In terms of the current government cuts, I worry that it is very easy to demand cuts are not made on a specific service or benefit but it is often without taking responsibility for the consequences of stopping the cuts since to save one group from cuts, logic dictates another group must suffer since the reality the money needed is not going to magically to pay for the demands of the few.


It is important that the bigger picture is seen and as an whole, which is more important and which can afford to be slimmed down. Is saving an underused library really more important than saving a vital hospital? And in the context, it is clear to me that the bottom line is that the recent opposition of the welfare reforms has been about protecting the wants of people with minor impairments over the needs of people with significant impairments.


In carefully examining the situation, it is clear there is an imbalance of representation between both groups as while user led charities claim to represent all disabled people, the reality is people with significant impairment no longer have, and maybe never had, a voice in these organisations. In it clear that to pay for the ‘soft touch’ demanded for and by people with minor impairments, the government will need to get heavy handed with people with significant impairments, rather than the opposite being put forward by the government.


It is easy to complain as an individual and see the world from only your perspective but true campaigning is about seeing the bigger picture and making a difference for the many.