"...and basically these people are frankly parasites"

I think we may all have felt that the Motability 'free' cars that Isabel Oakeshott mentioned in that video link may have been 'indirectly' referencing those that are in receipt of the enhanced rate for the mobility component of PIP/ADP, etc.

I must admit as I don't have a Motability car, that I didn't fully know the criteria. As @MW123 correctly says, this also includes those in receipt of the War Pensioners' Motability Supplement (& Armed Forces Independence Payment).

I don't know the statistics (so I'll not make a sweeping generalisation as Oakeshott seemed to have done), but, as can be seen from her quote below, the inference, at least to me, seemed that this was about adult benefit claimants, not those who had a Motability car due to having a disabled child.

What we don't know is how many disabled people may actually be using a Motability car to enable them to get to work!

Isabel Oakeshott said,

''…..Rachel Reeves basically turned this into a Budget of removing resources from those who work in order to keep on sustaining those who, frankly, can't be bothered to get out of bed and get themselves out, whether it's to an office or to any kind of job, and prefer to just sit on the sofa and order their Deliveroo and drive their Motability free vehicle and take everything that the state can offer.

The state, that is people like you and me and our very many listeners who are grafting just to try to make ends meet.

Basically these people are, frankly, parasites.''

Sorry, but I've been singularly unsuccessful in finding an interview where she's previously 'directly' mentioned disabled people.

I remember when I had my last PIP review, I had all the paperwork about motability cars and blue badges but since I can't navigate to drive, both are useless to me and so I never pursued either. That said, and reading up on the official guidelines for both motability and blue badge entitlement, you have to meet very specific criteria to get either.

But these people use sweeping judgements to appeal to the disgruntled. The bigger problem is that people just absorb and repeat comments like this without doing any deeper research into any of the relevant issues. It's obviously irresponsible for any journalist to print information without robust facts to back them up, but the people who just believe without thinking are also at fault. If they didn't believe, people like this have no power. It would just be one opinion into the void.

As a disabled person who works, despite all the barriers, and who has not claimed motability or a blue badge because neither are appropriate for my disability, it makes my blood boil when people make sweeping judgements. But there's a bigger issue of ignorance about disability that needs tackling first. I 100% agree that Scope should be talking about the disabled who work, and the disabled who need PIP in order to be able to work in their responses and statements.

I also think the title of this thread could be triggering to some site users :/ Her words are ugly - do we need to give them more prominence by headlining the discussion with them?

I'm glad you and @Ironside1990 made that parallel, as it was the first thing which came to my mind on hearing what Oakeshott said.

Me too, the day after it was broadcast and I 've heard nothing back except the acknowledgement email. I don't know how long these things usually take.