I just caught a brief piece on the Today Programme about changes that are proposed to disability benefits. During this piece, it was claimed that the government was going to cut disability benefits by 20%. Only, when challenged, it was conceded that spending would broadly remain at the same level, but that - in time - that level would be some 20% lower than recipients might have expected.

If you're spending £100 on something this year and £80 next year, that's a 20% cut. If you're spending £100 on something this year and £100 next year then that's a 0% cut. To describe it as a 20% cut merely because you thought you were going to spend £125 next year is totally misleading.

Now, I recognise the need for disability benefits and the great improvement they bring to people's lives. But, if you're trying to convince the Chancellor why he should prioritise spending money there instead of, say, education or the National Health Service, please can campaigners base their appeal on facts rather than blatant lies?  Is that really too much to ask? There's an argument to be made for spending more on disability benefits. So make it. To exaggerate or lie about your case merely suggests to taxpayers that your arguments for prioritising spending on disability benefits, when it comes down to it, are weak.

People who read this post also read:

• Tax tosser of the day
• Spit in my face and tell me that you hate me
• In which I wonder about that BBC article on the benefit cap
• Journalists vs auditors
• Real wo/men of the year

Filed under: Politics with tags bbc, disability living allowance, lies, statistics, today programme