downwithallthat

bigleyma is thinking…

Archive for the ‘Political ideologies involved’ Category

Nil Points…

with 2 comments

Nil Points… The WCA – Like a perverted Eurovison Song Contest, only no-one’s singing and dancing… mainly they’re being driven into destitution, or suicide, or simply dying while being ‘found’ fit.

The BBC seem to be catching up a bit of late, hopefully not too late, although it certainly is for a growing number of victims of Atos. There can no longer be any doubt that many have been driven to suicide by this government’s ‘welfare reforms’ in the area of health-related benefits. A recent news item on the BBC site is yet another in a never-ending torrent of evidence that the WCA is not only ‘not fit for purpose’ but is clearly a bureaucratic instrument designed to deny people their legitimate benefits. I no longer believe its simply about saving money. I believe its an ideological assault on the vulnerable, which has much in common with that of a more notorious historical regime. The parallels are striking, couched though they might be in a discourse more acceptable to modern consciences. This time instead of smearing all sick and disabled people, and being encouraged to regard them as ‘useless eaters’, we are invited to discriminate between the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ sick and disabled. Once you establish that premise and install a bureaucratic system which finds the majority ‘underserving’, and then widely publish these distorted results in the mainstream press, you have paved the way for the wholescale demonisation of a community. Because ‘the public’ respond to messages, the same now as they did historically. And the overriding message for them has been that you can’t trust this sector of the population. The seeds of doubt have been sown in the minds of the ‘advantaged’, those who have no struggle with impairments in carrying out their daily lives. To the abject shame of our society the politics of resentment has been stirred up and aimed squarely at the vulnerable.

There is much denial that this is an offensive against the sick and disabled, with the utilisation of concepts created by disabled campaigners themselves, originally for the purpose of  overturning negative social preconceptions.  Now those concepts are being used against them in true Orwellian fashion, almost as if the government are saying “Well you claimed you could contribute to society, you claimed you could work, now get off your arses and do so, because we are not going to support you anymore”.  Or as Grayling prefers to spin it “identify people who can do more with their lives and give them the help they need to find their way back to work”, something that counter-intuitively will be facilitated by giving them less money rather than more, apparently.

More realistically, as disabled journalist Mark Sparrow put it earlier this year, these ‘reforms’ have compounded the disadvantage, as he writes: “Chris Grayling you’ve made me financially, as well as physically disabled”

To return to the most recently exposed victim of this system, Cecilia Burns received ‘Nil points’ at her WCA, despite the fact that she was still undergoing treatment for breast cancer. The government accordingly reduced her benefit by £30 per week. After fighting against the decision her ESA was reinstated shortly before her death. So this woman who had been enduring cancer, and enduring the side effects of treatment for it, was made to do so with less money, and had to spend the last months of her life in a pointless struggle to regain what she had been entitled to all along. Nil points to you Mr Grayling, and your immoral system, nil points.

 

Advertisements

Osborne’s Nice Little Fat Piggy Bank

with 2 comments

You know those picture memes that go the rounds? The ones that say “This is what others think I do“, which end with “This is what I actually do“. Its about the reality gap, and the way that there can be many ways of ‘seeing’ a thing, dependent on diverse factors of which you may or may not be aware. Also its a play on preconceptions. I’m feeling like this is one of those ‘duh’ moments where someone overexplains a joke, thus robbing it of any humour.

Still, information has come to light which makes that meme particularly relevant to our present economic situation in the UK, and its not funny in the slightest.

Picture 1: “How people think our economic situation is“: >>> The chancellor of the exchequer standing with his trouser pockets pulled out, signifying there is no money left for vital welfare and social services, a justification for the ‘cuts’. Skip all the rest to…

Final Picture:How our economic situation really is“.>>> A very fat pink piggy bank (imagine something along the scale of Martin Rowson’s ‘fat cat’) stuffed to overflowing with banknotes. To the tune of £31 billion pounds.

“That’s £31 bn sat there doing nothing in an economy with negative GDP growth”.

It’s a well-know feature of the rich, that like mythical dragons, they compulsively hoard their wealth. Maybe the titling of TV’s ‘Dragon’s Den’ is an unconscious nod to this fact? The ‘entrepreneurs’ of that show, ironically regarded as ‘business angels’, demonstrate an outstanding capacity for miserliness and greed as a feature of the show.

But, considering the state of the economy, its impossible not to see how this particular stash of money could be put to better use in these difficult times. And considering the suffering that the so-called welfare reforms have inflicted on the innocent, with the guilty getting off scot-free, its deceitful and criminal that this money should be festering there when its quite able to work and make a contribution to society. Don’t you think?

Written by bigleyma

August 17, 2012 at 12:10 pm

The Abomination That Is The WCA: Excuses, Excuses…

with 4 comments

The government’s whole defence of the abomination that is the WCA rests on the argument that they wish to counter a defeatist attitude among the sick and disabled. That people have ‘given up’ on finding work. Anyone who has ever worked while sick with ‘commonplace’ ailments, for example when in the early stages of flu or an acute hay fever attack, or perhaps coming back to work after a fairly bad sprain, can see what a flimsy notion this is. Sick and disabled people have far, far worse barriers to overcome than those examples. Sick and disabled people by definition are anything but defeatist, since they have to put extra effort into their daily lives to compensate for their continuing physical/mental disadvantages. The ‘defeated’ sick/disabled person would not still be here, since they would have taken measures to end their struggles.

While Mr Grayling can only whine pathetically “But they can do some work” most sick and disabled people are already doing more than the ‘able-bodied’ just to function in everyday life. This is so intuitively true that I think its why some of the uninformed general public go straight to the ‘scrounger’ stereotype as a an explanation for people being kicked off benefits. They know that sick and disabled people genuinely have greater hurdles to contend with, because we have all experienced illness and understand the limitations it brings. Its not difficult to project that knowledge into a situation where you don’t recover, you don’t feel better. Like a case of permanent flu or a sprain which doesn’t heal (I’m deliberately using understated examples here in order to tap into common experiences of how illness affects someone’s capacity to work). So they have to cognitively dismiss the notion that genuinely sick and disabled people are being denied benefits and move on to something which makes more sense to them. Its the way our brains work, we reject ideas that don’t fit into our existing understanding about the world. Thus they skip over to the much more satisfying and fair notion that claimants are not really ill in the first place.

Secondly, and this is proven by Mr Grayling’s admission that he is not interested in ‘real world’ situations when it comes to bullying people with physical/mental impairments into jobseeking, is the complete denial of how ‘impairment unfriendly’ the contemporary uk workplace is. It is this way because of the intensification of work, because employers are focused on getting ever more out of workers while simultaneously finding ways of reducing their pay or any security of tenure of a job, so they can be dismissed according to the demands of the workload.

Imagine for a minute a sick or disabled person who is already physically disadvantaged attempting to not only overcome their personal impairments in daily maintenance, but also struggling to deal with the volume/pace of work most people are faced with these days. Imagine also the impact on a person striving to overcome psychological impairments who is subjected to the impermanence of unstable serial employment in highly stressed profit-driven work. Riding the two horses of benefits and work simultaneously is a heavy burden for even the most able-bodied, involving a permanent focus on the constant readjustment of one’s ‘status’. While in employment this involves making sure tax is deducted fairly, as every new employee is subjected to ’emergency’ rate tax, the onus being on the worker to have this rectified. Back on benefits effort has to be put in to make sure that entitlements are reinstated correctly. The administering of all this can often seem like an extra job in itself.

So we have a group of people who are already having to put greater effort into basic daily self maintenance expected to draw upon even more personal resources to adapt to work conditions which challenge even the most able-bodied. Thats if they can even secure work in the most competitive job market this country has seen for decades, where university graduates compete for mcjobs, or waitering or cleaning jobs.Since barely any job can be said to be permanent these days those coming in to the job market ‘at the bottom’ are so unlikely to partake of the benefits that genuinely stable, fair employment bestows that it beggars belief that this argument is tendered by this government. But then again, they really have no convincing alternative argument than the flimsy, outdated, inaccurate notion that Work Is (inevitably) Good For You.

*I would just like to clarify that in the above I am referring to what most people would regard as the ‘mild to moderately’ sick and disabled. Those more extreme cases which are very well known to the online communities, examples of which were most recently exposed on TV’s respective Panorama and Dispatches programmes, are more accurately defined as serious state abuses which deserve the strongest repercussions for those behind this process.

The News Media’s Negative Bias Against the Disabled

with one comment

Black Triangle have reported on an academic study carried out by the University of Glasgow, undertaken on behalf of Inclusion London, in order to assess the  ways that disabled people are being portrayed in the mainstream print media. The results are not too surprising for the masses of disabled people who have watched, powerless, the steady stream of thinly veiled propaganda against the sick and disabled that has flown directly  from government offices  into the right wing press, acquiring a generous smear of poisonous prejudice along the way.

The University’s full academic report is here: Bad News For The Disabled: How The Newspapers Are Reporting Disability.

I was reminded of a famous quote that goes something like: ” The measure of a society is in how it treats its weakest members”. I went looking for the source and found to my surprise that among the great and good of ancient and modern history there appears to be a universal consensus around this idea. (Similar sentiments being attributed to such disparate figures as Christ, Confucius, Ghandi, Churchill, U.S Presidents/Vice Presidents and on…). Such a pity there is no contemporary figure with the conviction to restate this in our country right now…

Here’s a quote from a man who has been able to accumulate his billions through living in a country that has not taken care of its weakest members, one that prefers to foster the ‘every man for himself’ ethos. He belongs to a new wave of  ‘philanthrocapitalists‘ that are beginning to gaggle around Gates.

“Let’s say that it was 24 hours before you were born, and a genie appeared and said, ‘What I’m going to do is let you set the rules of the society into which you will be born. You can set the economic rules and the social rules, and whatever rules you set will apply during your lifetime and your children’s lifetimes.’ And you’ll say, ‘Well, that’s nice, but what’s the catch?’ And the genie says, ‘Here’s the catch. You don’t know if you’re going to be born rich or poor, white or black, male or female, able-bodied or infirm, intelligent or retarded.’ – Warren Buffet

Good as far as it goes, but a little ingenuous about the ‘luck of the draw’ accident of birth, rich/poor angle which tends to obscure the significant fact that a minority have become disgustingly rich at the expense of the masses of poor, via exploitation, or through the appropriation of what should be the communal resources of a country. Not a lot of people know that :/

 

Written by bigleyma

October 28, 2011 at 10:04 pm

The Working Sick: A Hidden Transcript in New Welfare Policy

with 2 comments

I think the first response of those who ‘fail’ the WCA tends to be ‘But I am ill, how can they find me fit?’ Most will then get caught up in attempts to prove this fact. Appeals, tribunals, gathering evidence, pleading your case. Most of the stories on the net revolve around failing then passing, successful or unsuccessful appeals, success then apprehension of future fitness tests.

In engaging in this battle to prove our ill health we fulfil a certain intention (one embraced by the media), a public transcript, which centres on the notion of the supposed separation of the deserving from the undeserving sick. This is a misdirection, in that we are failing to catch a more radical message inherent in the policy that underpins the WCA. This message has been quite overt, Grayling and Gunnyeon have acknowledged that people being moved off ESA onto JSA are indeed sick. That is the point of Grayling stating it is not about ‘failing’. He quite readily, and contradictorily, admits that people ‘found fit’ are to some extent sick. What he is saying, and it is a message that is a departure from previous public conceptions of illness, is that the sick must work.

This message has been overshadowed by the understandable outcry over extremely sick people being found fit for work by Atos Healthcare’s medically qualified servants.
But it is at the heart of this government policy. The sick must now work. Of course it is only the poor sick who must work, because those with financial resources, those who are the least in need of any support, have the luxury of being able to accomodate their illness, take care of themselves and live an adapted life. The poorer sick must ignore their physical/mental impairments, ignore their bodies’ messages and strive to overcome feelings of discomfort, pain and malaise in order to put themselves to work.

The glib idea culled from one literature review assessing the ‘benefits of work’, that Work Is Good For You, does not have sickness as its focus. It proves nothing other than that a lack of income is bad for you, which is to statethebleedinobvious. It in no way demonstrates that sick people in work are better off for forcing more activity out of an impaired body. Reason tells us this. But what this government is doing is not reasonable. It is a blatant attempt to change people’s attitudes to the relationship between (ill) health and work. It is not for the purpose of, as some have genuinely attempted to do, removing barriers to work for the sick and disabled. It is an attempt to remove conceptual barriers that acknowledge limits to what a sick person should be forced to do in order to survive in their society . It is to remove support, both financial and social, from the sick, by removing any obligation on the state to provide this, their side of the social contract.

Written by bigleyma

October 4, 2011 at 9:25 pm