Because I am openly centre-right in my politics it is assumed by my critics that I somehow do not agree with the welfare state. The truth is actually quite the opposite, I believe however the current system promotes passivity that is extremely unhelpful, and it should be radically changed to enable and empower people to get back on track and be the best versions of themselves.

Everyone can have one or more episodes of difficulties in their lives for a whole range of reasons. This should be accepted as a part of life but what is important is how people respond and supported to overcome their difficulties. Money should only ever be seen as part of the solution as more direct support should be provided to remove barriers and when needed, to provide training on how to manage lifestyle issues.

I am aware that many disabled activists as rebelled against the idea of a more proactive welfare state. They regard employment and other support as an attempt to deny their impairment status and assume they are unfairly ‘fit for work’. The notion of ‘fit for work’ is an unhelpful one that assumes a 2 tier status of citizens. Instead, I regard that for those unable prepared to immediately obtain paid employment, they are somewhere on the pathway to obtain paid employment even if the goal is unlikely to be achieved, which is something no one can predict.

Impairment may indeed never be cured but it can be managed, which means people can reach a stable understanding of what they achieve including reaching an emotional acceptance and even happiness with their situation. Reaching this point is likely the hardest part of the process and something the current system does not assist with.

The decision to move away from seeing people needing welfare assistance as passive is a politic sensitive one because it is a fundamental difference between left wing and right wing politics. The left wing appears to see welfare as just a right, while the right wing also sees it as a responsibility.

The solution to the welfare state required is more advanced than this current era of politics to understand and may be hard to sell to those needing welfare support in an era of rights and identity politics. Support has to be available to meet what individuals need to fulfil their outcomes, not as compensation people ‘feel’ they deserve because someone self-defines themselves as having an impairment label despite the label having no relation to what they actually require.

The state should desire citizens to be less dependent on them as far as possible as good governance although it may hard to sell to claimants who see things differently. It may remain a system which is perceived toxic whatever happens.

If you like my blog article, have a look at some of my products;

Achieve Support – https://www.simonstevens.com/achievesupport
Having Pride (My Life Story) – http://www.balsy.me
Stevens’ Manifesto – https://www.simonstevens.com/manifesto
Understand Assistance – http://www.understand.tips
Understand Dysability – https://www.simonstevens.com/understanddysability
Understand Inclusion -https://www.simonstevens.com/understandinclusion

or visit my website at http://www.simonstevens.com

Donations are always gratefully received via paypal at https://www.paypal.me/simonstevens74
You can also email me at simon@simonstevens.com
or follow me on Twitter at @simonstevens74

There are two things disabled activists tell me when I tell them that all people with impairments can contribute to society in one way or another, ideally in terms of paid work.

The first thing they say is ‘disabled people want to work but …’. My response to this is that if people really want to work, they will. For everyone with a specific level of impairment who is not working, there is likely an example of someone who is working.

Therefore the issue is attitude as people either choose for themselves or they are educated by others to believe a level of ability that is irrelevant to their impairment.

Disability is increasingly a learned political identity used to justify exclusion, especially for people with long term health conditions. The media continues to pour out cases of people with health conditions being rejected for disability benefits, and so the inferiority identity, to ignite pity and anger from a public who fears their own frailty which seeing people with impairments portrays.

The second thing activists say is that ‘of course they believe disabled people should be supported to work if they want.’. This appearing to be a begrudging statement as it does not challenge their belief most people with impairments are unfit for work/society.

They appear to argue people with impairments are not socially responsible citizens but still demand the parts of equality that suits them. Everyone indeed has the ability to do or not do anything they are capable of doing so long as they take responsibility for the consequences.

If anyone else refuses to work or look for work then they will not financially be supported by the state. They may indeed have the legal right not to work but they may have a moral responsibility to work for their families and others to provide a good income.

The only real way route of poverty on a personal level is to obtain paid work. If we continue to allow a self-definition of disability to permit a culture of lifelong state dependency and reward for passivity, the world becomes an unfair place. I believe in the principle that work should play but I am also aware it is often not that simple.

Having an impairment should not by default give disabled people the right not to work. When society and the media argue for ‘mercy’ for people with minor impairments, consider them, in kindness, burdens of society. we must wonder how they regard people considered to have severe impairments.

Some activists see paid employment as the enemy of disabled people and supporting people into work as an abusive practice. I believe employment can instead be a liberation as it fulfils people’s need to be valued. It is therefore both a right and a responsibility.

If people really believe in the inclusion of all people with impairments, the notion of the responsibility to seek employment as a goal to seek for everyone must be a norm. Right now, the assumption is often most people with impairments can not work unless proven otherwise, and this is what we need to challenge.

If you like my blog article, have a look at some of my products;

Achieve Support – https://www.simonstevens.com/achievesupport
Having Pride (My Life Story) – http://www.balsy.me
Stevens’ Manifesto – https://www.simonstevens.com/manifesto
Understand Assistance – http://www.understand.tips
Understand Dysability – https://www.simonstevens.com/understanddysability
Understand Inclusion -https://www.simonstevens.com/understandinclusion

or visit my website at http://www.simonstevens.com

Donations are always gratefully received via paypal at https://www.paypal.me/simonstevens74
You can also email me at simon@simonstevens.com
or follow me on Twitter at @simonstevens74

In terms of this article, the term ‘Carer’ is defined as members of families who have been define as carers by themselves or others because they are regarded to provide assistance to other family members who have impairments in a manner that is considered as above and beyond what society expects of them which society should reward.

As I have written before, the term is a relevantly new social construction that has worrying consequences for how society regards family relationships in terms of people with impairments that has actively denormalised people with impairments’ inclusion into family life by reinforcing notions of otherness and exclusion.

Religions across the world designed marriage centuries ago to solve a number of social issues including how people support each other. ‘In sickness and in health’ in the marriage vows is not just empty words but a mechanism and commitment to look after your family in terms of health and impairment.

These responsibilities remained a family affair unchallenged until the creation of the NHS in 1948, when the UK government started to take greater responsibility of people’s health. Until the early 1990s, social care was very limited and only often involved residential care. The Community Care Act required local authorities to provide home care and laid the foundations for modern social care.

During the next 20 years, the term carer was created to recognise the needs of families, especially those not receiving formal support. It started as a good idea that grew with the rise of carer focused charities and saw the recognition of carer’s rights in the 2014 Care Act. It has now in the era of identity politics become a strong political identity which is fighting for attention and resources directly against disabled people’s inclusion.

A carer is perceived to look after someone who is mostly dependent on them. The existence of a carer with a voice requires someone who is dependent on them which society treats as voiceless, denying them the personhood many people with impairments have fought for. Carers are often pitied for having to care for people regarded as not full citizens. This is a power struggle where a powerful carers movement, based within the whole welfare framing of people with impairments, is winning against the inclusion of people with impairments.

I would never suggest family members are not providing support but some of this is the support all families provide each other. Being too heavily focus on the carer identity and the rights it brings can stop many people fulfilling their family roles. People need their husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters more than a carer who is perceived wronged by maintaining a relationship.

As opposed to family members, the wronged carer is perceived to know best and often unlawfully encouraged to make decisions on behalf of those dependent people. I fear that the public pity for carers without hesitation will make the ‘mercy killings’ of ‘loved ones’ by ‘carers’ more acceptable, especially as it fits in nicely with the left wing portrayal of people with impairments as naturally defective.

We need to support people with impairments to reclaim their families from a powerful charity led carers movement to halt a slow acceptance of eugenic policies.

If you like my blog article, have a look at some of my products;

Achieve Support – https://www.simonstevens.com/achievesupport
Having Pride (My Life Story) – http://www.balsy.me
Stevens’ Manifesto – https://www.simonstevens.com/manifesto
Understand Assistance – http://www.understand.tips
Understand Dysability – https://www.simonstevens.com/understanddysability
Understand Inclusion -https://www.simonstevens.com/understandinclusion

or visit my website at http://www.simonstevens.com

Donations are always gratefully received via paypal at https://www.paypal.me/simonstevens74
You can also email me at simon@simonstevens.com
or follow me on Twitter at @simonstevens74