Has Liam Byrne discovered his conscience over disability benefits?


11:02 am - May 17th 2012

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

When I heard yesterday afternoon that Liam Byrne MP was due to give a speech criticising Iain Duncan Smith for “demonising” disabled people, I thought I had misheard. If anything, he has form in ignoring disability issues and to say he’s an unpopular among disability activists would be an understatement.

But Liam Byrne gave the second Beveridge lecture yesterday at Demos and the reception has been remarkably positive and hopeful. No, seriously.

So what did he actually say?

Here are some excerpts

I believe that the challenge for Britain in the 21st century is not to abandon the universalist principles of the Beveridge Report, of Ernie Bevin, of our 1945 manifesto, I think the task is to renew them.

Disability affects 11 million adults and some 770,000 children; that’s nearly one in four adults, and one in 20 children.

You cannot begin to renew universal social security without fresh thinking, for a quarter of people together with their families are affected by these “hazards of personal fortunes over which individuals have little control”.

A series of reforms that should have been approached with care and attention have been approached with the finesse of a bull in a china shop. Scope estimate that disabled people will lose some £9 billion in income this parliament.

Iain Duncan Smith is now demonising those he is failing most. Compassionate Conservatism is dead. Contemptuous Conservatism has taken its place.

Let’s take reform of Incapacity Benefit. Of course it needs modernising. We started it. But this Government is making such a mess of it that nearly half of reviews end in tribunals and nearly half of those see decisions over turned. For some it will take a year before your case is even heard. Let’s call that what it is. It’s chaos reminiscent of border control at Heathrow Airport.

Together, these attacks one after the other are piling up in such a way. The Red Tape challenge threatens important safeguards against discrimination. Legal Aid reform will make it harder for disabled people to win their rights. Cuts to Contributory ESA take away vital help people have paid in for. Social care cuts are restricting care to only critical cases. Universalism crumbling. And this is set to get worse.

So here we are in the world’s fourth richest nation on earth and we’re saying to those with disabilities that we won’t help you work; we won’t help you get out the house; indeed many of you are worried the Government’s selective briefings are actually inflaming hate crime.

So, together Anne McGuire and I, together with shadow Social Care Minister, Liz Kendall, will be taking evidence around the country from people with disabilities, from carers, from campaigners, from public service and business leaders about how we renew the universal in the universal welfare state by turning rights into reality.

Bloody hell. If Liam Byrne turns his words into actions he may actually become popular.

The reaction on Twitter was equally gobsmacked.

Demos have also done some research into “tracking the lives of disabled families through the cuts…”

Here’s hoping Liam Byrne actually spends time talking to disability activists to get their input on how to reform and improve the disability benefits system, and come up with better proposals than they did while in power.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Equality

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


1. john bailey

Not to snipe overly – I admire what was said. BUT if his facts on ‘richest nation’ are anything to go by…. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
That would be seventh in GDP terms on 2011 figures.

It’s window dressing. I’ll give you a clue: when he says the system needs “modernising”, he ain’t talking about increasing payments and making more people elegible for it.

I’ll be happy to be proved wrong, but won’t be holding my breath.

3. Alisdair Cameron

Agree with Jon at 2.
He’s slippery, and sincerity is an alien concept to him.

Absolutely with Jon @ 2.

Who in their right mind would trust what a politician says – particulary a Conservative.

I’ll believe it when I see it, I’m afraid. I’m just about old enough to remember the marvellous things Tony Blair said before he was elected.

This chaos may be devastating for huge numbers of disabled people, but it is immensely lucrative for outsourcing industry giants like Serco and ATOS, not to mention for private health insurers (when it comes to persuading people to buy expensive policies, nothing works better than a bit of fear), and I have little doubt that as Labour approached office the pressure on them through numerous channels to maintain profits in these industries will be immense.

Quite apart from the lobbying, the donations and the ‘revolving door’ issue, it’s violently against New Labour ideology. I mean, unless you’re an old socialist Labourite, you don’t have crass, leftist confrontations with the leadership of FTSE100 companies. You work in friendly partnership with them. That pretty much rules out reducing their profits.

@ Barrie J hmmm, is that all you have to say? Actually, he is Labour. And Labour were the only politicians to speak up for the sick and disabled during the fiasco of the Welfare Reform Bill. We should wait and see if his promises translate into action before damning him.

I think he discovered that Birmingham doesn’t want a mayor and that Ed ‘showed him the instruments’.

Additionally, if Labour have been following the course of the campaign against IDS’ and Grayling’s social butchery, they will have noted the truth is seeping out and people don’t like it. There are also eyes outside the UK that are not happy with what is being done here.

‘We started it’. Indeed you did.

@Bob Labour sticking up for us over the WRB was relative – I’m no more likely to have experienced a miracle cure after 2 years rather than after 1, so arguing for time-limiting of ESA at 24 months (which I’d already have had when it kicked in) rather than 12 months isn’t a significantly different position. Labour or ConDem, I and hundred of thousands of other disabled people would still have been left with no income.

I’ve read the transcript of Byrne’s speech, it sounds good, but we need more than ‘sounds good’ and we need it now. And ultimately this is still the party that Unum persuaded to subject us to the WCA in the hope of increasing their personal disability insurance business, still the party of Ed’s ‘I met a man speech’. Those are neither forgotten nor forgiven by many disabled people, and it will take substantial action to convince us that we are seeing more than just pretty words

This is very interesting, and I hope it translates into some decent policies which Labour can start pushing between now and 2015. If they position themselves as a more compassionate party against the savage Coalition cuts to disability benefits etc then they might have a hope of stirring some disabled people out of voter apathy. Many still remember what James Purnell and Yvette Cooper did. It will take a fair bit of effort for some sick and disabled people to trust Labour.

Actually what I would like to see happen most is Labour politicians starting to speak to sick/disabled people directly like we are human beings who have a vote – and pledge to do things for us rather than doing what the Coalition do, i.e. always talking about us in the third person like we are a problem that needs to be managed.

Now can we stop also demonising and penalising the unemployed, who have no work as there are not enough jobs?

I can only hope Liam Byrne means what he says. On past form, it would be a remarkable turnaround.

I suspect that Labour has picked up on the fact that some of the terrible stories and death caused by the WCA are leaking out. The public are all for bashing scroungers – which they have been deliberately led to believe are legion. But they will not tolerate taking benefits away from the truly vulnerable or deserving (as they see it)

This much is obvious from today’s sudden turn around by the government from that appalling Telegraph article only days ago by Ian Duncan Smith. Now, suddenly,due to public outcry, limbless ex-servicemen will not undergo the new DLA tests. This is no doubt popular – but is ludicrous. We will have a two tier system where one person with no legs is considered more “deserving” than another. What about servicemen who are blinded? Is that going to be different too? Or PTSD. The impediments are the same, for all people, however aquired. What about Gulf War Veterans with M.E symptoms. Will they now be recognised or still treated as malingerers like they and other sufferers have been up till now?

I fear that Labour will choose to go whichever way seems most popular with the public. If benefit bashing wins out on the doorstep, then that’s what we will have more of. If the public wake up to the lies they have been fed and hear daily about the injustices and horror stories being inflicted on the sick and disabled – then Labour will suddenly become the champion of the vulnerable.

After all, Cameron promised that the disabled have “nothing to fear” from a Conservative government. Yet those who are being “processed” though this appalling sytem know they have everything to fear.

So why should we believe Liam Byrne? Scrap Atos and the WCA then we will know he is telling the truth. But so far, not a mention.

Expressing sympathy for the disabled may prove electorally lucrative in the short term. It’s a very easy way to paint the Tories/Lib Dems as the nasty party, but it doesn’t mean Labour have any great regard for the disabled either.

There are some sub groups of disabled people that the public, even the Daily Mail, are sympathetic towards, namely disabled children and disabled veterans. It was a tactical mistake for the Condems to explicitly state that changing the definition of disabled so that those missing limbs would not count and that the change definitely applied to veterans from Afghanistan and Iraq. The British public feel a sympathy for wounded veterans that of course is not extended to those who lose limbs in other circumstances.

The current coalition policy on the disabled is essentially New Labour’s policy speeded up. Creating a lucrative market in disability insurance from companies like Unum Provident is dependent on a lack of a safety net for the disabled and the spreading of fear amongst the public that it could happen to them. I don’t see this changing.

Creating free markets in individual care through things like personal care plans and the reforms to special educational needs allows governments to shift the blame for inadequate provision due to cuts to the individuals being cared for or their carers while introducing explicit profit motives into care provision is something that all liberal parties would agree with and support introducing (Sarah Teather was enthusiastic about it yesterday, while the parents of disabled children were less so).

By shifting the responsibility to parents, carers and the disabled themselves to manage budgets, assess different services, study contracts and make decisions means that of course the best decisions for care will be made, as parents, carers and the disabled have the necessary time, experience, negotiation, legal and assessment skills to more efficiently allocate resources that council legal teams and specialist officers do not. This increased efficiency means the budgets for specialist provision can be reduced in anticipation of these reforms, secure in the knowledge that there will be no drop in the quality of care and support provided.

New Labour may make comforting sounding noises, but will never, and should never, lose sight of the benefits to private business of reforming disability benefits, or of using the ‘scrounger’ label, particularly when discussing disabled people there isn’t public sympathy for, like the mentally ill.

Using disability activists as ammunition to attack the coalition is desirable, but Labour party supporters should always remember that once they have wrung whatever electoral benefit can be had from them, it will be time to rejoin the liberal consensus on the matter and return to the rhetoric of the deserving and undeserving disabled.

13. Roger Mexico

But I can remember IDS making similar speeches fun of compassion and understanding and listening when in opposition. That worked out well didn’t it?

I’ve just skimmed through Byrne’s speech and to be honest it doesn’t seem to be up even to the sort of thing Duncan Smith said. No apologies for mistakes (even if excused as well-intentioned); no thought of reconsidering the use of companies such as ATOS (even Osborne promised this); no acceptance that the language used against the disabled and the red-tape involved both started under Labour.

Instead Byrne just delivered a smug and wearying partisan moan, where everything was wonderful up to May 2010. To be honest I’m surprised that the disabled weren’t simply cured by the holy touch of New Labour. Since then nothing but evil has reigned. The end.

I appreciate that campaigners such as Sue Marsh want to hear something from at least one political party that implies more than warm words and hard hearts. But this is just words, with a favourite one, as already pointed out, being “modernisation”. Anyone with less of a tin-ear than Byrne would have stopped using that years ago – we’ve all worked what that means by now.

Incidentally a good indication of a change of heart would have been praise for the campaigning against the disability cuts and legislation that Sue and many other individuals and organisations have been doing. Nothing much there I can see – I suppose he got irritated with all these people in wheelchairs cluttering the place up.

Labour does have chance to change things things here. Even from a political viewpoint I suspect the campaigning I mentioned has begun to change attitudes. The “I didn’t think they meant us” effect is starting to take hold and will be reinforced by local coverage and personal contact. Activists within Labour need to make sure that more than warm words happen. And as far as Byrne is concerned they need to find him something else to do. Does Birmingham Alabama need a new Mayor?

14. Albert Spangler

God, the comments are depressing because they’re true.

My hope is that encouragement of ths kind of laudable sentiment within Labour will stop them being so bloody scared of actually appearing to have some kind of conscience. I always got the impression that there’s some kind of residue left over from the collective pant-shitting about ‘scroungers’ and the like. It will take a lot of scrubbing to clean those stains and I hope this is a start.

So I say good for him. The more people who speak up about this, the more we weaken the grip of a fear of compassion for the vulnerable. If we just disregard it all, we remove some of the incentive for people to speak more views like this.

I am well aware that no Labour person of importance is going to care about the comment of some berk on the internet, but maybe we can do more good with encouragement than unrelenting cynicism.

Bob @6:

“Labour were the only politicians to speak up for the sick and disabled during the fiasco of the Welfare Reform Bill.”

Why do I get the feeling that they were more exercised about the infringement of their copyrights on the issue than what was actually in the Bill?

I’d no more trust Byrne on welfare than I ever trusted Purnell on welfare; it would be on a par with trusting Straw, Blunkett, Clarke, Reid, Smith and Johnson on civil liberties.

“Disability affects 11 million adults … that’s nearly one in four adults…”

Is this really true? In one of the world’s richest countries, when medical technology has never been more hi-tech, a quarter of the population is disabled?

I really hope he will be true to his word. I emailed him about just this issue a year ago and he did not even bother to reply.

18. Roger Mexico

test

Well people get old you know (sorry if this is a shock) and older people make up an increasing proportion of the population (and the highest number of the disabled).

Also I suspect ‘affects’ includes carers and others in the immediate family. Which given the time required in looking after a disabled spouse or parent or child or sibling is fair enough. Even if you’re not the primary carer, the rest of the household and maybe extended family will be affected by the reallocation of household duties and of money caused by additional costs.

test: Is this really true? In one of the world’s richest countries, when medical technology has never been more hi-tech, a quarter of the population is disabled?

That’s not quite what the quote says, but yes, it’s broadly true.
1) One of the nice things about medical advances is that people die of preventable causes much less. As a consequence, they can either live long enough to accumulate disabilities, and/or be given disabilites rather than killed by a particular health condition. 16% of our population is over 65, and this figure is rising.
2) “Affects” is a bit vague, but it could quite easily include family members and other carers for people with disabilities.
3) Mental health conditions count. Despite our medical technology we’re not even able to reliably diagnose them, never mind treat them effectively.
4) Also despite our medical advances, there remain a lot of disabling health conditions which are incurable.
5) “Affects” is still a bit vague but may also include people who have been disabled in the past, if it has an ongoing effect on their life.

@16 There is no cure for autism, no cure for downs syndrome, no cure for paralysis caused by spinal injuries, no cure for putting your back out, no cure for old age, I could go on, but you get the point.
Until nanotech augmentation like out of Deus Ex becomes reality, medical science will still only be able to do so much with our relatively fragile bodies.

apart from the fact that Byrne is a liar – it’s all good

@test,

I think a problem arises when the media or politicians talk about “the disabled””. The public tend to define this very narrowly as mainly those with obvious and visible disabilities, ie in wheelchairs (as in the symbol for disabled facilities etc),

The disability community uses the term “sick and disabled” because it is more accurate. And of course, people can be “disabled”, in terms of normal functioning, by chronic or severe illness. There are also many people who suffer from what are known as “invisible disabilities”. There is nothing to show on the outside for many serious and life changing conditions. Someone can appear to be up and about one day and look “normal” to outsiders, for the short time they see them, but may be bedridden within hours or the next day.

That is why it is so important politicians are clear what they mean when they refer to the disabled. The public judges by what it can “see” and often judges very,very wrongly. Under current government rhetoric, hate crime has risen by 75%. Often because the public judge someone eg in a disabled parking bay as not “looking” disabled, when they have no idea of the facts. eg someone in severe pain or with terminal cancer can still get out for a while but will need the help a Blue Badge can provide. It doesn’t have to mean they own the car themselves. The Badge belongs to the person, not the car so can be used if friends use their cars to take someone out.

I can’t say what figures Byrne was using. But a few days ago the Lancet reported that there is a rising number of people under 65 with 2 or more chronic,long term conditions.

A team of researchers analysing 1.75 million people in Scotland found that nearly a quarter had two or more chronic diseases.
These disorders were more common among poorer communities and occurred 10-to-15 years earlier than among those living in affluent areas.

Although the prevalence of multimorbidity increased with age and was present in most people aged over 65, the actual number of people with multimorbidity was higher in those under 65, the study said. They asked about 40 common conditions such as coronary heart disease, diabetes, cancer, stroke and depression.

So someone with coronary heart disease may not look “disabled” but can nevertheless be so limited in their ability to function, such as walking a few steps, that this is a disability.

Children and adults who would have died from various conditions only a few years ago, may now survive, due to medical interventions. People are definately living longer, but often at the cost of living with disabilities, which profoundly affect the ability to function in a normal manner.

23. Chaise Guevara

@ 20 Cylux

“Until nanotech augmentation like out of Deus Ex becomes reality”

And we all pray it will.

24. Chaise Guevara

@ 19 cim

““Affects” is a bit vague”

Horribly vague. You guys are right to point out to Test why being in a third-world country might in fact *raise* rates of disability (although some of the other people are being a bit unfair: it seemed like an honest enough question and I can see why some might find the reality counterintuitive). But “affects” means bugger-all without methodology, it renders the data meaningless. I can’t park right next to the supermarket because that space is reserved for disabled people; oh look, I am affected.

Clarifying the percentage of disabled people in the population is an important point, ignorance of the real range of disability is a fundamental driver in the abuse we face on the streets, and that in turn drives politicians to pander to it.

The figure of 20 to 25% of the population with some form of disability comes from the government itself, in separate studies by the Office of Disability Issues and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The reason that the public find the figure so perplexing is that they don’t understand the breadth of coverage of the definition of ‘disabled’ that is being used. The definition used is that from the Disability Discrimination Act and now the Equality Act. This states that someone is disabled if they have: “A physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on a person’s ability to carry out day-to-day activities.”

Disability doesn’t need to be all encompassing and immediately visible, though it sometimes seems half the population are convinced only wheelchair users are ‘really’ disabled. That 20 to 25% covers people with depression, epilepsy, hearing loss, spinal problems (‘bad backs’ might be derided, but mine cost me my career, and dominates my life), and hundreds of other disabilities that simply aren’t visible to the casual, and ill-informed, observer. We’re thankful that the law recognises the sheer breadth of disability, but isn’t it about time the rest of the population caught up, isn’t it time the political parties played their part in helping the population to understand the real numbers of disabled people out there?

I was thinking earlier about the difference between racism and disablism. Racism is a declining problem (though still far too common), because people took a stand and decided that it was no longer acceptable in contemporary society. Disablism, on the other hand, is a growing problem, because politicians across all the major parties decided to scapegoat us for the sake of political convenience. And isn’t that a sad reflection on the quality and morals of our political leadership.

Just the other day my daughter had a set to with a man in restaurant because my grandson was making a noise. When my daughter explained that her son was autistic he said that was just an excuse. I’m not sure how to deal with such ignorance, to me my grandson looks and sounds so obviously autistic. Whats important is that any Government should not allow ignorant opinions about autism or any other disability prevail.

20/Cylux: There is no cure for autism,

That reminds me…
6) Quite a lot of variations are disabilities rather than differences because our society is set up to make them so. Rather than fixing the problem with society we try to “cure” the difference. Advances in medical technology are therefore not necessarily useful. (Other technological advances can be in some cases; in other cases it’s either not a technological problem or it could have been solved with ancient technology if people had remembered it existed [1])

In the case of autism specifically, I’m fairly sure I’ve never read anything by a person with autism in support of finding a “cure”. Which is hardly surprising, as the statement “your personality and way of viewing the world is defective; please hold while we look for a way to prevent future people being like you” is extremely dangerous. There are a number of social and mostly non-technological adjustments that could be made instead that would stop autism being “a problem” (by which is often meant “people with autism are the problem”); there seems to be little will to make them.

[1] We invented ramps tens of thousands of years ago and we still haven’t managed to install them everywhere, so I’m not holding out much hope for more complex technological solutions.

28. Planeshift

“Until nanotech augmentation like out of Deus Ex ”

And with that, several readers just reinstalled the game 😉

The thing about the government demonising disabled people is that it was only going to work electorally for a few years – after that there are simply too many people effected by the benefit chanegs and atos etc who have friends and families. The issue was always going to be when the tide turned, not whether it turned. I hope this statement marks the begining of that tide turning (and frankly about fucking time), and the process ends up with a full investigation into both labour and conservative politicans and the way they have acted. Because several of them should be facing criminal charges over this.

While his comments are obviously welcome, I am suspicious of his motives.

Byrne will say and do, if given half a chance, any bloody thing whatsoever that will:

(1) Do his career the most good possible given that he is a prick,

and,

(2) Do the Labour Party the most good electorally based on public opinion.

Byrne has no core values, ethical principles, or overarching morality. Byrne has no moral compass to guide him. Byrne will do whatever he thinks is expedient. Byrne should have been reshuffled out of the shadow cabinet earlier in the week. He’s a stinker!

“disability activists”

lol

Do you mean lefties who are disabled in some manner? And would then go onto suggest they somehow represent disabled people?

Is being disabled now a ‘lefty thing’ in culture too?

32. Chaise Guevara

@ 31 tory

“Do you mean lefties who are disabled in some manner? And would then go onto suggest they somehow represent disabled people? ”

It means people campaigning for the needs and rights of the disabled, obviously. It’s not limited to lefties or those who are themselves disabled.

“Is being disabled now a ‘lefty thing’ in culture too?”

You ask the weirdest questions. No, self-evidently disability isn’t limited to the left. If you’re annoyed that sticking up for disabled people is associated with the left, perhaps you could ask your party leader to get rid of his I’m Alright Jack policy on the issue?

33. Grayling

It was a very popular dream in the middle of Europe a while back. The dream kind of died in a prison gymnasium in Nuremburg 1946 at the hands of the US Army hangman. One of the customers of aforementioned soldier was Julius Striecher.

And the funny things is this. Herr Streicher really never laid hands on anyone and the prosecutor at Nuremberg accepted that he probably did not even know anything of the camps. And yet he took his little walk up the ladder because he was found to have fuelled flames of hate with his vitriol as editor of Der Sturmer.

Anyone got a spare history book for morally bankrupt politicians like Iain Duncan Smith ( who admitted they may have ” ramped it up too much ) , Chris Grayling ( who claims he’s bemused by it all but says the Press got the message wrong …which in turn begs the question as to what the message was supposed to be ) and Maria Miller ? and of course IDS’s SPAD’s Susie Squire , ex of the Far Right Tax Payers Alliance , a motley crew of far right ideologues that would make Margaret Thatcher look like a bleeding hearts liberal and funded by big corporates with vested interests in paying as little tax as possible and Phillippa Stroud from a weird religious sect that offers to pray away the gays .

Everything is dictated by far right lunatics and big corporates such , the links between the various companies such as UNUM ( formerly the outlawed UNUM Provident ) , ATOS and Govt Ministers is quite frankly , sickeningly incestious …so corrupt !

When functions of the State are arrogated to unaccountable corporations , it’s dabbling with a extreme form of corporatism as used in bankrupt fascist Italy by Mussolini during World War II ….there’s economic problems on a par with the 1930?s too .


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Has Liam Byrne discovered his conscience over disability benefits? http://t.co/kIMUxxDn

  2. Kim Blake

    Has Liam Byrne discovered his conscience over disability benefits? http://t.co/kIMUxxDn

  3. Louise Hickman

    Has Liam Byrne discovered his conscience over disability benefits? http://t.co/kIMUxxDn

  4. Jason Brickley

    Has Liam Byrne discovered his conscience over disability benefits? http://t.co/qpi1LkGC

  5. Andrew Rice

    Has Liam Byrne discovered his conscience over disability benefits? http://t.co/kIMUxxDn

  6. sunny hundal

    Has Liam Byrne discovered his conscience over cuts to disability benefits? http://t.co/8dxO9cdc

  7. Collin Whittaker

    Has Liam Byrne discovered his conscience over cuts to disability benefits? http://t.co/8dxO9cdc

  8. Sarah Shoraka

    Has Liam Byrne discovered his conscience over cuts to disability benefits? http://t.co/8dxO9cdc

  9. Liza Harding

    Has Liam Byrne discovered his conscience over disability benefits? http://t.co/kIMUxxDn

  10. Eugene Grant

    'Has Labour's Liam Byrne discovered his conscience over disability benefits cuts?' http://t.co/8dxO9cdc << by me

  11. claudiawood

    @sunny_hundal 's take on the #beveridge2 lecture hosted by @demos yesterday http://t.co/Bopdq6YY a promising shift in narrative?

  12. Eugene Grant

    “@sunny_hundal: 'Has Labour's Liam Byrne discovered his conscience over disability benefits cuts?' http://t.co/c5Q0Psto #QTWTAIN?

  13. Marsha de Cordova

    Has Liam Byrne discovered his conscience over disability benefits? | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/oH5XEtFa via @libcon

  14. liane gomersall

    Has Liam Byrne discovered his conscience over disability benefits? | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/7R9ViWqX

  15. BevR

    Has Liam Byrne discovered his conscience over disability benefits? | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/hH71xlBL via @libcon

  16. Has the Labour party’s approach to sick and disabled people shifted? | Black Triangle Campaign

    […] rights for disabled people that many weren’t sure what to think (see some of the reactions here). Some strongly criticised the lack of concrete policy ideas, others were understandably suspicious […]

  17. Mark Smithson

    Has Liam Byrne discovered his conscience over disability benefits? | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/hH71xlBL via @libcon

  18. David Forman

    Has Liam Byrne discovered his conscience over disability benefits? | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/7R9ViWqX

  19. anna-rose phipps

    RT @libcon: Has Liam Byrne dscoverd his conscience ovr disblity benefits? http://t.co/JHapMveq
    IS this,cld this REALLY b, THE Liam Byrne?

  20. Linda Burnip

    'Has Labour's Liam Byrne discovered his conscience over disability benefits cuts?' http://t.co/8dxO9cdc << by me

  21. BevR

    Has Liam Byrne discovered his conscience over disability benefits? | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/hH71xlBL via @libcon

  22. Terri Bennett

    Has Liam Byrne discovered his conscience over disability benefits? | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/hH71xlBL via @libcon

  23. Jeni Parsons

    Has Liam Byrne discovered his conscience over disability benefits? | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/RuJohheO via @libcon

  24. John Dyer

    Has Liam Byrne discovered his conscience over disability benefits? | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/RuJohheO via @libcon

  25. Juli

    'Has Liam Byrne discovered his conscience over #disability benefits?' | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/qO7kxq7J via @libcon

  26. Roger

    Has Liam Byrne discovered his conscience over disability benefits? | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/RuJohheO via @libcon

  27. Eugene Grant

    @sunny_hundal "Has Liam Byrne discovered his conscience over disability benefits?" http://t.co/avZfRGS8; My take here > http://t.co/sSUZVgSl

  28. sunny hundal

    @sunny_hundal "Has Liam Byrne discovered his conscience over disability benefits?" http://t.co/avZfRGS8; My take here > http://t.co/sSUZVgSl

  29. Why Labour cannot rely on Anti-Tory votes alone « Dead Letter Drop

    […] Byrne’s announcement of a co-produced policy review. Editor of the popular Liberal Conspiracy, Sunny Hundal, asked: ‘Has Liam Byrne discovered his conscience over disability benefits?” One of the authors of the […]

  30. Michael Bater

    RT @libcon: Has Liam Byrne discovered his conscience over disability benefits? http://t.co/he6YrgXq

  31. Linda Burnip

    @sunny_hundal "Has Liam Byrne discovered his conscience over disability benefits?" http://t.co/avZfRGS8; My take here > http://t.co/sSUZVgSl

  32. Fiona Collie

    Has Liam Byrne discovered his conscience over disability benefits? | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/xnSUmJQi via @libcon

  33. NORBET

    Has Liam Byrne discovered his conscience over disability benefits? | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/z1le1Rzo via @libcon

  34. Byrne suggests a Labour change of heart over benefit cuts… | Atos Victims Group News

    […] Has Liam Byrne discovered his conscience over disability benefits?(liberalconspiracy.org) […]

  35. NORBET

    Has Liam Byrne discovered his conscience over disability benefits? | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/z1l9uhyu via @libcon

  36. Pensions Victorious, Happy and glorious! | Henrytapper's Blog

    […] Has Liam Byrne discovered his conscience over disability benefits? (liberalconspiracy.org) […]

  37. jennie holland

    Has Liam Byrne discovered his conscience over disability benefits? | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/zP9KPlfw via @libcon





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.