Hunger and desperation used quite ruthlessly by a “health care professional” to controversially justify refusing a disability support claim. Access to food banks can only happen if you are referred by a professional, such as a doctor or social worker. Furthermore, you can generally have a maximum of only 3 referrals per year. The ESA and PIP eassessment guidance says that a person must be able to walk the distance specified “reliably, consistently, safely and in a timely manner.”
Iain Duncan-Smith struggled financially once, but then he got off his backside and was given a Tudor mansion by his father-in-law, the fifth Baron Cottesloe, which proves rewards come to those prepared to make an effort. Reuters.
“Universal Credit doesn’t go far enough – work won’t pay until people are running naked through stinging nettles to get their benefits.
As Universal Credit develops, it can encourage other skills, so if your electricity has been cut off, you have to screw your application form into a ball and dribble it through a line of cones before kicking it into a bucket. That way you can soon come off benefits and earn £5m a year as a winger for Manchester City.” Mark Steel, writing for the Independent
The Conservative notion of “deserving” and “undeserving” poor is a false dichotomy. No-one deserves to be poor
“Deserving” is a politically divergent word if there ever was one. The Conservatives have used it to apparently wage an all out class war, using austerity as a smokescreen. They certainly don’t take the side of the proverbial underdog. In fact the more need you have, the less this government considers you “deserving” of support and sympathy.
Policies aimed at people with what are politically regarded as “additional needs” are largely about ensuring your compliance, conformity and commitment to “behavioural change”, on the assumption that people somehow erroneously “choose” to need financial support. Claiming any form of state support has come to entail a deeply hostile and extremely challenging process that is causing psychological distress and often, physical harm, to our most vulnerable citizens. There are plently of examples of cases where this has happened documented on this site alone.
Such a disciplinarian mindset is now embedded in social security policy, rhetoric and administration. But we’ve been here before, back in 1832, when the Poor Law Amendment Act was aimed at categorising and managing “deserving” and “undeserving” poor. Those considered “deserving” were unfortunately placed in workhouses and punished by a loss of citizens freedoms and rights, in order to “deter” people from being poor. (See also The New New Poor Law, 2013.)
I’ve yet to come across a single case of someone being punished out of their poverty. Someone ought to send every government minister a copy of Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs, and remind them all that our post-war social security was originally designed and calculated to ensure people could meet the costs of basic survival needs, such as for food, fuel and shelter.
It was recognised back then that people struggling with basic survival requirements were highly unlikely to fulfil other higher level psychosocial potential, such as looking for work. If we want people to find work, we must first ensure they have the necessary resources to do so. And that the work available will make a real difference to their standard of living.
Poor people don’t create poverty, state decision-making does. The economy and labor market conditions do. The punitive approach to poverty didn’t work in the 1800s and 1900s, and it isn’t working and can’t possibly be made to work now. It’s an ideological dead horse. It died because of the brutal and unrelentless use of too much political brutality, the heavy hand of the state offering all stick and no carrots for poor people.
Being poor is itself punishing enough. Now the poor are being punished for being punished with poverty. No-one chooses to be poor, our overarching socioeconomic organisation is founded on the very principles of competition. Neoliberalism invariably means there will be a few “winners” (1%) and a lot of “losers” (99%). It’s embedded in the very nature of such a competitive system that emphasises individualism, rather than collectivism, to create increasing inequality and poverty.
It’s worth considering that people on low pay, or with part-time hours in work are also being sanctioned, if they claim “top up” benefits to supplement their exploitative rate of pay or poor and unstable work conditions. This fact is hardly a good advertisment for the government’s claim of “making work pay”, unless of course we refer back to the poor law reform “deterrence” of 1834. Apparently, making welfare sufficiently punitive to deter people from claiming it is how we make work pay, not by raising wages in line with the cost of living. Silly me. I mistook a propaganda soundbite at face value. It seems old ideolologies die hard, with a vengeance.
Apparently it’s an individual’s fault for not “progressing in work”. Nothing to do with increasingly precarious employment situations, executive decision-making, or a deregulated labor market, of course.
In-work benefits have effectively subsidised employers’ wage costs. Yet low paid workers are being punished by the government for this state of affairs.
It’s not so long ago that we had a strong trade union movement that used collective bargaining as a method of improving wages and working conditions. But the free market ideologues don’t like trade unions, or welfare provision. They like a neat, tidy and very small, limited interventionist state. Or so they claim.
The paradox, of course, is that in order to reduce supportive provisions, and dismantle the welfare state in order to fulfil the terms and conditions of neoliberalism, the government has to implement strategies that ensure citizen compliance. Many of those strategies are increasingly authoritarian, rather than “non interventionist”, in nature.
It’s not the welfare state, but the state of welfare that is the pressing problem
Private companies have become more firmly embedded in the core concerns of all departments of government in designing and delivering on public and social policies, and policies have become increasingly detached from public need, and more directed at meeting private interests, largely involving making huge and private profits. The Conservatives don’t seem to consider that rogue private businesses like G4S, Atos, Maximus, A4E, and so on, are extensions of the state, fulfilling what are, after all, state-determined functions.
Of course this creates an imbalance between the role of the welfare state in aiding private capital and its role in maintaining and supporting labor, and fulfilling the basic needs of citizens. Corporate welfare underpins neoliberal economies, and it costs the public far more than reduced public provisions promises to save.
In January 2016, the National Audit Office (NAO) published its evaluation of the DWP’s health and disability assessment contracts. It said the cost of each Work Capability Assessment (WCA) had risen from £115 under Atos to £190 under Maximus. The report also states that only half of all the doctors and nurses hired by Maximus – the US outsourcing company brought in by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to carry out the assessments – had even completed their training.
The NAO report summarised:
Million assessments completed in five years up to March 2015
Estimated increase in cost per Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) assessment based on published information after transfer of the service in 2015 (from £115 to £190)
Estimated increase in healthcare professionals across contracts from 2,200 in May 2015 to 4,050 November 2016
Estimated cost of contracted-out health and disability assessments over three years, 2015 to 2018
Latest expected reduction in annual disability benefit spending
Proportion of ESA and Personal Independence Payment (PIP) targets met for assessment report quality meeting contractual standard (September 2014 to August 2015).
Before 2010, cuts to disability support were unthinkable. Now the Treasury regards our provision as their pocket money for tax cuts for the very wealthy
This summary reflects staggering economic incompetence, a flagrant, politically motivated waste of tax payers money and even worse, the higher spending has not created a competent or ethical assessment framework, nor is it improving the lives of sick and disabled people. Some people are dying after being wrongly assessed as “fit for work” and having their lifeline benefits brutally withdrawn. Maximus is certainly not helping the government to serve even the most basic needs of sick and disabled people.
However, Maximus, and other private companies involved in the delivery of welfare programmes are serving the needs of a “small state” doctrinaire neoliberal government, and making a massive profit in doing so. It would cost much less to simply pay people the support they were once simply entitled to. However, the Conservatives are systematically dismantling the UK’s social security system, not because there is an empirically justifiable reason or economic need to do so, but because the government has purely ideological, anticollectivist prescriptions.
As well as the heavy cost of each assessment to the public purse, there is also the considerable cost of many tribunals, because of the many “wrong decisions”on the part of the Department for Work and Pensions. That’s despite the fact that the government introduced another layer of bureacracy in the form of “mandatory review” in order to deter appeals. People going through mandatory review for a decision to stop their ESA cannot claim ESA again until after mandatory review (if you need to appeal, you can claim ESA once you have the review decision), and so are forced to either try and claim Universal Credit, going 6 weeks at least without any support, or to wait out the Review outcome, which has no set time limit, but usually takes at least 6 weeks for the decision about the original decision. Which is usually the same decision as the original decision, due to outrageous targets that were revealed in the department’s response to a Freedom of Information request, that stated staff conducting mandatory reconsideration reviews were held to a “key performance indicator” that said “80 per cent of the original decisions are to be upheld”.
This is a government that claims social security is “unsustainable” and a “burden” on the public purse, yet has no problem with an extraordinary profligacy with public funds and dispossessing tax payers when it comes to implementing “cost-cutting” and draconian welfare “reforms.” Conservative anti-welfare dogma and traditional prejudices are costing the UK billions of pounds.
The Tories are all about ideology and not facts. As two authors astutely noted recently, the government seems to be driven by an idea that creating the conditions of purgatory for those they consider “undeserving” will somehow cleanse, redeem and purify people into not being so sinfully poor. So it’s not actually “welfare” any more, but rather, it’s a “correctional” institution, for coercing citizens into conformity, compliance and a class contingent meekness, with a liberal dash of the protestant work ethic in with the catholic inquisition flavoured ingredients in the mix. Yes, the nasty authoritarian Conservatives really do think like this.
Disability support is virtually impossible to access for many people that doctors consider severely disabled, and involves a measured and ritualised humiliation. The assessments are solely designed to look for “discrepancies” in people’s accounts of how their illness/disability impacts on your day to day living. In other words, it is aimed at looking for reasons, no matter how flimsy, to ensure that welfare support for disabled and ill people is pretty much unobtainable.
Those questions you are asked by the (inappropriately named) Health Care Professional (HCP) that seem like innocent conversation, such as “Do you watch TV? Do you like the Soaps?” translate onto a report that says “Can sit unaided for at least half an hour”. “Do you have a pet?”becomes “Can bend to feed cat/dog.” “Do you use the internet at all?” becomes “No evidence of focus or cognitive difficulties, adequate hand dexterity.”
If you wear any jewellry, that may be noted and used as evidence that you have dexterity in your hands, even if you have severe arthritis and can’t fasten your buttons or a zip, you won’t be asked if you ever remove your locket/ring/earrings. It will be assumed that you do. It’s a kind of opportunism of neglect and assumption used by HCPs to justify refusing some elements of PIP, or all of your claim. Or it’s the difference between being placed in the ESA Support Group, being placed in the WRAG on the lower award, or simply being refused an award altogether, and told you are “fit for work”.
If you are unfortunate enough to need a referral to a food bank, and you actually manage to get to the appointment, because you are desperate, that may also be used as evidence that you can walk further than 200 or 500 metres, even if you can’t, and managed to get a lift there and back.
Challenging such ridiculous assumptions wears you down. It creates distress when someone acting as a gatekeeper to the support you need dismisses your medical reports and account with such disdain, just stopping short of calling you a liar. Challenging the reasons provided for the DWP refusing you a PIP or ESA award is tedious, very stressful and time consuming and tiring. I’m sure that if you manage to do so successfully, even the fact that you managed to collate evidence, ask you doctor for supportive evidence and so forth may be used as evidence that you can function too well to warrant any support. If you demonstrate any ingenuity in coping with your condition, you’ve basically had it.
Once upon a time, support for disabled people was designed to help us remain independent, and to enable us to participate in society. PIP is non means-tested and people can claim it (allegedly) whilst in work.
However, I worked for social services until I became too ill to work. I loved my job, and my salary was very good, too. It was a terribly dehumanising experience to have to face the fact I was no longer well enough and fit for my post. 7 years later, at my PIP assessment, it was decided that my previous job “proved” that I don’t currently have “any cognitive problems.”
That’s despite the assessor acknowledging in the report I now even need an aid to remember to take my treatments and medications, and that during the appointment, I had to be reminded several times what I’d been asked, as I kept forgetting what I was supposed to be answering. I have systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and cognitive dysfunction is very commonly experienced symptom of this illness.
People have even been refused PIP at appeal because they “spend too much time on Facebook.” Too much for what, exactly? Last time I checked, there were no laws in place that meant sick and disabled citizens were prohibited from using social media. Since when did it become acceptable for government officials to endorse and promote the social exclusion of disabled people online?
But apparently, contradictions and paradoxes are allowed if you happen to be the assessing HCP. The report said that I was “thin” abut “adequately nourished”. She didn’t check my vitamin and mineral levels at all. Nor did she ask me about what I ate and how often. She just said that the aids I have were “adequate” (a perch stool, easy to use tin opener and specially designed easy to use cutlery, which are not especially designed for disabled people, but are easier for me to use because of the handle design and the steak knives instead of standard ones.)
What’s the point of welfare “support” if so few people are able to access it, despite their obvious need?
The United Nations (UN) inquiry into the allegations many of us made regarding the systematic abuse of the human rights of disabled people in the UK has exposed the multiple injustices of targeted cuts and the disproportionate burden of austerity heaped on sick and disabled people, their carers and their families, evidencing and detailing the effects of a range of policy measures affecting them that have been introduced since 2010. These include the bedroom tax and cuts to disability benefits, funds to support independence and social care.
The report concludes that the overall effect of what is now an essentially punitive welfare regime, which has been based almost entirely on unevidenced political claims and assumptions, has had an extremely detrimental and regressive effect on the rights of disabled people, to live independently, to meet their basic needs, to seek and stay in work, and to be able to live an ordinary life as citizens.
The UN report documented multiple violations of disabled people’s rights, including the way that they are politically portrayed as being lazy and a “burden on taxpayers”, the harm to health caused by unfair assessments, the cuts to legal aid and curtailed access to justice, the imposition of the bedroom tax and the ending of the Independent Living Fund.
I wrote a lengthy article about the unsurprising but nonetheless disquieting report findings and recommendations, as I read throughit at the time, here.
The government have of course indignantly refused to accept the findings of the UN, or accept the accounts of individuals and campaigners like me, disability groups and charities, and other organisations. That’s because the government prefer to cling relentlessly to free market dogma and their traditional prejudices rather than face empirical evidence, facts and truths.
The days of genuine support, to ensure disabled people can maintain dignity and independence, and to be socially, economically, politically and culturally included, are gone. PIP and ESA focus exclusively on what you can’t do: on “functionality”. If you walk your dog or take a holiday, this is taken to somehow indicate that you are not ill or disabled enough to need support. In fact the media turns you into some kind of nasty folk devil and state parasite for trying to live as normal life as possible. If the government and media had their way, we would be trapped indoors in abject misery, or institutionalised.
How dare we try to live an ordinary life.
The government have formulated draconian policies aimed particularly at disabled people. And unemployed people, low paid people, and young people. And migrants. And old people who, like many disabled people, have paid in contributions towards a welfare system, should they need it, but now they also have to work until they drop.
Hey, and you thought governments are elected to meet public needs and spend our money wisely? No, apparently we’re here to serve government needs, to behave exactly as the Conservatives think we should.
Welfare as a deterrent to… well, welfare.
And social security has been redesigned to punish those citizens who have the misfortune to find themselves in poverty.
I don’t make any money from my work. But you can support Politics and Insights and contribute by making a donation which will help me continue to research and write informative, insightful and independent articles, and to provide support to others. The smallest amount is much appreciated, and helps to keep my articles free and accessible to all – thank you.
24 thoughts on “Our social security has been redesigned. It’s now a welfare deterrent”
Reblogged this on BertieS.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Declaration Of Opinion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on disabledsingleparent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We need to start talking about the fact they’re privatising Social Security the way the have with the NHS Capita, Concentrix, Serco, ATOS (Who rebranded to get the PIP contract) Maximus, G4S all have been buying up NHS and Welfare contracts some since 2011 – All of these companies have global insurance arms and are no doubt neck deep in the so called trade deals TTIP NAFTA CETA and the rest. Meaning they are being placed ready for them to take over. Fracking companies are already suing if they are denied the right to Frack. Government are pursuing these ‘trade deals’ selling our sovereignty to the highest bidder whose only interest is profit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLKBYO8-u64
Universal Credit has consultant’s fingerprints all over it. Especially when you hear a job coach describing a job search function as ‘your new best friend.’ That’s classic consultantspeak crap.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Totally agree, and the government have also imported inane managementspeak too. Psychobabble.
Reblogged this on sdbast.
Excellent article, thank you. Should be given the widest exposure. However, I take issue with this statement: “the government prefer to cling to free market dogma and their traditional prejudices rather than face empirical evidence, facts and truths.” The ‘free market dogma’ and ‘traditional prejudices’ are actually pure propaganda by the Tories. They know damn well what are the facts and truths of the effects of their policies, but in fact just want to get rid of ‘unnecessary eaters’. They have no desire to help people to live ordinary lives, because we are unproductive and therefore have no value.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The comment basically means that: dogma is not “truth”. It’s an ideologically driven government, making policy that isn’t evidence-based, nor does it reflect facts: it’s a reflecton of Tory prejudices.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Is Jeremy Corbyn going to scrap Universal Credit? He would have the biggest majority in history if he was to vow to do this? There is a petition going… please support it…
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Labour Opposition debate next week is on UC. They have enough rebels in the Tories and DUP to win it. The vote is not binding, but puts the govt on notice that the HoC will is that UC should be stopped. Some of the Tories just want it paused while many other want it scrapped. What happens after the vote will be interesting, and hopefully will at least pause the roll out until the absolute cruelty of the system is exposed. What the govt chose to do after that….well….. ?
LikeLiked by 2 people
They really should call a general election….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Universal Credit is a universal disgrace and universal failure and has left me personally £4000 out of pocket. The DWP is out of touch, it is not fit for purpose for the jobs market of today and tomorrow, even its own job centres are being closed usually because the leases are up for renewal and much of the work is being done on-line by the claimants.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Reblogged this on Worldtruth.
Reblogged this on The Night Owl and commented:
Everything Kitty S. Jones has written in this post resonates with anyone having to claim help from the government in this day and age.
We truly have been dragged – kicking and screaming in most cases – to the very worst conditions that we could have been – and all to satisfy a sick ideology that should have died with the Victorians 😦
LikeLiked by 3 people
No one deserves to be poor you say. While in general I agree, I can think of a few people who a spell on the breadline would do a world of good … we might start with the Tory cabinet …
The difference being that a spell in poverty doesn’t quite relay the unrelenting nature of poverty, and it’s accumulative and grinding effects over time, when you can simply return to your mansion and millions after a brief spell of PR “slumming it”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes indeed, it’s the cumulative grinding down effect that slowly erodes all self-worth making it ever more difficult to escape the situation without help and support. But if no one deserves poverty, certainly no one deserves obscene wealth either, even if they claim they ‘worked’ for it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s usually others who have worked for it.
In 2013, the benefits system underwent some ‘secret’ changes, they changed the housing benefit rules so that if you are living with a friend, family or in a non-commercial arrangement, they can stop or exclude you from this benefit.
The ‘system’ is now a nasty and sanction based system, I saw this in 2016, the DWP seems to be its own rule maker, I tried to pursue a Freedom of information act to get information made by A ‘Decision Maker’ in respect of an appeal against a DWP decision.
My request was rejected on a very flimsy ‘sensitivity’ excuse, I pointed out that my claim had closed 6 months ago, yet they still blocked me unlawfully from seeing the information, which is contrary to the Data Protection act. More so because I have security clearance and worked with national security level information in the Police service, but this cut no ice with the arrogant DWP.
We need a basic income system, it will address many things that the failing DWP is still allowing to happen, Universal Credit is a disaster, I pointed this out to the DWP, their own report on Universal Credit is very critical and last week, this is now being brought to light.
We need to sweep away the nasty benefits system and replace it with a one payment benefit applied over categories 16+, disabled, unemployed, retired – only ceasing on death. This will get rid of the £389 million a year that the DWP costs to operate and replace it with a cost effective, cheaper to run situation.
The world of work has changed since 2009 markedly, it will change out of all proportion in 20 years.
LikeLiked by 1 person