Ed has assured us that “Scrounger Rhetoric” is off the menu

6th June, 2013 2:56 pm

When I heard Ed was to give a “big” welfare speech, my heart sank. Not again, I thought. Those who follow these matters geekily closely like me will remember the “I met a man” speech that blamed the entire failure of the social security system on people who claimed incapacity benefit.

Over the next year or two, campaigners like me lobbied and emailed and met-with and cajoled and presented evidence, but it often seemed like we merely took one step forward to take two steps back.

Endlessly I pointed out that whatever focus groups of Worcester Mums and The Squeezed Middle said, people wanted more from a Labour Party. They wanted real solutions to difficult problems with hope and justice at their core. They wanted to believe that there was a better way than the slash and burn cruelty of Tory ideology.

But all too often, Ed and Liam and the Labour front bench just couldn’t resist the allure of “tough on poverty, tough on the causes of poverty” Tory rhetoric. Blaming those abandoned by a broken system rather than mending the system at fault. Disability denial was a terrible problem, with the party turning a blind eye to the very real problems of a sickness and disability system being taken apart brick by brick under the guise of a heartless and misguided Tory “scrounger rhetoric”. “Strivers not Skivers” damning all with the judgemental stories of the few.

If today’s headlines were to be believed, today’s speech would hold little of cheer, simply more of the same “Out Torying the Tories”.

Then I read the actual transcript.

Those, like me, who’ve argued for a more nuanced, intelligent response, will find, if they read the full speech, that there may actually be one lurking somewhere between the rather-less-regular-than-before welfare bashing.

We still need to throw out the comfort blanket of phrases like “hundreds of thousands of people in long-term idleness.” and  “denial of responsibility by those who could work and don’t do so”.

They do nothing to convince Daily Mail readers that Ed is talking their language – nothing will. They simply serve to make those who may consider voting Labour at the next election doubt Ed’s sincerity to really make things better.

But today, those soundbites seem like kneejerk habits, hard to abandon completely, not the main thrust of the message.

An opening that states “Controlling social security spending and putting decent values at the heart of the system are not conflicting priorities” moves on to a welcome acknowledgement that “Today, people often don’t get paid enough in work to make ends meet.” with a strong commitment to a living wage. And the penny finally seems to have dropped that “Today the welfare state, through housing benefit, bears the cost for our failure to build enough homes. We have to start investing in homes again, not paying for failure.”

I like the emphasis on involving business in these plans – making them pay for better training, incentivising them to take on the long term unemployed, and doing more to insist landlords give tenants a fair deal. Let’s insentivise and encourage them to take on disabled employers too.

But as a disability campaigner, these are the lines I’ve wanted to hear for a very long time :

“We should also support disabled people. Those who cannot work…..

Towards the end of our time in government, we did introduce tests for the Employment and Support Allowance.That was the right thing to do. And we continue to support tests today. But when over 40% of people win their appeals, it tells you the system isn’t working as it should. And too often people’s experience of the tests is degrading. So this test needs to change.

It needs reform so that it can really distinguish between different situations. Disabled people who cannot work. Disabled people who need help to get into work. And people who can work without support.

The test should also be properly focused on helping to identify the real skills of each disabled person and the opportunities they could take up. I meet so many disabled people desperate to work but who say that the demand that they work is not accompanied by the support they need. So these tests should be connected to a Work Programme that itself is tested on its ability to get disabled people jobs that work for them.”

This won’t delight every last campaigner, but it will be music to the ears of those like me, who have been saying exactly this for over 5 years, at times, as though speaking to a succession of brick walls.

Don’t mis-quote or mis-understand me. There is still a very long way to go. There is still an un-healthy dollop of judgement and remote assumption about the speech. But there is ample evidence that Labour have actually started to listen. To hear what really needs to be done from those affected with actual experience of our failing systems.

For now, Ed assures us that a “Scrounger Rhetoric” is off the menu and help and support must be thought out and reasonable.

In three years, in politics terms, it’s a quite exceptional degree of positive change.

Value our free and unique service?

LabourList has more readers than ever before - but we need your support. Our dedicated coverage of Labour's policies and personalities, internal debates, selections and elections relies on donations from our readers.

If you can support LabourList’s unique and free service then please click here.

To report anything from the comment section, please e-mail [email protected]
  • Tony Turtle

    If Ed and his pals on the Shadow Cabinet would stop saying “You’re doing it all wrong, vote for us and we’ll do the same” and sit down and work out a solution to the problem, not, “let’s understand this, the Tories got it wrong so if we nudge this it might work”. It has to be a radical rethink, NOW, get the plans worked out in full, look for the loopholes, fix them while the system is not in place and then, when the country votes them in again it’s “Plug & Play” not poke and hope!

  • AlanGiles

    I will only be convinced Labour has changed on the Welfare front, if Miliband replaces Byrne as Shadow DWP secretary. He has done more than his fair share of “scrounger-monging”.

    Bring back Peter Hain, or find somebody who has rather more insight and compassion to do the job.

    My messages seem to be appearing quicker, so perhaps I might be so bold as to offer a topical public service announcement:

    With the warm sunny weather we are having at the moment, if you are in your garden and listening to the radio, please remember if you have it tooloud it might annoy your neighbours……….. another good way to annoy them is to start a bonfire when they are hanging their washing out. 🙂

  • JoeDM

    But really, helping a donor to avoid a huge chunk of tax.

    I can’t stop laughing !!!!!!

  • Colin McCulloch

    The biggest shift for Ed is that we’re now referring to Social Security (the correct term) instead of the inane “welfare”.

  • AlanGiles

    “Towards the end of our time in government, we did introduce tests for the Employment and Support Allowance.That was the right thing to do. And we continue to support tests today. But when over 40% of people win their appeals, it tells you the system isn’t working as it should. And too often people’s experience of the tests is degrading. So this test needs to change.”

    Is it not the case though that when James Purnell originally set up the WCA/ATOS tests, a similar number of people won their cases on appeal, and we had then – as we have now – harrowing cases of people with terminal illness being denied benefit, and dying a matter of weeks later. I well recall cases in 2009/10 where cancer patients were treated appallingly. Labour were warned by disability groups, the CAB and others, but they chose not to listen, and they paved the way for Duncan-Smith to be even more draconian.

    I am not convinced Miliband will change things – he is too anxious not to upset the popular press, and while he allows the malign influence of Byrne at DWP to remain in post, I cannot take much that he says seriously

  • Pingback: Ed Miliband’s Speech and Social Security Reform | A Latent Existence()

  • PaulHalsall

    A problem is the increased number of useless tests. People with long term conditions that are not going to get better are still terrified every time they get a WCA demand. And those forms are humiliating.

  • Timmo111

    Does this mean that super Ed has lost his special powers that enable him to be able to look at a wheelchair user and decide there and then that they could work if they wanted to ?


LabourList Daily Email

Everything Labour. Every weekday morning

Share with your friends