The 'Nasty Party' - Disabled people not worth the NMW

First topic message reminder :

A Conservative minister has suggested that disabled people are ‘not worth’ the minimum wage.

Ed Miliband called on Lord Freud to resign from his post as work and pensions minister after his disparaging remarks, made while answering questions at a meeting of the Resolution Foundation, a living standards think-tank, during the Conservative Party conference.

The comments, which were recorded, came after a question by a Conservative councillor relating to the disabled and the National Minimum Wage.

http://metro.co.uk/2014/10/15/tory-work-and-pensions-minister-disabled-people-not-worth-minimum-wage-4906892/

This is just typical of the Tories. It all seeps out bit by bit of what they really are all about.

Get them out.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Yes you can, why not?
Do they not have disabled visitors or clients now as well?
They are not going to do well in the business world if they do not.

If it's an old building there may not be room. There might not be a lift either with no way of putting one in. You have to be a bit practical when it comes to these things. A lot of shops don't have any customer loos, for example, let alone disabled toilets.

Well many listed buildings run by companies have managed this and there is always ways of putting a lift in, it is all about costs, more than anything that stops them. Many shops are not required to have toilets, due to their size and they are only on one floor so they would not require them, those that are of a certain size do.

Brasidas wrote:So Tommy repeated himself yet again and failed to address or answer any of my points


Debate over unless he stops being immature and starts to debate the points.

Try again

Yes, he does seem to be a broken record, stuck on the same message.

But look Didge, that's what conservatism is.  It is the devotion of mind space, or self talk if you wish, not to creative pursuits or rationality, but to reification of the preexisting ideology or paradigm.  Conservatives generally oppose any and all change.  F.A. Hayak, "Why I'm not a Conservative," reprinted in Cato.org.  As Hayak says:

F.A. Hayak wrote:Conservatism proper is a legitimate, probably necessary, and certainly widespread
attitude of opposition to drastic change. It has, since the French Revolution, for a century
and a half played an important role in Europea
n politics.

* * * *

Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving. It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance. It has, for this reason, invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing. The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of contemporary developments.

As Hayak characterizes it, it can only be a "brake on the vehicle of progress."  It does not, in and of itself, actually go anywhere.  Nobel prize laureate F. A. Hayak, as some may know, is himself one of the great conservative economic theorists of the 20th-century (his protest notwithstanding).

Life is systematic, and if you commit to a philosophy of 'existing conditions' you don't spend very much mind space on creation, or inventing new paths of reason.  Rather, you tend to become repetitive and redundant.  If you have any creativity, it tends to be spent on creating clichés or slogans that reify the past, whatever that may be.

So it should come as no surprise that Tommy does this.  Nor do I mean to target Tommy for being conservative.  I just want to point out the logical connection between the idea of conservatism and the ideology of conservatism.  It's just an occasion to explain, not a criticism of anyone.

Well it shows the above is flawed Quill being as I am a conservative, being as conservatives share different views also.
Conservatives here are different to those in the US, they are more in line with the Democrats in policies, as the Tories are more central right, than right wing.

Brasidas wrote:Well it shows the above is flawed Quill being as I am a conservative, being as conservatives share different views also.
Conservatives here are different to those in the US, they are more in line with the Democrats in policies, as the Tories are more central right, than right wing.

Is the language different, as well? I think not. Unless you have a new meaning for the term conservative, you have to 'live by your words.'

Brasidas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If it's an old building there may not be room. There might not be a lift either with no way of putting one in. You have to be a bit practical when it comes to these things. A lot of shops don't have any customer loos, for example, let alone disabled toilets.

Well many listed buildings run by companies have managed this and there is always ways of putting a lift in, it is all about costs, more than anything that stops them. Many shops are not required to have toilets, due to their size and they are only on one floor so they would not require them, those that are of a certain size do.

You wouldn't do all that just for one person though. Besides, in retail you probably have to do a lot of standing, walking, shelf stacking, etc. I don't think someone in a wheelchair could manage it, unless it was a very quiet shop.

A friend of mine worked somewhere she couldn't manage the stairs, but there was no lift because it's a listed building or something.

What are only on one floor?

Didge has again failed to grasp the concept.....


And would rather see disabled people who are willing to work being excluded and consigned to a life on the scrap heap.

Original Quill wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Well it shows the above is flawed Quill being as I am a conservative, being as conservatives share different views also.
Conservatives here are different to those in the US, they are more in line with the Democrats in policies, as the Tories are more central right, than right wing.

Is the language different, as well?  I think not.  Unless you have a new meaning for the term conservative, you have to 'live by your words.'

The language will be different, because again I may hold more conservative views than I do Liberal, but hold both, hence why it is wrong in my book to label a person based on a word, where the definition is defined and argued over what it really is or means mate.

Brasidas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Is the language different, as well?  I think not.  Unless you have a new meaning for the term conservative, you have to 'live by your words.'

The language will be different, because again I may hold more conservative views than I do Liberal, but hold both, hence why it is wrong in my book to label a person based on a word, where the definition is defined and argued over what it really is or means mate.

Well, instead of beating around the bush, why don't you just give us your 'new meaning' of the English word, conservative. Address Hayak's argument.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Well many listed buildings run by companies have managed this and there is always ways of putting a lift in, it is all about costs, more than anything that stops them. Many shops are not required to have toilets, due to their size and they are only on one floor so they would not require them, those that are of a certain size do.

You wouldn't do all that just for one person though. Besides, in retail you probably have to do a lot of standing, walking, shelf stacking, etc. I don't think someone in a wheelchair could manage it, unless it was a very quiet shop.

A friend of mine worked somewhere she couldn't manage the stairs, but there was no lift because it's a listed building or something.

What are only on one floor?

Again I believe a company should for one person to accommodate their needs as well as any customer, as then the floor is only available to able bodied people, which would be wrong.
You do not need a lift if the whole business is on one floor.
You may need a ramp mind.

Original Quill wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


The language will be different, because again I may hold more conservative views than I do Liberal, but hold both, hence why it is wrong in my book to label a person based on a word, where the definition is defined and argued over what it really is or means mate.

Well, instead of beating around the bush, why don't you just give us your 'new meaning' of the English word, conservative.  Address Hayak's argument.

You see that is his view, who made his view the right one?
That is why it is flawed and where political views on certain points can be defined but many others will have different interpretations.

Brasidas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You wouldn't do all that just for one person though. Besides, in retail you probably have to do a lot of standing, walking, shelf stacking, etc. I don't think someone in a wheelchair could manage it, unless it was a very quiet shop.

A friend of mine worked somewhere she couldn't manage the stairs, but there was no lift because it's a listed building or something.

What are only on one floor?

Again I believe a company should for one person to accommodate their needs as well as any customer, as then the floor is only available to able bodied people, which would be wrong.
You do not need a lift if the whole business is on one floor.
You may need a ramp mind.

Yes, but it might not be on one floor.

A ramp is easy enough, but if you're talking about putting lifts in and extra toilets, that would take up a fair amount of space, and it would cost a fair bit. If it's a shop that could take up retail floor space.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Again I believe a company should for one person to accommodate their needs as well as any customer, as then the floor is only available to able bodied people, which would be wrong.
You do not need a lift if the whole business is on one floor.
You may need a ramp mind.

Yes, but it might not be on one floor.

A ramp is easy enough, but if you're talking about putting lifts in and extra toilets, that would take up a fair amount of space, and it would cost a fair bit. If it's a shop that could take up retail floor space.

Again many listed buildings have had lifts installed if they are places of work, it would again only be down to the cost.


http://www.access-lifts.co.uk/lifts-in-historic-buildings.html


As to shops, all will have store rooms, that would take up then storage, which is a manageable process and if it is that small I doubt it would have more than one floor. With shops the problem is never that much of a problem being as they are normally around other shops that do have or in shopping centers where they already provide facilities. Do not forget it is not just about an employee but potential customers.

Brasidas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, instead of beating around the bush, why don't you just give us your 'new meaning' of the English word, conservative.  Address Hayek's argument.

You see that is his view, who made his view the right one?
That is why it is flawed and where political views on certain points can be defined but many others will have different interpretations.

Hayek ranks up there with John Locke, David Hume and Albert Einstein. Who made Einstein's view right?

I admit there is always room for scholarly debate, but until there is another ideology offered it's academic. Conservatism is what conservatism does, that's all Hayek is saying.

Original Quill wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


You see that is his view, who made his view the right one?
That is why it is flawed and where political views on certain points can be defined but many others will have different interpretations.

Hayek ranks up there with John Locke, David Hume and Albert Einstein.  Who made Einstein's view right?

I admit there is always room for scholarly debate, but until there is another ideology offered it's academic.  Conservatism is what conservatism does, that's all Hayek is saying.

In your humble opinion he ranks compared to Einstein.
His view is broadly based off stigmatization, nothing more.

Brasidas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, but it might not be on one floor.

A ramp is easy enough, but if you're talking about putting lifts in and extra toilets, that would take up a fair amount of space, and it would cost a fair bit. If it's a shop that could take up retail floor space.

Again many listed buildings have had lifts installed if they are places of work, it would again only be down to the cost.


http://www.access-lifts.co.uk/lifts-in-historic-buildings.html


As to shops, all will have store rooms, that would take up then storage, which is a manageable process and if it is that small I doubt it would have more than one floor. With shops the problem is never that much of a problem being as they are normally around other shops that do have or in shopping centers where they already provide facilities. Do not forget it is not just about an employee but potential customers.

What if they need the store room for storage?

If there is no room for storage, they are not going to have any toilets for the staff being it is too small and already covered in regards to being too small.

Brasidas wrote:If there is no room for storage, they are not going to have any toilets for the staff being it is too small and already covered in regards to being too small.

They would have toilets for staff, but they might be unsuitable for disabled people.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Brasidas wrote:If there is no room for storage, they are not going to have any toilets for the staff being it is too small and already covered in regards to being too small.

They would have toilets for staff, but they might be unsuitable for disabled people.

If they have a toilet for staff, then clearly there is room to expand this, think about it.

Brasidas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They would have toilets for staff, but they might be unsuitable for disabled people.

If they have a toilet for staff, then clearly there is room to expand this, think about it.

Not necessarily. You seem to think that businesses have endless room to accommodate one person. They don't - they pay rent and they have to use the space to maximise profits as much as possible.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

If they have a toilet for staff, then clearly there is room to expand this, think about it.

Not necessarily. You seem to think that businesses have endless room to accommodate one person. They don't - they pay rent and they have to use the space to maximise profits as much as possible.

Never claimed many bushiness have endless space, but again how big is a toilet compared to many offices spaces, all of which in 99.99999999% of offices will have male and female toilets already, which combined would make what exactly?
One disabled toilet by any chance all staff could use?

nicko wrote:People who think this is a bad idea are NOT disabled.  would they like to sit in the house all day`going slowly mad with nothing to do and no one to talk to?  You see some people don't really know what they are talking about,if you are not disabled and able to get out and mix with other people, you don't know what it's like.  £3 an hour and made up to minimum wage by Government,bring it on.

I wouldn't even think about arguing with you Nicko on what you believe is best for you but I think that you are so much better and capable of more than just a state handout to make up your wages to the NMW and I gave you a few examples of that.

What we need is a proper strategy of engagement with disabled people in terms of training and creating opportunities for disabled people to get into proper jobs where their disability is not a barrier to their employment. If that is not done then it will never get any better for disabled people who will continue to be held back and looked at as a liability. There is a huge pool of creative and talented people who are disabled which isn't being nurtured and harnessed in a way that would be of benefit to both them and prospective employers. Topping up wages from state funds is just the easy way and it will never be a long term solution.

When this government shut the last of the Remploy factories - pretending it was not a money saving act - it was said to be on the basis that they wanted to get disabled people into the mainstream employment sector. Well, so much for that then because who would have thought this is what they meant.

This guy Fruad has a history of attacking poor and vulnerable people stating in the past that he couldn't understand why people use food banks and likening benefit claimants to corpses.

He's a barrier to improving the loves of disabled people with what he says, not a solution and it's time to start thinking out of the box.

Irn Bru wrote:

nicko wrote:People who think this is a bad idea are NOT disabled.  would they like to sit in the house all day`going slowly mad with nothing to do and no one to talk to?  You see some people don't really know what they are talking about,if you are not disabled and able to get out and mix with other people, you don't know what it's like.  £3 an hour and made up to minimum wage by Government,bring it on.

I wouldn't even think about arguing with you Nicko on what you believe is best for you but I think that you are so much better and capable of more than just a state handout to make up your wages to the NMW and I gave you a few examples of that.

What we need is a proper strategy of engagement with disabled people in terms of training and creating opportunities for disabled people to get into proper jobs where their disability is not a barrier to their employment. If that is not done then it will never get any better for disabled people who will continue to be held back and looked at as a liability. There is a huge pool of creative and talented people who are disabled which isn't being nurtured and harnessed in a way that would be of benefit to both them and prospective employers. Topping up wages from state funds is just the easy way and it will never be a long term solution.

When this government shut the last of the Remploy factories - pretending it was not a money saving act - it was said to be on the basis that they wanted to get disabled people into the mainstream employment sector. Well, so much for that then because who would have thought this is what they meant.

This guy Fruad has a history of attacking poor and vulnerable people stating in the past that he couldn't understand why people use food banks and likening benefit claimants to corpses.

He's a barrier to improving the loves of disabled people with what he says, not a solution and it's time to start thinking out of the box.

Such a good post until you got political with the blame game, where the problem has always been within all parties not addressing this problem, to blame one is short sighted when all are at fault.

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

nicko wrote:People who think this is a bad idea are NOT disabled.  would they like to sit in the house all day`going slowly mad with nothing to do and no one to talk to?  You see some people don't really know what they are talking about,if you are not disabled and able to get out and mix with other people, you don't know what it's like.  £3 an hour and made up to minimum wage by Government,bring it on.

I wouldn't even think about arguing with you Nicko on what you believe is best for you but I think that you are so much better and capable of more than just a state handout to make up your wages to the NMW and I gave you a few examples of that.

What we need is a proper strategy of engagement with disabled people in terms of training and creating opportunities for disabled people to get into proper jobs where their disability is not a barrier to their employment. If that is not done then it will never get any better for disabled people who will continue to be held back and looked at as a liability. There is a huge pool of creative and talented people who are disabled which isn't being nurtured and harnessed in a way that would be of benefit to both them and prospective employers. Topping up wages from state funds is just the easy way and it will never be a long term solution.

When this government shut the last of the Remploy factories - pretending it was not a money saving act - it was said to be on the basis that they wanted to get disabled people into the mainstream employment sector. Well, so much for that then because who would have thought this is what they meant.

This guy Fruad has a history of attacking poor and vulnerable people stating in the past that he couldn't understand why people use food banks and likening benefit claimants to corpses.

He's a barrier to improving the loves of disabled people with what he says, not a solution and it's time to start thinking out of the box.

Such a good post until you got political with the blame game, where the problem has always been within all parties not addressing this problem, to blame one is short sighted when all are at fault.

You may not have noticed that earlier I said that Labour's hands were not clean in the way they dealt with the Remploy issue either.

I'm making a point about Fruad who is a Tory minister and the way he see's the future for disabled people - the subject of the debate.

Which achieves nothing the blame game as already highlighted, what you do is bring about change and campaign for it as yet again none of the parties has any good record on this, not sure how many times I have to explain this, because you were making a political point, please do not try to deny it.

So you’re not blaming anyone then?

Brasidas wrote:
“the problem has always been within all parties not addressing this problem, to blame one is short sighted when all are at fault.”

See, you’re blaming both just like I did.

Stay on topic and not turn this  into a Party squabble diverting it away from the subject in hand – Lord Fruad’s comments on paying disabled people less than the NMW.

No I am pointing out all are wrong based off your comments, which as seen were poor, where you used the blame game. so best you stay on topic and not make it a platform for your left wing drivel.

Brasidas wrote:No I am pointing out all are wrong based off your comments, which as seen were poor, where you used the blame game. so best you stay on topic and not make it a platform for your left wing drivel.

Yes, I blamed both the Tories and Labour for the position disabled people are now in - just like you have done. What is it about that that you do not understand?

However, if you wish to reduce the discussion down to insults then I'll leave you to it and continue with discussing it with the others who have not resorted to that.

There is no insults, in my opinion some left wing views are drivel.
Again there was no need for you to get political to make a point on a problem with disabilities, yet you seem to be the only person doing so, hence using this as a platform for political views, when it should be about disabilities, which I am sure the penny will drop soon enough.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lone Wolf wrote:

TOMMY MONK has a disabled brain...

THAT'S the most logical excuse for the empty-headed and often fallacious nonsense he has been passing off as his personal opinions since this thread started..

His posts have been perfectly reasonable, whether one agrees with him or not. Your problem is that you're very narrow minded, as well as extremely rude and obnoxious.

AND double back at you too, Baggs'  !!!

TOMMY M. hasn't made an even halfway "reasonable" post on here since he started..
THAT'S WHY I've had him blocked for several months, already !

Irn Bru wrote:

nicko wrote:People who think this is a bad idea are NOT disabled.  would they like to sit in the house all day`going slowly mad with nothing to do and no one to talk to?  You see some people don't really know what they are talking about,if you are not disabled and able to get out and mix with other people, you don't know what it's like.  £3 an hour and made up to minimum wage by Government,bring it on.

I wouldn't even think about arguing with you Nicko on what you believe is best for you but I think that you are so much better and capable of more than just a state handout to make up your wages to the NMW and I gave you a few examples of that.

What we need is a proper strategy of engagement with disabled people in terms of training and creating opportunities for disabled people to get into proper jobs where their disability is not a barrier to their employment. If that is not done then it will never get any better for disabled people who will continue to be held back and looked at as a liability. There is a huge pool of creative and talented people who are disabled which isn't being nurtured and harnessed in a way that would be of benefit to both them and prospective employers. Topping up wages from state funds is just the easy way and it will never be a long term solution.

When this government shut the last of the Remploy factories - pretending it was not a money saving act - it was said to be on the basis that they wanted to get disabled people into the mainstream employment sector. Well, so much for that then because who would have thought this is what they meant.

This guy Fruad has a history of attacking poor and vulnerable people stating in the past that he couldn't understand why people use food banks and likening benefit claimants to corpses.

He's a barrier to improving the loves of disabled people with what he says, not a solution and it's time to start thinking out of the box.

You have already said it thought Irn. Remploy worked perfectly. In my area we had Create. They would collect furniture electricals and household stuff that people wanted rid of. They would dump what wasn't salvageable and recondition what they could. When the items were fit for sale they were sold for buttons or given to those in need. All of their workforce, drivers, admin manager everyone had some form of disability. But of course that and other schemes went in the first round of tory cuts.

Brasidas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Hayek ranks up there with John Locke, David Hume and Albert Einstein.  Who made Einstein's view right?

I admit there is always room for scholarly debate, but until there is another ideology offered it's academic.  Conservatism is what conservatism does, that's all Hayek is saying.

In your humble opinion he ranks compared to Einstein.
His view is broadly based off stigmatization, nothing more.

Well, you asked you silly nanny goat. When you ask a question, you invite an answer.

Haha...you seem to have problems with questions and answers, Didge. When someone doesn't answer, you throw a hissy-fit. But when someone does answer, you also throw a hissy-fit. What part of disingenuous don't you understand?

Conservatism is locked into it's own trap. Originally it felt comfortable to say I don't believe in change. But about the time they realized that the earth wasn't flat and the stars didn't move around, they found themselves being labeled things like irrelevant and fossil. Such things are merely indicative...the real point is that conservatives have lost sight of the capacity to reason. You snooze you lose.

Notice...you have no answer. All of this smokescreen you have raised...and you have no answer.

Really, how am I throwing a hissy fit, hardly after I had to educate you on what was natural and rational to do against a real threat, where you gave an excuse to bow out, it would mean I was quite fine, being as we are friends anyway.
You have an interpretation of conservatism, that is your view and good luck to it, but it is based on the stigmas you hold of conservative people.
I can reason, so again that is a complete load of babble, and not so long ago a Conservative government voted in Gay marriage, progression and reason for you.
Sorry to burst your bubble.

Nems wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

I wouldn't even think about arguing with you Nicko on what you believe is best for you but I think that you are so much better and capable of more than just a state handout to make up your wages to the NMW and I gave you a few examples of that.

What we need is a proper strategy of engagement with disabled people in terms of training and creating opportunities for disabled people to get into proper jobs where their disability is not a barrier to their employment. If that is not done then it will never get any better for disabled people who will continue to be held back and looked at as a liability. There is a huge pool of creative and talented people who are disabled which isn't being nurtured and harnessed in a way that would be of benefit to both them and prospective employers. Topping up wages from state funds is just the easy way and it will never be a long term solution.

When this government shut the last of the Remploy factories - pretending it was not a money saving act - it was said to be on the basis that they wanted to get disabled people into the mainstream employment sector. Well, so much for that then because who would have thought this is what they meant.

This guy Fruad has a history of attacking poor and vulnerable people stating in the past that he couldn't understand why people use food banks and likening benefit claimants to corpses.

He's a barrier to improving the loves of disabled people with what he says, not a solution and it's time to start thinking out of the box.

You have already said it thought Irn. Remploy worked perfectly. In my area we had Create. They would collect furniture electricals and household stuff that people wanted rid of. They would dump what wasn't salvageable and recondition what they could. When the items were fit for sale they were sold for buttons or given to those in need. All of their workforce, drivers, admin manager everyone had some form of disability. But of course that and other schemes went in the first round of tory cuts.

I think that Remploy and the scheme you describe are a good idea. Some people might say that just putting disabled people together is avoiding the issue, but the people who worked in those jobs seemed to like it, and perhaps they didn't feel the need to compete with people who were not disabled.

Irn Bru wrote:

nicko wrote:People who think this is a bad idea are NOT disabled.  would they like to sit in the house all day`going slowly mad with nothing to do and no one to talk to?  You see some people don't really know what they are talking about,if you are not disabled and able to get out and mix with other people, you don't know what it's like.  £3 an hour and made up to minimum wage by Government,bring it on.

I wouldn't even think about arguing with you Nicko on what you believe is best for you but I think that you are so much better and capable of more than just a state handout to make up your wages to the NMW and I gave you a few examples of that.

What we need is a proper strategy of engagement with disabled people in terms of training and creating opportunities for disabled people to get into proper jobs where their disability is not a barrier to their employment. If that is not done then it will never get any better for disabled people who will continue to be held back and looked at as a liability. There is a huge pool of creative and talented people who are disabled which isn't being nurtured and harnessed in a way that would be of benefit to both them and prospective employers. Topping up wages from state funds is just the easy way and it will never be a long term solution.

When this government shut the last of the Remploy factories - pretending it was not a money saving act - it was said to be on the basis that they wanted to get disabled people into the mainstream employment sector. Well, so much for that then because who would have thought this is what they meant.

This guy Fruad has a history of attacking poor and vulnerable people stating in the past that he couldn't understand why people use food banks and likening benefit claimants to corpses.

He's a barrier to improving the loves of disabled people with what he says, not a solution and it's time to start thinking out of the box.

Comes back to the point that the disabled people who CAN do the required work will be given the jobs at the same rate as everyone else.



Those who can't do the required work will not.



Employers will not hire someone who can only do 60% of The required work unless they can pay them 60% of The rate.



With min wage there is no ability to pay less to reflect the lower work rate so result is no job at all.



The top up of rate by govt IS the only solution to this.



You can't proclaim the talent and ability of some while also saying that they cannot perform anywhere near the requied level



Sounds like you would rather see some being continually denied work opportunities and taxpayer funding all of their costs rather than creating a situation where they are able to engage i6 regular working environment with taxpayer only picking up a small percentage of the costs.



This would be good for the disabled, The employers and the taxpayer.




Who's side are you on...???

Brasidas wrote:Really, how am I throwing a hissy fit, hardly after I had to educate you on what was natural and rational to do against a real threat, where you gave an excuse to bow out, it would mean I was quite fine, being as we are friends anyway.
You have an interpretation of conservatism, that is your view and good luck to it, but it is based on the stigmas you hold of conservative people.
I can reason, so again that is a complete load of babble, and not so long ago a Conservative government voted in Gay marriage, progression and reason for you.
Sorry to burst your bubble.

Okay, okay...educate me again about natural and rational?  My thesis is that rational grows out of natural.  What is your thesis?  If rational is not from natural origins, from whence is it?  This I gotta hear, Didge Nietzsche.  

I have the interpretation of conservatism that is the only one possible. If you want to come up with another ideology, be my guest. But don't call it conservatism...the term has already been taken.

But of course, you have no other ideology. Your argument is a toom tabard, designed to avoid the devastating logic of Hayek's article. If you had some other ideology, you would enlighten us with it.

That disposed of, my main point is that a mind that comes from the conservative perspective has no experience in rational thought. The basic premise of that ideology is that the 'right thinking' has already been delivered, and therefore there is only the repeating of it that is required.

That is why conservatives are mostly given to slogans and jingoism in their speech. "Flip-flopper' or 'commie-pinko', yet no content to their words. They have lost the art of original thought.

Liberals, on the other hand assume, or embrace the fact that the world is imperfect and in need of fixing. Take economics...conservatives will say work harder and be done with it; liberals will delve into it more deeply, and find the source of the problem...racism, disability, aging, etc. Then they will work to devise a plan or program that eliminates the human suffering. Thinking, like any endeavor, takes practice...haha, another way to put it is conservatives don't get to the gym often enough.

Liberals are always attending to the needs of the people, and concurrently they use reasoning and speech to devise and deliver new ideas and remedies. When I say Republicans and Tories serve special interests; Democrats and Labour serve the interests of the people, I am also describing the cognitive patterns of each. Conservatives are not interested in the needs of the people, hence they are not practicing rational thought in an effort to better the living conditions of people. Having nothing better to do with their time, conservatives waste their efforts by making up jingos and clichés that affirm their old beliefs. When it comes to constructing a cogent argument, they are at a loss.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nems wrote:
You have already said it thought Irn. Remploy worked perfectly. In my area we had Create. They would collect furniture electricals and household stuff that people wanted rid of. They would dump what wasn't salvageable and recondition what they could. When the items were fit for sale they were sold for buttons or given to those in need. All of their workforce, drivers, admin manager everyone had some form of disability. But of course that and other schemes went in the first round of tory cuts.

I think that Remploy and the scheme you describe are a good idea. Some people might say that just putting disabled people together is avoiding the issue, but the people who worked in those jobs seemed to like it, and perhaps they didn't feel the need to compete with people who were not disabled.

TORY/ultra "conservative" mindsets won't consider supporting such schemes though, will they...

THEY would much prefer those "rationalist" capital_based alternatives that will both allow more of their mystical "budget cuts", while at the same time putting more of the potential profits into their shonky siblings' and cousins' pockets..

To Quill

I already have provided upon why it is natural ad rational, (you sadly confuse morals into this) in all aspects of life and in several posts and now you want to diverge against this by having to repeat myself?
I posed all points to you now you are just taking the piss.

No thanks, go back to the posts ad take on my points as they are there for you to address, stop coming outwith poor excuses.
Again you use ignorant stereotypes of people, which is the same as racists use of people also, the same ignorant arguments placed onto people, when even if they class themselves into a political bracket thy will hold a variety of views

Tommy Monk wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

nicko wrote:People who think this is a bad idea are NOT disabled.  would they like to sit in the house all day`going slowly mad with nothing to do and no one to talk to?  You see some people don't really know what they are talking about,if you are not disabled and able to get out and mix with other people, you don't know what it's like.  £3 an hour and made up to minimum wage by Government,bring it on.

I wouldn't even think about arguing with you Nicko on what you believe is best for you but I think that you are so much better and capable of more than just a state handout to make up your wages to the NMW and I gave you a few examples of that.

What we need is a proper strategy of engagement with disabled people in terms of training and creating opportunities for disabled people to get into proper jobs where their disability is not a barrier to their employment. If that is not done then it will never get any better for disabled people who will continue to be held back and looked at as a liability. There is a huge pool of creative and talented people who are disabled which isn't being nurtured and harnessed in a way that would be of benefit to both them and prospective employers. Topping up wages from state funds is just the easy way and it will never be a long term solution.

When this government shut the last of the Remploy factories - pretending it was not a money saving act - it was said to be on the basis that they wanted to get disabled people into the mainstream employment sector. Well, so much for that then because who would have thought this is what they meant.

This guy Fruad has a history of attacking poor and vulnerable people stating in the past that he couldn't understand why people use food banks and likening benefit claimants to corpses.

He's a barrier to improving the loves of disabled people with what he says, not a solution and it's time to start thinking out of the box.

Comes back to the point that the disabled people who CAN do the required work will be given the jobs at the same rate as everyone else.



Those who can't do the required work will not.



Employers will not hire someone who can only do 60% of The required work unless they can pay them 60% of The rate.



With min wage there is no ability to pay less to reflect the lower work rate so result is no job at all.



The top up of rate by govt IS the only solution to this.



You can't proclaim the talent and ability of some while also saying that they cannot perform anywhere near the requied level



Sounds like you would rather see some being continually denied work opportunities and taxpayer funding all of their costs rather than creating a situation where they are able to engage i6 regular working environment with taxpayer only picking up a small percentage of the costs.



This would be good for the disabled, The employers and the taxpayer.




Who's side are you on...???

I realise that what you say and propose is well intentioned but I see it as wrong because it's never going to solve the problem in the long term of employment for disabled people.

Your focusing on placing disabled people into jobs that they can't do when you should be trying to place them into jobs that they can do without being seen as a liability and a passenger. It's a bit like trying to put square pegs in a round holes.

It can be done with the right commitment and/or training and I've already explained that in as much detail as I can.

Do you think that a disabled person who can't actually do any job at all should have their benefits topped up to meet the NMW?

Nems wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

nicko wrote:People who think this is a bad idea are NOT disabled.  would they like to sit in the house all day`going slowly mad with nothing to do and no one to talk to?  You see some people don't really know what they are talking about,if you are not disabled and able to get out and mix with other people, you don't know what it's like.  £3 an hour and made up to minimum wage by Government,bring it on.

I wouldn't even think about arguing with you Nicko on what you believe is best for you but I think that you are so much better and capable of more than just a state handout to make up your wages to the NMW and I gave you a few examples of that.

What we need is a proper strategy of engagement with disabled people in terms of training and creating opportunities for disabled people to get into proper jobs where their disability is not a barrier to their employment. If that is not done then it will never get any better for disabled people who will continue to be held back and looked at as a liability. There is a huge pool of creative and talented people who are disabled which isn't being nurtured and harnessed in a way that would be of benefit to both them and prospective employers. Topping up wages from state funds is just the easy way and it will never be a long term solution.

When this government shut the last of the Remploy factories - pretending it was not a money saving act - it was said to be on the basis that they wanted to get disabled people into the mainstream employment sector. Well, so much for that then because who would have thought this is what they meant.

This guy Fruad has a history of attacking poor and vulnerable people stating in the past that he couldn't understand why people use food banks and likening benefit claimants to corpses.

He's a barrier to improving the loves of disabled people with what he says, not a solution and it's time to start thinking out of the box.

You have already said it thought Irn. Remploy worked perfectly. In my area we had Create. They would collect furniture electricals and household stuff that people wanted rid of. They would dump what wasn't salvageable and recondition what they could. When the items were fit for sale they were sold for buttons or given to those in need. All of their workforce, drivers, admin manager everyone had some form of disability. But of course that and other schemes went in the first round of tory cuts.

I looked up Create in Liverpool and I see that they went into liquidation back in 2012 right enough. We had similar schemes here in Edinburgh in addition to Remploy like Blindcraft who made quality bed furniture. They went the same road and 149 employees lost their jobs and were put on the scrapheap. The factory had been operating since the late 1700s and was the oldest supported workshop in Europe - gone in a flash of cuts.

Some people realise the potential of disabled people even if the government doesn't. They just have to think out of the box and support new projects that utilises their talent and their ability.

An example...

http://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/2014/august/our-new-making-project

But we have disabled people who CAN and they should be paid accordingly.



What I'm proposing is aimed at helping those who struggle to do the basics required in min wage work, making them more attractive to employers by allowing govt to pay a little towards their wage.

Tommy Monk wrote:But we have disabled people who CAN and they should be paid accordingly.



What I'm proposing is aimed at helping those who struggle to do the basics required in min wage work, making them more attractive to employers by allowing govt to pay a little towards their wage.

That's because you are only thinking only in terms of jobs that they can't do as fast as the next guy. There are able-bodied people who are like that as well and it's not because they are lazy. Do you think a bricklayer on NMW that has reached around 60 years old and can't keep up with the younger guys anymore because he isn't physically able to do so should have his wages docked and the state make up the difference? Same thing really so maybe that'll come next.

I keep saying that we need to tackle this from a completely different angle and place them into jobs that they CAN do by showing the right commitment and training them to do the work.

Tommy, look up the life of Laurence Kim Peek.

Bricklayers normally work on price, if on day work and not doing the required work then they are either pumped or wages dropped.



A 60 year old brick layer would be doing some of The more technical parts of The work that some of The younger ones might not be able to do or be very good at.



Not a very good example.



And as I keep saying, if they can do the work then they justify the rate that everyone else gets.


I'm talking about those who can't do the required amount of work and purely because of disability.

Irn Bru wrote:

Nems wrote:

You have already said it thought Irn. Remploy worked perfectly. In my area we had Create. They would collect furniture electricals and household stuff that people wanted rid of. They would dump what wasn't salvageable and recondition what they could. When the items were fit for sale they were sold for buttons or given to those in need. All of their workforce, drivers, admin manager everyone had some form of disability. But of course that and other schemes went in the first round of tory cuts.

I looked up Create in Liverpool and I see that they went into liquidation back in 2012 right enough. We had similar schemes here in Edinburgh in addition to Remploy like Blindcraft who made quality bed furniture. They went the same road and 149 employees lost their jobs and were put on the scrapheap. The factory had been operating since the late 1700s and was the oldest supported workshop in Europe - gone in a flash of cuts.

Some people realise the potential of disabled people even if the government doesn't. They just have to think out of the box and support new projects that utilises their talent and their ability.

An example...

http://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/2014/august/our-new-making-project

Why were these places closed though? Was it because the productivity couldn't cover the costs? This is what Tommy is talking about - there are jobs which can't be done as quickly or efficiently by someone who is disabled - depending on the disability of course.

I'm very much in favour of these schemes though. It shouldn't all be about profit, and if these schemes need to be subsidised, I think that's good use of public money. That is the purpose of paying tax after all - to make life better for people.

Businesses are all about profit.


This remploy scheme is just subsidising in a slightly different way.


What's the real difference in doing that or govt offering to pay part of hourly rate to other employers?

Tommy Monk wrote:Businesses are all about profit.


This remploy scheme is just subsidising in a slightly different way.


What's the real difference in doing that or govt offering to pay part of hourly rate to other employers?

None really Tommy - financially speaking. One of the issues about paying disabled people less and topping the money up is that they might feel that they're not part of the "team" at work. They might feel different because they can't do as much as others, or they might feel that they're being patronised. If everyone is in the same boat, I think that makes a difference.

Disabled people who are currently excluded from work because they can't meet the min requirements in any min wage job are going to feel part of any team that they become part of The work force with if my proposal makes them employable rather than current system that doesn't offer any incentive to employers and results in many not being able to get any work at all.


And to be fair, most will already feel different anyway and even more so by being excluded from regular working society, unable to engage with majority mainstream people in everyday life, while also being denied the feeling of being useful and productive and kept in a situation where they may feel that they can only be a burden on everyone else financially although they desperately want to do some work and pay towards their own existence.


Many low earners without disabilities are already in receipt of top up payments from govt, tax credits, housing benefit etc, so I don't see much difference in giving some similar help to disabled people, and think maybe giving some of them a bit of extra help on top of that to be equally justified if not even more justified.



I can't understand why some are so supportive of The remploy system that was only able to survive with govt subsidy but are so against a similar subsidy given to other disabled people who want to engage in the wider field of employment opportunities.

Tommy Monk wrote:Disabled people who are currently excluded from work because they can't meet the min requirements in any min wage job are going to feel part of any team that they become part of The work force with if my proposal makes them employable rather than current system that doesn't offer any incentive to employers and results in many not being able to get any work at all.

Hmmmm, I'm not sure about that Tommy. It does depend on the individual of course, but lots of people don't feel like part of the "team" at work for many reasons. I believe that birds of a feather flock together, but maybe that's just me.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Disabled people who are currently excluded from work because they can't meet the min requirements in any min wage job are going to feel part of any team that they become part of The work force with if my proposal makes them employable rather than current system that doesn't offer any incentive to employers and results in many not being able to get any work at all.

Hmmmm, I'm not sure about that Tommy. It does depend on the individual of course, but lots of people don't feel like part of the "team" at work for many reasons. I believe that birds of a feather flock together, but maybe that's just me.

Agree Raggs
Also If they are that disabled there is also a point where it is either dangerous or legitimately too difficult for them to work

not everyone should be expected to work if they are legitimately that bad

Brasidas wrote:To Quill

I already have provided upon why it is natural ad rational, (you sadly confuse morals into this) in all aspects of life and in several posts and now you want to diverge against this by having to repeat myself?
I posed all points to you now you are just taking the piss.

You seem to have lost the plot here, Didge.  Let me see if I can help you.  First, the issue of  “natural ad rational” [sic]  You tried to create a dichotomy between them, and my point is that rationality is natural.  Really, there is no other source than nature, hence it has to be natural.  It may be a higher level of evolution, but rational flows from nature

Brasidas wrote:No thanks, go back to the posts ad take on my points as they are there for you to address, stop coming outwith poor excuses.
Again you use ignorant stereotypes of people, which is the same as racists use of people also, the same ignorant arguments placed onto people, when even if they class themselves into a political bracket thy will hold a variety of views

Second, you really haven’t made any other points.  You gotten yourself stuck on that one broken record and haven’t progressed to anything that makes any sense since.

Once again, you don’t make much sense when you are on the cocktail circuit.  Regrettably, I am drafting this answer at 9 am in the morning, while your posts come in the middle of your cocktail hour over in Scotland.  It all sounds like babble by the time it gets here.

Perhaps if we conversed before you imbibed??