There was a time when governments might have been more subtle about cutting support for disabled people in order to spend more money on weapons. Keir Starmer’s government are not even trying to frame it differently. They’re celebrating their increase in “defence” spending at the same time as they’re boasting about making disability-related benefits even harder to claim.

This bizarre decision reveals a class-based clash over what terms such as “security” and “defence” refer to.

For some people, these terms are simply about preparations for war. Indeed, even some opponents of increased military spending have fallen for the euphemism and talk about “defence” expenditure. But if you’re queueing at a food bank, unable to access mental health support or facing discrimination when applying for jobs, then security means much more than not facing a Russian invasion.

As your livelihood is snatched away, are you meant to rejoice that at least you’re being harmed by Keir Starmer rather than Vladimir Putin? As you shiver in the cold because you can no longer afford heating bills, should you celebrate at the thought you’re being impoverished and frozen by rich people in London instead of rich people in Moscow?

The expenditure on weapons seems to be based on the unquestioned assumptions that violence makes us safe and that spending more on violence makes it more effective. In reality, the combined military spending of NATO governments has been much higher than Russia’s for years. This failed to deter Putin’s vile invasion of Ukraine. I have yet to hear a journalist ask Keir Starmer why he thinks that throwing even more money at the military will somehow deter Putin when that has failed to work up until now.

Meanwhile, US troops whose Commander-in-Chief is Donald Trump are stationed at various bases around the UK. There is almost no media discussion of the presence of the troops of a dangerously erratic far-right regime in Britain.

Sadly, many of the opponents of benefit cuts seem unwilling to criticise military spending levels.

Thankfully, however lots of them have clearly framed the cuts as a political choice and presented meaningful taxation of the super-rich as an alternative. This is a message that can really hit home and that we need to keep repeating: the government is choosing to cut support for some of the poorest and most disadvantaged people in the UK rather than take even slightly more from the millionaires. They are taking millions from people with nothing, and nothing from people with millions.

Ministers are benefitting from misunderstandings that they seem happy not to correct. Anyone with an even basic knowledge of disability benefits knows that Personal Independence Payment (PIP) is not an out-of-work benefit. It is to help with the extra costs of being disabled. Many recipients of it are already in work. For some, cutting this benefit will make it harder for them to work. For example, it can help with costs of transport or assistance that may for some disabled people be more expensive but which enable them to get to work. The number of disabled people in work will not go up if PIP is cut. In reality, it will almost certainly go down.

Yet someone casually glancing at the media would easily get the impression that PIP is given only to disabled people who don’t work. I can hardly blame people for thinking this, given the way it is often presented. But I can blame the ministers and right-wing journalists who know very well that this assumption is factually untrue, yet seem happy to benefit from it all the same.

Even if a minister somehow misguidedly believes in the benefit cuts that they are proposing, nothing can excuse their willingness to benefit from the lies, half-truths and uncorrected misconceptions that are being used to encourage support for their cuts. There has been a spate of stories in newspapers such as the Daily Mail demonising disabled people. Such stories are only going to get worse and more numerous in the coming days and weeks. Ministers are able to gain support for their agenda at the cost of encouraging prejudice and hatred of a large group of people.

Anyone who thinks that PIP is too easy to obtain has almost certainly never gone through the process of applying for it, or supporting someone who has. Having supported friends to apply for PIP, I find myself thinking that anyone who manages to complete the contorted and degrading application process in the midst of mental ill-health should be given a medal and celebrated as a hero, let alone getting a benefit.

While the government may have decided that they will cope without the support of people who receive PIP, they may have overlooked the reality that a significant percentage of the population know somebody who receives PIP (or other disability-related benefits). They thus know that these lies are not true. And the message “tax the rich instead of cutting things for the poor” is a straightforward proposal that is simple as well as realistic. Thus I am not convinced that austerity and attacks on disabled people will work as well for this government as they did for the Cameron-Clegg cabinet 15 years ago.

Groups such as Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) have done great things in the last 15 years in challenging austerity. I’m now planning to contact them and similar campaigns to find out what I can do to join the resistance to Starmer’s evil policy.

It is a long time since I voted Labour. While I tend to vote Green, I have tended to hold out the possibility that I could vote Labour in certain circumstances in the future. But now we have a Labour government with a domestic economic policy worse than anything that I can remember even Tony Blair doing. They are demonising and impoverishing disabled people, including people with mental health problems, while increasing military spending and letting the rich off the hook.

I will never vote Labour again. I would rather saw off my own arm. Although I dare say that Starmer’s new friends in the Daily Mail would accuse me of only sawing it off in order to gain benefits – and then they would deny them to me anyway.