Even if BPS theories and misrepresentations are in the core of the structure of ESA and PIP (I'd like to see some evidence that this is uniquely so) they are there because they serve a political pupose, not because politicians were fooled into acceptance or blind to the implications.
I'm not too sure what you mean by this. Do you not think that there are politicians who do believe the exaggerated claims made about the psychosocial determinants of disability, and the ability of the state to alter policies in a way which is in accordance with the BPS model will improve the lives of the sick and disabled and save the government money at the same time?
As for wanting evidence of the importance of the BPS approach, your Hansard search should have found Lord Freud citing Aylward's pamphlet promoting the BPS model as an explanation of the underpinnings of their approach to disability for Welfare reform.
There was some discussion of this here, and the White book on BPS which I think is important:
http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...cial-model-paper-from-2004.17783/#post-271134
Aylward was a key figure at the DWP when the foundation for these reforms was laid (and the reason the DWP helped fund PACE), and is about as clear as one can be about his desire to promote a BPS approach when talking to Atos:
"I was very taken by what was discussed today at the
conference about pyschosocial issues and vocational
rehabilitation. I've been working hard to get this on the agenda
and to get the bio-psychosocial model adopted by those in
power."
http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...some-disability-protestors.19463/#post-298015
Atos's website described their assessments as being biopsychosocial.
While we cannot know exactly what minister's mean when they endlessly claim that welfare reforms were necessary to account for our 'new understanding of disability', it seems that there has been some breakthrough in our understanding which fits pretty closely to the biopsychosocial model.
Again I'd like to see evidence for the BPS model being a 'first cause' in political thinking on UK benefit changes.
What do you mean, 'again'? Has anyone claimed that they were a 'first cause'? With political changes as significant as this, there are always going to be a number of different factors shaping policy. The promotion of the BPS model has been very important, but I'm not even sure what it would mean for it to be a 'first cause'. That there was no desire to reduce spending on disability benefits prior to the development of the BPS model?
If BPS has had any influence on UK government policy, it is only (as with pretty much any other idea) because it confirms exisiting political prejudices.
I disagree. Where do you think that all of these existing political prejudices come from? They can be shaped by ideas like the BPS approach, particularly if it's being promoted by those who can claim to be indpendent experts and they are telling politicians what they want to hear.
If BPS is in the package it's because it fits with the reigning political paradigm, not because the paradigm has been formed arround BPS.
It's not either/or. The BPS model has successfully shaped and altered the political consensus partly because it fit with a number of pre-existing desires and interests.
And who says it doesn't work ?
In terms of moving sick and disabled people into paid employment, it is now starting to be accepted that it does not work, as that is what the data shows. If you remove the claims about empowering and energising people rather than abandoning them, and the reforms need to be more honestly sold as a way of saving money by pushing many sick and disabled people into poverty, then I think that's a healthy thing for democratic debate in this country.
Labour doesn't need the BPS to get itself into a policy cul de sac over health, disability and employment, it's been there for fourty years.
The BPS model helped it pretend otherwise, and avoid making difficult choices honestly.
I really don't think that more than about fifty MPs or Lords could explain BPS or recognise anything related to it without going to Wikipedia first. Politicians want lots of things, yes many of them 'care' but few are ever forced to face up to the contradictions of their own positions. I've seen Tory councillors and MPs who've supported massive destruction of the social housing sector, when faced with one of their own constituents who is urgent need of housing just can't understand why their demand that something should be done, can't be met. Labour MPs weren't ignorant of what the effects of ESA would likely be (even under best of all possible worlds it was clear from 2008 that many disabled peoples lives would be made more miserable) Labour MPs simply chose to believe it would all be good, they didn't need to have some new nostrum like the BPS to persuade them, their existing belief system was quite enough to encourage such crass optimism.
I'm not saying that they have any depth of understanding, but if they have reassuring sounding independent experts telling them that these reforms will be good for the sick and disabled, then that is going to affect their view of these sorts of reforms.
You seem to keep arguing against exaggerated versions of what I've actually said.
