“Disabled people want to live a full life.” Yes — but this article won’t help them.

“Disabled people want to live a full life.” Yes — but this article won’t help them.

Share this content:

Frances Ryan’s latest piece in The Guardian makes an emotional case for the rights of disabled people. No problem with that. I agree with her core aim: a society where those who genuinely can’t work live in comfort and dignity, and those who can are supported to thrive.

But the article is framed in a way that shuts down serious conversation, misrepresents its critics, and fails to reckon with the very real challenges facing the welfare system today. Let’s walk through her claims.

1. “Disabled people are being forced to battle for the right to food or a wash.”

This sets the tone — and it’s wildly overstated. Yes, many disabled people face hardship. But suggesting that we are actively denying them food or hygiene is not just dramatic; it’s misleading.

In fact, welfare support for disabled people is higher now than in previous decades, and significantly more generous than support for non-disabled claimants. The issue is not systemic denial — it’s whether that money reaches the right people, and whether we’re drawing the line correctly between genuine, long-term disability and broader social or mental distress. Ryan doesn’t even attempt to confront that.

2. “Political and media rhetoric devalues disabled people.”

Ryan writes, “Senior politicians question whether 1 in 4 people are ‘really’ disabled. GB News jokes about shooting disabled people.”

Let’s separate two things here.
Mocking the disabled is obviously vile. But questioning disability prevalence is not dehumanising — it’s necessary. If a quarter of working-age people are now classed as disabled, we have to ask: what changed? Has the population really become that much sicker, or are we medicalising hardship?

Recognising overdiagnosis is not cruelty. It’s clarity. And it’s the first step to protecting those who are genuinely disabled from being lost in a sea of vague or dubious claims.

Relevant:
Badenoch: “Term ‘disabled’ in danger of losing all meaning”

3. “Disabled people shouldn’t have to justify their need for essentials.”

Sorry, but this is madness. If you are asking others — taxpayers — to give you money, then yes, you must justify the need. That’s not discrimination. That’s accountability.
Ryan seems to believe that requiring someone to fill in a form or undergo assessment is a violation of their dignity. It’s not. It’s how we protect the integrity of the system and make sure help goes to those who need it.

Asking for someone else’s money always requires a reason. Calling that “dehumanising” is emotional blackmail.

4. “This undermines people’s ability to live full lives.”

Again — two separate issues being lumped together.
Needing to apply for benefits is not what stops people from participating in society. That’s just a bureaucratic process. What actually undermines inclusion is when we treat people as broken, incapable, or beyond contribution.

There’s a deep contradiction here. Ryan laments that disabled people are kept from full lives — and yet she defends a system that often locks them into inactivity.

5. “We must help disabled people to thrive, not just survive.”

Agreed — absolutely. But that means more than just higher benefit payments.
It means identifying those who truly can’t work and ensuring they are looked after generously, with no fuss.
And it also means helping as many others as possible into work, purpose, and public life. This is not cruelty — it’s compassion with dignity.

Frances Ryan herself is the perfect example. She lives with a significant condition. And yet she contributes, works, writes, and shapes debate. Why shouldn’t others be encouraged to do the same?

6. “We must stop seeing disabled people as burdens and value their humanity.”

Who doesn’t agree with that? This is a rhetorical sleight of hand — framing the opposing view as some heartless rejection of human dignity.

Wanting welfare to be fair, targeted, and based on evidence is not hostility. It’s the only way to make sure those in real need are not buried under a mountain of unjustified claims. I don’t want to pay my taxes to support people who could and should be working. That doesn’t make me selfish. It makes me serious.

Relevant:
Frances Ryan’s full article in The Guardian

We need more honesty, not more sentiment

There’s a conversation to be had about the future of disability support in this country. But that conversation needs clarity, not caricature.

It needs a moral distinction between the truly disabled and the situationally distressed. It needs courage to say that work — where possible — is a blessing, not a burden. And it needs to stop dressing up dependency as justice.

We can do better for the disabled. But we won’t get there if the price of disagreement is to be called dehumanising, selfish, or cruel.

Let’s get serious.

Post Comment