Regarding Question Time last night and the audience were very clearly a Tory supporting audience as they were taking the party line.
Which makes a change !
As you will know the audience is usualy jammed full of very noisy Socialists who would have made one hell of a racket at the merest hint of support for Lord Freud.
There as usually a celebrity with extreme leftist views, think Will Self, Benjamin Obadiah Zephaniah, Marcus Brigstoke, and the like, spouting their hate of capitalism and all things of the right. Or maybe a columnist like Polly Toynbee or Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. There was no-one of that ilk last night.
I see no reason whatsoever for Lord Freud to retract anything he said. He was working towards helping solving the difficulty in providing severely disabled people with employment by providing a subsidy to top up their earnings.
The Labour movement were working towards deflecting attention away from Ed Milibands shockingly bad performance at the party conference and his general inadequacy as a political leader On the evidence of last night's Question Time, they failed miserably. Angela Eagle's face was a picture - as red as her jacket.
The person asking the question couldn't justify paying the NMW, but was evidently interested in being able to employ the disabled person in some manner. And the disabled person in question was evidently also keen to be employed. As such, both disabled potential employee and potential employer are looking for a solution.
Freud agreed with this, acknowledged the "lack of worth" which is entirely economic - there was no suggestion of "moral worthlessness" - and mentioned a possible compromise which would help both parties, employer and employee, achieve what they want. Wanting to work is one thing, being told but your not WORTH £6 to us your only worth £2 is not exceptable. A wheelchair user IS going to be Physically Slower at moving around and will need to use thier hand to move the wheelchair so should a wheelchair user be paid less for doing thier job because thier legs dont work,
This is the line that Labour sought to peddle, but it's plainly false and has now moreorless fallen apart, so why stick with it? There is no suggestion anywhere that the lack of worth was of a human or moral nature.
Looking for a solution which results in employing someone who otherwise couldn't be employed but who wants to be employed is the absolute epitome of common sense.
This is not how labour sought to peddle it, this is how myself and millions of disabled people see it as well, being a member of loads of disabled forums, and see reports of lots of differant disabled chairites and help forums, then you would understand how disabled people feel about this. I can tell you this is not going to go way, and disabled people what his blood, We are not willing to go back in time.
I would just like to point out that I am actually Disabled/have a Disability as I have Asperger Syndrome as well as an underlying condition for which I have been in trouble with the Police and nobody would want to employ me as the above makes it very hard for me to be employed as I am unable to go anywhere without Mum and Dad.
As for my political views I have obviously seen in the past under Thatcher and Major as well as now under Cameron just how Anti-Union and Anti- Union Rights they are hence wanting to tear up the Human Rights Act, as they have in the past and clearly from what Cameron wants to do go back to the days where companies can exploit workers etc.
What a difference a Labour government made in the way of the Minimum Wage, which Tories such as Peter Bone are all for getting rid of and did you see him on Have I Got News For You when asked how much he paid an employee who worked for his company?. Under the Minimum Wage where as his wife is a much different case as she got along with him millions. Says it all really.
I also remember the cold winter of 1991 the year in which Major had the cheek to say it needed to be freezing for a certain number of days in order to get any help, compare this to The Winter Fuel Allowance brought in by Labour and yet people or at least the Tories complained it was not enough?.
The a couple got £200 each where as only one member gets £200 due to Cameron's cuts which has cut it down and yet where are those saying it is not enough?.
That is why I will vote Labour and will always vote Labour as I just do not agree with those who get millions and laugh at the poor and then pretend they understand the suffering we are going through, excuse me but if you really understood you would start by paying NHS workers an across the board a 1% pay rise.
However my Nan voted Tory as does my Dad's brother and my Mum's sister and Brother where as my Dad has seen through the unfairness of past Tory governments and corruption which is why he votes Labour as does my Mum.
Does having Aspergers or your underlying condition mean that you can't apologise to tim59 for totally misunderstanding his post and having a go at him?
Does having Aspergers or your underlying condition mean that you can't apologise to tim59 for totally misunderstanding his post and having a go at him?
No need for a him to apologise, just a misunderstanding, but thankyou for your comment
And lord F soon backed tracked about what he said "To be clear, all disabled people should be paid at least the minimum wage, without exception, and I accept that it is offensive to suggest anything else." So in other words shit i have been caught out,
No need for a him to apologise, just a misunderstanding, but thankyou for your comment
I think there is. I know it was directed at you but we were all subjected to it. Also as someone on the autistic spectrum myself, it does my tribe no favours. We should be responsible for making very sure we are on solid ground before attacking someone. We can make mistakes and have misunderstandings but we should apologise if it is our fault. As he posted a comment after you further explained your position, I will assume he read it. There is of course an outside chance that his difficulties do actually make it difficult to recognise that he should. I phrased the comment in that way to allow for that possibility.
of course it was, because Ed Milliband suggested paying people with disabilities far less than minimum wage didn't he...
Honestly, the twisting, turning, rewriting of history and blind defence of Tory thinking at it's most revealing is sickening.
It is easy to take shots at one party or another, watching QT last night gave a very clear insight of what the public in that audience thought of the whole affair.
The idea that Angela Eagle trotting out the party line and thinking that she could use the half recording to point score as Ed Miliband had done, was soundly poo pooed and quite honestly, I was heartened to see that the audience were clearly in possession of the detail of the true recording and were not too happy with the faux outrage that Labour were trying to play out.
I think no party is beyond playing party politics but they must now understand that the general public most of whom are able to check the soundbites and look at forums and blogs, will find them out and will give their displeasure in audiences such as QT, and that is on air for many more to see.
It is now time for reasoned debate, not just the usual bile thrown about thinking that people will accept what political parties and their activists trot out as fact, people are far more informed now and these things will lose parties their voters.
There is a debate to be had about those with disabilities so profound that they are not of commercial value to the employer of the MW. There are also those who need additional support to be worth the MW (and in many cases way way way above it. I think public money (possibly in the form of tax breaks for the firm) should make up the difference. The bottom line and philosophy should be that everyone in employment should be given at least the MW.
Regarding Question Time last night and the audience were very clearly a Tory supporting audience as they were taking the party line.
So, clear thinking people who see through the cheap stunts of the Labour party and are not afraid to say so, are Tory.
So, what are you saying?
That Labour supporters would have agreed with the cheap tactics used by their leader as perfectly acceptable?
If Labour are so correct in the insidious use/misuse of the disabled, why have no Labour politicians on air today defending Milliband's use of it?
Also why would Diane Abbott say quite clearly to Andrew Neil last night that the recording had been stored for two weeks to use at PMQs to gain political points and deflect attention from the ridiculous omission of the deficit and immigration from their leader's speech, if it was not true?
So, clear thinking people who see through the cheap stunts of the Labour party and are not afraid to say so, are Tory.
So, what are you saying?
That Labour supporters would have agreed with the cheap tactics used by their leader as perfectly acceptable?
If Labour are so correct in the insidious use/misuse of the disabled, why have no Labour politicians on air today defending Milliband's use of it?
Also why would Diane Abbott say quite clearly to Andrew Neil last night that the recording had been stored for two weeks to use at PMQs to gain political points and deflect attention from the ridiculous omission of the deficit and immigration from their leader's speech, if it was not true?
You can call it a cheap stunt if you like, but it was the best place to air it in public. Lord F did not know it was being recorded, Do you think he would have said this in front of a camera in a tv studio,? If he feels he has said nothing wrong then let him sit in a tv studio and repeat it. If he feels he has said nothing wrong then why say sorry and completly backtrack ?
This is not how labour sought to peddle it, this is how myself and millions of disabled people see it as well, being a member of loads of disabled forums, and see reports of lots of differant disabled chairites and help forums, then you would understand how disabled people feel about this. I can tell you this is not going to go way, and disabled people what his blood, We are not willing to go back in time.
I am disabled but can see what Lord Freud was trying to say. Yes he make a hash of it by saying 'only worth' which rightly be condemned.
As far as I know he was speaking aloud coming up with idea's & he is not the only person to do this.
Lets flip the coin here & lets say an employer takes on someone & only pays £2 an hour but the government pays the other £4.50 & the person really enjoys doing the job & gets confidence by the nasty party.
Why just the disabled? What if someone is able bodied and just a feckless airhead who reads zoo magazine all day and can't hold down a job?
Maybe they should have the right to undercut and find someone who will put up with them for 50p an hour, with the rest topped up by the government.
In fact why don't we all do this, find our levels in the market place and the government tops up the rest to reach a liveable income...
...otherwise known as a Citizens Income/Basic Income.
The feckless airhead will get sacked for being feckless.
The disabled person cannot be sacked for being disabled. So will never be employed.
That is the difference. Merging work and societal benefits will allow the disabled (who through no fault of their own cannot complete a task as efficiently as an able bodied person) to be employed and recieve identical compensation.
Society would subsidise the employer to employ disabled persons. Society also chooses on occasion to subsidise the long term unemployed and the young unemployed although these subsidies are usually temporary and eventually are withdrawn. A disabled person's subsidy to work would not be (unless they can find a job which makes the subsidy unecessary).
Society does not choose to subsidise the feckless airhead.
You can call it a cheap stunt if you like, but it was the best place to air it in public. Lord F did not know it was being recorded, Do you think he would have said this in front of a camera in a tv studio,? If he feels he has said nothing wrong then let him sit in a tv studio and repeat it. If he feels he has said nothing wrong then why say sorry and completly backtrack ?
I am disabled but can see what Lord Freud was trying to say. Yes he make a hash of it by saying 'only worth' which rightly be condemned.
As far as I know he was speaking aloud coming up with idea's & he is not the only person to do this.
Lets flip the coin here & lets say an employer takes on someone & only pays £2 an hour but the government pays the other £4.50 & the person really enjoys doing the job & gets confidence by the nasty party.
This will never see light of day anyway.
I agree with you sparkie70, this has done more damage to debates we could have had to help more people, now politicians will steer so clear of helping the disabled that it is the very people who would have benefitted from clear concise solutions to help that have now been destroyed thanks to cheap politicking.
In answer to tim59, Freud's clumsy use of language has been worse than regrettable but what Labour have tried to do has damaged the cause of the disabled far more than the much apologised use of the word "worth".
Surely we must now have reasoned debate to ensure that we can be grown up and come to grown up conclusions which help, not use one word, used unwisely, to halt the whole and much needed solutions for those who need the help most.
I am disabled but can see what Lord Freud was trying to say. Yes he make a hash of it by saying 'only worth' which rightly be condemned.
As far as I know he was speaking aloud coming up with idea's & he is not the only person to do this.
Lets flip the coin here & lets say an employer takes on someone & only pays £2 an hour but the government pays the other £4.50 & the person really enjoys doing the job & gets confidence by the nasty party.
This will never see light of day anyway.
But is this really about helping disabled people or helping buisness, its been proved by governments own figures show that even giving the private sector FREE labour for 6 months or even longer, they dont take the workers on, they just get a new bunch of FREE labour, and that is with non disabled people. The disabled side of employment system are even worse and have failed badly,
The amusing thing is this could have been a Labour policy idea, it is in effect a type of in-work benefit. Sadly it has descended into a party political attack over the word 'worth' and ignored the real issue and proposed idea.
I agree with you sparkie70, this has done more damage to debates we could have had to help more people, now politicians will steer so clear of helping the disabled that it is the very people who would have benefitted from clear concise solutions to help that have now been destroyed thanks to cheap politicking.
In answer to tim59, Freud's clumsy use of language has been worse than regrettable but what Labour have tried to do has damaged the cause of the disabled far more than the much apologised use of the word "worth".
Surely we must now have reasoned debate to ensure that we can be grown up and come to grown up conclusions which help, not use one word, used unwisely, to halt the whole and much needed solutions for those who need the help most.
I think the point is very clear, since the disabled have been given equal rights to non disabled people, the private sector see it as unfair they have to pay the disabled the same rate as a non disabled person, but it goes alot deeper than just pay there are legal requirments that a employer has to abide by when employing a disabled person.
But is this really about helping disabled people or helping buisness, its been proved by governments own figures show that even giving the private sector FREE labour for 6 months or even longer, they dont take the workers on, they just get a new bunch of FREE labour, and that is with non disabled people. The disabled side of employment system are even worse and have failed badly,
Tim I agree with you, these are the things we should be looking at.
It is such an important issue and one that affects so many people. My fear is that now this stunt has occurred that politicians, committees etc are going to be too scared to broach the very issues for fear of backlash. Thus instead of everyone thinking well actually there is a huge problem here, they are now thinking, whoa, I am not getting into that debate.
The same thing happened with the "race" card, institutions, police, social workers, councils etc were so scared to confront the muslim men who were systematically abusing young girls, that they let it run and in one town alone, 1400 young girls' lives were ruined, they will never get their innocence back and it was well known through that town that it was going on and those men took full advantage of the fears of the people who should have protected those girls. Incidentally, I cannot see what is happening there now and still mourn the loss of so many young lives.
That is just one of the terrible consequences people suffer from fears brought on by faux alarms and political point scoring. These are terrible issues and I would love people to think as individuals, not pin their thoughts on party politics and actually think how to help and debate with conscience rather than point scoring.
But is this really about helping disabled people or helping buisness, its been proved by governments own figures show that even giving the private sector FREE labour for 6 months or even longer, they dont take the workers on, they just get a new bunch of FREE labour, and that is with non disabled people. The disabled side of employment system are even worse and have failed badly,
If the government topped the wage up on an indefinite basis then presumably the worker would be employed indefinitely. The discussion was definitely about helping disabled people.
Angela "Red" Eagle >:( was just towing the party line, bless her but I am afraid that the more Labour try to make mischief out of this, the bigger the hole they will dig for themselves. ;-)
If the government topped the wage up on an indefinite basis then presumably the worker would be employed indefinitely. The discussion was definitely about helping disabled people.
Angela "Red" Eagle >:( was just towing the party line, bless her but I am afraid that the more Labour try to make mischief out of this, the bigger the hole they will dig for themselves. ;-)
The thing is would we see whole business only employing or mostly employing disabled people, which lets be honest buisness always wants the cheapest labour they can, and if that would be the case then why bother closing remploy in the first place. And who would do the assessment of these people, saying they have already been assessed, to even be on benefits. And the benefit they will be claiming will not be JSA, but ESA. And the ESA assessment is not based on what a person cannot do, but is bassed on what they can do
This is not how labour sought to peddle it, this is how myself and millions of disabled people see it as well, being a member of loads of disabled forums, and see reports of lots of differant disabled chairites and help forums, then you would understand how disabled people feel about this. I can tell you this is not going to go way, and disabled people what his blood, We are not willing to go back in time.
You may want anything you care to want. You can want green moon cheese if it floats your boat.
Screaming and hollering faux outrage over this will get you nowhere. His statement was perfectly reasonable, and the concerned public, after initially buying into the Labour attempt to create a shitstorm out of nothing, have now understood the picture. It was sensible to clarify his remarks as the use of the word "worth" was obviously potentially toxic, but he's done that now.
The irony is the poor bloke was actually trying to help disabled people.
Comments
Not if they are paid a hourly rate as most would be, means they are being paid NMW,
Which makes a change !
As you will know the audience is usualy jammed full of very noisy Socialists who would have made one hell of a racket at the merest hint of support for Lord Freud.
There as usually a celebrity with extreme leftist views, think Will Self, Benjamin Obadiah Zephaniah, Marcus Brigstoke, and the like, spouting their hate of capitalism and all things of the right. Or maybe a columnist like Polly Toynbee or Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. There was no-one of that ilk last night.
I see no reason whatsoever for Lord Freud to retract anything he said. He was working towards helping solving the difficulty in providing severely disabled people with employment by providing a subsidy to top up their earnings.
The Labour movement were working towards deflecting attention away from Ed Milibands shockingly bad performance at the party conference and his general inadequacy as a political leader On the evidence of last night's Question Time, they failed miserably. Angela Eagle's face was a picture - as red as her jacket.
This is not how labour sought to peddle it, this is how myself and millions of disabled people see it as well, being a member of loads of disabled forums, and see reports of lots of differant disabled chairites and help forums, then you would understand how disabled people feel about this. I can tell you this is not going to go way, and disabled people what his blood, We are not willing to go back in time.
Does having Aspergers or your underlying condition mean that you can't apologise to tim59 for totally misunderstanding his post and having a go at him?
No need for a him to apologise, just a misunderstanding, but thankyou for your comment
Nope, thought not.
Yes his apologists seem to have missed that.
I think there is. I know it was directed at you but we were all subjected to it. Also as someone on the autistic spectrum myself, it does my tribe no favours. We should be responsible for making very sure we are on solid ground before attacking someone. We can make mistakes and have misunderstandings but we should apologise if it is our fault. As he posted a comment after you further explained your position, I will assume he read it. There is of course an outside chance that his difficulties do actually make it difficult to recognise that he should. I phrased the comment in that way to allow for that possibility.
It is easy to take shots at one party or another, watching QT last night gave a very clear insight of what the public in that audience thought of the whole affair.
The idea that Angela Eagle trotting out the party line and thinking that she could use the half recording to point score as Ed Miliband had done, was soundly poo pooed and quite honestly, I was heartened to see that the audience were clearly in possession of the detail of the true recording and were not too happy with the faux outrage that Labour were trying to play out.
I think no party is beyond playing party politics but they must now understand that the general public most of whom are able to check the soundbites and look at forums and blogs, will find them out and will give their displeasure in audiences such as QT, and that is on air for many more to see.
It is now time for reasoned debate, not just the usual bile thrown about thinking that people will accept what political parties and their activists trot out as fact, people are far more informed now and these things will lose parties their voters.
Why just the disabled? What if someone is able bodied and just a feckless airhead who reads zoo magazine all day and can't hold down a job?
Maybe they should have the right to undercut and find someone who will put up with them for 50p an hour, with the rest topped up by the government.
In fact why don't we all do this, find our levels in the market place and the government tops up the rest to reach a liveable income...
...otherwise known as a Citizens Income/Basic Income.
So, clear thinking people who see through the cheap stunts of the Labour party and are not afraid to say so, are Tory.
So, what are you saying?
That Labour supporters would have agreed with the cheap tactics used by their leader as perfectly acceptable?
If Labour are so correct in the insidious use/misuse of the disabled, why have no Labour politicians on air today defending Milliband's use of it?
Also why would Diane Abbott say quite clearly to Andrew Neil last night that the recording had been stored for two weeks to use at PMQs to gain political points and deflect attention from the ridiculous omission of the deficit and immigration from their leader's speech, if it was not true?
You can call it a cheap stunt if you like, but it was the best place to air it in public. Lord F did not know it was being recorded, Do you think he would have said this in front of a camera in a tv studio,? If he feels he has said nothing wrong then let him sit in a tv studio and repeat it. If he feels he has said nothing wrong then why say sorry and completly backtrack ?
I am disabled but can see what Lord Freud was trying to say. Yes he make a hash of it by saying 'only worth' which rightly be condemned.
As far as I know he was speaking aloud coming up with idea's & he is not the only person to do this.
Lets flip the coin here & lets say an employer takes on someone & only pays £2 an hour but the government pays the other £4.50 & the person really enjoys doing the job & gets confidence by the nasty party.
This will never see light of day anyway.
So they are not more productive?
Or do they get overtime which able bodied persons do not get?
Just wondering
The feckless airhead will get sacked for being feckless.
The disabled person cannot be sacked for being disabled. So will never be employed.
That is the difference. Merging work and societal benefits will allow the disabled (who through no fault of their own cannot complete a task as efficiently as an able bodied person) to be employed and recieve identical compensation.
Society would subsidise the employer to employ disabled persons. Society also chooses on occasion to subsidise the long term unemployed and the young unemployed although these subsidies are usually temporary and eventually are withdrawn. A disabled person's subsidy to work would not be (unless they can find a job which makes the subsidy unecessary).
Society does not choose to subsidise the feckless airhead.
I agree with you sparkie70, this has done more damage to debates we could have had to help more people, now politicians will steer so clear of helping the disabled that it is the very people who would have benefitted from clear concise solutions to help that have now been destroyed thanks to cheap politicking.
In answer to tim59, Freud's clumsy use of language has been worse than regrettable but what Labour have tried to do has damaged the cause of the disabled far more than the much apologised use of the word "worth".
Surely we must now have reasoned debate to ensure that we can be grown up and come to grown up conclusions which help, not use one word, used unwisely, to halt the whole and much needed solutions for those who need the help most.
But is this really about helping disabled people or helping buisness, its been proved by governments own figures show that even giving the private sector FREE labour for 6 months or even longer, they dont take the workers on, they just get a new bunch of FREE labour, and that is with non disabled people. The disabled side of employment system are even worse and have failed badly,
I think the point is very clear, since the disabled have been given equal rights to non disabled people, the private sector see it as unfair they have to pay the disabled the same rate as a non disabled person, but it goes alot deeper than just pay there are legal requirments that a employer has to abide by when employing a disabled person.
Tim I agree with you, these are the things we should be looking at.
It is such an important issue and one that affects so many people. My fear is that now this stunt has occurred that politicians, committees etc are going to be too scared to broach the very issues for fear of backlash. Thus instead of everyone thinking well actually there is a huge problem here, they are now thinking, whoa, I am not getting into that debate.
The same thing happened with the "race" card, institutions, police, social workers, councils etc were so scared to confront the muslim men who were systematically abusing young girls, that they let it run and in one town alone, 1400 young girls' lives were ruined, they will never get their innocence back and it was well known through that town that it was going on and those men took full advantage of the fears of the people who should have protected those girls. Incidentally, I cannot see what is happening there now and still mourn the loss of so many young lives.
That is just one of the terrible consequences people suffer from fears brought on by faux alarms and political point scoring. These are terrible issues and I would love people to think as individuals, not pin their thoughts on party politics and actually think how to help and debate with conscience rather than point scoring.
If the government topped the wage up on an indefinite basis then presumably the worker would be employed indefinitely. The discussion was definitely about helping disabled people.
Angela "Red" Eagle >:( was just towing the party line, bless her but I am afraid that the more Labour try to make mischief out of this, the bigger the hole they will dig for themselves. ;-)
The thing is would we see whole business only employing or mostly employing disabled people, which lets be honest buisness always wants the cheapest labour they can, and if that would be the case then why bother closing remploy in the first place. And who would do the assessment of these people, saying they have already been assessed, to even be on benefits. And the benefit they will be claiming will not be JSA, but ESA. And the ESA assessment is not based on what a person cannot do, but is bassed on what they can do
You may want anything you care to want. You can want green moon cheese if it floats your boat.
Screaming and hollering faux outrage over this will get you nowhere. His statement was perfectly reasonable, and the concerned public, after initially buying into the Labour attempt to create a shitstorm out of nothing, have now understood the picture. It was sensible to clarify his remarks as the use of the word "worth" was obviously potentially toxic, but he's done that now.
The irony is the poor bloke was actually trying to help disabled people.