I try to tell myself: I am a human being. My existence is worthwhile

Intrusive questions about your health. The fear and uncertainty of a claim being rejected. Trying to make ends meet through bureaucratic delays. What is life really like for those who claim disability benefits?

“Most of the time I try to remind myself: ‘I am a human being. My existence is worthwhile.’ But sometimes it’s just impossible to keep telling yourself that.”

Lisa Egan is in the middle of re-applying for her employment-related disability benefit. The 33-year-old's mobility impairment and chronic health problems meanthat - as much as she would like to - she’s unable to work, and is reliant on the benefit. If her application is turned down, she tells me, she won’t have enough money for food, heating, or her non-prescription medications. 

When I spoke to her in late December, she was worrying she wouldn’t complete her paperwork in time for her face-to-face assessment in January. “As it is, my form is currently three weeks late. I've got so much to gather and so much to write about,” she says. “I'm almost there, but I’m not going to get it done in time to post it to them. I’ll have to hand it to them on the day.” She’s been given four weeks over the Christmas period to fill in an extensive form and collect all of her medical evidence. But, given how unwell she often feels due to her condition, it simply isn’t enough.

“The fear of ‘I can’t get this done in time, they're going to stop my money’ is pretty rough," says Egan. "My depression has definitely been made worse by the whole experience. Sitting there with the form in your hand to beg for ‘taxpayers’ money’ to fund your burdensome existence makes it really hard to find any reason to not just give up.”  

The reason Egan cannot give up - as anyone receiving benefits will know - is necessity. Disability benefits, whether work-related or for care or help with mobility, are fundamental to millions of people's lives. They are an "entitlement" that has to be asked for, repeatedly. They pay for the things that most people will never have to consider and needs that most people will never know exist.

The word "benefit" is, in many ways, a misleading one. There is no physical, emotional, or social benefit to being reliant on government support. The situation is made even worse when the rhetoric of "scroungers" or "freeloaders" is employed.

 

Lisa Egan: "The fear of 'they're going to stop my money' is pretty rough

 

The benefit Lisa Egan is currently applying for is Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) and the process will take at least 13 weeks. It includes an invasive interview and assessment by the Department of Work and Pensions.

After that process is completed, a claimant's application is either rejected outright, or placed in one of two groups. The first, the "support group", comprises those who are deemed unable to work. The second, the "work-related assisted group", are judged to be capable of taking a job provided they are given support.

For Lisa Egan, this means that the best possible result she can expect is not to be forced to do a job she cannot physically do. She is fighting for around a hundred pounds a week

That money won't be spent on luxuries, but essentials. To be without such things is something 41-year-old Daniel Mann* knows well. He was a newly qualified teacher when two brain injuries left him visually impaired and largely unable to walk or use his arms. 

Mann completed his first ESA assessment in December 2012. It was successful, but due to a delay in processing the application, he has been left waiting for the money for weeks. When I spoke to him, he was clearly frightened by the shortfall, and was spending the days before Christmas chasing his benefit payment while trying to work out short-term ways to get by. “I called to apply for a crisis loan after running out of food,” he tells me. 

He stopped the crisis loan application after a “very helpful lady” at the Department of Work and Pensions promised his ESA payment would arrive the same day. It didn’t, having been lost between two government departments. “I’ve called my energy supplier and council to explain and to request they hold off legal proceedings for outstanding bills,” he says.

There doesn’t need to be a major error like this for the application process to be fraught. Claiming disability support is generally an unpleasant experience; one that simultaneously involves cold bureaucracy and uncomfortably personal declarations. Health is a private thing, but this is a system that demands exposure, intimacy disclosed face-to-face to a stranger and fitted in endless boxes.

Deborah Kelly, 32, has just re-applied for Disability Living Allowance (DLA)  two years after last doing so. DLA is a key benefit to many people: it is not means-tested and unrelated to the applicant's employment status, and it brings in between £20 to £125 to help with costs such as transport.

“The most difficult but necessary task in filling in the DLA form is to think about your life in a very negative way,” Kelly says. “Why can’t you do X? What goes wrong if you do X?” She was diagnosed with ME as a teenager, and spends most of her life in bed, asleep. “But I don’t really think about that, until I have forms like this to fill in.”

It took her 4,300 words to complete the form. Because of her cognitive and physical problems, each of these had to be typed, printed, cut up and stuck into the relevant boxes. Some of the questions were unhelpfully unclear, and the need to constantly quantify your limitations can make many impossible to answer honestly. “There’s a box only big enough for two digits beside the question ‘How often?’ and you don’t have a clue if you’re supposed to answer how often in a day or how often in a week,” Kelly says. “The form’s designed so that it’s easy to feel that they’re trying to trip you up.”

This feeling quickly leads to an inclination to understate the problem; many claimants are unsure what ‘counts’ and are afraid of being accused of ‘overselling it’ or looking for sympathy. Having previously been turned down for an award (only to be given it back on appeal), Deborah knows that impulse is only worsened by rejection.

“Being turned down is a bit like facing an accusation,” she says. “If you’ve said you need this help and they say you don’t, they’ve as good as said you’re lying.” She tells me that for some years,she has been on a lower award of the care component of DLA than she knows she’s entitled to. “I’ve not had the energy, physically, mentally and emotionally, to fight it.”  

 

"Nobody believed me"

The fear of inaccurate and unfeeling assessments has only increased in recent years as the Government, buoyed by misleading rhetoric and a desire for what they call a “greater use of evidence and re-assessment” , has set about sweeping changes to disability and sickness support. 

By 2015, DLA is to be replaced by the Personal Independence Payment (PIP); a change that will see an estimated 500,000 people lose their entitlement. Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) has already replaced Incapacity Benefit (IB). All new ESA claimants, and existing IB claimants, are required to take the much criticised Atos-administered Work Capability Assessment (WCA).  

Fifty-nine-year-old Mary describes her assessment experience to me as “humiliating”. She’s had difficulty walking since an attack in the street left her with a broken back 18 years ago, and has arthritis in her spine and neck.

During her Work Capability Assessment, her assessor told her to stand in the middle of the room without her walking stick and touch her wrists. “It felt like she was teaching me to do the hoky coky,” she says. After explaining she was unable to do so without her stick, Mary was allowed to lean  against the examination bed to do the exercises. “After a very short time I felt myself sliding off the bed towards the floor, which she [the doctor] did nothing to stop me from falling. My husband caught me just in time.”

She was placed in the work-related assisted group. “I’m 60 this year,” she says.

“We all know ATOS are doing the government’s dirty work,” Gabriel Parlour tells me. Her son attended his Work Capability Assessment a year ago and the anger and distress of it clearly remains.

Born with a severe brain injury, Ashley, now 39, was found by a psychologist to have "no executive functioning" and his mum describes him to me as highly vulnerable. “The findings erred on the side of it being detrimental to my son's mental health to be found fit for the work group,” she says. “Even so, the so called ‘decision maker’ chose to ignore the recommendations.” He was passed as fit to work. After going to court to appeal, a judge placed Ashley in the non-working support group and told the family he should never be called to such assessments again.

The Parlours aren’t alone in this. As of 2012, around 40 per cent of those who were found fit for work were appealing against the decision, and about 40 per cent of cases which go to tribunal were overturned. “The period of waiting . . . was fraught for both of us, causing much stress and sleepless nights for me,” Gabriel says. “I am ashamed of the country I live in.”

For many, there is a feeling of being abandoned. Claire Whittingham, 31, had been awarded DLA in 2004 after a physical and sexual assault left her with post-traumatic stress disorder and a severe Crohns Disease flare-up.

After a period of homelessness led her to miss the renewal deadline for her award in 2008, she later reapplied, only to be rejected repeatedly. The experience made her feel let down by the system. “My own GP made me feel like a fraud by making snide remarks and saying he was reluctant to write reports," she says. "He mentioned that in his five-line report to the DWP too. I felt like nobody believed [me]."

The stress of this situation, compounded by facing homelessness again, saw Whittingham taking an overdose.

“It was a Wednesday,” she says. “I sent my last six texts as a suicide note to my ex-partner. She’d helped me with care needs, like showering. By the time I'd taken the overdose she’d arrived with a paramedic.” When asked by hospital staff why she’d tried to take her own life, Whittingham replied that it was because the government wouldn’t help her. “It had been intense fighting for DLA and I’d tried to commit suicide through the stress.”

By the end of 2010, after going to a tribunal, she was awarded low rate care and mobility support for two years; less than she’d received in 2004. The award runs out this month and the process has begun again. “I dread to think what 2013 holds,” she tells me. “I'm scared, confused and alone. I'd like a break from it all. I need to concentrate on various health issues.”

That’s the thing with necessity. No matter how the system treats you, there’s little choice but to go back and ask it for help.

 

 

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) runs a telephone helpline giving information on benefits for sick and disabled people, their representatives and carers. In England, Wales and Scotland, you can contact the Benefit Enquiry Line on: Tel: 0800 88 22 00 Textphone: 0800 24 33 55.

If you need help from the Samaritans, the number is 08457 90 90 90. 

*name has been changed at interviewee's request

A protest about disability cuts in 2011. Photo: Getty

Frances Ryan is a journalist and political researcher. She writes regularly for the Guardian, New Statesman, and others on disability, feminism, and most areas of equality you throw at her. She has a doctorate in inequality in education. Her website is here.

Getty
Show Hide image

Stop saying identity politics caused Trump

It's a wildly unsophisticated analysis that ignores the fact that all politics is inflected by identity.

Look, I don't mean to be funny, but is there something in the water supply? When Mark Lilla wrote his jeremiad against "identity liberalism" in the New York Times, it was comprehensively picked over and rebutted. But this zombie take has risen again. In the last 24 hours, all these tweets have drifted across my timeline:

And then this (now deleted, I think, probably because I was mean about it on Twitter).

And finally, for the hat-trick . . .

Isn't it beautiful to see a Blairite, a Liberal Leaver and a Corbynite come together like this? Maybe there is a future for cross-spectrum, consensual politics in this country.

These are all versions of a criticism which has swilled around since Bernie Sanders entered the US presidential race, and ran on a platform of economic populism. They have been turbocharged by Sanders' criticisms since the result, where he blamed Clinton's loss on her attempt to carve up the electorate into narrow groups. And they are now repeated ad nauseam by anyone wanting to sound profound: what if, like, Black Lives Matter are the real racists, yeah? Because they talk about race all the time.

This glib analysis has the logical endpoint that if only people didn't point out racism or sexism or homophobia, those things would be less of a problem. Talking about them is counterproductive, because it puts people's backs up (for a given definition of "people"). She who smelt it, dealt it.

Now, I have strong criticisms of what I would call Pure Identity Politics, unmoored from economics or structural concerns. I have trouble with the idea of Caitlyn Jenner as an "LGBT icon", given her longstanding opposition to gay marriage and her support for an administration whose vice-president appears to think you can electrocute the gay out of people. I celebrate female leaders even if I don't agree with their politics, because there shouldn't be an additional Goodness Test which women have to pass to be deemed worthy of the same opportunities as men. But I don't think feminism's job is done when there are simply a few more female CEOs or political leaders, particularly if (as is now the case) those women are more likely than their male peers to be childless. Role models only get you so far. Structures are important too.

I also think there are fair criticisms to be made of the Clinton campaign, which was brave - or foolish, depending on your taste - to associate her so explicitly with progressive causes. Stephen Bush and I have talked on the podcast about how hard Barack Obama worked to reassure White America that he wasn't threatening, earning himself the ire of the likes of Cornel West. Hillary Clinton was less mindful of the feelings of both White America and Male America, running an advert explicitly addressed to African-Americans, and using (as James Morris pointed out to me on Twitter) the slogan "I'm With Her". 

Watching back old Barack Obama clips (look, everyone needs a hobby), it's notable how many times he stressed the "united" in "united states of America". It felt as though he was trying to usher in a post-racial age by the sheer force of his rhetoric. 

As Obama told Ta-Nehisi Coates during his last days in office, he thought deeply about how to appeal to all races: 

"How do I pull all these different strains together: Kenya and Hawaii and Kansas, and white and black and Asian—how does that fit? And through action, through work, I suddenly see myself as part of the bigger process for, yes, delivering justice for the [African American community] and specifically the South Side community, the low-income people—justice on behalf of the African American community. But also thereby promoting my ideas of justice and equality and empathy that my mother taught me were universal. So I’m in a position to understand those essential parts of me not as separate and apart from any particular community but connected to every community."

Clinton's mistake was perhaps that she thought this caution was no longer needed.

So there are criticisms of "identity politics" that I accept, even as I wearily feel that - like "neoliberalism" - it has become a bogeyman, a dumpster for anything that people don't like but don't care to articulate more fully.

But there are caveats, and very good reasons why anyone pretending to a sophisticated analysis of politics shouldn't say that "identity politics caused Trump".

The first is that if you have an identity that any way marks you out from the norm, you can't change that. Hillary Clinton couldn't not be the first woman candidate from a major party running for the US presidency. She either had to embrace it, or downplay it. Donald Trump faced no such decision. 

The second is that, actually, Clinton didn't run an explicitly identity-focused campaign on the ground, at least not in terms of her being a woman. Through the prism of the press, and because of the rubbernecker's dream that is misogyny on social media, her gender inevitably loomed large. But as Rebecca Solnit wrote in the LRB:

"The Vox journalist David Roberts did a word-frequency analysis on Clinton’s campaign speeches and concluded that she mostly talked about workers, jobs, education and the economy, exactly the things she was berated for neglecting. She mentioned jobs almost 600 times, racism, women’s rights and abortion a few dozen times each. But she was assumed to be talking about her gender all the time, though it was everyone else who couldn’t shut up about it."

My final problem with the "identity politics caused Trump" argument is that it assumes that explicit appeals to whiteness and masculinity are not identity politics. That calling Mexicans "rapists" and promising to build a wall to keep them out is not identity politics. That promising to "make America great again" at the expense of the Chinese or other trading partners is not identity politics. That selling a candidate as an unreconstructed alpha male is not identity politics. When you put it that way, I do accept that identity politics caused Trump. But I'm guessing that's not what people mean when they criticise identity politics. 

Let's be clear: America is a country built on identity politics. The "all men" who were created equal notably excluded a huge number of Americans. Jim Crow laws were nothing if not identity politics. The electoral college was instituted to benefit southern slave-owners. This year's voting restrictions disproportionately affected populations which lean Democrat. There is no way to fight this without prompting a backlash: that's what happens when you demand that the privileged give up some of their perks. 

I don't know what the "identity politics caused Trump" guys want gay rights campaigners, anti-racism activists or feminists to do. Those on the left, like Richard Burgon, seem to want a "no war but the class war" approach, which would be all very well if race and gender didn't intersect with economics (the majority of unpaid care falls squarely on women; in the US, black households have far fewer assets than white ones.)

Those on the right, like Daniel Hannan, seem to just want people banging on about racism and homophobia to shut up because he, personally, finds it boring. Perhaps they don't know any old English poetry with which to delight their followers instead. (Actually, I think Hannan might have hit on an important psychological factor in some of these critiques: when conversations centre on anti-racism, feminism and other identity movements, white men don't benefit from their usual unearned assumption of expertise in the subject at hand. No wonder they find discussion of them boring.)

Both of these criticisms end up in the same place. Pipe down, ladies. By complaining, you're only making it worse. Hush now, Black Lives Matter: white people find your message alienating. We'll sort out police racism... well, eventually. Probably. Just hold tight and see how it goes. Look, gay people, could you be a trifle... less gay? It's distracting.

I'm here all day for a discussion about the best tactics for progressive campaigners to use. I'm sympathetic to the argument that furious tweets, and even marches, have limited effect compared with other types of resistance.

But I can't stand by while a candidate wins on an identity-based platform, in a political system shaped by identity, and it's apparently the fault of the other side for talking too much about identity.

Helen Lewis is deputy editor of the New Statesman. She has presented BBC Radio 4’s Week in Westminster and is a regular panellist on BBC1’s Sunday Politics.