SOMETIMES it’s more than helpful for each of us, and especially those of us in public life, to detach ourselves from our personal perspectives to consider how others view the world around us. As Burns wrote: “O wad some Power the giftie gie us, To see oursels as ithers see us! It wad frae mony a blunder free us, An’ foolish notion”.
Our politics shouldn’t operate within an isolated echo chamber. We need be aware of what alternatives exist as to how our community and society is working so that we can challenge the status quo and, in doing so, get the best possible deal for those we represent.
But sometimes hearing the true views of others is as frightening as it is enlightening.
When the mask slips, as it did at the weekend for George Freeman, the Tory MP and head of the Number 10 Policy Unit, it can be a window on the true nature of our opponents. Freeman said in an interview that proposed changes to benefits for people with a disability would ensure that vital social security payments went to people who were “really disabled” rather than those who merely “suffer from anxiety”.
If implemented, the changes he’s talking about would deprive 150,000 disabled people additional payments under the Personal Independence Payments (PIP) scheme, following a court ruling that the Whitehall Department of Work and Pensions should expand the reach of these vital payments to those with mental health issues. Rather than accepting the decision of two separate tribunals, Tory ministers have now rushed to publish emergency legislation to prevent those who are entitled for these payments under the current law claiming the support to which they are entitled.
What a mindset this is, that when faced with an impartial legal opinion that the law isn’t being properly implemented, the Tories would rather change the rules than admit their mistakes and pay disabled people what they owe. Rather than issuing an apology, and seeking redress for those who need our support and compassion, this senior Tory chose to belittle the suffering of others and then move the goalposts.
This is how they see people with disabilities. Not as human beings who deserve our care, but a legal challenge to be overcome.
I’ve been contacted by a number of my constituents in recent months who find it difficult to leave their homes because they suffer from anxiety, panic attacks, or other mental health problems. These people often find it just as hard to get around as people with physical mobility problems, and they face just as many higher costs in their daily lives as other disabled people do. They should be entitled to the same support.
But to Freeman, those suffering from often debilitating mental health issues aren’t really ill, they’re just another bunch of freeloaders sponging from the state.
What an absolute disgrace.
My constituency mailbox is increasingly full of first-hand accounts of how the new PIP system is failing those it was meant to protect.
I’ve seen cases where decades of specialist medical opinion has been overturned in the space of a 30-minute interview by the decision of a single medical professional. I’ve listened to a recording of an assessment interview so biased against the interviewee that it would make your hair curl, where the interviewer was more interested in getting though their list of leading questions rather than getting to the nub of the mobility challenges that my constituent faced. I’ve talked to men and women in total distress at the injustice they’ve faced and the devastating impact of their assessment on their day-to-day lives that the withdrawal of these benefits will have.
This is a system developed and implemented by a Tory government, based on how they see the world around them.
Now, freed from the social safety net provided by our membership of the EU, they are able to begin to fulfil their frightening vision of our society, where it’s dog eats dog and a radical enterprise economy replaces the social contract that delivered our welfare state.
It would be a foolish notion indeed if any of us really thought that Brexit would be good for our NHS, our education system or for the safety net of social security. Now without the constraints of an effective official opposition at Westminster or the protections of EU law, we’re beginning to understand the true intentions of this right-wing Westminster government.
Now is the time to take stock of our options, before we’re led down a dark road from which there is no return.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here