The government spends £25 billion a year on its war machine and is committed to spending hundreds of billions more on buying new military hardware. At what cost to the disabled?
Stop the War Coalition
16 May 2012
Case study: 'What Iain Duncan Smith said is a disgrace – it makes me livid'
Siobhan Meade, 28, lives in Gorleston-On-Sea in Norfolk, and has been fully blind for more than 10 years. She is trying to gain employment in the media, and currently receives £280 per month in Disability Living Allowance.
"What Iain Duncan Smith has said is awful – for him to come out with such remarks is a disgrace. He's meant to be supporting people. I understand that the government needs to save money, but the idea that disabled people are sitting about doing nothing makes me livid. It's so hard to get a job in the first place. I was born with very little sight, and in 1999 I lost the remaining sight that I had.
"I'm a confident person, and I believe you have to be driven to achieve your aspirations. Being blind means it's hard to get around, but even more difficult finding employment. Employers think: "Will it cost me more money?" when in fact there are schemes to support employers of disabled people. I wish they would give us an opportunity to showcase what we can do.
"The cut to my Disability Living Allowance would mean that I could no longer pay for taxis, and I wouldn't be able to get media experience. I wouldn't be able to take pride in my appearance. It seems like a luxury, but for me it's a necessity. I wouldn't even be able to afford a level indicator to make a cup of tea – it's the most simple thing in anyone's life, and I just wouldn't be able to do that. It's as if any job will do, but no it won't".
The Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith says that he is determined to cut disability benefits which will see more than two million claimants reassessed in the next four years.
Losing a limb should not automatically entitle people to a pay-out, he says.
The cost of disability living allowance, which is intended to help people meet the extra costs of mobility and care associated with their conditions costs £13 billion annually.
An official impact assessment of the plans reveals the scheme will cut these benefit payments by £2.24 billion annually – and lead to about 500,000 fewer claimants, who will lose benefits worth up to £120 a week.
The new process being introduced by Duncan Smith could lead to those without limbs, including former soldiers, having their payments reduced as their everyday mobility is not undermined by their prosthetic limbs.
The reform of disability benefits will be the next major challenge in the Government's welfare reform programme and is expected to lead to high-profile protests from disability campaigners. Tony Blair was forced to abandon a plan to reduce disability benefits after people in wheelchairs chained themselves to the gates of Downing Street.
Will Liberal Democrat MP Mike Hancock join the protesters, despite Iain Duncan Smith's proposals being supported by his party Leader Nick Clegg? "Even in the worst days of the Thatcher government, we didn't see this sort of thing," he said. "I did not get elected to punish people who cannot help themselves."
But Mike Hancock and his party in coalition with the Conservatives, have no problem in supporting the huge sums spent on war policies. If spending on Britain's war machine were cut it would remove any need for slashing the benefits of the poorest and most vulnerable people in society.
Duncan Smith gloats about the £2.2 billion a year he will cut from disability benefits, but says nothing of course about the £5 billion a year being spent on the futile war in Afghanistan, which everyone knows -- him included -- is lost.
And he's silent too about the £2.2 billion spent every year to maintain the completely useless Trident nuclear missile system.
This is almost exactly the sum Duncan Smith plans to cut from disability benefits.
Not content with this annual flushing away of resources that could be used to improve wefare benefits, the government is planning to spend £130 billion on replacing the Trident system.
Then there's the £15 billion to be spent buying 150 F-35 jets from the US merchants of war Lockheed Martin, each of which will cost £85 million plus an extra £16 million for the engine.
And where will these F-35 jets fly from? Two huge new aircaft carriers costing £7 billion to build.
Britain has spent £20 billion in the past decade waging war on America's coat tails: in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, countries which posed no threat whatever to Britain.
The government spends £25 billion a year on its war machine and is committed to spending hundred of billions more on buying new military hardware without any indication of what threat to UK interests necessitates such collosal cost. For what purpose does it need heavy tanks, nuclear subs and F-35 fighter jets?
There is a choice between cutting public services and expanding military spending to "protect" the UK from non-existent threats. Why should the quality of life for the disabled, and other people who need society's support, be seriously damaged to bail out an economic crisis that is none of their making?
Every time government ministers claim there is no alternative to draconian cuts to solve the economic crisis they should be confronted with the facts that expose this cruel deception. As should every MP who votes in parliament in support of policies attacking the poorest and most vulnerable people (write to your MP for free).
And most important of all, the slogan Cut War Not Welfare should be raised and feature prominently at all anti-war and anti-cuts demonstrations, marches and protests. Because the issues of war spending and budget cuts are inseparable.
SEE ALSO:
• Brian Eno: What we could do with the money wasted on the Afghanistan war
• The Budget speech George Osborne should have made cutting war to protect welfare
