Dusty Wentworth

  Different governments are using different language, but the machinery underneath is becoming remarkably familiar. In Britain, we are told the disability benefits system must become more “affordable”. In America, work requirements are described as “community engagement”. In Australia, tighter control of the National Disability Insurance Scheme is presented as “securing” it for future generations. Different countries. Different slogans. Much the same machinery. Eligibility is narrowed. Assessments become more frequent. Claimants must provide more evidence. Payments are reduced, capped or frozen. Disabled people are divided between a protected minority considered sufficiently severe and everybody else, who must repeatedly prove that their limitations are real. When the same pattern appears across several countries at roughly the same time, dismissing it as coincidence is inadequate. Calling it a single secret global conspiracy would go beyond the evidence. Pretending that these poli...

  The Public Loves Resilience Because It Costs Them Nothing Resilience is one of those words people like to use about disabled people. They say it with admiration. They say it with warmth. They say it as though it is always a compliment. But I have become wary of the word. Not because resilience is false. Disabled people are often resilient. Chronically ill people are often resilient. People living with pain, trauma, neurological conditions, fatigue, mobility loss, and bodies that no longer obey instruction often have to adapt in ways most people never see. The problem is not resilience itself. The problem is how easily society praises it while refusing to ask why so much of it is necessary in the first place. Resilience is praised most loudly by people who do not have to pay the cost of it. That is the uncomfortable truth. When a disabled person manages to leave the house, people see determination. They do not see the planning behind it. They do not see the medication, the pacing,...

Think tanks are often presented as neutral research bodies, offering independent expertise to politicians. Scratch beneath the surface, however, and they look far less impartial. Funded by opaque donors, many function as unregulated lobbying outfits — shaping laws, budgets, and public debate without a shred of democratic accountability. Lobbying in Disguise: The Legal Loophole Britain already has a lobbying register, created by the 2014 Lobbying Act. But here’s the catch: it only applies to consultant lobbyists. Think tanks are exempt. That means a minister can receive a policy paper drafted by a think tank bankrolled by hedge funds, oil firms, or even foreign states — and the public has no way of knowing who really wrote it. Imagine a report recommending lower corporate taxes, paid for entirely by a billionaire who stands to gain most from the change. While the Ministerial Code requires ministers to declare meetings with outside organisations, it does not cover reports, br...