George Osborne must listen to his party on disability support
It is increasingly likely that backbenchers will revolt against this wrongheaded move
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The angry response that greeted George Osborne’s decision to make cuts to benefits for the disabled should not have taken him by surprise. The Chancellor had the audacity to set out savings of £4.4bn from personal independence payments (PIPs), which help disabled people with the extra costs of managing their conditions, in the same Budget that offered a significant tax break for higher earners and a cut in corporation tax.
He did this despite the fact that successive ministers for disabled people, under his administration, have told the electorate that helping disabled people to live full lives is an “absolute priority” for the Conservatives. It might be a bit of clever accounting for a Chancellor seeking the leadership of his party and the top job in British politics, but it leaves a sour taste.
There is no intrinsic moral wrong in seeking to reform the welfare state and to look again at how disability support is allocated. The Government is right to focus on helping those whose conditions allow them to do some work to return to employment, for the positive link between work and quality of life is well understood.
It is difficult, however, for Mr Osborne to claim that the decision to cut funding for PIPs is motivated by a genuine reappraisal of the system when these payments were introduced by his own Government to replace disability living allowance, which it also claimed was functioning poorly. Even Conservative backbenchers are questioning the need for the cut, given that these funds are used to pay for such essentials as incontinence pads, mobility aids and carers to help with basic tasks including dressing and washing. Where they are withdrawn or cut, horizons will be shrunk and dependency entrenched – the very opposite of what the Tories intended.
It is increasingly likely that backbenchers will revolt against this wrongheaded move. Mr Osborne should listen to the fears expressed by those within his own party before he performs any future tinkering with a complex and essential system of public support.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments