Review of The Department: How a Violent Government Bureacracy Killed Hundreds and Hid the Evidence, by John Pring, part two
There is always a TV documentary. Just as the Department for Work and Pensions readies itself to make disability benefits harder to get – for example by disallowing mobility problems or the inability to cope in social situations from counting towards a successful claim – a documentary magically appears on state television (Channel 4 in this case) explaining why the changes must be made, and in fact probably don’t go far enough.
The country faces bankruptcy because of the mounting benefit bill, we are told on Spectator journalist Fraser Nelson’s film Britain’s Benefits Scandal; millions of people are being ‘written off’. I think I’ve heard this story somewhere before …. Ah yes, it was under the post-2010 Cameron coalition when the assault on the ‘unsustainable’ benefits bill resulted – as Pring documents in his book – in hundreds of deaths.
Curiously, the person invoking the horror of the government running out of money is a spokesman for the Centre for Social Justice, the think-tank set up by Iain Duncan Smith who, as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, oversaw the previous round of culling. And so the baton passes to a new generation.
The shallow propaganda is on show almost from the first frame. There was outrage in the 1980s, Nelson recalls with a darkened face, when unemployment hit 3 million or more, so where’s the outage now when similar numbers are on “long-term disability benefit” (whatever that is)? But the outrage in the ’80s was about so many people being unemployed, not that they were on unemployment benefit. The only outrage about that emanated from Thatcher’s Cabinet and the Adam Smith Institute. The equivalent outrage today would lead to asking why so many millions are physically and mentally sick. But posing that question seems to be exclusive province of niche publications like Pring’s Disability News Service.
Oddly, among its vanishingly small valid points, Nelson’s documentary inadvertently makes the case for Unconditional Basic Income. Benefits are too generous, we are told, and thus people have no incentive to take jobs. This is because if you do go into work, all your benefits are instantly removed. But unconditional basic income – as opposed to the hugely conditional (and meagre) income support we now have – would not be removed whether a person had three jobs or spent every waking hour reading analytic philosophy. Thus it would ‘make work pay’ in a humanitarian way. This point was made by John McDonnell’s former economic advisor, Guy Standing (so obviously it’s extremely suspect and probably anti-Semitic).
But to return to the reality we unfortunately inhabit, it is a sight to behold the way British political mono-thinking instantly clicks into gear without any orders having to be given. Thus the cross-party Economic Affairs committee of the House of Lords (a body whose members are funded by taxpayers to fall asleep) solemnly intoned in January that the Work Capability Assessment “isn’t rigorous enough”, and that their lower conditionality means people have an incentive to apply for disability benefits. Meanwhile, Number 10 and Number 11 are apparently “pulling their hair out” over how long it is taking the very right-wing Labour secretary of state for Work and Pensions, Liz Kendall, to make welfare cuts. Faster! Faster!
As if to throw some meat to the baying hounds, Kendall has announced a resurrection of Rishi Sunak’s plans to rifle through the bank accounts of sick and disabled people suspected of (virtually non-existent) fraud, without even having to apply to the courts for permission. As an added touch of vindictiveness, driving licences may now be taken away. It is now clear – if it wasn’t before – that to the political class, of whatever shade of rosette, there are certain classes of very vulnerable people to whom it is possible to do anything, no matter how callous and draconian.
At this point you may be forgiven for wanting to hide under a rock (although we need to eradicate the incentive for misusing rocks in this way), but one of the many virtues of Pring’s book is that it reveals how we’ve been down this road before. With all due respect etc., the path to hell can also be paved with very bad intentions. But it helps to know that the unheavenly choir we are forced to listen to has a very limited, though up to now astonishingly effective, repertoire.
On three separate hinge points – when all this began in the dog days of Thatcher, when the Blair government wanted irrefutable evidence it was no longer ‘old’ Labour, and when the coalition was itching to pin the budget deficit on “shirkers” cheating the system – the media was on call to spread the message.
And by the media, I don’t just mean the usual suspects at the Sun or the Express or Mail. I also mean the more ‘liberal’ media like the BBC or the Guardian, or other broadcasters. For example the 1996 documentary The System on BBC2 hinted at widespread fraud and described Invalidity Benefit (the then the out-of-work disability benefit) as “known to cynics as the bad back benefit”.
In 2007, when Labour was introducing the Work Capability Assessment, The Guardian newspaper, now on board because it was Labour who were doing it, gave the floor to Matthew Elliot of the right-wing Taxpayers Alliance to bemoan the fact that many claimants were “taking advantage of the good nature of their GP”.
And of course we now have the obligatory documentary, urging the government to do what it already wants to do, on state-owned broadcaster, Channel 4.
What these others, the non-right-wing media, do is to ‘close the loop’. If even the Labour party is saying fraud is a massive problem in the benefit system, then it must be. Actually, it’s virtually non-existent. If even a cross-party House of Lords committee says the Work Capability Assessment isn’t strict enough, then it must be letting the lazy enjoy a life on benefits. Actually, as Pring shows, there have been hundreds of deaths (at least) because the Work Capability Assessment is so callous.
This process will end in a human disaster, and it already is for people who have no choice but to eke out an existence on disability ‘benefits’. We are now entering the surreal territory of the Labour party claiming, in the pages of The Sun, that the Tories weren’t tough enough towards claimants and allowed the ‘benefits bill’ to spiral out of control. Poor Iain Duncan Smith, he tried his best but it wasn’t good enough! But, says Rachel Reeves, Labour will act.
The system does not preclude any dissent. Channel 4, to be fair, did broadcast a film three years ago on The Truth About Disability Benefits (now interestingly only available on YouTube). But like bison deciding where they want to move to, the direction of travel is indicated and everyone in the establishment herd instantly knows what to say without having to be told. And as demonstrated by what happened to the outsider Jeremy Corbyn between 2015 and 2019, if anyone not in the group finds themselves, by some freakish accident, in a position of power or influence, the hostility is unrelenting.
If this is freedom, as we’re told it is, then freedom desperately needs some pluralism.
