This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/20/the-fight-for-disabled-peoples-benefits
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| The fight for disabled people’s benefits | The fight for disabled people’s benefits |
| (about 17 hours later) | |
| Living with muscular dystrophy is expensive. Our research found that two-thirds of individuals experience significant financial difficulty and two-fifths struggle or fail to pay bills as a direct result of the financial impact of their condition. That’s why the proposed cuts to personal independence payments (Tory rebellion grows over disability cuts, 18 March) are so concerning: they would leave many people most likely to be among the poorest in the UK more than £3,000 a year worse off. We fear as many as 40,000 individuals with muscular dystrophy or a related muscle condition could be caught up in these changes. The government has been unable to provide any satisfactory justification for this reform to PIP. It should listen to the clamour for a change of course – including opposition from its own MPs – and reverse its decision.Robert MeadowcroftChief executive, Muscular Dystrophy UK | |
| • Owen Jones (We can stop this attack on disabled people, 18 March) is right to point to the disabled people’s movement in resisting changes to disability benefits that are having fatal consequences. Where he is less clear is why disabled people might be expected to be supported by Labour. He notes a list of detrimental changes to disability benefits that have occurred over the past decade or so but he neglects to mention that Labour’s record on disability benefits is not covered in glory. And its motivations for changing disability benefits are easily recognisable. A leaked report highlighted in the Guardian in 1997 detailed a desire to shift resources from forms of politically maligned spending (social security) to forms of spending thought to be more politically acceptable (education and health), while the now discredited work capability assessment was introduced in 2008 as a means of bolstering capitalist imperatives related to the supply of labour. With such political economic concerns, why would we now expect Labour to prioritise disability benefits?Dr Chris GroverBolton le Sands, Lancashire | • Owen Jones (We can stop this attack on disabled people, 18 March) is right to point to the disabled people’s movement in resisting changes to disability benefits that are having fatal consequences. Where he is less clear is why disabled people might be expected to be supported by Labour. He notes a list of detrimental changes to disability benefits that have occurred over the past decade or so but he neglects to mention that Labour’s record on disability benefits is not covered in glory. And its motivations for changing disability benefits are easily recognisable. A leaked report highlighted in the Guardian in 1997 detailed a desire to shift resources from forms of politically maligned spending (social security) to forms of spending thought to be more politically acceptable (education and health), while the now discredited work capability assessment was introduced in 2008 as a means of bolstering capitalist imperatives related to the supply of labour. With such political economic concerns, why would we now expect Labour to prioritise disability benefits?Dr Chris GroverBolton le Sands, Lancashire |
| • As the father of an adult son with a learning disability I look on with great interest at the resignation of Iain Duncan Smith. What tends to be overlooked is the impact that proposals have on family carers of people with learning disabilities, who are usually carers for life and have to deal with a family member not capable of self-advocacy. Very often they are older and ill-supported by local councils who have abandoned dedicated family support, and it is the fear of what is to come rather than the action itself making the “long grass” outcome almost irrelevant. I remember Frank Field being commissioned by Labour to “think the unthinkable” about welfare and disability and thought then that the Labour government was crass to inflict fear and uncertainty on vulnerable people. George Osborne plays politics with people’s lives and the Tories are blatant in their lack of concern for vulnerable people who live outside of their personal experience.David BarkerScunthorpe, North Lincolnshire | • As the father of an adult son with a learning disability I look on with great interest at the resignation of Iain Duncan Smith. What tends to be overlooked is the impact that proposals have on family carers of people with learning disabilities, who are usually carers for life and have to deal with a family member not capable of self-advocacy. Very often they are older and ill-supported by local councils who have abandoned dedicated family support, and it is the fear of what is to come rather than the action itself making the “long grass” outcome almost irrelevant. I remember Frank Field being commissioned by Labour to “think the unthinkable” about welfare and disability and thought then that the Labour government was crass to inflict fear and uncertainty on vulnerable people. George Osborne plays politics with people’s lives and the Tories are blatant in their lack of concern for vulnerable people who live outside of their personal experience.David BarkerScunthorpe, North Lincolnshire |
| • How can George Osborne feel it is acceptable to impose even further deprivation on those whose lives are already fraught with difficulty and who have little or no chance of increasing their wealth through the industry he continually promotes as the solution to the recovery of the economy. Being poor is very expensive. Being disabled and poor is a lot more costly, with the need for essential help and up-to-date equipment with few prospects of improvement to financial rewards. To have even those meagre resources threatened with cuts is beyond cruel. Even some of his own party are wondering what kind of a government could have put forward such an idea. I hope they will be instrumental in killing it off before it does damage to real people.Sierra Hutton-WilsonShepton Mallet, Somerset | • How can George Osborne feel it is acceptable to impose even further deprivation on those whose lives are already fraught with difficulty and who have little or no chance of increasing their wealth through the industry he continually promotes as the solution to the recovery of the economy. Being poor is very expensive. Being disabled and poor is a lot more costly, with the need for essential help and up-to-date equipment with few prospects of improvement to financial rewards. To have even those meagre resources threatened with cuts is beyond cruel. Even some of his own party are wondering what kind of a government could have put forward such an idea. I hope they will be instrumental in killing it off before it does damage to real people.Sierra Hutton-WilsonShepton Mallet, Somerset |
| • The Tories in revolt against their own party’s budget have spent the past few weeks lobbying the chancellor about fuel duty, raising tax thresholds and reducing business rates. Only after satisfaction on these fronts, with their survival instincts kicking in when confronted with widespread public anger, did they turn their attention to the impact of Osborne’s measures on disabled people. Les BrightExeter | |
| • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com | • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com |
| • This article was amended on 21 March 2016. Due to an editing error an earlier version of the letter from Robert Meadowcroft, chief executive of Muscular Dystrophy UK, was mistakenly attributed to one of his colleagues who sent the letter to us. This has now been corrected. |
Previous version
1
Next version