Stephen Crabb: You don’t improve ‘life chances’ by taking a rape victim and a disabled child to court!

Paul and Sue Rutherford and their grandson Warren, pictured in the living room of their house [Image: Aled Llywelyn/Athena].

Paul and Sue Rutherford and their grandson Warren Todd, pictured in the living room of their house [Image: Aled Llywelyn/Athena].

In the UK, we live in a country where you can read that the Work and Pensions secretary has  pledged a ‘relentless focus’ on improving life chances and that the DWP is spending £100,000 on lawyers to fight a rape victim and the family of a severely disabled child. What does that tell us about our society?

It tells This Writer there is a world of difference between what Stephen Crabb calls “improving life chances” and what the rest of us do.

It also tells me that too many people are prepared to take his words at face value, rather than actually think for themselves and draw a conclusion based on the evidence.

The evidence in favour of “improving life chances” goes as follows (according to the Guardian article from which the comment is taken): “Financial support for people facing poverty is vital – and never, never underestimate the importance of a family in need getting that support in a timely and effective way,” according to Mr Crabb, although it should be borne in mind that he added: “But on its own, cash support is rarely enough.”

How does this square with his department spending £100,000 on lawyers to find a legal justification for removing financial support for people facing poverty due, in these cases, to the Conservative Government-imposed Bedroom Tax? What would it mean if the Tories won?

It would mean the rape victim, ‘A’, who would then be forced to pay the Bedroom Tax on her ‘panic’ room, would be unable to remain in her home – due to lack of money.

It would mean severely disabled Warren Todd, who has a rare genetic disorder that means he is unable to walk, talk or feed himself and is doubly incontinent, may be ejected from the three-bedroom bungalow that has been specially adapted for his care, with one of the bedrooms needed for carers who stay overnight and to store equipment.

In both these cases, the “life chances” of the individuals concerned would be hugely impaired.

Ah, but under the Conservatives’ rules, both ‘A’ and the Rutherfords are under-occupying their homes, and therefore must pay the tax on the extra rooms, right? This brings in valuable cash for the government, to help pay off the National Deficit or whatever excuse they’re using this week.

Except the total saved on the ‘panic’ room, for example, is £11.65 per week. Add in the Rutherfords and it’s probably around £25 – against a Tory Government legal spend of £100,000.

That is massively disproportionate.

What can we conclude, other than that Stephen Crabb is either deluded or disingenuous about the purpose of current DWP policies?

They don’t provide support in a “timely and effectual way”, they don’t “improve life chances” and they don’t even save any money – in fact, they cost a fortune.

Can you describe what the Conservatives are really doing? Mr Crabb seems to need the help!

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:


12 thoughts on “Stephen Crabb: You don’t improve ‘life chances’ by taking a rape victim and a disabled child to court!

  1. Joanna

    We really have to think up some derogatory names for him!!!
    He also said, that he was brought up on a council estate with a single mother raising him.

  2. Florence

    It has recently been pointed out that this is the first time ever a Minister of State will be pursuing one of his own constituents through the courts.

  3. paulrutherford8

    I can’t possibly comment 😉 Warren’s surname is Todd, his mum’s surname. So if you delete the Rutherford after his name, that would be appreciated.

    And thanks!!

  4. Terry Davies

    consider the vermin in parliament they sow only seeds of discontent and hardship. they have tax avoidance scams and second jobs which enable their greed driven policies to accumulate wealth which is not needed. it produces disillusionment so that young people join terrorist organisations hoping to have their dissenting voices heard.
    ISIL is the accumulation of dissenting voices manipulated under the banner of religion. its wrong to support these but its also wrong to support corrupt, greed driven politicians. young people globally have only these choices in reality.
    the ‘No vote is tacit acceptance that this ludicrously unfair system will not change. Demos have a gradual result of producing ‘ managed ‘ change
    but the system will eventually fall into an abyss.
    keep on demonstrating and protesting against government policies. it will produce gradual change. dont vote for tories no matter what policies they offer. they are a lost cause driven by greed, self interest and power lust.

  5. Dez

    You can’t get much lower than a Crabb so he’s living up to his name and still as stupid as his weeping predecessor in wassting my tax money taking folk to Court for something that was broken thinking from its conception. Still not enough flats or houses being built for the public domain but still they persecute the bedroom crap idea as though they are to embarrassed to withdraw it for fear of it being considered a u tuirn rather than a sensible thing to do as they know it is totally flawed. But that’s the stupid Cons for you.

  6. Stu

    It occurs to me that they have been deliberating on these cases since the 2nd of March and many other cases have been completed since.
    Is there some Government interference here preventing release of the decision until the right political time?

    1. paulrutherford8

      I don’t really think so. We were told at court that the decision would take 8-12 weeks before we got it. That gives another week or two until its 12 weeks.
      The stress is getting massive!

  7. MarkG

    Pthirus Pubis (pubic lice.Crabbs). Very similar to the Bulshtwinker parsite (IDS disease louse) often referred to as the brick in a washing machine bug.Is an insect that is an obligate ectoparasite of humans. feeding exclusively on blood, Anoplura (sucking louse) mouthparts adapted for sucking .Describes every Tory parasite really.

Comments are closed.