Citizen journalists are the main target behind the Tories' archive deletion

This week the Daily Politics show discussed whether the 2015 election will be the year that internet campaigning comes into its own. Moreover, The Independent recently reported that Labour's 2015 campaign will put on emphasis on the internet, as all parties look to emulate Obama's success in 2008 which many credited to his utilisation of the internet.

If the internet really is the new election ground to be fought over, then the Conservative party's decision to delete all content prior to 2010 from both its website and the main internet library is even more authoritarian then first thought.

Rightly so, its been accused of deleting its pre-election promises so that the electorate are less able to hold it to account come 2015. The Guardian reported that the only way to access this information now is to visit the British Library and trawl through archived copies of the Tories' site. It may be possible for a national newspaper to find resource to do this but it is unlikely citizen journalists can manage such a colossal task.

If the internet is to be the medium that chooses the next Prime Minister suddenly it seems a master stroke by the Tories to reduce the information available to bloggers.

As an ex-PR man, Cameron is adept at manipulating the press. He's been accused of refusing live interviews with harder-hitting news sources in favour of pre-recorded pieces or 'easier' interviews on shows such as 'This Morning'. Ian Duncan Smith is a master at spin and has repeatedly misused statistics to promote his own ideology.

But its on twitter and Facebook that these tricks are called out by citizens who take the time to spread the real truth behind sensational, inaccurate or plainly wrong headlines. And it works because citizen journalists are diligent at linking to their sources.

Indeed one of my most read blogs was a piece denouncing the Telegraph's coverage of the scrapping of Disability Living Allowance. I think it was particularly well read because it used the Government's own sources and statistics to refute the misinformation spread by Duncan Smith.

But if I now want to highlight how Cameron consistently misled the public about his intentions towards the NHS or the disabled community I've got to rely on second-hand sources to do so. And I may trust the Guardian but I know not everyone who reads my blog does. That's even more true when it comes to political parties. Labour can highlight all the promises the Tories have broken but it will be harder to drive the message home as we've all become fatigued by the leading parties constantly taking a swing at each other.

In Cameron's own words it is clear why he is trying to limit the information available to citizen journalists and therefore the influence social media can spread. He told the Google Zeitgeist Europe conference in 2006: "You have begun the process of democratising the world's information. By making more information available to more people, you are giving them more power."

Social media is still an unknown entity - which political party will benefit most from it come 2015? That question has certainly got the Tories worried.

ESA cancer concession signals popularity contest for disability benefits

The news that the Government is softening its harsh approach to cancer patients claiming sickness benefits is a welcome relief. Yesterday it announced that the one year time limit for recipients of Employment and Support allowance will only start counting down once the patient has finished all their medical treatments. It has also said that cancer patients can avoid the WCA medical test carried out by Atos as a GP's report will be acceptable proof for the benefits office.

Finally, we think, the Government is being reasonable. It is trusting NHS doctors again to verify the health of their patients and at last recognises that forcing cancer patients to attend DWP job interviews will only slow down their recovery.

Yet perversely this common sense approach to benefits locks the Government into ever more irrational behaviour. As these changes will only apply to cancer patients, other people with just as serious illnesses will still be locked into an unfair system in which they will lose benefit payments after one year even if they are not well enough to return to work - remember the Government's own estimates show that 94% of people who received time limited ESA will not be better after 12 months. The work-focused ESA also forces sick people to seek jobs, attended job centre interviews and even do unlimited work experience while they are still too sick to work.

So yes this change is great news for cancer patients but it stinks to me of a Government running scared that the public is waking up to how punitative and harsh its sickness benefits system is, and is desperate to avoid appalling headlines like this one. Cancer receives widespread media coverage as it can happen to anyone at any time, so come the election such Government negligence could have become a real door-step issue. But ultimately if the Government recognises changes are needed for ESA and the WCA it has a duty to ensure that they are rolled out universally not just for a particular group of people for whom there is greater public sympathy or understanding.

Just as worryingly this shift in policy sets a precedent that those illnesses that have popular support from the public will get a fairer hearing in the huge welfare upheaval than those who suffer from rare or unpopular illnesses (think what a rougher ride those with depression receive from the tabloid press).

Earlier this year Ian Duncan Smith announced that under Personal Independence Payments (the controversial benefit replacing Disability Living Allowance) amputees will be unlikely to receive the top level of mobility support that they currently do under DLA, and warned the public that this would also apply to soldiers.Yet Cameron intervened saying that amputee war veterans will be exempt from the harsh restrictions planned for the mobility component of PIP.

How can Cameron argue that a civilian with a below the knee amputation caused by a road traffic accident is any less disabled than a soldier with the same amputation caused by an IED?

I can see the way the wind is blowing on this issue and I for one don't want a society in which people with illnesses are pitted against each other in some bizarre X-Factor-style media popularity contest as the rest of us judge who is and isn't deserving of fair treatment.

A progressive government: Schizophrenic man who has just spent 6 months in mental institute told to find work

I heard of this story yesterday via Twitter (yes I am a convert) and I thought it worth sharing - mainly because it only happened this week and it shows that the much-derided medical test for ESA is affecting real, vulnerable people now - it's not just a dry political argument with which to bandy insults at Prime Minister's Question Time.

A man with Schizophrenia has just been taken off Employment Support Allowance (ESA) and put onto Job Seeker's Allowance. Earlier this year he was discharged from a mental institution where he had spent the previous six months. He is now living in residential accommodation, which in itself shows he is not yet healthy enough to live a fully independent lifestyle. He has also not worked for 10 years.

The real shock behind this story is the way in which this change has happened. He was asked to attend a medical test which is administered by a company called ATOS, who have the contract from the Government's Work and Pension department. A person has to score over 15 points to be deemed eligible for some form of ESA. This man scored 0. Yes, you read that correctly, ZERO. As he has a clear diagnosis of a severe mental illness this score tells me either that ATOS doesn't recognise the debilitating nature of a mental illness or its test criteria are entirely inadequate for unearthing the effects of mental illness on a person's capacity to work.

Either way the man has been moved from ESA straight onto JSA - he has not even been moved to the lower rate of ESA which would mean he would have been given greater support on how to go about preparing himself for work and identifying which employers are accepting of a long history of mental ill-health and unemployment. How is a job centre employee with basic training on how to get the average Joe back into work going to know how to deal with a schizophrenic not yet capable of fully independent living?

I'm beginning to warm to the Work and Pensions minister Ian Duncan Smith, he seems to be intriguingly genuine in his desire to reform our benefits system so that, in his words, people don't get left behind. And clearly the man of our story has been left to languish for ten years on incapacity benefit. But it's obvious the current welfare reduction drive is more focused on reducing the cost of welfare than exercising any common sense or, dare I say it, empathy towards those with long-term ill health.

Rumours are going round Twitter that Ian Duncan Smith has threatened to resign 12 times since taking office due to consistent, unyielding clashes with the Treasury. With stories such as this schizophrenic man surfacing, it seems clear that the battle is far from over between government members who just wish to reduce the cost of welfare and those who wish to reform welfare to help those who are on it achieve a better life.

I can only hope that the schizophrenic man in question appeals the decision so that at the very least he is awarded lower rate ESA and given proper support in finding work. If not, he clearly has very little chance of ever gaining employment and will be left to live in even greater poverty than before. That's a 'progressive' government for you.