A hundred years ago, my grandfather told my grandmother to stop apologising for her deafness, saying, “They’re the ones who should be apologising to you for not even trying to make themselves understood.”

In the years since, activists and academics have worked to transform that idea and develop a politically grounded social understanding of disability, which has come to be known as the “social model”. We are disabled not because of who we are but because capitalist society fails to include us. It’s not a difficult concept to understand, but sadly, we are still seen as “lesser” and expected to apologise for existing at all!

It would be good if the Labour Party were to be true to its founding values, its rulebook (Clause Four) definition of it as a “Socialist Democratic Party” and – particularly in this context – its Code of Conduct on Disablism 2024. Sadly, the current Labour cabinet sees things differently: instead of supporting disabled people, it endorses many of the dishonest assertions made by the Tories and Reform.

LIES, DAMN LIES AND…

The right-wing media is full of assertions that the level of disability benefit fraud is high, that the number of people claiming disability benefits is spiralling out of control. It is argued that far too much money is being wasted on giving people expensive vehicles through the Motability scheme. Plus, the idea that the best cure for those with impairments or health conditions is to stop being idle and get back to work. In particular, those who have mental health conditions are accused of playing the system.

The Labour Party leadership is now buying into the dishonest disablist rhetoric, attempting and usually succeeding in presenting disabled people as liars, cheats and sometimes criminals.

The Fraud Act 2025 gives the DWP extra powers in reclaiming money directly from bank accounts if they believe a dishonest claim has been made, as well as running credit checks on claimants. Mistakes in the past have deprived people of the means to pay for food, rent, and heating. Under the Fraud Act, claimants are criminalised as a result of such mistakes.

The government attempted to pass legislation based on the idea PIP (Personal Independence Payments) were too costly and too easy to get, and ignoring the fact that a significant number of PIP claimants needed the support to be able to continue working; not only that but around half of all applications were turned down, and numerous times sanctions were implemented which resulted in the deaths of claimants.

After opposition from MPs, this was modified into the Universal Credit Act, which resulted in severe income losses for disabled people due to reductions or removals of the health element of Universal Credit (including for all claimants under 22).

The ideas embodied in such legislation underpin disablist measures in the November 2025 budget.

THE BUDGET

The November budget has been presented as giving valuable support to the general population, explaining the ending of the two-child limit as a Labour-led idea rather than a concession forced on the party by MPs, activists and unions, and token measures such as not raising rail fares, which are in any case amongst the most expensive in Europe. The people who really gain are the larger entrepreneurs and billionaires, shielded from paying their fair share. The 80% of billionaires who would have been happy to pay a wealth tax have been ignored.

For disabled people, however, there are few concessions. Those who continue to get benefits will see an annual rise next year. However, people already lose a significant amount of money when they are transitioned from PIP into Universal Credit. And bear in mind that PIP, like other benefits, is deliberately set at a level below what is actually needed to cover the extra costs of being disabled.

We are still being demonised. Rachel Reeves says, “I am building on our successful use of targeted checks on welfare claims to root out fraud and errors and prevent public money being paid to people who are not entitled to it”.

In fact, a freedom of information request made by Richard Burgon regarding PIP fraud revealed that the fraud rate was 0.02%. Hardly the massive amount the Chancellor was suggesting was seriously taking money away from support for hospitals and schools. But still, the blame for shortcomings in health and education provision is dumped on the shoulders of disabled people.

The process of claiming benefits is not, as some people suppose, easy. The forms are lengthy and complex. Claimants are advised to fill in details based on their worst days. This can be difficult if you perceive yourself as a strong person coping with a difficult situation, and often claims don’t succeed because of presenting yourself that way. Advice and support from Citizens Advice or a trade union can be helpful, but not everybody accesses them.

To guard against fraud, all benefits interviews will now be face-to-face. The fear of the brown envelope containing the interview time can prove extremely stressful for many people. Sometimes interviews take place upstairs, with lifts broken down; those who struggle up the stairs by various methods are accused of lying about mobility issues.

There have been cases of people who were too ill to attend (including those in hospital) being sanctioned for missing appointments. And John Pring’s book The Department details numerous cases where a lack of understanding or safeguarding has resulted in deaths, including that of Errol Graham, who, deprived by benefit sanction of the means to buy food, lay down in his sleeping bag and starved to death.

The system for assessing claims remains punitive rather than supportive, leading claimants to be assumed dishonest unless they can prove otherwise. Whilst some of the staff involved try to be supportive, stringent guidelines make it difficult.

MOTABILITY

In particular, the right-wing press has had a field day attacking the Motability scheme and those who benefit from it. Lies are being peddled left, right and centre. It is assumed that claimants get free cars even if they have conditions that don’t affect their mobility. And that this includes high-end luxury cars, all paid for by the taxpayer.

To use the Motability service, you first need to be awarded the mobility component of PIP, which may, in itself, prove difficult for some people who are mobility impaired. Your mobility payments can be used to fund a scooter or wheelchair and can go towards hiring a car for up to three years. Regardless of what you pay, it will never be yours. Some basic models don’t incur an upfront cost, but for others an upfront deposit is required, which can run into thousands of pounds and isn’t funded by the state.

If people choose to have models via the Motability scheme, which are pricier but better suited to their needs, they pay the difference – again, there is no cost to the taxpayer. However, the way government ministers talk about Motability makes it sound as if more expensive vehicles are given away as freebies to anyone who fancies an expensive car, and they do not counteract the lies told about Motability.

Contrary to the rhetoric that’s being bandied about by Tories, Reform and the right-wing press, people do not get access to motability on account of minor impairments alone. Many disabled people have multiple impairments or health conditions, some of which may be regarded as minor, but conditions sometimes regarded as minor may prove more serious when combined with other impairments.

Another misunderstood issue is that wheelchairs don’t come in a standard size: size, shape, and weight vary according to the user’s needs. For wheelchair users, cars need to have a boot big enough to accommodate a wheelchair and, in most cases, a hoist, and for many people, a car with automatic transition is necessary. These features are not available in inexpensive cars, and some people have specific access needs that require the use of higher-end vehicles.

Those who use the Motability Scheme will also be financially disadvantaged, given the addition of VAT to advance payments, the application of Insurance Premium Tax to leases, and the restriction on the use of high-end cars, even for those with relevant access needs who are willing to pay extra.

WITHHELD INFORMATION?

We are told – including by the Chancellor – that the number of claimants is rising exponentially: in fact, there has been no percentage rise in benefit claims recently, and the figures are currently at 11% and are likely to drop further. The most recent census data puts the proportion of the population identifying as disabled at between 17% and 25% depending on geographical area. Many people with impairments or long-term health conditions choose not to identify as disabled.

Recently, the real figures about people claiming disability benefits were not published by the Office for Budget Responsibility until after the Chancellor’s budget speech, in which she asserted numbers were rising at an unacceptable rate. No clear information has been published on how or why this happened.

The continued targeting of young people in particular is a significant cause of concern in terms of lack of access to the health element of Universal Credit, plus Wes Streeting’s review of mental health and neurodiversity.

There is also concern that access to work provision is effectively being cut as an answer to a written parliamentary question from Vicki Foxcroft by Stephen Timms stated that in the current year, the number of applications for support from the Work Capability Assessment that were refused had increased from 22% to a third, with many applications not being responded to and work opportunities being lost as a result.

There have been cases of people who are classified as having no capacity for work being asked to attend appointments with work coaches, though it is not clear whether these mistakes are due to staffing shortages or other issues affecting the quality of the service.

Another issue concerns people who receive direct payments from councils for social care and support. There are strict regulations as to what the payments can be used for and the necessity of keeping accurate records. Many recipients find it helpful to keep track of expenses by opening a separate bank account for direct payments.

Recently, people have been suspected of fraud for opening a second bank account, resulting in their benefits being abruptly stopped without any opportunity to explain. This is extremely worrying, given the extra powers the DWP has been given under the Fraud Act.

The knock-on effects of losing benefits are considerable.

THINGS CAN ONLY GET WORSE

The Timms Review is due to report next year. Though it is supposed to work with disabled people via coproduction, there is no sign of this happening: Stephen Timms said at the outset that he will be making the decisions, and disabled people who participate and are paid for doing so risk losing benefits as a result. It is expected that the review will lead to further benefit cuts, especially given Rachel Reeves’s promise that two billion pounds will be saved as a result of benefit cuts over the next six years.

The Assisted Dying Bill is likely to become law, given that safeguarding amendments relating to disabled people have so far been voted down in the Commons, and similar Lords amendments will almost certainly be voted down there too. It is difficult not to be concerned about this, given that the policy of Medical Assistance in Dying has resulted in significant savings in health care in Canada.

As a result of the disablist rhetoric in right-wing media, there has been a growth in hate speech and hate crimes relating to disabled people. This is evident particularly in social media, and there has been a significant rise in incidents involving hate crime reported by organisations supporting disabled people, comparatively few of which are reported to the police – not surprising since outcomes of reporting such crimes have not been encouraging, with only one per cent resulting in positive outcomes.

Monitoring strategies relating to possible abuse of Motability – for example, cars used for other purposes than ferrying disabled people around (including things like shopping for disabled family members) are being introduced. Similarly, the Fraud Act has given DWP investigations increased powers.

There have already been problems arising from genuine misunderstandings about carers receiving care allowances, who have been heavily penalised as a result. There is little in the budget that supports carers.

IF THE ENEMY DOESN’T GET YOU…

One of the most unpleasant features of the budget debate was the sense of Tory MPs led by Kemi Badenoch competing with Reform MPs in taking up the idea that too many disabled people were making false claims and that the government needed to be much harsher in punishing them. There was an underlying idea that disabled people are, by nature, dishonest workshy scroungers of no value to society.

Eugenics thinking dramatically harmed many people, resulting in a high proportion of deaths resulting from Covid, with disabled people six times more likely to die (eleven times more likely for women) after contracting Covid. Mobility, sensory and learning impairments and autistic people, amongst others, as a result of government policy on COVID. (Even today, Covid is not treated as seriously as it should be.)

Many disabled people had Do Not Resuscitate notices placed on their records without consultation with them or their family members. In some hospitals, all health professionals were advised to discuss end-of-life choices with patients – even, for example, podiatrists treating patients for ingrowing toenails!

… YOUR OWN FOLKS MUST!

Sadly, the government position is now seeming as if it is trying to defeat the right by buying into the same ideas as Reform, which is beginning to look like a form of eugenics by the back door.

Though there are a substantial number of Labour MPs and party members (including some members of the National Executive Committee) who think differently, they are outnumbered by those unwilling to risk distancing themselves from the leadership. Socialist societies affiliated to the party, like Disability Labour and the Socialist Health Association, as well as those affiliated Trade Unions willing to speak against government policy, are not listened to.

The party has lost a high proportion of members since the change of leadership. But even those who have joined other parties don’t necessarily regard disability as an essential issue. This is true of organisations and groupings that class themselves as socialist. There had been hopes that Your Party might be more positive, but in many cases, local and regional groups have not been supportive, dismissing disabled people’s campaigning as “identity politics”.

This reveals a worrying lack of understanding of what identity politics really is, as well as refusing to accept that support for oppressed groups should be an essential part of what socialism stands for.

There also needs to be a greater understanding of how capitalist society disables us. People still apologise for being disabled and are expected to do so. The dominant thinking about disability still regards the exclusion of people with impairments and health conditions as a form of personal tragedy to be pitied, and many still believe that supporting charities is the best way to show support for disabled people.

This happens despite the work of academics and campaigners such as Mike Oliver, Vic Finkelstein and Bob Williams Findlay in educating people about the social interpretation of disability (aka the Social Model). It happens despite the significant victories the Disabled People’s Direct Action Network appeared to win in the 1990s. It happens despite the campaigns of organisations such as Disabled People Against Cuts from 2010 to the present day.

Two significant issues facing disabled people in our campaigning are still current:

Lack of education about disability and burnout amongst campaigners. Despite the work done on what has come to be known as the social model, it is still not fully understood, even amongst activists.

We need to find ways to educate ourselves and our comrades, or at least those prepared to listen, and to work out how best we can support ourselves and each other to avoid burnout. If members of the political left were willing and able to listen to and work with us more, it would help a great deal.

At present, the world is a hazardous place to be for those of us who are disabled.

Art Book Review Books Capitalism China Climate Emergency Conservative Government Conservative Party COVID-19 EcoSocialism Elections Europe Fascism Film Film Review France Gaza Imperialism Israel Italy Keir Starmer Labour Party Long Read Marxism Marxist Theory Palestine pandemic Protest Russia Solidarity Statement Trade Unionism Ukraine United States of America War