By Dawn M. Sanders

The argument that cutting 5 billion in benefits will hurt ‘the most vulnerable in society’ is frankly tired and one which is often like swallowing raw squid for those of us who despise being dubbed inherently vulnerable off the cuff for having seen or unseen additional needs. Despite the truth that millions would of course be financially worse off and thrown into poverty, it hinges on the pity narrative contradicting a drive toward greater equality and credibility in a climate of meritocracy and social polarisation.

Rarely if ever do we hear of the pay gap for workers with additional needs, campaigns for equality in the work place or making work less hostile by educating employers on employing people with additional needs/disabilities – by contrast, the strident campaigns in the last century by the women’s or racial equality movements have gained significant traction. In fact, within the discourse of diversity ‘the other’ is far too often still people with additional needs at the back of the queue.
Seemingly, the only time people with additional needs are shaken up is when benefits are under threat, sold as lifelines – exacerbating the notion of, this poor cousin to the aforementioned more boisterous movements that, our life design is a given, of existing on benefits.
Turning the conversation on its head and taking the narrative further is less popular and brave considering the sea of voices shouting shame, shame as the government ramps up bolstering continuous warfare and an already lucrative arms trade. Yes, of course it is shameful to cut lifelines for those who cannot work, due to the severity of illness or additional needs, but there is a gulf which needs filling for people with additional needs who crave work and the opportunity to use their skills and attributes, yet work twice as hard to prove themselves. Not just the simplistic mentality of ‘getting people back to work’ but pushing people into hostile environments, where blatant discrimination is rife, is where the conversation disappears. 53.1% versus 81.6% according to gov.uk, for people with additional needs and those with no additional needs in employment, respectively by the second quarter of last year, speaks volumes.
Not only do successive governments, Tory or Labour, have a black-and-white approach to “getting people back to work” who often experience harsh and down right nasty receptions to their circumstances – sandwiching people between the rock-and-hard place of, ‘get a job whether you can or lose your benefits’ or ‘we don’t want you because you’re too expensive to accommodate and we can’t handle your issues’…
This anonymous post written by a young and talented graduate , says it all, as both the private sector and capitalism are the main culprits of what people with additional needs are up against within the job market.
Not only does the writer point out the ease of which employers get away with discrimination, tribunals are daunting, exhausting and never guarantee someone justice or compensation from a rogue employer.

Access to Work, a branch of the DWP (Department for Work and Pensions) supposedly supports successful job applicants with specialist equipment or support needed for either part-time or full-time work. Yet, in both my experience and that of others, AtW more-often-than-not creates roadblocks by delaying assessments for equipment – jeopardising someone’s job opportunity or simply by not supporting entrepreneurs with additional needs, with a certain turnover required year-on-year.

Another unpopular point to air is the way people with additional needs are often self dis-able – as the ‘vulnerable needing to be protected’ or ‘I can’t I’m dis-abled’ mentality – in fairness what anyone thinks if told often enough from an early age of internalised oppression. In the above article addressing the Diversity Discourse, Chriss Catt, an entrepreneur with partial sight and life coach said: “In many years of work previously working with Disabled Job Seekers, many would see their benefits as a living. Working was something for other people.” While this piece isn’t on identity politics, the current conversations surrounding the benefits cuts certainly feed into it.
How is an entire campaign group dedicated to petitioning against benefits cuts an empowering argument for equity? Does it project the emancipated notion that ‘people’ with disabilities can and do contribute to their communities when given a chance and adequate support? – no, it doesn’t and I could easily be called out for right-wing tendencies as far-too-often I find the left take on this dis-empowering language, yet people themselves often milk it and drown out the voices of those of us who need to be appreciated as equal but different; strong but requiring support; capable, but in different ways.
I used to know someone considered high-functioning and well networked. Yet often when introducing herself to someone, instead of using her name, she substituted it with, ‘I’m autistic… A support worker I know often says how one of his clients who is really capable of many things, treats him like a servant, so while he does her cleaning, shopping and organising, she’s doing crosswords. I’m not saying people are scroungers by any means, especially when those evading tax, have their assets stored away in off-shore accounts, are rarely if ever called out, but part of this argument needs to explore all factors, other than just the given popular black-and-white – flawed policy versus people.

I once met 2 unrelated women who were non-verbal using facilitated communication – typing with the mouth or finger on a bespoke board for non-verbal people. One worked from home doing accounts for a company, contributing to the economic wellbeing of her then ten-year-old daughter. The second young woman I met in the field at the intrepid gatherings I used to frequent and she again used facilitated communication, had no use of her arms and legs and needed 24/7 care/support. Yet she had written books and was completing an English degree through interpretation. Both of these women were inspiring, because they wanted simply to contribute their skills with support. They had some of the most severe circumstances and they too would have advocated against benefit cuts I’m sure, but not to the expense of their agency or credibility – as wider society opts for awarding us lowered positions within the pecking order. This said, no one should feel they should over-achieve to compensate for additional needs or societal attitudes.

The flurry of guardian articles rightfully reflecting the  need for dignity maintained by not cutting vital benefits is justified, especially when politicians have an agenda which favours career and votes over whether or not someone can afford that taxi fare to frequent doctor’s appointments, or elevated water rates when your family member with high sensory needs uses more than average. However, both the left and right/mainstream must go further in recognising true dignity is through vocational opportunity educating parents, employers and promoting workers with additional needs is worthy assets – not consigning people with additional needs to a default design for life then taking it away ; especially if campaigning for greater equity, backed by progressive policies might rock the boat or challenge cultural mindsets, Thus implementing greater equity for people with additional needs into progressive policies promoting actual pathways into work. Divesting in people’s survival rather than investing in quality of life, speaks volumes from one of the richest nations on the planet, where warfare takes precedence over welfare