Misuse of Evidence: Incapacity benefit reform

www.lwbooks.co.uk/journals/sounding...47griffiths.pdf

The linked paper is a comprehensive review of the evidence underpinning the policies adopted by both Tory and Labour governments with respect to the long term sick and their benefits. As the paper notes, the political aim was set first: and the evidence came afterwards. This is another example of the attack on the poor and it is an important one: in the past we could at least rely on the horrible distinction between the "deserving" and the "undeserving" poor to protect some groups from that attack: the chronically ill was one of those groups. But as the drive to enrich the rest by reducing responsibility for the most vulnerable gathered pace that changed: and there was a concerted propaganda campaign in the press to paint those on incapacity benefit as "workshy" or, at best, exploiting differential benefits rates by taking sickness payments instead of the lower unemployment rates

The paper shows that the policy is justified by false information; and that those who supply that information have vested interests in the findings of their research which render them suspect. In addition there is a great body of impartial research which shows that the information is false: but that research has been ignored despite being available and presented when "consultation" exercises have been held. The government's own research on other aspects of health care is part of what is available: and part of what is ignored. This is clearly not policy driven by evidence: it is ideology coupled with cost cutting. And it kills people.

In addition to a dishonest policy there is dishonest implementation. This arises from the fact that the test for capacity to work has been contracted out to a private company. The test is not fit for purpose, but it does deliver the assessments which were predicted on the basis of flawed assumptions in 2005. One might argue that this shows that the assumptions were correct and vindicated by the outcomes: were it not for the fact that 35% of the decisions based on those assessments are overturned on appeal. Not everone who has been wrongly found fit for work will appeal, of course. The author goes too far in making an estimate of the numbers that might involve because we cannot know. But 35% is enough: as he says: if 35% of convictions for criminal activity were overturned on appeal we would realise that the courts were not functioning at an acceptable level. The same applies here.

I was pleased to read this article as it takes one small part of the welfare state and shows the effect of the political climate we currently endorse: the same processes go on in many areas and it is time that these issues were honestly debated. At present the decisions which blight people's lives are driven through on the basis of ideology and the facts which should inform the decisions are ignored through what the author calls "lack of engagement with critical discourse". The culpability and collusion of the press is also significant.

Edited by FionaK - 26/5/2011, 13:24