Dear Mr Hammond
I noted your appearance before the Treasury Select Committee yesterday. In particular, I note your suggestion that the relative decline in UK productivity might have been caused by “far higher levels of participation by marginal groups” in the workforce. I note that you suggested that those with a disability are a marginal group in society.
I am aware that others have objected to your comments. I think they are entirely right to do so. Those with a disability are only marginalised in our society if we choose to make them so: your comments clearly suggest that is your choice. That is not just wrong, it is offensively so.
But let me make an additional comment. I strongly suspect your claim is also false. There are four reasons for thinking so.
First, it is an unfortunate fact that less than 50% of those with a disability are employed in the UK when more than 70% of the population as a whole are economically active. Most disability is no impediment to work. Because people of all inclinations and ability do, by and large (and when not inappropriately coerced by government agencies), choose the work that is best suited to them and the fact is that those with some form of disability are as likely to be choose work to which they are well suited as any other person when given the opprtunity to do so. But, precisely because fewer seem able to access work than the population as a whole it is very likely that those who do work are of above average ability for the tasks that they undertake, assuming (I think entirely appropriately) that this suitability to undertake particular tasks is fairly normal distributed amongst the population as a whole.
Second, your assumption is that those who are disabled are a marginal group in society. I am not sure how you define marginal, but it seems to me that those with what you suggest to be disability are numerous and so anything but marginal.
Third, I would ask you to consider with care what you think might represent disability in the context of inability to undertake an employment. For example, the mathematical abilities of many denies them access to a very wide range of work. In fact, a majority may be in that position in the country. But you are not apparently labelling them, or calling them marginal. It seems that your choice of definition is highly selective, and prejudiced.
Lastly, let me be clear that to measure productivity across the most able, or only those at work, is a particularly futile exercise that clearly suggests that you think only those undertaking some particular activities in society are of worth. We are not just a working population in the UK. We are a population as a whole. If you think productivity measures have changed because we have rising employment that offers opprtunity to some previously denied it then it is not productivity that is at fault, but it is the measurement that is to blame. Those people now at work were previously in the population but denied the chance of employment. If that meant they were excluded from productivity calculations as a result that just shows that the calculations were wrong: the measure should have always been across those able and willing to work, and not just those able to find it. It would seem that you are unable to appreciate this obvious point and yet as a politician you are meant to represent all in society and not just those at work.
The consequence is that in the face of a problem to which you are not willing to provide answers, even though it is readily available in the form of new investment that your government could and should undertake at low or no marginal cost to the country because interest rates are so low at present, but to which you will not commit for purely ideological reasons, you have instead chosen to make offensive comments in the age old political game of seeking to find a scapegoat amongst those you consider more vulnerable for the ills you have created of your own volition. This is politics at its lowest common denominator. It reveals ignorance and prejudice on your part, and a willingness to blame and so intimidate, which are the sure signs of the bully.
It takes some effort for a politician to neatly encapsulate in a sentence or two why they are wholly unfit for high office. You managed it yesterday. If you had any decency you would resign.
Yours sincerely
Richard Murphy
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Hear, Hear.
and thank you for addressing this.
As far as I am concerned Hammond – in dehumanising the disabled – has effectively dehumanised himself and his party.
Let him and them reap the consequences.
PSR;
“Let him and them reap the consequences.”
The general population had a chance earlier this year in a general election to let this government know what they thought about this issue, austerity, Brexit and all the other issues which afflict us through their incompetence and mismanagement at the moment. Not enough of them agreed with you to remove them from office. So they will not ‘reap the consequences’ this year. Wishful thinking is rarely productive. Try something more concrete.
AllanW
There is no wishful thinking here – it is based on observation.
I understand your viewpoint but I believe that last election was very instructive – it did not turn out to be the ‘blue wash’ everyone predicted. Yes – the Tories won in the FPTP system but you only have to look at the way in which they have had to cosy up the DUP to know just how tiny their majority was/is.
Look at BREXIT. Look at how the Government are admitting just how unplanned the whole thing is. And what about the burgeoning unease amongst even the ‘WRECKS-IT’ (sic) community at what might happen if we leave ‘hard’.
And do you think history will be kind to them? I think not. We are watching now the low point of Tory dominance in British politics. Like neo-liberalism, they are actually in their death throes. It is unfortunate that the rest of us have to be dragged down by it too.
How bad must it be before the voter sees that the Tories and their ideas do not work? The UK is not the USA – a vast country where the truth can be lost. We are smaller and more connected.
Well it needs to be bad as it must be in order to be understood I’m afraid. We are on that journey now I feel.
I am more worried about the opposition and the many potential alliances and opportunities that may not be taken when the right time comes.
Not enough of them agreed with you to remove them from office.
And how much of that was down to the constant stream of misinformation, or dare I say it lies that their mates in the right wing media produce? That, I think and hope is changing, people are seeing through the (s)Tories and recognising the agenda for what it is.
Next time they are toast.
Desp
Desperate says:
“Next time they are toast.”
Don’t count your slices ’til the toaster has popped.
If the Tories don’t tear themselves apart FPTP will give them a good chance as it always does. And the precedent is established now to buy the seats they don’t win.
I don’t really agree with your thinking on many things but on this you are spot on.
“If you had any decency you would resign.”
If he had any decency he might not need to resign. Although there would remain the issue of competence.
Just spectacular, Richard. Thank you so much.
Well said Richard
The government has an appalling attitude to disability as evidence by Mo Stewart’s book and article on PP
http://www.progressivepulse.org/society/the-road-to-cash-not-care-a-personal-voyage-of-research-discovery-a-guest-blog-by-mo-stewart
Better disability equality training is needed across the board.
In a wider context, the Conservatives always blame the workers whereas it is always the bosses that are responsible for investing and raising productivity.
Link warmly recommended
Wholeheartedly agree Richard
As if George Osborne’s sadistic persecution of the poor and disabled were not enough.
Hammond is illuminating just how far to the right the Tories have moved.
I am ashamed of my government.
Thanks for your blog, it lifts the spirit in these dispiriting days.
P
Thanks
Firstly, thank you for taking up this important point Richard
As someone labeled disabled, I have first hand experience of il-informed prejudice, ignorance and discrimination as our elected “honourable gentleman” displayed yesterday and it is much more rife than many realise. It is also soul destroying and demoralising, unnecessarily so, but such is the society we live in
It beggars the questions, what kind of society do we want to live in? and for how much longer are we willing to allow our elected “honourable members” to continue on this path?
Damien
Morality, decent behaviour and good judgement aside, marginal groups, by definition, would hardly have a large impact on productivity figures, would they?
What is it with the deficit in calibre and intellect of today’s politicians?
Is it because smart people know it’s a poisoned chalice and seek more rewarding employment elsewhere, leaving politics as the preserve of the greedy, ambitious, amoral, and rather dim?
Agreed
Agree entirely. His comments betray both the ignorance and the arrogance of an out of touch government.
Very well said.
The conditions that exist, in other words the state that we’ve arrived at, enable such safety for Hammond to utter such words.
The same conditions that enable Davies to be so assertive that there are detailed reports Parliament so spends time voting to see them only to find he can assertively deny they ever existed.
And that can find a government twice illegally campaigned to empower itself but can continue you reap the benefit.
Just as a disabled person might give up – not just the battle for benefits but the battle for life – against the DWP conditions of awkwardness and sense of impossibility, the government wants intellectual and moral scrutiny to to the same.
That is the agenda behind actions such as Hammond’s, and tells us that what is horrendously bad is intended to be much, much worse, by turning the screw tighter than we dare even fear.
Such words from Hammond in a world not so conditioned by wrong priority and contrivance could not be uttered. They are words that can only be driven by the darkest of agendas. And prove every step of the ideological ‘freemarket’ must be challenged in the strongest way.
Hammond has just validated the well known saying: “All Bullies are Cowards”
No amount of lying, media manipulation, or prejudice will ever hide YOUR true incompetence.
I am obviously happy to be criticised
But what precisely are you suggesting I have done wrong on this occasion?
Or are you just being abusive?
My comment was not aimed at you. It was aimed at Hammond. So sorry for any confusion, should have made it clearer. I am very grateful to you for your post and agree wholeheartedly with you.
Ah!
Understood
No, Richard, you just don’t understand that people don’t always do language the way you (we) do. 🙂
Just because you’re paranoid…… 🙂
I knew what you meant, Karen.
Glad you’ve got it sorted.
You seem to be saying that those disabled people in the workforce should be of above average worker productivity because there are few of them relatively.
That’s like saying we should expect Somalis who are employed to be more productive once in employ because it’s the best ones who are getting the chances.
No
I am saying they probably are, which is quite different
Deck chairs on the Titanic quibble best ignored.
“unfit for high office”, most definitely.
Thank you for your letter addressing this issue.
In other times, not that long ago, disabled people were set aside as worthless and a hindrance to “progress”.
Well, Mr Hammond has also managed to remind us of those times, once again.
Lots of “distraction” politics now….
While insults to disabled are being extensively debunked, as they should be, we need to look at the magicians hands…
Politics is so Trumpian now..
I knew all this instinctively, but I couldn’t have put it so well and I don’t have an audience. Thank you for saying it with such clarity.
I’d think he’s trying to cover up for absurdities like the DWP, (anecdotal evidence positively trumpets this), telling unemployed people they’ll be sanctioned if they stay on jobseekers but left alone to successfully claim if they pretend to be self-employed…, or, genuinely ill and disabled people quite rightly on sickness/disability benefits being removed from it by the so-called work capability assessments and finding themselves in faux ‘training’ classes endlessly rewriting their CVs. Neither of these cohorts are working, so obviously they aren’t producing anything, but the govt, desperate, one imagines, as always for appearances, chooses to label them as fully employed (this last I discover via the ONS, by the way) when clearly, they’re nothing of the sort.
79% of GDP comes from the service sector (2013) which employs the bulk of disabled workers. This is a sector where it is almost impossible to arrive at any meaningful measurement of “productivity” as no one can define what the output is. Quantity versus quality, efficiency versus effectiveness. Providing quality service while maximizing efficiency by helping the highest number of clients possible and keeping them satisfied at the same time is the best determinant of an efficient and productive organization. How do you measure that effectively? Having worked in this sector most of my working life with many disabled people their contribution was at least as great as mine in most cases. If any politician or economist wants to see the inanity of service sector “productivity” measurement in action simply get a job in any call centre. Yet another occasion where politicians and economists do not have clue what they are talking about when it comes to real life and living. Perhaps they should all resign. Too much to hope for??
By focusing the blame for the UK’s poor productivity on the disabled, Hammond is also diverting attention from what has to be the principal cause of the poor productivity: his party’s appalling policies of failing to encourage investment while simultaneously stripping out workers’ rights.
This has encouraged employers to sit on their cash rather than improve equipment, facilities and methods while simultaneously enabling them to force workers onto zero hours contracts and minimum wage. Who in their right mind ever thought that would encourage greater diligence, effort and ingenuity in the workforce?
My view is that this intentionally destructive Tory policy is the real reason for UK’s poor productivity and that the inference that disabled workers (who must constitute a relatively small percentage of the workforce) are a significant causal factor is an offensive decoy. Does Hammond assume we’re all stupid and won’t rumble him? (rhetorical question btw)
“Does Hammond assume we’re all stupid and won’t rumble him? (rhetorical question btw)”
I don’t think he cares one way or the other.
I completely agree with you here.
Your conclusion that, “This is politics at its lowest common denominator. It reveals ignorance and prejudice on your part, and a willingness to blame and so intimidate, which are the sure signs of the bully,” has summed up why, I think, the tide has turned on this government.
Well done on not letting a bully get away with it.
Excellent response Richard
Not only is Hammond offensive to those who are disabled, but he also shows a profound incomprehension of the real factors driving low productivity
Do the productivity figures measure, for example, domestic cooking and cleaning, or caring for children or elders, or volunteers undertaking unpaid work for charities?
Or do such activities only count when they are paid for in cash?
No
No.
Something to bear in mind when people talk about GDP, productivity and ‘the economy’ in general;
our best estimates are that it represents 50% of the total but some people put it closer to 65% of the total activity in our country which is NOT transacted in strictly monetary terms so cannot easily be measured and is not included in any official statistics. The ‘black economy’ (as in dark matter; we can’t see it) is not just cash-in-hand/underground economic activity but all kinds of work-in-kind labour, all kinds of bartered effort, all kinds of exchanged goods and services that are not accounted for. It includes all sorts of social and within-family caring work, all sorts of reciprocal and altruistic creations of value along with all sorts of extractive and creative activities with any sort of output which is not expressed in monetary terms.
So the figures that are talked about may AT BEST be only half of what’s going on in our country.
Excellent letter Richard. Thank you for putting into words so effectively what I’m sure many of us feel.
Wow! It’ll be ignored of course, but a stinging comment nonetheless. Well done that man. M.
Brilliant! A full frontal assault with double outflanking thrown in for good measure. He will ignore it of course, because to actually consider it would be too painful and shameful.
[…] http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/12/07/dear-mr-hammond/#sthash.BazbPDIp.gbpl […]
My best friend is Blind from birth. He travels daily by coach from Hillingdon to Oxford to work for the University Trust Hospitals. In total 4 hours a day starting at 6 am. Reason he travels is that for last 2 Years he is applying to bring his wife to join him from India (He has lived in the UK for 20 Years) But having great trouble. So he dare not move in case the Home office loose track.
He works in a responsible post coordinating and executing Policy. An economist with a Masters degree from Birmingham University.
Where is the Marginal in this man. He has contributed in every way to the UK Economy.
I am sure this is true for most disabled workers given the opportunity.
In addition he runs a charity in India helping disabled workers to find jobs after training.
Hammond just does not get it…