Finally I never mentioned the responsibility of the government in these matters. You did…”
– I know I did, again well spotted. This is supposed to be a discussion about government policy choices and government propaganda disseminated in support of thought policies, or maybe you hadn’t noticed and thought it was all about you and your barely coherent thoughts.
Anon E Mouse
Mason Dixon, Autistic – You are still doing it. Please tell me where I mentioned anything about the reasons people eat too much.
You attempted to use an unchosen genetic disorder to forward your flawed position that a lifestyle choice was the same thing. No one reading this blog believes it is the same thing because it obviously isn’t.
Your initial comment was a stupid remark. Everybody reading it knew that was the case. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would have immediately withdrawn the comment and apologised. For some reason you seem unable to admit you are wrong and continue flapping around, clutching at straws and looking silly in the process.
To be clear Mason Dixon, Autistic: You may consider that genetic disorders are the same as lifestyle choices but in common with everybody else I do not.
It is offensive to compare unchosen medical disabilities with lazy, fat, pie eaters and unfair on PWS victims…
Anon E Mouse
joe kane – This government will decrease poverty by changing the tax system in the opposite direction to Labour to the benefit of the worker. Removing 10p Tax by Labour hit minimum wage workers like myself, in the pocket. I now have more of my own money and if an unemployed person finds work so will they.
Since you consider my responses barely coherent please feel free to ignore them – I won’t be offended….
George Lamb
Anon and others who support “Personal responsibility” or the idea of any Fraud being despicable waste of tax payers money.
Lets cut the bull shall we and jump to the conclusion of this discussion. Some not all (and I will not get in to emotive use of stats that frankly do not exist) will under your regime be judged “fit to work” as a result of having a condition that is more to do with how they live their life than any outside factors. They will lose benefit from the DWP and local authority, depending on a huge number of factors including where they live, if they have support networks, access to non work related income, the provision of effective and adequate work and personal related support, in short become in the old meaning of the word “destitute”.
I would contend that some of these after a period of time will die, a significant number choosing to do so through suicide. Others will die through complications from their already existing health issues; others will spiral out of control dying as a result of new diseases and health problems. The main point is that they will be dead. Is this the policy that you advocate yes or no?
You may try to obfuscate with arguments that suppose my outcomes will not take place. However you already argue that some people are so weak morally or in personnel integrity that they claim benefits for “non illnesses” so to extrapolate your own theory some of the benefits cheats will not posses what it takes to find and hold employment. Hence they will die probably only after being a drain on other state resources, like health care, police, and charities that receive funding from central or local government in other words your pocket and the pocket of other tax payers. So go on explain why these people need to die, and then explain why you and other hard pressed tax payers should get to choose who dies.