|
|
Post by jpm64 on Oct 16, 2014 7:53:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Oct 16, 2014 8:33:43 GMT
Absolutely appalling.
Despicable.
He should be forced to watch Marvellous.
|
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Oct 16, 2014 9:29:07 GMT
I don't get why he felt the need to spout those disgustingly elitist and discriminatory Tory values out loud.
Isn't that Ukips job?
|
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 16, 2014 10:14:26 GMT
i dont agree with what he said and i dont agree with all their policies but i wont wait till they are out of government for 5 years to tell you either
there is a lot more to this story than half a quote and half of a recording of some of the discussion
You cannot make an employer hire someone disabled, and its easy for an employer to use other reasons not to hire with someone with disabilities. and any avenue that helps people get into work could be a good thing.
The BBC's political editor Nick Robinson said it was important to understand the context of the conversation and that Lord Freud was not arguing for a new policy of routinely paying people less than the minimum wage.
Unemployment for disabled people has remained stubbornly around 50% for over twenty years despite schemes and incentives. It's perhaps understandable that Lord Freud might want to think outside the box to allow desperate disabled people to shine and get a real job with a real (if low) wage which for some may be preferable to remaining at home, isolated, looking forward to a life on benefits.
Labour just using a stick to beat the tories over a poorly worded comment. They are happy to criticise over numerous issues they did nothing themselves to address.
I will ask you the same question.
Is it preferable for someone with a disability, who could not get a job, to be paid less than the minimum wage - and to have their income topped up with benefits - in order to give them the experience of work and boost their self esteem?
My answer is yes, with the caveat it would have to be run correctly after proper debate and discussion. This is just not about finding employment for disabled people but also trying to change attitudes and give incentives to employers who will not consider disabled people for a whole host of reasons, including cost to employers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Oct 16, 2014 11:11:50 GMT
And I think unemployment among people with "learning difficulties" (if we can say that post Marvellous) is closer to a gob smacking 86%.
Fact is no one is hiring them even at a minimum wage.
He came across as a twat in the quotes but the policy in full he was discussing is for organisations to pay say £2 an hour and for the Government to make up the difference to the minimum wage. I guess you could say even that is a little demeaning but what do you do? You can't make anyone hire people with learning difficulties and at the moment they don't.
I believe this policy is one advocated by a number of charities in this sector.
Of course talking pure politics Labour will milk this one for all it is worth, but there is a serious issue behind it which won't solve itself, it needs some radical thinking, and someone brave enough to risk being called the "Nasty" word by throwing a few suggestions out there for debate,
|
|
|
|
Post by jpm64 on Oct 16, 2014 11:24:49 GMT
i dont agree with what he said and i dont agree with all their policies but i wont wait till they are out of government for 5 years to tell you either there is a lot more to this story than half a quote and half of a recording of some of the discussion You cannot make an employer hire someone disabled, and its easy for an employer to use other reasons not to hire with someone with disabilities. and any avenue that helps people get into work could be a good thing. The BBC's political editor Nick Robinson said it was important to understand the context of the conversation and that Lord Freud was not arguing for a new policy of routinely paying people less than the minimum wage. Unemployment for disabled people has remained stubbornly around 50% for over twenty years despite schemes and incentives. It's perhaps understandable that Lord Freud might want to think outside the box to allow desperate disabled people to shine and get a real job with a real (if low) wage which for some may be preferable to remaining at home, isolated, looking forward to a life on benefits. Labour just using a stick to beat the tories over a poorly worded comment. They are happy to criticise over numerous issues they did nothing themselves to address. I will ask you the same question. Is it preferable for someone with a disability, who could not get a job, to be paid less than the minimum wage - and to have their income topped up with benefits - in order to give them the experience of work and boost their self esteem? My answer is yes, with the caveat it would have to be run correctly after proper debate and discussion. This is just not about finding employment for disabled people but also trying to change attitudes and give incentives to employers who will not consider disabled people for a whole host of reasons, including cost to employers. For someone who claims not to be a Tory you do a great job towing the party line...... Better, in fact, than Lord Freud  |
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Oct 16, 2014 11:28:31 GMT
So basically the rich will get richer & the poor will get poorer, what a surprise. Who's next on the hitlist for lower wages that'll need topping up with benefits (I thought we were trying to reduce benefits?) Gays? Women? Foreigners? Northerners? You can bet your life they wont stop with the disabled.
.... Salop, great post, gave me a laugh. "I don't agree with what hes said, but I'm going to write one of my longest ever posts explaining why I do actually agree with him really".
|
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 16, 2014 11:39:10 GMT
And I think unemployment among people with "learning difficulties" (if we can say that post Marvellous) is closer to a gob smacking 86%. Fact is no one is hiring them even at a minimum wage. He came across as a twat in the quotes but the policy in full he was discussing is for organisations to pay say £2 an hour and for the Government to make up the difference to the minimum wage. I guess you could say even that is a little demeaning but what do you do? You can't make anyone hire people with learning difficulties and at the moment they don't. I believe this policy is one advocated by a number of charities in this sector. Of course talking pure politics the usual suspects on this board will milk this one for all it is worth, but there is a serious issue behind it which won't solve itself, it needs some radical thinking, and someone brave enough to risk being called the "Nasty" word by throwing a few suggestions out there for debate, Spot on, exactly what Im saying anything that gets the debate in the open is a good thing |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 16, 2014 11:41:55 GMT
So basically the rich will get richer & the poor will get poorer, what a surprise. Who's next on the hitlist for lower wages that'll need topping up with benefits (I thought we were trying to reduce benefits?) Gays? Women? Foreigners? Northerners? You can bet your life they wont stop with the disabled. .... Salop, great post, gave me a laugh. "I don't agree with what hes said, but I'm going to write one of my longest ever posts explaining why I do actually agree with him really". i dont agree with his wording no, but I agree if no policies in the past by either side has worked you have to look and try different methods thats the problem with the left, its easy to sneer and poke fun and moan as JPM has done here rather than try and find solutions. if there is anyway other way to try and get these policies to work im all ears but no-one has |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 16, 2014 11:54:47 GMT
C'mon then huddy, jpm, drunken and wizzard, instead of negative tory bashing how is this problem to be solved
the issue isnt the disabled people finding work but getting employers to actually hire them
|
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 16, 2014 13:17:13 GMT
i dont agree with what he said and i dont agree with all their policies but i wont wait till they are out of government for 5 years to tell you either there is a lot more to this story than half a quote and half of a recording of some of the discussion You cannot make an employer hire someone disabled, and its easy for an employer to use other reasons not to hire with someone with disabilities. and any avenue that helps people get into work could be a good thing. The BBC's political editor Nick Robinson said it was important to understand the context of the conversation and that Lord Freud was not arguing for a new policy of routinely paying people less than the minimum wage. Unemployment for disabled people has remained stubbornly around 50% for over twenty years despite schemes and incentives. It's perhaps understandable that Lord Freud might want to think outside the box to allow desperate disabled people to shine and get a real job with a real (if low) wage which for some may be preferable to remaining at home, isolated, looking forward to a life on benefits. Labour just using a stick to beat the tories over a poorly worded comment. They are happy to criticise over numerous issues they did nothing themselves to address. I will ask you the same question. Is it preferable for someone with a disability, who could not get a job, to be paid less than the minimum wage - and to have their income topped up with benefits - in order to give them the experience of work and boost their self esteem? My answer is yes, with the caveat it would have to be run correctly after proper debate and discussion. This is just not about finding employment for disabled people but also trying to change attitudes and give incentives to employers who will not consider disabled people for a whole host of reasons, including cost to employers. For someone who claims not to be a Tory you do a great job towing the party line...... Better, in fact, than Lord Freud im not toeing a line and two of the quotes on that post YOU provided |
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Oct 16, 2014 13:25:07 GMT
C'mon then huddy, jpm, drunken and wizzard, instead of negative tory bashing how is this problem to be solved the issue isnt the disabled people finding work but getting employers to actually hire them David Cameron bought the wealthy Banker Lord Freud into Government because he's the only one that understands the Universal Tax Credit System that the Conservatives are currently implementing. He must be regretting that now. On a personal level David Cameron lost a child with profound disabilities himself. I have all the sympathy in the world for him, irrespective of my own political views. He has insight into the way disability affects families even those with two nannies. He must be furious with Lord Freud's remarks both personally and professionally. On a professional (Party Political) note..Cameron knows (from Lord Ashcrofts private polling) that The Conservative Party will fall short of an overall majority at the next election..especially with UKIP snapping at their heels and taking votes off them down South. Cameron knows that the Tories have to BE SEEN to be moving Left to pick up disillusioned Labour/Liberal votes. ALL the Tories private polls have shown this. Then along comes Lord Freud who shows the Tories true colours. If it's not 'Scroungers' and 'immigrants' it's the Disabled who now, apparently, don't deserve to be paid as much as anyone else. We can pay Bankers millions to fuck up the Economy but we can't pay disabled people a decent living wage.  |
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Oct 16, 2014 13:26:12 GMT
They care so much about trying to help the disabled regarding work that they closed Remploy.
They care so much about the folk with learning difficulties that they cut local funding so much that adult daycare centres are forced to close.
None of them fucking care, it's every man for themselves in their eyes, sink or swim capitalism with no talk of lifebelts.
I heard yesterday that Cameron saying that "he doesn't need a lecture on the care of the disabled" a justification of the crap his party have inflicted on them for with a reference to his late son..........classy.
|
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 16, 2014 13:41:56 GMT
They care so much about trying to help the disabled regarding work that they closed Remploy. They care so much about the folk with learning difficulties that they cut local funding so much that adult daycare centres are forced to close. None of them fucking care, it's every man for themselves in their eyes, sink or swim capitalism with no talk of lifebelts. I heard yesterday that Cameron saying that "he doesn't need a lecture on the care of the disabled" a justification of the crap his party have inflicted on them for with a reference to his late son..........classy. funding to remploy was stopped after RADAR the disability charity said the money would be better spent helping individuals rather than subsidise companies, this was after labour started closing the factories down last goverment |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Oct 16, 2014 13:45:06 GMT
They care so much about trying to help the disabled regarding work that they closed Remploy. They care so much about the folk with learning difficulties that they cut local funding so much that adult daycare centres are forced to close. None of them fucking care, it's every man for themselves in their eyes, sink or swim capitalism with no talk of lifebelts. I heard yesterday that Cameron saying that "he doesn't need a lecture on the care of the disabled" a justification of the crap his party have inflicted on them for with a reference to his late son..........classy. Remploy isn't closed they closed the subsidised factories, read the link Labour did it too en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remploy. It was also in consultation and on advice from RADAR who are well known for being anti-disabled  They cut funding to local authorities (as Labour would have done) and a Labour local authority in a Labour city decided to cut adult daycare centres rather than looking elsewhere for savings. But back to the actual subject, the only way to make a difference would be legislation, most non-government organisations pay lip service to diversity in respect of people with physical or mental disabilities and in reality will be happy if they can employ someone with poorer hearing or eyesight than the average person to help tick their boxes. |
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Oct 16, 2014 13:58:43 GMT
C'mon then huddy, jpm, drunken and wizzard, instead of negative tory bashing how is this problem to be solved the issue isnt the disabled people finding work but getting employers to actually hire them No alternative suggestions so far on how to find jobs for the 86% of folks with learning difficulties and 50% with physical difficulties currently out of work, just another dose of vitriol. So the favourite (sorry only suggestion) remains to allow employers who do employ them to pay them less than the minimum wage and the Government make up the difference presumably out of the money they save on paying disability benefits. A policy supported by several (not all) charities in this arena. Demeaning? Perhaps Would it work? Maybe to some very small extent. Has it kicked off a debate? Not exactly, no alternative suggestions, just an attempt to paint the Conservatives as the "nasty" party So come on folks if I don't hear anything I'll presume the preferred solution is to kick it in to the long grass. There must be something...a Rooney law for the wider job market I don't know...  |
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Oct 16, 2014 14:01:21 GMT
Labour closed 29 factories in 2008.
The coalition closed 36 with the loss of 1,752 jobs.
But who did what is not the issue for me, none of them care.
I can't say i know much about the organisation RADAR, but what i do know is that the majority of the people made jobless due to government cuts affecting Remploy are still without a job.
|
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 16, 2014 14:11:43 GMT
Labour closed 29 factories in 2008. The coalition closed 36 with the loss of 1,752 jobs. But who did what is not the issue for me, none of them care. I can't say i know much about the organisation RADAR, but what i do know is that the majority of the people made jobless due to government cuts affecting Remploy are still without a job. where is that info about the majority still without a job |
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Oct 16, 2014 14:22:06 GMT
Heard it on a radio 4 program about 4 or 5 months ago. Lot's of stories on how they were promised jobs during the closures but none of them materialised, at the time the head of Remploy claimed there were 3 jobs waiting elsewhere for every job lost.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Oct 16, 2014 14:35:27 GMT
C'mon then huddy, jpm, drunken and wizzard, instead of negative tory bashing how is this problem to be solved the issue isnt the disabled people finding work but getting employers to actually hire them How come anything said against the Tories is 'Tory bashing' & they were just 'mis-quoted' etc... unyet you have pop after pop against Labour & it's fine? ..... Before I go any further can I just say I'm not some lefty, liberal, labour 'supporter' (Like I can tell you've already painted me as) The whole politics thing is a load of shit. A bunch of stuck-up fuckers who're more interested in petty point scoring over the opposition rather than actually doing anything to help the people. Their 'supporters' are just as bad, with their blind loyalty to 'their team', cheering wildly at their every suggestion whilst ridiculing the 'other team' & their 'supporters'. It's all pathetic. Anyway, back to the point. I'm not sure what the answer is, I haven't given it a great deal of thought (Infact, any) but I'm pretty sure it's not "Lets help the rich get richer by making the poor accept even lower wages". Like I said last time, who'll be the next target after the disabled? What about people over 50 who find it really hard to find work? How about they should have to work for less too so that more companies will employ them? Before you know it shops & factories all over the land will be filled with disabled & old workers on less pay. Then of course we'll have to find a solution to get all the people back into work who've lost their jobs as they want too much money..... I know what we can do, anyone who is under 50 & has no disability should have to work for even less, that way companies will start to empoy them again. Round & round it goes, the rich get richer & the disgusting, scumbag poor get eliminated. Piece of piss this Tory lark. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 16, 2014 14:37:39 GMT
Heard it on a radio 4 program about 4 or 5 months ago. Lot's of stories on how they were promised jobs during the closures but none of them materialised, at the time the head of Remploy claimed there were 3 jobs waiting elsewhere for every job lost. so actually you dont know then, just rumour, conjecture your opinion and a snippet from radio 4 the actual reality is In total, 2,000 disabled former Remploy workers were made redundant as a result of factory closures, of whom 1,530 have engaged with personal case workers to find jobs. At 7 February 2014, 691 former workers who had taken up the Government’s support package were in work, while 839 were receiving Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) or Employment and Support Allowance (ESA). Information on the activity of those who have not engaged with DWP (470 former employees) is not available. |
|
|
|
Post by mermaidsal on Oct 16, 2014 14:38:10 GMT
If both feet in his mouth counted as a disability....  |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 16, 2014 14:50:08 GMT
Again the reality, Labour do not hate the disabled but they see a program that costs 25,000 per disabled worker that needs modernisation, they also see remploy not working because yes it was putting disabled people in low paid jobs but it was not doing anything to ensure a progression to better skilled and paid jobs, essentially subsiding factories to employ a low paid disabled work force - so jpm behind your childish digs there is an issue of getting all people to work especially those with learning problems and disabilities but jumping on labours dig at a tory politician's poor choice of words. Its far easier to do nothing and criticise than for someone especially the kent councillor and tory peer to bring these matters in the public eye.
In November 2007, the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Peter Hain, initiated a modernisation programme for Remploy. The programme resulted in the closure of 18 factories and the merger of a further 11 factories.The number of factories fell from 83 to 54 with the number employed falling from 5,000 to 2,900.27 The plan also included the objective of quadrupling the number of disabled people Remploy helps into mainstream employment each year, to 20,000 by 2012.
The modernisation plan was supported by a government subsidy of £555 million over five years, compared to £750 million funding that would have been required in the absence of any changes.In a statement to the House of Commons on 29 November 2007, Peter Hain set out the rationale behind the plan
Low-wage, low-skill competition from countries like China and the EU accession states has put Remploy factories under enormous pressure. In turn, Remploy has failed to move adequately into higher-value, higher-skill work. Losses have spiralled, and Remploy’s ability to support disabled people has been put at risk. The reality is that without modernisation Remploy deficits would obliterate our other programmes to help disabled people into mainstream work. in 5 years’ time Remploy would require £171 million a year on current trends. That would be £60 million over the £111 million funding envelope
The Coalition Government stated in January 2011 that it would leave funding for the five year modernisation plan unchanged
|
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Oct 16, 2014 14:55:26 GMT
Heard it on a radio 4 program about 4 or 5 months ago. Lot's of stories on how they were promised jobs during the closures but none of them materialised, at the time the head of Remploy claimed there were 3 jobs waiting elsewhere for every job lost. so actually you dont know then, just rumour, conjecture your opinion and a snippet from radio 4 the actual reality is In total, 2,000 disabled former Remploy workers were made redundant as a result of factory closures, of whom 1,530 have engaged with personal case workers to find jobs. At 7 February 2014, 691 former workers who had taken up the Government’s support package were in work, while 839 were receiving Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) or Employment and Support Allowance (ESA). Information on the activity of those who have not engaged with DWP (470 former employees) is not available. Hahaha yeah i suppose. Heard it on radio 4 and repeat it as fact....doh! Just looking at the figures you mention though. 2,000 redundant less the 1,530 found jobs through personal case workers. To me this would make 470 still without jobs? Then some new statistics: 641 in work, 839 without work. Which set of statistics is the reality then? If it's the latter then doesn't that show that most are still without work? |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 16, 2014 15:14:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Oct 16, 2014 15:43:43 GMT
So you rubbish the comment that the majority are still out of work by banging on about the source.
Then you confirm it to be correct by quoting available statistics. Brilliant.
Come on Salop, have a laugh at yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Oct 16, 2014 16:48:32 GMT
Proper Tory logic. Some Tory grandee spouts his back door access to slavery & all of a sudden his supporters are blaming everybody else for it. Surreptitious b@$t@&ds!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on Oct 16, 2014 18:05:10 GMT
I had a late Aunt who worked for Remploy and it's a shame that successive governments have taken the short sighted view and finished the company off. We are now faced with either subsidising many of the employees future emplyment or paying them more in benefits. That nobody within governments thought about this shows how useless our political class are.
The Tories and Labour are no different on this issue. I'm sure Ed Balls can spend another couple of billion and sort it out. Shame they didn't when they were in power for 13 years?
|
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Oct 16, 2014 19:04:16 GMT
It doesn't really matter if your born with a disability into a wealthy family, cause you can become one of the company directors & get paid in shares. Minimum wage, what's that!?!
|
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Oct 16, 2014 20:24:48 GMT
Did David Cameron hate his disabled son? One stupid idiot doesn't make a party. |
|
