Posts

I can't accept that. This is the 21st century and the things I describe might not fit with the popular ideals of what "should" be happening, but I am qualified to know what life I am living.

A couple of years ago I spent 9 months without DLA while waiting for the appeals process to grind through (thankfully it took about 9 seconds for the appeal panel to reinstate my award) and it was horrible. I was lucky, my partner never refused to hand over money I needed, but because he could have refused I felt very trapped and vulnerable. If we'd had a row, could I have afforded to argue with a person I was dependent on in so many ways? And it felt so demeaning and 'needy' to ask him for handouts, particularly if it was one of those months where money was tight. We did have an extremely hairy moment where we weren't sure if we could afford the costs of attending the appeal.

I'm not against support for kids, either, but it is a completely different ball game. For starters there are at least two people with equal responsibility for a child. We buy a buggy or a cot or a car seat for "our" child, joint responsibility, joint benefit. We buy a wheelchair for, well, me. It's never going to be "our" wheelchair. It's thousands of pounds from the household budget to benefit one person.

A couple who have kids, have chosen to have kids. It might have been a hard decision, it might have been an unplanned decision, but there is a choice involved at several stages:
- they chose to have sex, a well-documented effect of which is the conception of a child, no method of contraception 100% safe, etc.
- they were probably offered the choice of termination.
- they were probably made aware of the choice of adoption. I don't pretend either of these are easy choices or simple choices but they are choices.

If you really don't feel that you can cope with a child, you don't have to, and you have several months to make your decisions.
If you really don't feel that you can cope with lifelong disability, tough tootsies. It's often instantaneous and you have no say in the matter.

A couple with kids can also choose how best to manage it. They can choose how to share the responsibilities of childcare. They can talk to their bosses about part-time or flexible hours. They can weigh up the pros and cons of putting the career on hold and staying home with the baby against continuing to work and paying for childcare.

Conversely there is no option, when faced with disability, to decide which partner puts their career on hold (the impairment won't be going to school in five years!), or to share the symptoms equally between the two of you, or to hand over the impaired part of your mind or body to a creche and head off to work unencumbered.

I think maybe I don't entirely disagree with you. I agree that the scenario I described "sounds like a carer, not a partner in life." That's sort of my point. It's the personal independence that DLA affords me, that allows me to have relationships that are truly two-way rather than feeling like me just take, take, taking.

What can I say, specialist subject!

Means testing is a tricky one.

The pragmatist in me acknowledges that we are in a financial quagmire, therefore a line must be drawn, and it doesn't make sense to throw money at millionaires.

However I would prefer it to be an individual means-test rather than the current more usual household one.

When one partner loses their earning potential and becomes financially dependent on the other, with little or no choice or chance of regaining financial independence, there is a lot of potential for abuse and power games. Even if these are successfully avoided, the dependent partner will likely feel guilty about asking for money for their individual needs and the non-dependent partner may sometimes feel quite grudging about giving it, especially when they already give so much in terms of covering the shared costs of living, providing practical care and support, and so on.

Having DLA paid directly to the disabled person to meet certain specified needs helps this.

For example in my case, I get the Mobility component, so if I need to get a taxi somewhere or pay for my wheelchair insurance, I don't need to go cap in hand to my partner asking for the money, or try to justify to him exactly why I think I need to go wherever I'm going. Nor do I have to examine the household finances to try and work out where the money will come from - there is a certain amount paid into my bank account each month explicitly to help me with mobility costs. When it's gone, it's gone, but I have the control to spend it in the best way for me.

Taking that away from me and expecting my partner to cover the cost just because he earns above minimum wage would mean that I would no longer have the power to decide if and when I leave the house. If we had a row, I could easily end up stranded! Having the autonomy and resources to go and visit a friend, post a letter, or access public services, is quite important. Like I said in my previous post, DLA by definition is not a short-term benefit. We've got to live like this.

Right *rubs hands, flexes, cackles with glee*


Disagreed. It is absolutely in the government's interest to make cuts that affect genuine claims as well. It is in the government's interest to make whatever cuts it can get away with.

The convenient thing about cutting disability benefits is that often, the people affected don't have much of a voice. They and those who care for them are running on empty as it is - there is rarely the time, energy, money, or practical resources available to start mounting campaigns and appeals. We have already seen this happen within the social care system. Care is only made available to people with "severe" or "critical" needs. If someone presents with "moderate" needs then although their need is acknowledged, it is not met because the budgetary constraints do not allow for it and policy is that the most severely disabled are the priority. Which is fair enough from one angle... however from another, it means that the people who only need a very little amount of care to be able to participate in life (including holding down taxpaying jobs) get no care at all and are thus unable to participate.

I agree entirely that the government needs to "get a grip" on debt but it needs to be done from a properly informed viewpoint. Manifestos with such fundamental errors such as calling DLA an 'out of work' benefit can only do harm. I don't mind admitting that without my DLA, I would not have been able to manage paid employment when I was PAYE - I earned enough for a person to live off, but not enough to fund my disability-related necessities as well.


Regrettably it already is affecting those that genuinely need it. The mind and body are not separate - anyone who's felt miserable when they have a cold knows that, as well as anyone who has had the squits before a job interview! Stress levels in the disability community are rising fast and for many of us, particularly along the lines of heart conditions or gastrointestinal problems, that has a knock-on effect to our ability to manage our conditions. I'm sure I needn't labour the point on what it's doing to people with actual pre-existing mental health issues. There's no way to gauge the impact in statistical terms (no news stories reporting "the number of suicide notes citing government misinformation as a major factor is up 6%...") so I can't offer evidence beyond my personal feeling as someone affected. I'm sh!t scared.

As for fraud and error...

If you're VERY bored, then here's the DWP figures and estimates for 2008/09. DLA fraud and error clocks in at

Obviously I've been reading a load of the proposals for the personal side of my life... they're absolutely full of misinformation and stupidity.

Here is a more detailed analysis, but for now, one really simple example. There's a benefit called Disability Living Allowance, or DLA. This is not an "out of work" benefit. It is simply the money that is supposed to help cover disability-related expenditure, from wheelchairs and incontinence pads and screen-reading software, to less obvious things like the extra cost of having milk delivered because you cannot get to the shop, or the higher water/power bills because it takes you twice as long to manage a shower.

Yet the Coalition's "State of the Nation" report not only wrongly describes it as an out of work benefit, they also complain about how people are "persistently" claiming it for five years or longer.

Well, yes. A disabled person tends to remain disabled until (a) they are cured or (b) they are dead. We continue to have the additional needs, therefore we continue to have the additional expenses, therefore we continue to claim the money that helps to cover (but rarely fully covers) those expenses. Speaking only for myself, I'm 28, still less than halfway through my life expectancy, and I've no intention of booking a one-way to Switzerland just yet.

*groan*

It's strange, to feel sorry for one of the most powerful men on the planet. Healthcare system - yes, he is responsible for and can do stuff about that. Oil spills? Possibly just a tad outside his capabilities...

Nope, I'm here on FF, no problems.

Oops.

Had a power cut for about ten minutes last night.

I remember power cuts from childhood being about hunting for the candles and wondering whether it would be sandwiches or takeaway for dinner, then having an early night and waking up at 2am when the TV suddenly came back on.

This was more a tut of irritation at having to switch from wifi to 3G. Life is hard.

Never been. Had a pretty damn spectacular weekend right here in Warwickshire.

What were you doing in Moscow, then?