The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[The Esk]

Well, you could start by including the full transcript instead of selecting the one quote which, out of context, sounds daft...

"...You make a really good point about the disabled. Now I had not thought through, and we have not got a system for, you know, kind of going below the Minimum Wage.

"But we do have… You know, Universal Credit is really useful for people with the fluctuating conditions who can do some work - go up and down - because they can earn and get...and get, you know, bolstered through Universal Credit, and they can move that amount up and down.

"Now, there is a small…there is a group, and I know exactly who you mean, where actually as you say they’re not worth the full wage and actually I’m going to go and think about that particular issue, whether there is something we can do nationally, and without distorting the whole thing, which actually if someone wants to work for £2 an hour, and it’s working can we actually…”

In the bold part, he's talking about bolstering disabled peoples wages with Universal Credit.

In the last quote he's saying that some disabled people are not productive enough to be worth minimum wage, which is a fact. We can dance around the issue and pretend to be outraged - but he's just stating a fact. Should we just ignore the issue and let disabled people stay unemployed?

I'm certainly not going to condemn him for stating a fact.

Also, funny that Labour are all over this, only a few years after producing a government paper that suggested that some disabled people should be paid £4 a DAY.

Well I'm speaking as an employer and a Labour Party member.

I'm interested in the idea that you believe in state subsidies, something I thought you might be against.

The context is this - either you believe in the minimum wage or not - it's absolute, no shades of grey. The minimum wage has been a spectacular success contrary to the opinion of many and there should be no exception to it.

I could be cynical and suggest that the Lord Freud's comments are a natural extension of the policy to close down Remploy - which was decided on the premise that disabled people are better placed in the general work force. Quelle surprise that the extension of that policy is that disabled people are not worth the minimum wage in private sector employment.

 

[Mrk]

Well I'm speaking as an employer and a Labour Party member.

...and sadly ending up sounding like a fully paid-up Labour spin doctor.

I'm interested in the idea that you believe in state subsidies, something I thought you might be against.

Why would I be against subsidies for disabled people? I don't see any harm in the state helping disabled people to gain meaningful work and make something of their lives - better than paying them to do nothing and have no self-esteem.

The context is this - either you believe in the minimum wage or not - it's absolute, no shades of grey. The minimum wage has been a spectacular success contrary to the opinion of many and there should be no exception to it.

What, you mean like the minimum wage for under 21 year olds? That's an exception.

I could be cynical and suggest that the Lord Freud's comments is a natural extension of the policy to close down Remploy - which was decided on the premise that disabled people are better placed in the general work force. Quelle surprise that the extension of that policy is that disabled people are not worth the minimum wage in private sector employment.

And subsidising their pay is an effective way around that - you could say it would be the best of both worlds.

 

[roydo]

Well I'm speaking as an employer and a Labour Party member.

I'm interested in the idea that you believe in state subsidies, something I thought you might be against.

The context is this - either you believe in the minimum wage or not - it's absolute, no shades of grey. The minimum wage has been a spectacular success contrary to the opinion of many and there should be no exception to it.

I could be cynical and suggest that the Lord Freud's comments is a natural extension of the policy to close down Remploy - which was decided on the premise that disabled people are better placed in the general work force. Quelle surprise that the extension of that policy is that disabled people are not worth the minimum wage in private sector employment.

No, that isnt the issue/point he made mate. It is a fact that many, many disabled people function perfectly well in the workplace. Private and public sector.

It is also a fact that many of the most seriously disabled cannot function as seamlessly. If, as an employer, you paid two employees the same minimum wage, but one, due to their disability, could only do 25% of the job as an able bodied employee, leaving the able bodied member of staff to pick up up the slack, then you could have an issue.

But if that issue was addressed by splitting the cost, or changing the rules, so that;

No rules were broken.
All employees were happy.
Disabled lad has a job.
No additional costs to employer

Surely ways of navigating the system to that outcome is worth some consideration?

 

[rascal]

No. It wasnt a "suggestion" for one. He KNOWS that a lot of the most serious, mainly physically, disabled people would love to go to work. But there are real problems they face. Mostly well intentioned, such as Health & Safety, and anti-discrimination. And yes, in many cases the cost to an employer. What is wrong in looking at ways to allieviate them? And if one way would be looking at how the minimum wage could be in some way made up between credits and the employer, without breaking rules like the above ones, then what is wrong with that?

Despite being a person who suffers from physical impairment and a speech impediment I believe that I am worth the same as my colleagues. So would anyone else in a similar predicament.

How will this be assessed? If it was a similar job to mine it should be the same however I also recognise that jobs such as working the shop floor would be more difficult for the employer.

If any employer was able to underpay its staff, despite their job role, I'd find it very troubling.

 

[roydo]

Despite being a person who suffers from physical impairment and a speech impediment I believe that I am worth the same as my colleagues. So would anyone else in a similar predicament.

How will this be assessed? If it was a similar job to mine it should be the same however I also recognise that jobs such as working the shop floor would be more difficult for the employer.

If any employer was able to underpay its staff, despite their job role, I'd find it very troubling.

Yeah, but that is miles away from the sort or serious disabilities he was on about. And that is not to belittle you at all.

And what you say is broadly right. It isnt about allowing an employer to underpay, it is about recognising that current rules probably prevent some of the most serious disabled folk to get employed, for loads of reasons. (See above).

If that cost could be shared, between employer and Government, instead of an employer not being able to afford it/not wanting the hassle, then why not look at it?

And I am not some right wing zealot mate. I have a moderately disabled son, (autism), have worked alongside the largest 3rd sector charity for enabling disability in the workplace, (Shaw Trust) for nearly 30 years, and have dozens of personal clients with a whole range of disabilities. I would rather deal with them than so called "able bodied" folk most of the time.

 

[roydo]

Have I won an interweb arguement?

SCENES

 

[Brennan]

A perfect example of why so many are disillusioned with politics. Instead of having an open and frank discussion about a difficult issue in the House, the parties spend their time throwing insults and jibes at each other, trying to use an isolated comment to attack the party as a whole.

It's pathetic.

 

[roydo]

Is right mate. Dont mind them lobbing stats about inflation or GDP or other stuff, but when they have shown that they can work together, when needed, it is so frustrating when their default position is "yahboo" nonsense.

 

[rascal]

Yeah, but that is miles away from the sort or serious disabilities he was on about. And that is not to belittle you at all.

And what you say is broadly right. It isnt about allowing an employer to underpay, it is about recognising that current rules probably prevent some of the most serious disabled folk to get employed, for loads of reasons. (See above).

If that cost could be shared, between employer and Government, instead of an employer not being able to afford it/not wanting the hassle, then why not look at it?

And I am not some right wing zealot mate. I have a moderately disabled son, (autism), have worked alongside the largest 3rd sector charity for enabling disability in the workplace, (Shaw Trust) for nearly 30 years, and have dozens of personal clients with a whole range of disabilities. I would rather deal with them than so called "able bodied" folk most of the time.

I wasn't suggesting for one minute that you were, Sir!

I welcome any move to get the disabled into work for a multitude of reasons, I just hope that they're not exploited so that the employer gains financially.

 

[roydo]

I wasn't suggesting for one minute that you were, Sir!

I welcome any move to get the disabled into work for a multitude of reasons, I just hope that they're not exploited so that the employer gains financially.

Believe me , that doesnt happen. But they have to be a consideration.

 

[rascal]

I should stop being such a cynical sod lol

 

[Walken]

Well, in my view yes. Cowardly because the remarks were taken so out of context it wasnt true. Cowardly because if Milliband was that concerned/offended by the issue, why sit on it for nearly 2 weeks, allowing such an evil man stay in his job?

And cowardly because as someone who has extensive experience, personally and professionally, in seeing how a lot of seriously disabled adults do have issues getting some form of employment, with all the benefits (sic) that has for them, he would rather make a cheap political dig, rather than explore practical ideas that might be outside the box.

And this isnt party political Esk, my disgust would have been the same no matter who played the game this way.

No it wouldnt, your agenda is as clear as any politicians you are condeming

 

[roydo]

No it wouldnt, your agenda is as clear as any politicians you are condeming

Tosh. Read a few back mate. My agenda? What the hell does that mean?

 

[Coach]

I think this blog from 2012 offers a good perspective on Cameron's role in this latest stomach churner

http://sturdyblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/we-need-to-talk-about-ivan/

In particular this,

Each time, the spectre of that poor child is raised like an invincible shield by his own father, each time his memory is drop-kicked into a political minefield – knowing that nobody will dare touch it – debate is silenced and legitimate questions about these reforms go unanswered.

It is not only inappropriate. It is distasteful and immoral.

 

[Coach]

http://dwpexamination.org/forum/the-governmants-agenda/death-by-government/

* All credit to Copehead.