Reform’s political statements are short, blunt and make crystal clear who it does and doesn’t want in its gang. So far, refugees and other foreign nationals have borne the brunt of the party’s hostility and vitriol, but in recent weeks, it has also turned the spotlight of rejection on Disabled people.
Last month, Nigel Farage’s party announced that, should it take power at the next election, it will abolish Personal Independence Payment (PIP). The benefit is paid to Disabled people who experience barriers to living independently, and there are around four million recipients across England and Wales, 83% of whom are of working age.
Having a disability adds an average of £1,095 a month to household bills, according to research by Scope, a disability charity. PIP recognises and contributes to these extra costs (although, even at its highest rate of £778.40 a month, it often doesn’t cover them in full). It helps pay for charging an electric wheelchair or turning the heating up in a cost-of-living crisis; for pre-prepared food and specific diets; for the specialised transport needed to hold down a job; for the essential personal care that enables a person to get out of bed in the morning, and any other support that allows Disabled people to live independently in their communities.
The vast majority of Disabled people don't receive PIP; accessing the payment is widely recognised as an arduous, barrier-heavy process that often deters or denies the very people it is supposed to support. Rather than overhauling the system to reduce the unwieldy bureaucracy or fix the high error rates – two-thirds of PIP rejections are overturned at tribunal, with no new evidence presented in the vast majority of cases – Reform wants to scrap it altogether.
The party plans to provide payments only to an ill-defined group of Disabled people whom it deems most in need. The rest of us will be forced to go cap in hand to local authorities for support, much as Disabled people in the 19th century were required to depend on the charity of the parish. Rather than ‘saving taxpayer money’, as the party has claimed, such proposals will offload costs onto an already crumbling NHS and underfunded social care sector, while driving Disabled people towards institutionalised care.
The party’s attack on Disabled people hasn’t stopped there. Also last month, it said it would prioritise British-born working people under 35 for social housing, with additional preference given to married couples with children. The discriminatory divisiveness of this policy proposal is breathtaking. To base the allocation of scarce social housing on where a person was born, their employment status, age, or relationship status, rather than on their need, is unfair and unjust.
Entire sections of our society would effectively be excluded from social housing under the policy, including: older people, Disabled people of all ages who are unable to work due to impairments or health conditions, single people, and everyone born outside the UK, including those who have fled violence in their home countries.
These deeply divisive policy statements fail to provide the underlying analysis that led to the plans, or any vision for system change. The stats show that a large number of people on the social housing waiting list are Disabled people, so what is Reform’s rationale for turning their back on this real and sizeable need?
Disabled people already face significant societal disadvantages. Around half of those in poverty are disabled or have a Disabled person in the household. We experience physical and digital barriers to education and employment. Navigating the street can be challenging, and public transport is often a no-go zone. We are over-represented amongst homeless people, struggle to pay high rents in the private sector, often live in homes that are not accessible and are placed in inaccessible and inappropriate temporary accommodation for far too long.
So, how do the above Reform policy announcements address this kind of deep-rooted, long-standing discrimination? They don’t. The party has no plans to make society more inclusive and equal, no plans to make the social security system fairer and no plans to allocate social housing based on need. We’re just not part of its gang.
