A Masterclass in Evasion: How the Labour Government Proved the UN Right
Let's be clear. Many of us dared to hope. After the scorched-earth policies of the previous government against disabled people, the arrival of a Labour government felt like a chance to finally breathe. A chance for a government that would see us as people, not as a line on a balance sheet.
That hope, was tragically premature.
What I’m about to walk you through is a perfect, clinical example of how this Labour government is already learning to sideline, ignore, and gaslight the disabled community. It’s a story that shows how our concerns are systematically filtered out of the system until all that’s left are empty, polished phrases that mean absolutely nothing.
It starts with a letter from the United Nations. Yes, that United Nations. Their Special Rapporteurs on the rights of persons with disabilities and extreme poverty wrote to the UK government expressing “alarm.” They stated bluntly that the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper and the Universal Credit Bill appear to “prioritise fiscal considerations over human rights.”
This is a massive deal. It’s a formal, international condemnation.
So, I did what we’re always told to do. I engaged with the democratic process. I contacted my MP, Shaun Davies of the Labour Party, and asked him to submit a specific, hard-hitting Parliamentary Question to the Disabilities Minister. The question was designed to force the government to confront the UN’s criticism directly:
'…what specific steps her Department is taking to ensure… [Labours reforms] are fully compliant with the UK's obligations… particularly in light of the recent letter from UN Special Rapporteurs which raised concerns that the reforms prioritise fiscal considerations over human rights.'
See that last part? That was the crucial bit. It directly contrasted the government’s warm words with the UN’s damning evidence.
Step 1: The Muted Question
My MP, Shaun Davies, agreed to table the question. But he warned me he would have to "amend it slightly" due to Parliamentary rules on format. This is where the first stage of the evasion began.
What was the amendment? He completely removed the reference to the UN’s criticism. The part about “prioritising fiscal considerations over human rights” was surgically deleted.
The question was defanged. It was transformed from a direct challenge into a simple, procedural query about “steps for compliance.” The sting was taken out. The government was no longer being asked to answer for the specific allegation against them.
Step 2: The Empty Response
The government’s response to this neutered question was a masterclass in bureaucratic word salad. I have received it, and it is, frankly, insulting.
The Disabilities Minister’s reply boils down to this:
· “We take our obligations very seriously.” (Unproven assertion)
· “Our reforms are to help disabled people fulfil their potential.” (A meaningless slogan)
· “We are talking to people in committees.” (A deflection)
Let’s be clear about what this response did not contain:
· No specific steps to ensure UNCRPD compliance.
· No mention of the UN Special Rapporteurs' letter whatsoever.
· No attempt to deny the central allegation that they are prioritising money over our human rights.
They talked about “collaboration committees,” the “Disability Advisory Panel,” and the “Timms Review.” It’s all process and no substance. It’s a shield made of consultancy-speak, designed to hide the fact that they have no real answer to the UN’s devastating critique.
The Verdict: An Unacceptable Insult
This entire process is a perfect microcosm of why we feel so betrayed and used.
1. Our concerns are filtered out by the system before they even reach the government. The most critical part of my question was deemed too confrontational for Parliament.
2. The government then answers this softer version with a pre-written, generic statement full of warm, fuzzy words about “engagement” and “potential” that are utterly disconnected from the brutal reality of their policies.
3. The original, serious charge from an international body is simply ignored. They hope we won't notice.
They are using us. They are using the language of inclusivity to disguise a policy direction that, according to the UN, violates our rights. They are setting up committees as a human shield against criticism, while pushing forth with reforms that will push more of us into poverty.
This is what scapegoating looks like in 2025. It’s not just about blaming us for economic problems; it’s about systematically erasing our voices and our validated criticisms from the official record, replacing them with a government-approved narrative of “support” and “co-production.”
We see you, Labour. We see the game you are playing. And we are not fooled. The hope you were given is turning to dust, replaced by the sickeningly familiar feeling of being a political afterthought, whose human rights are negotiable when the Treasury comes calling.
Our fight, clearly, is far from over. We must make our voices impossible to ignore, in the streets, in the media, and at the ballot box. They’ve shown us their hand. Now we know exactly what we’re dealing with.
Let's be clear. Many of us dared to hope. After the scorched-earth policies of the previous government against disabled people, the arrival of a Labour government felt like a chance to finally breathe. A chance for a government that would see us as people, not as a line on a balance sheet.
That hope, was tragically premature.
What I’m about to walk you through is a perfect, clinical example of how this Labour government is already learning to sideline, ignore, and gaslight the disabled community. It’s a story that shows how our concerns are systematically filtered out of the system until all that’s left are empty, polished phrases that mean absolutely nothing.
It starts with a letter from the United Nations. Yes, that United Nations. Their Special Rapporteurs on the rights of persons with disabilities and extreme poverty wrote to the UK government expressing “alarm.” They stated bluntly that the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper and the Universal Credit Bill appear to “prioritise fiscal considerations over human rights.”
This is a massive deal. It’s a formal, international condemnation.
So, I did what we’re always told to do. I engaged with the democratic process. I contacted my MP, Shaun Davies of the Labour Party, and asked him to submit a specific, hard-hitting Parliamentary Question to the Disabilities Minister. The question was designed to force the government to confront the UN’s criticism directly:
'…what specific steps her Department is taking to ensure… [Labours reforms] are fully compliant with the UK's obligations… particularly in light of the recent letter from UN Special Rapporteurs which raised concerns that the reforms prioritise fiscal considerations over human rights.'
See that last part? That was the crucial bit. It directly contrasted the government’s warm words with the UN’s damning evidence.
Step 1: The Muted Question
My MP, Shaun Davies, agreed to table the question. But he warned me he would have to "amend it slightly" due to Parliamentary rules on format. This is where the first stage of the evasion began.
What was the amendment? He completely removed the reference to the UN’s criticism. The part about “prioritising fiscal considerations over human rights” was surgically deleted.
The question was defanged. It was transformed from a direct challenge into a simple, procedural query about “steps for compliance.” The sting was taken out. The government was no longer being asked to answer for the specific allegation against them.
Step 2: The Empty Response
The government’s response to this neutered question was a masterclass in bureaucratic word salad. I have received it, and it is, frankly, insulting.
The Disabilities Minister’s reply boils down to this:
· “We take our obligations very seriously.” (Unproven assertion)
· “Our reforms are to help disabled people fulfil their potential.” (A meaningless slogan)
· “We are talking to people in committees.” (A deflection)
Let’s be clear about what this response did not contain:
· No specific steps to ensure UNCRPD compliance.
· No mention of the UN Special Rapporteurs' letter whatsoever.
· No attempt to deny the central allegation that they are prioritising money over our human rights.
They talked about “collaboration committees,” the “Disability Advisory Panel,” and the “Timms Review.” It’s all process and no substance. It’s a shield made of consultancy-speak, designed to hide the fact that they have no real answer to the UN’s devastating critique.
The Verdict: An Unacceptable Insult
This entire process is a perfect microcosm of why we feel so betrayed and used.
1. Our concerns are filtered out by the system before they even reach the government. The most critical part of my question was deemed too confrontational for Parliament.
2. The government then answers this softer version with a pre-written, generic statement full of warm, fuzzy words about “engagement” and “potential” that are utterly disconnected from the brutal reality of their policies.
3. The original, serious charge from an international body is simply ignored. They hope we won't notice.
They are using us. They are using the language of inclusivity to disguise a policy direction that, according to the UN, violates our rights. They are setting up committees as a human shield against criticism, while pushing forth with reforms that will push more of us into poverty.
This is what scapegoating looks like in 2025. It’s not just about blaming us for economic problems; it’s about systematically erasing our voices and our validated criticisms from the official record, replacing them with a government-approved narrative of “support” and “co-production.”
We see you, Labour. We see the game you are playing. And we are not fooled. The hope you were given is turning to dust, replaced by the sickeningly familiar feeling of being a political afterthought, whose human rights are negotiable when the Treasury comes calling.
Our fight, clearly, is far from over. We must make our voices impossible to ignore, in the streets, in the media, and at the ballot box. They’ve shown us their hand. Now we know exactly what we’re dealing with.
Fact Check Me here:
Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities | OHCHR https://share.google/FlKwPySr0FkN5aGHx
Parliamentary Question & Government Response in Full
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KTnN4RfFgsIDZEKijS76C7DQax1u0Y-K/view?usp=drivesdk
Comments
Post a Comment