Fast forward 14 years since the Sun’s repugnant ‘Beat the Cheat’ campaign, and the same misguided and exaggerated vilification of disabled people has resurfaced, this time under a Labour government.
The cyclical nature of British politics, perpetuated by a media ecosystem that endlessly regurgitates the same ‘outrages,’ is in full force once again.
More than a decade has passed since the Sun’s repugnant ‘Beat the Cheat’ campaign, which encouraged vigilant citizens to report their disabled neighbours to a benefit fraud hotline.
The media frenzy came as the then-chancellor George Osborne tore into the benefits system, fuelling a toxic rhetoric that permeated the right-wing media narrative, which fed into the public discourse around social security.
There were 1,788 recorded incidents of disability hate crime in England and Wales in 2011, an increase of more than 18% on the total for 2010 and the highest since the data was first recorded in April 2010. Yet in the same year, there were just 523 convictions for the offence.
Disability charities had little doubt that the worsening climate was being driven by the demonisation of disabled individuals as ‘benefit scroungers.’ The Department for Work and Pensions came under fire for its reckless rhetoric, particularly its suggestion that three out of four people receiving incapacity benefits were faking disabilities.
Fast-forward 14 years, and the same misguided and exaggerated vilification of disabled people has resurfaced, this time under a Labour government. In her Spring Statement this week, Chancellor Rachel Reeves confirmed the health element of Universal Credit will be cut by 50 percent for new claimants by 2029/30 before being frozen. Reeves said this is to meet Labour’s fiscal rules: balancing the budget so day-to-day costs are covered by revenues and ensuring debt falls as a share of GDP within five years.
The Spring Statement followed an earlier announcement of the government’s plans to slash £4.8bn from the welfare bill. Most of these savings will come from personal independence payments (PIP), with the eligibility threshold raised, meaning an estimated one million disabled people will lose their benefits.
The ‘wrong choice’
The welfare cuts will leave an estimated quarter of a million more people, including 50,000 children, in relative poverty after housing costs across the country by the end of the decade, according to the government’s own impact assessment.
As the true impact of the welfare reforms becomes clearer, a growing rift is emerging within Labour ranks. More than a 20 Labour MPs have said publicly that they will not back the government when proposed welfare reforms are voted on in Parliament.
Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham has also weighed, saying the government is making “the wrong choice” by restricting disability benefits.
Ahead of the Statement, people with disabilities and campaigners for disability rights gathered in protest at the cuts up and down the country.
“Disabled people will not allow themselves to be made scapegoats for Rachel Reeves cuts while millionaires remain untouched by cuts,” said Linda Burnip, co-founder of Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC).
Writing in the Times, Reeves defended her handling of the economy, saying her plan was starting to “bear fruit” with wages up and interest rates down.
“I won’t shy away from the challenges we face, and change won’t happen overnight,” she said. “But the prize on offer to us is immense.”As we saw in the 2010s, fuelled by government policy, right-wing media assaults on disabled people have resurfaced recently with alarming hostility.
In a particularly revolting post on X, Tom Harwood, deputy political editor at GB Newswrote: “Make all the free cars the government gives out to people with autism or ADHD look like this and see how many people *really* need to claim them.”
Similarly, during a segment on GB News, presented as a debate on whether PIP payments are justified, health secretary Wes Streeting was provocatively asked why someone with ADHD should be receiving a £52,000 BMW through the Motability scheme.
“Why on earth do you need a taxpayer-funded car with ADHD?” the presenter pressed.
Instead of defending the Motability scheme, Streeting capitulated to the narrative pushed by the right-wing network. He responded: “I think that is a very good challenge and one of the reasons why we are looking at the whole issue of welfare reform.” This is in spite of a recent parliamentary report which highlighted the benefits of the scheme to many disabled adults who, unlike their non-disabled counterparts, often lack access to a car and face significant financial challenges. Perhaps Wes hadn’t read the report.
In fact, the Motability scheme is, bizarrely, a particular bone of contention for the right.
‘The Mobility scheme was never designed to buy 50-grand Mercs for bedwetting boy racers in balaclavas with made-up mental illnesses. Scrap it now!’ bellowed Richard Littlejohn’s headline in the Daily Mail.
In a classic case of right-wing Groundhog Day, Littlejohn even admits that it was “14 years ago today, in the wake of the financial crash,” when he first railed against the Motability scheme.
“Even then I was astonished to learn that the government was leasing flash German cars for people on disability benefits,” he continued.
But his particular gripe focuses on the rising number of Motability users, with a record 815,000 people enrolled in the scheme, a jump of 170,000 from the previous year, according to data from, well, the TaxPayers’ Alliance. Sigh, yes, the think-tank that always seems to be behind the sensational headlines fuelling right-wing outrage. It’s a classic case of right-wing media conveyor belt propaganda, getting an ostensibly credible think-tank or organisation to produce a piece of ‘research’ on a topic they are preoccupied with, which is then heavily promoted in the right-wing media.
For some context: the Motability scheme was established in 1978 to provide an affordable way for people with disabilities to lease cars, wheelchair-accessible vehicles, scooters, or powered wheelchairs. It has since helped millions of disabled people, and their families, regain mobility and independence.
The scheme is managed on a day-to-day basis by Motability Operations Ltd, under contract to the Motability Foundation. The Motability Foundation also provides charitable grants to help disabled people access the scheme and make the most of their vehicles. These grants are means-tested to ensure support is directed to those who need it most.
There is some evidence of limited abuse of the system: the iPaper for example, reported that 11,000 benefit claimants have had the taxpayer-funded cars taken from them for misuse, a fairly low percentage it has to be said. Nonetheless, it’s an issue that needs to be dealt with. But sadly, it’s been used by certain factions on the right to fuel negative sentiment towards the disabled.
The outrage even earned a double-page ‘special report’ in the Daily Mail, entitled: ‘The most outrageous benefits scandal of all.’ The report starts by focusing on one alleged Motability claimant ‘scammer.’ “It was only when his mother came under investigation for suspected benefit fraud that a different picture of his physical abilities emerged,” the article claims, adding:
“DWP staff not only observed him walking a mile unaided through the Devon town of Axminster with a guitar slung across his back but also lifting heavy weights at a local gym.”
Yes, the actions of one man are framed as representative of hundreds of thousands, if you take the Daily Mail’s reporting at face value.
‘Under strain’
Away from the clamour of the right-wing welfare-haters, the Resolution Foundation provides an explanation as to the rise in disability benefit spending.
In its ‘Under strain – investigating trends in working-age disability and incapacity benefits’ report, the foundation argues the primary driver for the rise is not higher benefit generosity, but simply a growing number of working-age claimants. As Britain ages, becomes less healthy, and experiences a higher prevalence of disability, more people require support, either due to work restrictions or additional needs.
The foundation suggests that to reduce benefit spending, attention must focus on addressing the underlying causes of health conditions and impairments that limit the ability to work. This requires coordinated efforts from the NHS, public services, and employers, in addition to the DWP and Treasury, it says.
Less unpopular than increasing debt or taxes?
In her Spring Statement, Reeves argued that the UK has to ‘move quickly in a changing world’ and confirmed a £2.2bn increase in defence spending. Such increases require sacrifices elsewhere, and this has been broadly used to justify the cuts to welfare.
Writing in the FT, Stephen Bush notes how the problem for Keir Starmer is that British voters are generally opposed to all the ways you could potentially pay for increased defence spending.
He points to recent polling that shows cutting unemployment and disability benefits is more popular than raising government debt or taxes on individuals.
Bush argues, the government is over-indexing on “voters don’t like tax rises” and under-indexing on “can we keep Britons safe without being willing to court unpopularity over tax?”
In other words, instead of merely following the latest polls and focus groups, the government should show leadership, and in doing so, perhaps earn some respect.
Why not a wealth tax?
Which brings me to the issue of wealth tax. Advocates argue that by not implementing one, the UK is missing out on £460 million a week, which could help fund defence.
Polling even shows overwhelming public support for a wealth tax. A new poll for the TUC found that 71 percent of the public believe the wealthy should pay more tax to fund public services. It also found that 65 percent of UK adults would ‘have more trust in politicians’ if government improved public services.
There are arguments against the wealth tax: that billionaires will up sticks and go elsewhere (they don’t); that it kills off enterprise (it doesn’t); and that people hide their money (that bit is true). Maybe a truly radical government would really change the relationship between direct and indirect taxation and consider the virtues of hypothecated taxes. That though would really put the cat among the right-wing pigeons, including those in the Treasury.
There is little evidence that Starmer and co will embrace such a radical policy, perhaps out of fear of how the right-wing media would inevitably react.
And it’s not difficult to understand their fear in this sense. For the right-wing media, Labour’s approach to welfare reform is still too moderate and costly.
Andrew Neil’s Daily Mail headline last week summed it up:
“Is that it? An opportunity of a generation to tackle Britain’s bloated welfare bill has been squandered. And we’ll all the poorer for it.”
Neil criticised the reforms proposed by work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall, claiming they amounted to little more than a “tinker here, a dabble there, and a promise of more money for a system already wallowing in it.”
“It’s turned out to be a modest exercise in fiscal arithmetic rather than a much-needed radical reform,” he continued.
Neil’s right about one thing – Labour needs to be more radical, radical in challenging the right and their sensationalist, fear-mongering headlines. Targeting people with disabilities to placate these voices will only alienate the voters Labour should be courting.
As former Labour chancellor John McDonnell urged ahead of this week’s Spring Statement, Labour should focus not just on short-term economic stability but on addressing long-term inequality.
“This government has one last chance to take a progressive path. Otherwise, we’re at the point of no return,” McDonnell wrote.
Sadly, his advice was ignored.
Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch
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.
