NHS
Drug harm
This is an excellent and well -argued letter to the FT – which is for me, at least, is very hard to diasagree with: Marta Varela opposes drug legalisation on the basis of some fanciful historical analogies between the opium wars between imperial China and Britain and today’s fentanyl crisis (Letters, November 25). Drugs do... Read more
Avoidable Deaths of People with Learning Disabilities: The Statistics that Shame Our Civilised Society
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
My 34-year-old sister is currently more likely to die an avoidable death than at any other stage in her life, according to a shocking new report.
In the latest NHS-funded annual review of deaths among people with learning disabilities, a bleak line graph shows an “odds ratio of avoidable death for age group”, which peaks between the ages of 25 and 49.
Right now, I hasten to add, Raana – who has the learning disability fragile X syndrome – is in good health and is well cared for by her supported living staff in Hampshire.
But the report lays bare how part of our population is less likely to receive good quality health and social care. This makes people like Raana less likely to survive health problems that, for most of us, are preventable and treatable.
Researchers at King’s College London, the University of Central Lancashire and Kingston University London reviewed the deaths of 3,648 people with a learning disability. Overall, almost half died an avoidable death – compared to two in 10 in the general population. The median age of death in was 63 years – around 20 years less than usual.
These terrible facts shame our modern, civilised society, one that on Human Rights Day this Sunday will mark the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Day. The day partly reflects equality 'for all'.
In contrast, the new report highlights a deep inequality. It reflects how learning disabled people from ethnic minority backgrounds are likely to die earlier, as well as those in deprived areas. It also warns of “excess deaths” caused by heatwaves related to climate change.
‘Nearly All Leading Voices in Learning Disability Advocacy Are White – This Must Change’
When the narrative is dominated by people who look different and don’t share ethnic minority experiences, the system will continue to fail, writes Ramandeep Kaur
Ramandeep Kaur
The findings are shocking enough, but equally unsettling is the fact that evidence of such premature deaths – and the actions needed to prevent them – are well-established, and have been so for years.
This is the sixth annual report of its kind (the deaths review programme began in 2017), and it is also a quarter of a century since Sheila Hollins, now a crossbench peer, led a report into the increased risk of early death among people with learning disabilities.
In the 25 years since, those original findings have been amplified by a multitude of similarly focused reports and inquiries exposing the significant health inequalities faced by this group of people.
This includes 2013’s Department of Health-funded Confidential Inquiry into the deaths of people with learning disabilities, two reports by Mencap in 2004 and 2007, a Disability Rights Commission study in 2006, and a Department of Health inquiry in 2009.
Just a month ago, an investigation by the watchdog Health Services Safety Investigations Body showed that hospitals put patients with learning disabilities at risk because their need are not met. It found the health and care system “is not always designed to effectively care for people with a learning disability”.
Of course, the investigations and research have laudable aims – to raise awareness, learn from and prevent avoidable deaths, improve care and reduce health inequality. But data alone does not dent entrenched structural inequalities – we need more effort, not just more evidence.
Successive governments – particularly the current one – instead seem content with facilitating and encouraging yet more data alone, while generally turning a blind eye to the recommendations suggested alongside it.
The actions raised by researchers involved in this latest report and previous ones include issues like prioritising people with a learning disability for vaccinations and boosters, a special focus on the health of people from ethnic minority backgrounds, and steps to make medical communication and appointments more accessible.
Yes, there are welcome developments from some with the power to act, mostly in response to campaigners. There is a greater push within some NHS regions for learning disabled people to take up annual health checks or the launch of accessible vaccination clinics, with reasonable adjustments as standard. And there is the roll-out of e-learning for health and care staff through the Oliver McGowan Mandatory Training in learning disability and autism.
But none of this is widespread or proportionate to need.
The hearings in the COVID Inquiry are another reminder that the Government had no plan for disabled people – especially disabled people from black, Asian or ethnic minority backgrounds – despite their higher risk of death in the pandemic.
Alongside the lack of specific action on the health of learning disabled people, the Government is also failing to tackle the wider determinants of wellbeing.
ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE
Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.
We’re not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.
For example, it dropped long-awaited plans to reform the Mental Health Act, excluding it from the recent King’s Speech. These reforms would have meant fewer people with learning disabilities being detained in secure units (a group that is detained, despite not having mental health issues).
And it gave lip-service to Baroness Hollins’ long-awaited report calling for an end to the long-term segregation of learning disabled people in secure units. More than 2,000 people are still locked away in these inappropriate, restrictive and traumatising places.
More generally, the public sector cuts, lack of funding for social care, and the Government's move to block family members of overseas care workers from coming to the UK, threaten the already fragile support that exists. This further undermines the safety net that keeps people from a healthcare crisis.
No wonder then at the anger, sadness, disappointment and fear expressed by the Kingston University-based Staying Alive and Well Group, an advisory group of 10 people with a learning disability which informed the Learning from Lives and Deaths report.
In a statement and accessible video released as part of the report, the group renamed the study “Spot the Difference” because “we are saying the same things year after year after year… we sometimes feel like we are banging our heads against a brick wall, like nothing has changed”.
It is devastating that the words of this expert group of people with learning disabilities are as accurate and relevant today as they would have been when research in this area began – 25 years ago: “Everyone should be treated equally. Everyone has the right to live and be cared for. People with a learning disability can live well with the right support, but our lives are not valued enough.”
Saba Salman is the editor of 'Made Possible: Stories of Success by People with Learning Disabilities – In their Own Words’. She is the chair of the charity Sibs, which supports the siblings of disabled children and adults
Labour ‘tells councillors’ not to talk to 89yo woman colleague who blew NHS whistle
Misogyny and control-freakery of Starmer regime on show again in Birmingham
Labour has banned Birmingham councillors from talking to 89yo Cllr Barbara Dring, who has been suspended by the party after blowing the whistle on the planned closure of her local health centre. Cllr Dring was bullied by MPs, who called her a liar and gossip for warning residents of a closure that was confirmed this week, forcing locals to travel more than two miles for treatment.
Cllr Dring posted the news to her Facebook page, accusing the party of ‘the worst form of bullying’:
The news drew a furious reaction from locals and fellow health campaigners:
Labour’s sorry history of misogyny, bullying and cover-ups continues.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Skwawkbox needs your support. Here’s why you should
Skwawkbox runs entirely on the voluntary support of the ordinary people who read it, to ensure that articles are free to all and are kept clear of ads as it brings you the news that so-called ‘mainstream’ media won’t.
Even among left news sites, Skwawkbox stands out in holding to account the Labour regime and the union leaders who are supposed to represent us and stands resolutely with the oppressed against the oppressor – leading to hatred and attacks from right-wing politicians and hacks. Below are just a few of Skwawkbox’s exclusives since its last funding appeal:
- BBC removes image of pro-Palestinian Jewish group from Gaza demo coverage
- Starmer’s office ‘tantrum’ as rebellion over Gaza ceasefire grew
- Labour asks Parliament to delete Eshalomi’s ceasefire call from Commons TV
- Unite region slams Graham’s silence over Israeli war crimes
- Unite boss Graham tried to force cancellation of union’s pro-Palestinian event
- Labour bans MPs from attending pro-Palestinian demos
- Labour blocks conference motion to bring NHS back into public ownership
- Graham and union served with defamation lawsuit papers for abuse of Irish trade unionist
- Starmer regime removes all Corbyn-era videos but one from party site
- Unite bans book and film that discuss Corbyn-era right-wing sabotage – and smears film with fake news
- Labour locked women out of systems to prevent discussion of Labour-right paedophile
- Graham-backed executive candidate pays £7k for sexual harassment of wife’s carer
- Labour to abstain on Tory pro-apartheid bill
In addition, this week Tory former Health Secretary Matt Hancock’s manoeuvres to protect NHS capacity by ‘deciding who lived and who died’ have been exposed by the Covid inquiry. More than three years ago, Skwawkbox revealed to the nation that Hancock and Boris Johnson were knowingly sending infected patients back into care homes – leading to mass deaths among elderly and vulnerable people.
And to the frustration of those who hate and denigrate it, Skwawkbox’s 100% reliability score with news-rating service Newsguard was renewed, with a ‘highly credible’ categorisation.
Skwawkbox puts out funding appeals rarely, knowing that people are facing financial pressure amid the manufactured cost-of-greed crisis. But if you are able to do so without hardship, please consider either of the following options:
- if you use PayPal and would like to make a one-off or monthly donation, please click here
- if you prefer not to use PayPal and would like to make a monthly donation covered by the Direct Debit Guarantee, please use the GoCardless option here – if you use this option, Skwawkbox will contact you to confirm the donation amount as the GoCardless registration form doesn’t include a specific amount
Thank you for your support and solidarity, it is vital and deeply appreciated in enabling Skwawkbox to continue doing what you need it to.
89yo councillor ‘bullied’ by right-wing MPs, for opposing NHS closure, suspended by Labour
Barbara Dring has been suspended on the same day her whistleblowing about planned NHS closure – denounced as ‘lies’ by local right-wing MPs – was confirmed correct
Barbara Dring, the 89-year-old Birmingham councillor ‘bullied’ and labelled a liar by right-wing Labour MPs for warning that a vital local health centre was about to be closed, has been suspended by the party – for talking to third parties about local issues.
Cllr Dring and a local health campaigner warned in the summer that Warren Farm health centre faced closure, forcing local people to travel miles for treatment – and was dismissed as a liar by MPs Khalid Mahmood and Paulette Hamilton. The situation prompted campaigner Lorraine Donnally to put in a formal complaint to Labour. Cllr Dring was briefly hospitalised with a suspected stroke that her supporters believe was a reaction to the stress of the situation.
Today, local newspapers confirmed that the centre will be closed and its services moved more than two miles away.
On the same day, the party suspended Cllr Dring, apparently for whistleblowing. At the same time, it has also suspended Des Hughes, the only other Labour councillor in Oscott ward – leaving Labour with no representation in an area with two Tory councillors.
One local told Skwawkbox that Labour has ‘shot itself in the foot’:
They’re idiots. There are two Tory councillors there and under the new boundaries the ward will fall into the Erdington constituency that Paulette Hamilton will be trying to win, without local council representation. They’ve really shot themselves in the foot.
Others were even more plainspoken. Ms Donnally, the health campaigner who complained to Labour about the behaviour of the local MPs, wrote on Facebook to link the suspensions to the health centre closure – and her comments about the party’s ‘disgusting’ conduct were echoed by other locals:
Birmingham City Council’s Labour chief whip Ray Goodwin is reportedly under investigation by the party over his conduct in the position but has not been suspended – yet Labour has suspended two councillors fighting to keep open a crucial important health facility.
Khalid Mahmood’s awful record as Birmingham Perry Barr MP includes wrongfully sacking former staffer Elaina Cohen for blowing the whistle on ‘criminal’ and ‘sadistic’ abuse of vulnerable domestic violence victims by another Mahmood staffer who was also his lover. Sworn testimony by one of the victims to an employment tribunal in the wrongful dismissal case was not challenged by either Mahmood or his legal team.
The right-winger has also been accused by Bangladeshi media of accepting a bribe from a convicted Bangladeshi fugitive seeking help with his asylum case – and by Elaina Cohen of accepting cash from the Kuwait embassy. He has denied any wrongdoing.
At no point has Keir Starmer or his sidekick David Evans taken action against Mahmood, even to suspend him to protect alleged victims while Mahmood was on Starmer’s front bench. The whistleblower’s emails to Starmer and Evan, as well as Mahmood’s own sworn testimony, make clear that Starmer and Evans were fully aware of the allegations and covered them up.
Bullying, smears and cover-ups have been exposed as rife on the part of the Labour right.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Revealed: Almost Half of Maternity Wards Offering Substandard Care
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
Almost half of all English maternity units are offering substandard care, making it one of the worst performing acute medical services in the NHS, Byline Times analysis has found.
The analysis, based on inspections of English hospitals by the Care Quality Commission, found that 85 of 172 inspected maternity services in England received ratings of ‘inadequate’ (18) or ‘requires improvement (67) at their latest inspection.
Some 65% of maternity wards were given subpar ratings for patient ‘safety’ one of several metrics looked at by the CQC.
The figures were a sharp rise on even the year before, and seem to reflect growing concerns over a crisis in NHS care.
The findings come after the health regulator began a focused inspection programme of maternity wards last year after the a government review into the Shropshire maternity scandal, which saw 300 babies left dead or brain damaged by shoddy care.
In one unit at Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, there was a shortage of midwives, not all medicines practices were safe which “potentially placed women at risk of harm” and serious incidents were not being investigated. The report found a backlog of 215 patient safety incidents that had not yet been looked into, as of March this year.
The CQC was previously forced to look into the unit last year to the most recent report after "a high number of serious incidents associated with adverse outcomes for mothers and babies”.
A spokesperson for the hospital’s NHS Trust stressed that its patient safety backlog had now been largely addressed, and that the hospital had made major improvements since the inspection.
Unprotected departments face 14% cuts to fuel the Conservatives’ pre-election tax rebate
Josiah Mortimer
In a statement at the time of the inspection its chief executive said they were “determined that this report will provide further momentum and impetus to address the issues identified and are working harder than ever to engage and involve our frontline colleagues in finding solutions to our challenges”.
Other hospitals had only eight per cent of staff who had done certain core training and a lack of facilities that had endangered patients or were losing as many as seven FTE staff a month leaving maternity centres unable to open.
Maria Caulfield, Minister for Women’s Health Strategy, told Byline Times that “maternity care is of the utmost importance to this Government” and stressed they have “invested £165 million a year since 2021 to grow the maternity workforce and improve neonatal services”.
“Every parent must be able to have confidence in the care they receive when giving birth, and we are working incredibly hard to improve maternity services, focusing on recruitment, training, and the retention of midwives," she added.
“But we know there is more to do. I welcome the Care Quality Commission’s commitment to monitor NHS trusts that are not providing adequate care to make sure improvements are made as quickly as possible.
“To do this, we have created a Maternity Safety Support Programme, dedicated to providing hands-on support to ensure trusts improve. It is already supporting 32 services, aiming to help trusts achieve a higher rating and provide a better and safer service.”
Don't miss a story
CQC deputy chief executive Kate Terroni said that the regulator was yet to see “the progress needed” to address the safety defects in maternity care.
“Safe, high-quality maternity care for all is not an ambitious or unrealistic goal. It should be the minimum expectation for women and babies – and is what staff working in maternity services across the country want to provide,” she added.
“It's not acceptable that maternity safety is still so far from where it needs to be. As a healthcare system, we need to do better for women and for babies.”
Abby Innes introduces Late Soviet Britain: Why Materialist Utopias Fail
In an excerpt from the introduction to her new book, Late Soviet Britain: Why Materialist Utopias Fail, Associate Professor of Political Economy at LSE’s European Institute Abby Innes considers how factors including the rise of neoliberalism have destabilised Britain’s governing institutions.
Late Soviet Britain: Why Materialist Utopias Fail. Abby Innes. Cambridge University Press. 2023.
Find this book: 
Why has Great Britain, historically one of the strongest democracies in the world, become so unstable? What changed? This book demonstrates that a major part of the answer lies in the transformation of its state. It shows how Britain championed radical economic liberalisation only to weaken and ultimately break its own governing institutions. This history has direct parallels not just in the United States but across all the advanced capitalist economies that adopted neoliberal reforms. The shattering of the British state over the last forty years was driven by the idea that markets are always more efficient than the state: the private sector morally and functionally superior to the public sector. But as this book shows, this claim was ill-founded, based as it was on the most abstract materialist utopia of the twentieth century. The neoliberal revolution in Great Britain and Northern Ireland – the United Kingdom – has failed accordingly, and we are living with the systemic consequences of that failure.
Britain championed radical economic liberalisation only to weaken and ultimately break its own governing institutions.
The rise of nationalist populism in some of the world’s richest countries has brought forward many urgent analyses of contemporary capitalism. What this book offers, by contrast, is the explanation of a dark historical joke. It explores for the first time how the Leninist and neoliberal revolutions fail for many of the same reasons. Leninism and neoliberalism may have been utterly opposed in their political values, but when we grasp the kinship between their forms of economic argument and their practical strategies for government, we may better understand the causes of state failure in both systems, as well as their calamitous results.
Comparing the neoclassical and Soviet economic utopias, [w]hat emerges are mirror images – two visions of a perfectly efficient economy and an essentially stateless future.
Britain’s neoliberal policies have their roots in neoclassical economics, and Part I begins by comparing the neoclassical and Soviet economic utopias. What emerges are mirror images – two visions of a perfectly efficient economy and an essentially stateless future. These affinities are rooted in their common dependence on a machine model of the political economy and hence, by necessity, the shared adoption of a hyper-rational conception of human motivation: a perfect utilitarian rationality versus a perfect social rationality. As the later policy chapters demonstrate, these theoretical similarities produce real institutional effects: a clear institutional isomorphism between neoliberal systems of government and Soviet central planning.
When it comes to the mechanics of government, both systems justify a near identical methodology of quantification, forecasting, target setting and output-planning, albeit administrative and service output-planning in the neoliberal case and economy-wide outputs in the Soviet. Since the world in practice is dynamic and synergistic, however, it follows that the state’s increasing reliance on methods that presume rational calculation within an unvarying underlying universal order can only lead to a continuous misfit between governmental theory and reality. These techniques will tend to fail around any task characterised by uncertainty, intricacy, interdependence and evolution, which are precisely the qualities of most of the tasks uploaded to the modern democratic state.
In neoliberalism, the state has been more gradually stripped of its capacity for economic government
The Soviet and neoliberal conceptions of the political economy as a mechanism ruled by predetermined laws of economic behaviour were used to promote pure systems of economic coordination, be that by the state or the market. Leninism, as it evolved into Stalinist command planning, dictated the near-complete subordination of markets to the central plan. In neoliberalism, the state has been more gradually stripped of its capacity for economic government and, over time, for prudential, strategic action, as its offices, authority and revenues are subordinated to market-like mechanisms. Both Soviet and neoliberal political elites proved wildly over-optimistic about the integrity of their doctrines, even as they demonised the alternatives.
For all their political antipathy, what binds Leninists and neoliberals together is their shared fantasy of an infallible ‘governing science’ – of scientific management writ large. The result is that Britain has reproduced Soviet governmental failures, only now in capitalist form. When we understand the isomorphism between Soviet and neoliberal statecraft, we can see more clearly why their states share pathologies that span from administrative rigidity to rising costs, from rent-seeking enterprises to corporate state capture, from their flawed analytical monocultures to the demoralisation of the state’s personnel and, ultimately, a crisis in the legitimacy of the governing system itself. This time around, however, the crisis is of liberal democracy.
The book’s policy chapters in Part II explore how the neoliberal revolution has transformed the British state’s core functions in the political economy: in administration, welfare, tax and regulation and the management of future public risk.
After setting out the philosophical foundations of these ideologies, the book’s policy chapters in Part II explore how the neoliberal revolution has transformed the British state’s core functions in the political economy: in administration, welfare, tax and regulation and the management of future public risk. In Part III I examine the political consequences of these changes, and demonstrate how Britain’s exit from the European Union has played out as an institutionally fatal confrontation between economic libertarianism and reality. The final chapter considers how the neoliberal revolution, like its Leninist counterpart, has failed within the terms by which it was justified and instead induced a profound crisis not only of political and economic development but also of political culture.
Under ‘late’ neoliberalism we can see a similar moment of political hiatus, as neoliberal governments likewise resort to nationalism and the politics of cultural reaction to forestall public disillusionment and a shift in paradigm.
I use different periods of Soviet history as an analytical benchmark throughout the book, but the Brezhnev years (1964–1982) were those of the fullest systemic entropy: the period of ossification, self-dealing and directionless political churn. Under ‘late’ neoliberalism we can see a similar moment of political hiatus, as neoliberal governments likewise resort to nationalism and the politics of cultural reaction to forestall public disillusionment and a shift in paradigm. I use the United Kingdom as the case study because it was both a pioneer of these reforms and, in many respects, has gone furthest with them. If neoliberalism as a doctrine had been analytically well-founded, it was in the United Kingdom, with its comparatively long and strong liberal traditions, that we should have seen its most positive outcomes.
By the early 2020s the Conservative government of Boris Johnson had sought to criminalise peaceful protest, to constrain media independence and to insulate the political executive from parliamentary and public scrutiny.
To be clear, Britain’s neoliberals were never totalitarians of the Soviet variety. They never used revolutionary violence to create a one-party state, deployed ubiquitous intelligence agencies to enforce repression or used systems of mass incarceration and murder for political ends. Britain’s neoliberal consensus has nevertheless favoured a one-doctrine state, and the violent suppression of specific, typically economy-related, protests has been a periodic feature of its politics since 1979. Britain’s neoliberal governments have also developed an increasingly callous attitude to social hardship and suffering. Most troubling of all is that the more neoliberalism has been implemented, the more the country has been driven to the end of its democratic road. By the early 2020s the Conservative government of Boris Johnson had sought to criminalise peaceful protest, to constrain media independence and to insulate the political executive from parliamentary and public scrutiny. In short, it had abused its authority to disable legitimate political opposition. What I hope to explain is why any regime that commits itself to neoliberal economics must travel in this direction or abandon this ideology.
What follows is an argument about the collapse of the empiricist political centre and its replacement by utopian radicalism. Specifically, this is a story of how the pioneering and socially progressive philosophy of liberalism is being discredited by utopian economics and the practically clientelist methods of government that follow from it, just as the politics of social solidarity essential to a civilised world was undermined by the violence and corruption of the Soviet experiment. As the old Soviet joke had it, ‘Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man. Communism is its exact opposite.’ There are, of course, many challenges distinct to neoliberalism and I pay attention to them, but my purpose here is to see what we can learn about the political economy of the neoliberal state when we look at it through the lens of comparative materialist utopias.
Note: This excerpt from the introduction to Late Soviet Britain: Why Materialist Utopias Fail by Abby Innes is copyrighted to Cambridge University Press and the author, and is reproduced here with their permission.
This post gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics and Political Science. The LSE RB blog may receive a small commission if you choose to make a purchase through the above Amazon affiliate link. This is entirely independent of the coverage of the book on LSE Review of Books.
Image Credit: globetrotters on Shutterstock.
The Government’s Reforms to Work Capability Benefits Assessment Could Worsen the Mental Health Crisis for Already Vulnerable People
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
“It feels like part of Conservative Party ideology to continue marginalising the most vulnerable members of society, like us people with disabilities,” Julie told Byline Times.
The 48-year-old has had M.E. since she was a teenager. She is among the 1.2 million people claiming disability benefits exempting her from employment, and one of the many concerned about the Government's proposed short-term changes to the Work Capability Assessments – the test used to determine to what extent a claimant is “fit for work”.
Earlier this year, the Department for Work and Pensions announced its plans to eventually eradicate the WCA. However, since 2019, the Government has reported a dramatic increase in people classified through this assessment as being in a 'limited capability for work and work-related activity group' (LCWRA). The individuals in this group are not required to work or prepare for employment.
This year, the DWP launched a consultation on interim changes to existing WCA criteria, ultimately reducing the number of people judged to belong to the LCWRA group. These proposed changes affect four WCA activity groups, going so far as to potentially remove the 'substantial risk' group, which protects the most vulnerable people.
Amid a collapsing NHS and the cost of living crisis, these changes to disability assessments could push more people into mental health crises. The consequences will be fewer people with access to the LCWRA group, leading to a benefit loss of £390.06 a month for some, and the possibility of sanctions and work mandates imposed on those who may previously have been deemed too unwell to work.
Dr Jay Watts, a consultant clinical psychiatrist from London, believes the impacts could be severe. She told Byline Times: “These proposed changes are symptomatic of the continued systematic violation of disabled folk. They are ruthless and will cause a tsunami of mental health issues as people would be pressured into work-preparation activities for which they are unsuited and/or unready. This would increase the likelihood of not only being sanctioned but exert a huge psychological toll.”
‘No Patient Should Ever Be Treated Like this Ever Again’
As the new Mental Health Act is quietly dropped, David Hencke reports on how the crisis in mental health services across the country is failing the most vulnerable people in society
David Hencke
Dr Watts is particularly concerned with the possible erasure of the “substantial risk” category, which previously protected her clients at risk of suicide or severe mental health deterioration. She worries the removal of this lifeline could push people into a relapse.
A study published in the British Medical Journal has previously linked the WCA process to increases in suicides, self-reported mental health problems and increased uptake of antidepressants.
Louise Rubin, head of policy and campaigns at disability equality charity Scope, also raised concerns. She said: "The Work Capability Assessment is already degrading, stressful and adversarial and has a terrible impact on people's mental health. Threatening disabled people with more sanctions will not lead to more disabled people getting into and staying in work.”
Amy, 25, who was assigned to the LCWRA group after a mental health crisis, said the WCA was a traumatic experience. She worries this will be made worse by the Government’s plans.
“I felt this constant need to prove I was ill enough – I had to recount some of my darkest moments, such as my suicide attempt, in-depth," she told Byline Times. “I worry the stress of proving yourself will get worse and more terrifying.”
Julie similarly recounted: “I fear people are going to be pushed into desperation and poverty if they are no longer able to access the benefits they need. The process is already highly stressful – people with disabilities who previously did not have a mental illness may develop a mental illness.”
The Link Between Austerity and Mental Health Issues
In his conference speech this year, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, referencing the increased benefits claims, asked: “Are people three times sicker today than they were a decade ago? No, of course not… it is not fair on taxpayers who have to pick up the bill."
Yet, this is at odds with sources showing that the UK faces increasingly ill health and health inequalities.
Research by the Office for National Statistics published in April confirmed that sickness absences from work had reached levels last seen in 2004. The Institute for Fiscal Studies also reported that the working-age population’s health has been slowly decreasing, with a rise in all major health conditions.
Sunak claims a primary goal of these changes is to encourage people to re-enter work, framing it as a “tragedy” for those out of long-term employment. However, Dr Watts is unconvinced that this is an adequate approach and believes it instead denies the reality that work is not an option for some. She worries this will escalate the shame and stigma surrounding benefit claiming.
The DWP’s proposed WCA reforms also fail to address the rise in long-term unemployment, assuming that economic inactivity from rising sickness rates can be partly blamed on an erroneous assessment system.
So, what are the causes?
The continued individualisation of ill health fails to recognise the broader societal causes of the mental and physical health epidemic – most obviously, the COVID-19 pandemic, which has seen an estimated 1.5 million people suffering from Long COVID symptoms severe enough to inhibit everyday activities.
ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE
Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.
We’re not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.
The pandemic saw an escalation in mental health issues, as reported by 2022 Government findings and charities such as Mind UK. The NHS is also facing an escalating crisis under the Conservative Government. The well-reported spiralling staffing crisis and progressively unmanageable waiting times for elective care are predicted to reach eight million by the summer of 2024, which means people are waiting longer for care, which could prevent serious health issues.
In August, the British Medical Society urgently reported the need for mental health funding from the Government to prevent further damage.
Dr Watts is clear: “If Sunak has any interest in reducing the rates of disability benefits, then wider issues leading to poor health outcomes must be addressed. The stress of society is making us ill or iller, and until people are given adequate infrastructure such as decent housing, healthcare and financial stability, the crisis will worsen.”
For Julie, the situation is desperate: “The demonisation of disabled people continues, and we are failing to be heard and seen. If the Government wants to reduce the number of people out of work, fund the NHS, give us better housing, mental health support and listen to us rather than take away our benefits. If not, more people will die.”
A DWP spokesperson told Byline Times that the proposed reforms "are about helping people to improve their lives – ensuring they are not unnecessarily excluded from support or encouragement to access the health, wellbeing and financial benefits that work provides".
“We know one in five of those in the LCWRA group want to work with the right support – and the safety of vulnerable customers who may need additional health and wellbeing support remains a top priority," they added. "We will continue to have appropriate safeguards in place to protect them.”
NHS Face Removals (1977- )
While some children were born without faces simply because they didn't deserve them (see the Scarfolk Annual 197X), the government became increasingly concerned about citizens who did have them. They found that people with faces are more likely to have personal desires, hopes and dreams, in short: a will and ideas of their own.
Such idiosyncrasies were not only thought of as needlessly self-indulgent, they were also deemed inconsistent with the smooth running of a successful society. Scarfolk's was the first council benevolent enough to offer face removals on the NHS.
In 1976, the council trialled face removals on stray foreigners, prisoners, children nobody wanted, unsuspecting people who were picked up leisurely walking in a park after sundown and volunteers (see leaflet above).
When the full scheme was rolled out in 1977, the council soon lost track of which faceless citizen was which. By 1978 a new law was passed which dictated that all faceless people were required to have a tattoo of their old face over their lost one to make identification easier.