Cameron's Tories think disabled workers are worth less than the minimum wage.
The rest is froth.
The jobs market thinks many disabled people are unemployable at the minimum wage. That is the fact that the Labour shriekers refuse to confront, and why they were happy to leave them to rot on benefits; a neo-Victorian attitude whereby if you couldn't see the problem then it might as well not exist.
The jobs "market" is subject to the laws of the land. Disabled workers are worth the legal minimum wage, no ifs no buts. That your Party thinks otherwise is frankly disgusting.
You and your colleagues really are contemptible, aren't you? You simply don't care about the fate of the most vulnerable in society as long as you can try to make political capital.
No wonder it's not possible to have a reasoned debate if this is the response to be expected. So no wonder so little gets done.
It's an absolute parallel of how 'racist' was used until recently to prevent any criticism of imported cultural practices that many find unacceptable, and we know where that led.
The faux outrage from some on here just exposes what the ambush was all about,try and avoid any focus on Ed 's performance and lack of Labour policy. To be fair it has been effective in that regard, for 48 hours Ed is off the hook, what then?
Sadly Ed's failed Balls-transplant story means it may only have worked 10 hours.
The Guardian website has relegated Lord Freud and now has the Rotheram sex-abuse scandal topping its homepage - always a sign Labour-devised smear story is running out of steam. Ed must do something to keep this alive! He must find some Tory MP/member/relative/friend/acquaintance/neighbour who once paid someone to do something for not much money. The Mirror would print it.
Cameron's Tories think disabled workers are worth less than the minimum wage.
The rest is froth.
The jobs market thinks many disabled people are unemployable at the minimum wage. That is the fact that the Labour shriekers refuse to confront, and why they were happy to leave them to rot on benefits; a neo-Victorian attitude whereby if you couldn't see the problem then it might as well not exist.
The jobs "market" is subject to the laws of the land. Disabled workers are worth the legal minimum wage, no ifs no buts. That your Party thinks otherwise is frankly disgusting.
You and your colleagues really are contemptible, aren't you? You simply don't care about the fate of the most vulnerable in society as long as you can try to make political capital.
No wonder it's not possible to have a reasoned debate if this is the response to be expected. So no wonder so little gets done.
It's an absolute parallel of how 'racist' was used until recently to prevent any criticism of imported cultural practices that many find unacceptable, and we know where that led.
I'm all for a reasoned debate, so let's go.
I think the legal minimum wage should apply to disabled workers, just like any other workers.
You and the Tory Party clearly don't.
Why not? Why do you and Cameron's Tories think disabled workers should be exempt from the legal minimum wage? Or subject to a lower one? Or what?
And if your Party doesn't think that, why is Freud still in a job?
Wasn't it the National Socialist party who executed the disabled and anyone else who differed from their ideal?
It's OK, I think they'll die off naturally when we are through with eviscerating the NHS. Bupa don't do pre existing conditions.
Yes they do
At a price, sometimes they will.
They also refuse to cover chronic conditions...
BUPA are quite well known for weaseling out of covering conditions. A number of other companies offer much better packages for the money.
Firstly I should declare that I am a broker in the private healthcare field.
No insurer covers chronic conditions however they do cover acute flare ups, being hospitalized etc. certainly agree that other companies offer better value for money than Bupa though, as they have now gone down the open referral/ managed care route with preferred consultants who work within their price scale.
If you choose to use a consultant outside of their preferred list you will be subject to a shortfall on the claim.
BUPA and similar managed schemes have no data on quality of care, Consultants are chosen and allocated on price. It combines the central control of the NHS with the cost of the private.
Mind you private healthcare can cost more than money:
That's not the case with all private insurers, for example Pruhealth operate a fee maxima policy, and Bupa only go down the open referral route on large company schemes.
The last point has nothing to do with the insurer, horrible as it maybe.
A very sad case; but illustrates how other healthcare systems have their own issues.
The Private Health providers in the UK rely on the NHS to back them up for emergency work, obstetrics, paediatrics and for the totality of chronic care.
They have their place for elective care though.
I agree in principle, though as I said acute flare ups of chronic care are covered and some insurers will pay for consultations of chronic conditions.
@joeyjonessky: The @labouruncut article, whatever the rights or wrongs, is now the story @Ed_Miliband + colleagues are going to deal with for rest of week.
Hmm So H&M saved my Ed Balls potential bets... interesting !
Conclusion: Hugh is a simple troll (or so dim or tribalist that it's impossible to communicate with him).
Ergo, not worth engaging with him. The discussion around the subject is already easily sufficient to expose his facile posturing for what it is.
(surbiton appears to be trying to copy him, but less effectively).
Communicate away pal.
I think that our country's legal minimum wage should apply to disabled workers as much as anyone else.
You, and Cameron's Tories disagree. Fair enough. You've yet to make a decent case though.
So, assuming that a private sector employee believes that the value a disabled worker can add is less than the minimum wage then they will not employ them.
Do you think it is better for people to spend their lives on benefit with no employment, even if it is at a less than ideal wage?
Wasn't it the National Socialist party who executed the disabled and anyone else who differed from their ideal?
It's OK, I think they'll die off naturally when we are through with eviscerating the NHS. Bupa don't do pre existing conditions.
Yes they do
At a price, sometimes they will.
They also refuse to cover chronic conditions...
BUPA are quite well known for weaseling out of covering conditions. A number of other companies offer much better packages for the money.
Firstly I should declare that I am a broker in the private healthcare field.
No insurer covers chronic conditions however they do cover acute flare ups, being hospitalized etc. certainly agree that other companies offer better value for money than Bupa though, as they have now gone down the open referral/ managed care route with preferred consultants who work within their price scale.
If you choose to use a consultant outside of their preferred list you will be subject to a shortfall on the claim.
BUPA and similar managed schemes have no data on quality of care, Consultants are chosen and allocated on price. It combines the central control of the NHS with the cost of the private.
Mind you private healthcare can cost more than money:
That's not the case with all private insurers, for example Pruhealth operate a fee maxima policy, and Bupa only go down the open referral route on large company schemes.
The last point has nothing to do with the insurer, horrible as it maybe.
A very sad case; but illustrates how other healthcare systems have their own issues.
The Private Health providers in the UK rely on the NHS to back them up for emergency work, obstetrics, paediatrics and for the totality of chronic care.
They have their place for elective care though.
I agree in principle, though as I said acute flare ups of chronic care are covered and some insurers will pay for consultations of chronic conditions.
It is not clear what is meant by a chronic condition, or indeed an acute flare up. For some companies it just means something that they will not pay for...
Sun Politics @Sun_Politics 3m3 minutes ago YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead by two points, Ukip hit record level of support: CON 31%, LAB 33%, LD 7%, UKIP 19%, GRN 5%
Cameron's Tories think disabled workers are worth less than the minimum wage.
The rest is froth.
The jobs market thinks many disabled people are unemployable at the minimum wage. That is the fact that the Labour shriekers refuse to confront, and why they were happy to leave them to rot on benefits; a neo-Victorian attitude whereby if you couldn't see the problem then it might as well not exist.
The jobs "market" is subject to the laws of the land. Disabled workers are worth the legal minimum wage, no ifs no buts. That your Party thinks otherwise is frankly disgusting.
You and your colleagues really are contemptible, aren't you? You simply don't care about the fate of the most vulnerable in society as long as you can try to make political capital.
No wonder it's not possible to have a reasoned debate if this is the response to be expected. So no wonder so little gets done.
It's an absolute parallel of how 'racist' was used until recently to prevent any criticism of imported cultural practices that many find unacceptable, and we know where that led.
I'm all for a reasoned debate, so let's go.
I think the legal minimum wage should apply to disabled workers, just like any other workers.
You and the Tory Party clearly don't.
Why not? Why do you and Cameron's Tories think disabled workers should be exempt from the legal minimum wage? Or subject to a lower one? Or what?
And if your Party doesn't think that, why is Freud still in a job?
We're you offering this view in 2003 when Hewitt supported companies paying £4 per day to people with mental health issues to man assembly lines? Or you a complete hypocritical wanker?
Cameron's Tories think disabled workers are worth less than the minimum wage.
The rest is froth.
The jobs market thinks many disabled people are unemployable at the minimum wage. That is the fact that the Labour shriekers refuse to confront, and why they were happy to leave them to rot on benefits; a neo-Victorian attitude whereby if you couldn't see the problem then it might as well not exist.
The jobs "market" is subject to the laws of the land. Disabled workers are worth the legal minimum wage, no ifs no buts. That your Party thinks otherwise is frankly disgusting.
You and your colleagues really are contemptible, aren't you? You simply don't care about the fate of the most vulnerable in society as long as you can try to make political capital.
No wonder it's not possible to have a reasoned debate if this is the response to be expected. So no wonder so little gets done.
It's an absolute parallel of how 'racist' was used until recently to prevent any criticism of imported cultural practices that many find unacceptable, and we know where that led.
I'm all for a reasoned debate, so let's go.
I think the legal minimum wage should apply to disabled workers, just like any other workers.
You and the Tory Party clearly don't.
Why not? Why do you and Cameron's Tories think disabled workers should be exempt from the legal minimum wage? Or subject to a lower one? Or what?
And if your Party doesn't think that, why is Freud still in a job?
You're not debating, you're repeating, which is not the same thing.
I do believe the minimum wage should be received by all employees; I just don't believe that employers should have to pay the full amount for people with employability-affecting disabilities, the state should make up the difference.
It's really not all that difficult.
Freud is still in a job because his basic point is right, even if he was foolish to use the word 'worth', which has implications well beyond financial earning capacity.
Cameron's Tories think disabled workers are worth less than the minimum wage.
The rest is froth.
The jobs market thinks many disabled people are unemployable at the minimum wage. That is the fact that the Labour shriekers refuse to confront, and why they were happy to leave them to rot on benefits; a neo-Victorian attitude whereby if you couldn't see the problem then it might as well not exist.
The jobs "market" is subject to the laws of the land. Disabled workers are worth the legal minimum wage, no ifs no buts. That your Party thinks otherwise is frankly disgusting.
You and your colleagues really are contemptible, aren't you? You simply don't care about the fate of the most vulnerable in society as long as you can try to make political capital.
No wonder it's not possible to have a reasoned debate if this is the response to be expected. So no wonder so little gets done.
It's an absolute parallel of how 'racist' was used until recently to prevent any criticism of imported cultural practices that many find unacceptable, and we know where that led.
I'm all for a reasoned debate, so let's go.
I think the legal minimum wage should apply to disabled workers, just like any other workers.
You and the Tory Party clearly don't.
Why not? Why do you and Cameron's Tories think disabled workers should be exempt from the legal minimum wage? Or subject to a lower one? Or what?
And if your Party doesn't think that, why is Freud still in a job?
Everyone agrees that disabled workers should be subject to the same minimum wage as ordinary workers. Whats being talked about here are people so badly disabled that that would never be offered employment at that rate. Should they just be relegated to the scrap heap or can some way be found to give them a sense of usefulness.
Since exactly a month ago UKIP have risen 7%, with CON falling 3%, LAB falling 4% and the LD the same. Also the LD bounce seems over, it was 2% and lasted one week.
Cameron's Tories think disabled workers are worth less than the minimum wage.
The rest is froth.
The jobs market thinks many disabled people are unemployable at the minimum wage. That is the fact that the Labour shriekers refuse to confront, and why they were happy to leave them to rot on benefits; a neo-Victorian attitude whereby if you couldn't see the problem then it might as well not exist.
The jobs "market" is subject to the laws of the land. Disabled workers are worth the legal minimum wage, no ifs no buts. That your Party thinks otherwise is frankly disgusting.
You and your colleagues really are contemptible, aren't you? You simply don't care about the fate of the most vulnerable in society as long as you can try to make political capital.
No wonder it's not possible to have a reasoned debate if this is the response to be expected. So no wonder so little gets done.
It's an absolute parallel of how 'racist' was used until recently to prevent any criticism of imported cultural practices that many find unacceptable, and we know where that led.
I'm all for a reasoned debate, so let's go.
I think the legal minimum wage should apply to disabled workers, just like any other workers.
You and the Tory Party clearly don't.
Why not? Why do you and Cameron's Tories think disabled workers should be exempt from the legal minimum wage? Or subject to a lower one? Or what?
And if your Party doesn't think that, why is Freud still in a job?
Cameron said he thinks disabled workers are entitled to the minimum wage, but I see your point. Ed should demand that every Tory parliamentarian swear on oath that they adhere unwaveringly to such a premise. It would string the story out for days, and Ed could also up the ante by saying that they should be attached to a polygraph!
Today it was announced that there had been a record fall in unemployment. "the largest annual fall since records began" 1/2 million less. Wonderful news for those involved and the country.
Tonight Newsnight leads with Freuds imprecise communication with faux outrage from charities providing a home to ex Labour spads etc. Attacking an ex Labour Minister made a peer by the Labour Govt.
Today it was announced that there had been a record fall in unemployment. "the largest annual fall since records began" 1/2 million less. Wonderful news for those involved and the country.
Tonight Newsnight leads with Freuds imprecise communication with faux outrage from charities providing a home to ex Labour spads etc. Attacking an ex Labour Minister made a peer by the Labour Govt.
Turned it off, winds me up so much I won't be able to sleep
Cameron's Tories think disabled workers are worth less than the minimum wage.
The rest is froth.
The jobs market thinks many disabled people are unemployable at the minimum wage. That is the fact that the Labour shriekers refuse to confront, and why they were happy to leave them to rot on benefits; a neo-Victorian attitude whereby if you couldn't see the problem then it might as well not exist.
The jobs "market" is subject to the laws of the land. Disabled workers are worth the legal minimum wage, no ifs no buts. That your Party thinks otherwise is frankly disgusting.
You and your colleagues really are contemptible, aren't you? You simply don't care about the fate of the most vulnerable in society as long as you can try to make political capital.
No wonder it's not possible to have a reasoned debate if this is the response to be expected. So no wonder so little gets done.
It's an absolute parallel of how 'racist' was used until recently to prevent any criticism of imported cultural practices that many find unacceptable, and we know where that led.
I'm all for a reasoned debate, so let's go.
I think the legal minimum wage should apply to disabled workers, just like any other workers.
You and the Tory Party clearly don't.
Why not? Why do you and Cameron's Tories think disabled workers should be exempt from the legal minimum wage? Or subject to a lower one? Or what?
And if your Party doesn't think that, why is Freud still in a job?
You're not debating, you're repeating, which is not the same thing.
I do believe the minimum wage should be received by all employees; I just don't believe that employers should have to pay the full amount for people with employability-affecting disabilities, the state should make up the difference.
It's really not all that difficult.
Freud is still in a job because his basic point is right, even if he was foolish to use the word 'worth', which has implications well beyond financial earning capacity.
And you're holding a shaky party line, not debating.
The law sets out what a worker is "worth". This isn't semantics, it's key.
Your Party clearly believe this no longer holds for disabled people and should be "looked at". Presumably along with the minimum wage itself. And that's why Freud is still in a job. Cameron's Tories genuinely believe this stuff.
Quick question. I'm after some suggestions for Swing and 20s style jazz. I've been recommended to Clarence "Frogman" Henry for 50s stuff. This isn't a genre I'm terribly familiar with. I love Frogman's (I Don't Know Why) But I Do.
All suggestions most welcome. Just artist names or great tracks are fine.
There's a modern act called "pokey lafarge" that I quite like. They even get into period clothes!
'central time', 'hard times come and go', 'move out of town' but these are new songs, not period covers.
Another modern jazzy performer is Melody Gardot. 'Your heart is as black as night' is my current favourite from her.
Sinead O'Connor did a super album of covers called 'am i not your girl'. From that album 'bewitched bothered and bewildered', 'gloomy sunday', 'black coffee' (but these are all downbeat numbers)
Sierra Hull has a nice gypsy jazz type song. "best buy"
Cameron's Tories think disabled workers are worth less than the minimum wage.
The rest is froth.
The jobs market thinks many disabled people are unemployable at the minimum wage. That is the fact that the Labour shriekers refuse to confront, and why they were happy to leave them to rot on benefits; a neo-Victorian attitude whereby if you couldn't see the problem then it might as well not exist.
The jobs "market" is subject to the laws of the land. Disabled workers are worth the legal minimum wage, no ifs no buts. That your Party thinks otherwise is frankly disgusting.
You and your colleagues really are contemptible, aren't you? You simply don't care about the fate of the most vulnerable in society as long as you can try to make political capital.
No wonder it's not possible to have a reasoned debate if this is the response to be expected. So no wonder so little gets done.
It's an absolute parallel of how 'racist' was used until recently to prevent any criticism of imported cultural practices that many find unacceptable, and we know where that led.
I'm all for a reasoned debate, so let's go.
I think the legal minimum wage should apply to disabled workers, just like any other workers.
You and the Tory Party clearly don't.
Why not? Why do you and Cameron's Tories think disabled workers should be exempt from the legal minimum wage? Or subject to a lower one? Or what?
And if your Party doesn't think that, why is Freud still in a job?
Cameron said he thinks disabled workers are entitled to the minimum wage, but I see your point. Ed should demand that every Tory parliamentarian swear on oath that they adhere unwaveringly to such a premise. It would string the story out for days, and Ed could also up the ante by saying that they should be attached to a polygraph!
Labour MPs are sometimes less than sympathetic to people with disabilities:
Conclusion: Hugh is a simple troll (or so dim or tribalist that it's impossible to communicate with him).
Ergo, not worth engaging with him. The discussion around the subject is already easily sufficient to expose his facile posturing for what it is.
(surbiton appears to be trying to copy him, but less effectively).
Communicate away pal.
I think that our country's legal minimum wage should apply to disabled workers as much as anyone else.
You, and Cameron's Tories disagree. Fair enough. You've yet to make a decent case though.
Howabout the worker gets the minimum wage (or more) and the employer gets some of it back as a tax break or credit.
Everyone goes home happy...
The progressive free-market Adam Smith And Carl Marx Romantic Comedy Happy Ending solution here is to drop the minimum wage but give everyone a basic income. That creates an optional, de-facto minimum wage for shitty jobs, because nobody will need to take them unless you pay a reasonable amount. But it still allows people with low value to add (or who get a lot of personal value out of the job, like unpaid interns potentially do now) to take those jobs if it makes sense for them and they want to do them.
The downside is that it's expensive, but the minimum wage is expensive, too - it just shifts the costs to employers, and from there to consumers, and makes them harder to measure.
Quick question. I'm after some suggestions for Swing and 20s style jazz. I've been recommended to Clarence "Frogman" Henry for 50s stuff. This isn't a genre I'm terribly familiar with. I love Frogman's (I Don't Know Why) But I Do.
All suggestions most welcome. Just artist names or great tracks are fine.
There's a modern act called "pokey lafarge" that I quite like. They even get into period clothes!
'central time', 'hard times come and go', 'move out of town' but these are new songs, not period covers.
Another modern jazzy performer is Melody Gardot. 'Your heart is as black as night' is my current favourite from her.
Sinead O'Connor did a super album of covers called 'am i not your girl'. From that album 'bewitched bothered and bewildered', 'gloomy sunday', 'black coffee' (but these are all downbeat numbers)
Sierra Hull has a nice gypsy jazz type song. "best buy"
Sinead O'Connors cover of Elton John's Sacrifice is superb, one of the most haunting songs I have heard.
Isn't one of the issues about the minimum wage that simply put certain people just won't be employed when they might otherwise be if the minimum wage was lower ?
In general it seems to have worked well, but there must be cases around the margins where someone would be viable to be employed on £5/hour, but not perhaps £6.50 or w/e
Said people won't be employed on £6.50 or £5 an hour, they just won't be employed full stop.
The faux outrage from some on here just exposes what the ambush was all about,try and avoid any focus on Ed 's performance and lack of Labour policy. To be fair it has been effective in that regard, for 48 hours Ed is off the hook, what then?
Sadly Ed's failed Balls-transplant story means it may only have worked 10 hours.
And you're holding a shaky party line, not debating.
The law sets out what a worker is "worth". This isn't semantics, it's key.
Your Party clearly believe this no longer holds for disabled people and should be "looked at". Presumably along with the minimum wage itself. And that's why Freud is still in a job. Cameron's Tories genuinely believe this stuff.
No.
The law sets out what a worker's labour is priced at (or a minimum at least).
It does not mention, anywhere, an individual's worth (outside of the context of QALY and CBA anyway, where you do need to make value judgements of this nature)
Tonight there's another record for yougov. It's the first time a third party has scored 19% with them since 18th June 2010. We are returning to normal, just UKIP have replaced the LD's.
@tnewtondunn: BREAKING: Cameron to demand limits on European immigration as his 'red line' price to stay in the EU, Sun can reveal http://t.co/DihxDRf0b2
@tnewtondunn: ...and PM to announce soon he is prepared to see Britain's EU exit if immigration control demand not met; http://t.co/DihxDRf0b2
Cameron's Tories think disabled workers are worth less than the minimum wage.
The rest is froth.
The jobs market thinks many disabled people are unemployable at the minimum wage. That is the fact that the Labour shriekers refuse to confront, and why they were happy to leave them to rot on benefits; a neo-Victorian attitude whereby if you couldn't see the problem then it might as well not exist.
The jobs "market" is subject to the laws of the land. Disabled workers are worth the legal minimum wage, no ifs no buts. That your Party thinks otherwise is frankly disgusting.
You and your colleagues really are contemptible, aren't you? You simply don't care about the fate of the most vulnerable in society as long as you can try to make political capital.
No wonder it's not possible to have a reasoned debate if this is the response to be expected. So no wonder so little gets done.
It's an absolute parallel of how 'racist' was used until recently to prevent any criticism of imported cultural practices that many find unacceptable, and we know where that led.
I'm all for a reasoned debate, so let's go.
I think the legal minimum wage should apply to disabled workers, just like any other workers.
You and the Tory Party clearly don't.
Why not? Why do you and Cameron's Tories think disabled workers should be exempt from the legal minimum wage? Or subject to a lower one? Or what?
And if your Party doesn't think that, why is Freud still in a job?
You're not debating, you're repeating, which is not the same thing.
I do believe the minimum wage should be received by all employees; I just don't believe that employers should have to pay the full amount for people with employability-affecting disabilities, the state should make up the difference.
It's really not all that difficult.
Freud is still in a job because his basic point is right, even if he was foolish to use the word 'worth', which has implications well beyond financial earning capacity.
And you're holding a shaky party line, not debating.
The law sets out what a worker is "worth". This isn't semantics, it's key.
Your Party clearly believe this no longer holds for disabled people and should be "looked at". Presumably along with the minimum wage itself. And that's why Freud is still in a job. Cameron's Tories genuinely believe this stuff.
I really can't be bothered with you. Neither will the country be with the story.
Cameron's Tories think disabled workers are worth less than the minimum wage.
The rest is froth.
The jobs market thinks many disabled people are unemployable at the minimum wage. That is the fact that the Labour shriekers refuse to confront, and why they were happy to leave them to rot on benefits; a neo-Victorian attitude whereby if you couldn't see the problem then it might as well not exist.
The jobs "market" is subject to the laws of the land. Disabled workers are worth the legal minimum wage, no ifs no buts. That your Party thinks otherwise is frankly disgusting.
You and your colleagues really are contemptible, aren't you? You simply don't care about the fate of the most vulnerable in society as long as you can try to make political capital.
No wonder it's not possible to have a reasoned debate if this is the response to be expected. So no wonder so little gets done.
It's an absolute parallel of how 'racist' was used until recently to prevent any criticism of imported cultural practices that many find unacceptable, and we know where that led.
I'm all for a reasoned debate, so let's go.
I think the legal minimum wage should apply to disabled workers, just like any other workers.
You and the Tory Party clearly don't.
Why not? Why do you and Cameron's Tories think disabled workers should be exempt from the legal minimum wage? Or subject to a lower one? Or what?
And if your Party doesn't think that, why is Freud still in a job?
You're not debating, you're repeating, which is not the same thing.
I do believe the minimum wage should be received by all employees; I just don't believe that employers should have to pay the full amount for people with employability-affecting disabilities, the state should make up the difference.
It's really not all that difficult.
Freud is still in a job because his basic point is right, even if he was foolish to use the word 'worth', which has implications well beyond financial earning capacity.
The law sets out what a worker is "worth".
No. It sets out what they are "paid".
The market determines how much that work is "worth".
And if their productivity is significantly below that of other workers, they won't be employed, unless a way is found of bridging the gap.
@tnewtondunn: BREAKING: Cameron to demand limits on European immigration as his 'red line' price to stay in the EU, Sun can reveal http://t.co/DihxDRf0b2
Translation: "UKIP are at another record high, we must appear that we are doing something"
@RodCrosby Thanxxx - I remain constantly impressed at the breadth of knowledge on PB - pick any random topic and someone knows or offers something that's super.
For those who chipped in with Stones suggestions the other day - I'm now the owner of a dozen tracks. Plus two Crystal Fighter albums courtesy of @Scott_P ... and a bunch of other pending so many thanks to all for chipping in.
Cameron's Tories think disabled workers are worth less than the minimum wage.
The rest is froth.
The jobs "market" is subject to the laws of the land. Disabled workers are worth the legal minimum wage, no ifs no buts. That your Party thinks otherwise is frankly disgusting.
It's an absolute parallel of how 'racist' was used until recently to prevent any criticism of imported cultural practices that many find unacceptable, and we know where that led.
I'm all for a reasoned debate, so let's go.
I think the legal minimum wage should apply to disabled workers, just like any other workers.
You and the Tory Party clearly don't.
Why not? Why do you and Cameron's Tories think disabled workers should be exempt from the legal minimum wage? Or subject to a lower one? Or what?
And if your Party doesn't think that, why is Freud still in a job?
You're not debating, you're repeating, which is not the same thing.
I do believe the minimum wage should be received by all employees; I just don't believe that employers should have to pay the full amount for people with employability-affecting disabilities, the state should make up the difference.
It's really not all that difficult.
Freud is still in a job because his basic point is right, even if he was foolish to use the word 'worth', which has implications well beyond financial earning capacity.
And you're holding a shaky party line, not debating.
The law sets out what a worker is "worth". This isn't semantics, it's key.
Your Party clearly believe this no longer holds for disabled people and should be "looked at". Presumably along with the minimum wage itself. And that's why Freud is still in a job. Cameron's Tories genuinely believe this stuff.
I really can't be bothered with you. Neither will the country be with the story.
No probs.
Perhaps instead use your time to pen another masterpiece favourably comparing a key architect of South African apartheid to Nelson Mandela.
@RodCrosby Thanxxx - I remain constantly impressed at the breadth of knowledge on PB - pick any random topic and someone knows or offers something that's super.
For those who chipped in with Stones suggestions the other day - I'm now the owner of a dozen tracks. Plus two Crystal Fighter albums courtesy of @Scott_P ... and a bunch of other pending so many thanks to all for chipping in.
Out of curiosity what is your favourite Stones track?
@tnewtondunn: BREAKING: Cameron to demand limits on European immigration as his 'red line' price to stay in the EU, Sun can reveal http://t.co/DihxDRf0b2
Translation: "UKIP are at another record high, we must appear that we are doing something"
And tim was right. The tories never learn. You cannot out kipper the kippers.
Its like wrestling a pig. You get dirty and the pig enjoys it.
Cameron's Tories think disabled workers are worth less than the minimum wage.
The rest is froth.
The jobs "market" is subject to the laws of the land. Disabled workers are worth the legal minimum wage, no ifs no buts. That your Party thinks otherwise is frankly disgusting.
It's an absolute parallel of how 'racist' was used until recently to prevent any criticism of imported cultural practices that many find unacceptable, and we know where that led.
I'm all for a reasoned debate, so let's go.
I think the legal minimum wage should apply to disabled workers, just like any other workers.
You and the Tory Party clearly don't.
Why not? Why do you and Cameron's Tories think disabled workers should be exempt from the legal minimum wage? Or subject to a lower one? Or what?
And if your Party doesn't think that, why is Freud still in a job?
You're not debating, you're repeating, which is not the same thing.
I do believe the minimum wage should be received by all employees; I just don't believe that employers should have to pay the full amount for people with employability-affecting disabilities, the state should make up the difference.
It's really not all that difficult.
Freud is still in a job because his basic point is right, even if he was foolish to use the word 'worth', which has implications well beyond financial earning capacity.
And you're holding a shaky party line, not debating.
The law sets out what a worker is "worth". This isn't semantics, it's key.
Your Party clearly believe this no longer holds for disabled people and should be "looked at". Presumably along with the minimum wage itself. And that's why Freud is still in a job. Cameron's Tories genuinely believe this stuff.
I really can't be bothered with you. Neither will the country be with the story.
No probs.
Perhaps instead use your time to pen another masterpiece favourably comparing a key architect of South African apartheid to Nelson Mandela.
@tnewtondunn: BREAKING: Cameron to demand limits on European immigration as his 'red line' price to stay in the EU, Sun can reveal http://t.co/DihxDRf0b2
Translation: "UKIP are at another record high, we must appear that we are doing something"
He's losing the plot. This is playing straight into UKIP's hands.
I really can't be bothered with you. Neither will the country be with the story.
It's the lead story on
The Guardian The Telegraph The Times The FT The SUN The Metro
This is a disaster for Ed. No one reads the Metro who isn't half asleep. And just as he was tasting salvation. Some Tory somewhere must have been connected to a company that once dismissed someone with a disability. Find them and name and shame. It's the only way to keep the story alive!
Have to say, over the last couple of years, I've been involved in actual meaningful political debate. Now I see this sad litany of partisan petty pedants on here.
@tnewtondunn: BREAKING: Cameron to demand limits on European immigration as his 'red line' price to stay in the EU, Sun can reveal http://t.co/DihxDRf0b2
Translation: "UKIP are at another record high, we must appear that we are doing something"
If immigration limits are a red line and the EU says 'Non' (as I suspect under QMV they will) does that mean Cameron will come back from Brussels without an agreement and direct the British people to vote to withdraw from the EU in the referendum?
Cameron's Tories think disabled workers are worth less than the minimum wage.
The rest is froth.
I'm all for a reasoned debate, so let's go.
I think the legal minimum wage should apply to disabled workers, just like any other workers.
You and the Tory Party clearly don't.
Why not? Why do you and Cameron's Tories think disabled workers should be exempt from the legal minimum wage? Or subject to a lower one? Or what?
And if your Party doesn't think that, why is Freud still in a job?
Response to Hugh: Because in the event that they are unable to compete in terms of output (and may well have higher employment costs with extra supervision, infrastructure, time off for medical reasons) they will remain unemployable and on benefits.
This will rob them of the benefits of employment in terms of self esteem etc, which is very important to those with mental ailments and or ESN.
Therefore employment is only available to many disabled only on a charitable basis, shutting off most opportunities. If the employer can take them on at a rate that is not punitive to the employer there is a far better chance that they will gain employment and other intangible physiological benefits that frequently outweigh the financial benefit of work.
As an employer I do at times employ disabled staff, I see it as a social responsibility.It is an additional cost. As a trustee of a charity dealing with mental illness, I know the value work and inclusion in the normal activities of life like work to our clients. As a parent of a disabled son I see first hand the effect working for a pittance (not for me!) has on him. It is very positive.
You can keep on shouting how contemptible I am. I am really relaxed that the position I take is compassionate, moral and to the benefit of the disabled who come into contact with me or the organisations I am involved with.
I doubt you can say the same, from the narrow minded opportunity limiting bile you have been shouting all night.
@tnewtondunn: BREAKING: Cameron to demand limits on European immigration as his 'red line' price to stay in the EU, Sun can reveal http://t.co/DihxDRf0b2
Translation: "UKIP are at another record high, we must appear that we are doing something"
And tim was right. The tories never learn. You cannot out kipper the kippers.
Its like wrestling a pig. You get dirty and the pig enjoys it.
"On no account, should you ever compromise with the electorate."
@RodCrosby Thanxxx - I remain constantly impressed at the breadth of knowledge on PB - pick any random topic and someone knows or offers something that's super.
For those who chipped in with Stones suggestions the other day - I'm now the owner of a dozen tracks. Plus two Crystal Fighter albums courtesy of @Scott_P ... and a bunch of other pending so many thanks to all for chipping in.
Out of curiosity what is your favourite Stones track?
Isn't one of the issues about the minimum wage that simply put certain people just won't be employed when they might otherwise be if the minimum wage was lower ?
In general it seems to have worked well, but there must be cases around the margins where someone would be viable to be employed on £5/hour, but not perhaps £6.50 or w/e
Said people won't be employed on £6.50 or £5 an hour, they just won't be employed full stop.
Yes. There's strong correlation with the introduction of the minimum wage and the rise in youth unemployment.
BREAKING: Cameron to demand limits on European immigration as his 'red line' price to stay in the EU, Sun can reveal
Should brighten the mood on here
Well to the extent that it shows just how much UKIP can squeeze the government with just one MP. That said all he is doing is demanding limits on Immigration. If Brussels say no unless he is willing to withdraw its meaningless.......
@RodCrosby Thanxxx - I remain constantly impressed at the breadth of knowledge on PB - pick any random topic and someone knows or offers something that's super.
For those who chipped in with Stones suggestions the other day - I'm now the owner of a dozen tracks. Plus two Crystal Fighter albums courtesy of @Scott_P ... and a bunch of other pending so many thanks to all for chipping in.
Out of curiosity what is your favourite Stones track?
@tnewtondunn: BREAKING: Cameron to demand limits on European immigration as his 'red line' price to stay in the EU, Sun can reveal http://t.co/DihxDRf0b2
@tnewtondunn: ...and PM to announce soon he is prepared to see Britain's EU exit if immigration control demand not met; http://t.co/DihxDRf0b2
The EU surely cannot give in to such a demand, and in any case would be disinclined to be seen to submit to something that is patently a single national politician's making a ploy focused on his electorate in order to stay in office. So I am forced to presume it's a hail mary from Cameron he has no belief can be followed up on, because he knows he has so little chance of being re-elected that it is finally time to bring out the shadier tactics which I think, for all the accusations, politicians rarely employ because it is not worth the risk.
@tnewtondunn: BREAKING: Cameron to demand limits on European immigration as his 'red line' price to stay in the EU, Sun can reveal http://t.co/DihxDRf0b2
Translation: "UKIP are at another record high, we must appear that we are doing something"
If immigration limits are a red line and the EU says 'Non' (as I suspect under QMV they will) does that mean Cameron will come back from Brussels without an agreement and direct the British people to vote to withdraw from the EU in the referendum?
Probably "recommend" rather than "direct" what with us being a democracy & all.
But if he lays down a red line & then tries to back track he'll have as much credibility as Obama. And will get everything he deserves.
(FWIW, intelligent limits on EU immigration are probably sensible and wouldn't be incompatible with the free movement of labour concept. The objective was to avoid the need for work permits (or at least to make them a formality) not to allow anyone who wants to to move to the UK)
@tnewtondunn: BREAKING: Cameron to demand limits on European immigration as his 'red line' price to stay in the EU, Sun can reveal http://t.co/DihxDRf0b2
Translation: "UKIP are at another record high, we must appear that we are doing something"
If immigration limits are a red line and the EU says 'Non' (as I suspect under QMV they will) does that mean Cameron will come back from Brussels without an agreement and direct the British people to vote to withdraw from the EU in the referendum?
Watch out for weasels where it sounds like it's about current migration, but closely parsed it turns out only to apply to new accession members, which: 1) Can already have transitional arrangements applied limiting free movement for their citizens 2) Can't join without all member states agreeing 3) For the term of office in question, don't actually exist
Looking at yesterday's yougov poll UKIP beat the Tories with C2DE voters and came close with Labour with 60+. Ipsos-Mori, ICM and Lord Ashcroft also had a similar pattern, wonder if tonight's yougov will show it again.
Might have implications for Rochester as the local Tories have said it's C2 country. If UKIP is beating the Tories among C2 nationally then Rochester might not be an exception.
@tnewtondunn: BREAKING: Cameron to demand limits on European immigration as his 'red line' price to stay in the EU, Sun can reveal http://t.co/DihxDRf0b2
Translation: "UKIP are at another record high, we must appear that we are doing something"
And tim was right. The tories never learn. You cannot out kipper the kippers.
Its like wrestling a pig. You get dirty and the pig enjoys it.
Is this another lesson from the 'be wicked, act shamelessly, stir endlessly' LD campaign book?
Cameron's Tories think disabled workers are worth less than the minimum wage.
The rest is froth.
The jobs "market" is subject to the laws of the land. Disabled workers are worth the legal minimum wage, no ifs no buts. That your Party thinks otherwise is frankly disgusting.
It's an absolute parallel of how 'racist' was used until recently to prevent any criticism of imported cultural practices that many find unacceptable, and we know where that led.
I'm all for a reasoned debate, so let's go.
I think the legal minimum wage should apply to disabled workers, just like any other workers.
You and the Tory Party clearly don't.
Why not? Why do you and Cameron's Tories think disabled workers should be exempt from the legal minimum wage? Or subject to a lower one? Or what?
And if your Party doesn't think that, why is Freud still in a job?
You're not debating, you're repeating, which is not the same thing.
I do believe the minimum wage should be received by all employees; I just don't believe that employers should have to pay the full amount for people with employability-affecting disabilities, the state should make up the difference.
It's really not all that difficult.
Freud is still in a job because his basic point is right, even if he was foolish to use the word 'worth', which has implications well beyond financial earning capacity.
And you're holding a shaky party line, not debating.
The law sets out what a worker is "worth". This isn't semantics, it's key.
Your Party clearly believe this no longer holds for disabled people and should be "looked at". Presumably along with the minimum wage itself. And that's why Freud is still in a job. Cameron's Tories genuinely believe this stuff.
I really can't be bothered with you. Neither will the country be with the story.
No probs.
Perhaps instead use your time to pen another masterpiece favourably comparing a key architect of South African apartheid to Nelson Mandela.
Can't help wondering why you don't do the odd guest article for Mike. I'm sure they would be as highly regarded as David's are.
Perhaps start with one explaining Mandela's failure to utter a word in opposition to his wife's well-documented policy of torturing to death poor black South Africans who got in her (and by implication his) way?
BREAKING: Cameron to demand limits on European immigration as his 'red line' price to stay in the EU, Sun can reveal
Should brighten the mood on here
Well to the extent that it shows just how much UKIP can squeeze the government with just one MP. That said all he is doing is demanding limits on Immigration. If Brussels say no unless he is willing to withdraw its meaningless.......
He's probably just hoping the lie will be believed long enough to get through the Rochester by-election.
Comments
No wonder it's not possible to have a reasoned debate if this is the response to be expected. So no wonder so little gets done.
It's an absolute parallel of how 'racist' was used until recently to prevent any criticism of imported cultural practices that many find unacceptable, and we know where that led.
Jim Pickard @PickardJE
Jacob Rees-Mogg's lunch with Ukip treasurer Stuart Wheeler in the Commons today http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d7fa2724-5489-11e4-b2ea-00144feab7de.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/world_uk_politics/feed//product …
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moron_(psychology)
I think the legal minimum wage should apply to disabled workers, just like any other workers.
You and the Tory Party clearly don't.
Why not? Why do you and Cameron's Tories think disabled workers should be exempt from the legal minimum wage? Or subject to a lower one? Or what?
And if your Party doesn't think that, why is Freud still in a job?
5-1.
early days yet but looks promising.
Do you think it is better for people to spend their lives on benefit with no employment, even if it is at a less than ideal wage?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkbOHOHWjE4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYtTzZusJkg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKQ7v3S9atM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u7x-Q3oTjQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUFg6HvljDE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMjjIPmPxWY
YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead by two points, Ukip hit record level of support: CON 31%, LAB 33%, LD 7%, UKIP 19%, GRN 5%
UKIP still rising.
LAB - 33% (-1)
CON - 31% (+1)
UKIP - 19% (+1)
LDEM - 7% (-1)
GRN - 5% (=)
UKIP on 19 with YouGov. Hehehehehe!
I do believe the minimum wage should be received by all employees; I just don't believe that employers should have to pay the full amount for people with employability-affecting disabilities, the state should make up the difference.
It's really not all that difficult.
Freud is still in a job because his basic point is right, even if he was foolish to use the word 'worth', which has implications well beyond financial earning capacity.
What is your answer to this problem?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl5hknXqXps
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ukip-leader-nigel-farage-admits-1972988
Also the LD bounce seems over, it was 2% and lasted one week.
Tonight Newsnight leads with Freuds imprecise communication with faux outrage from charities providing a home to ex Labour spads etc. Attacking an ex Labour Minister made a peer by the Labour Govt.
Well yes. That is capitalism.
The law sets out what a worker is "worth". This isn't semantics, it's key.
Your Party clearly believe this no longer holds for disabled people and should be "looked at". Presumably along with the minimum wage itself. And that's why Freud is still in a job. Cameron's Tories genuinely believe this stuff.
youtube.com/watch?v=e9Xtl22x5Sg
@SeanF
"Labour are now as popular as the Conservatives were in 2001."
A correction is warranted, the Tories got 33% in 2005, they got 31% in 2001 and 1997.
7%. And STILL they don't panic. If not now, when? 6% 5%?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1353949/Cerebral-palsy-MP-Tory-Paul-Maynard-mocked-Labour-MPs-Commons.html
The downside is that it's expensive, but the minimum wage is expensive, too - it just shifts the costs to employers, and from there to consumers, and makes them harder to measure.
I reckon it will all have blown over by July last year
Or perhaps they are planning a Browne and retire.
.You might as well post stories from the Sunday Sport or Hello Magazine or indeed the Beano!
In general it seems to have worked well, but there must be cases around the margins where someone would be viable to be employed on £5/hour, but not perhaps £6.50 or w/e
Said people won't be employed on £6.50 or £5 an hour, they just won't be employed full stop.
My error
The law sets out what a worker's labour is priced at (or a minimum at least).
It does not mention, anywhere, an individual's worth (outside of the context of QALY and CBA anyway, where you do need to make value judgements of this nature)
It's the first time a third party has scored 19% with them since 18th June 2010.
We are returning to normal, just UKIP have replaced the LD's.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23505723
@tnewtondunn: ...and PM to announce soon he is prepared to see Britain's EU exit if immigration control demand not met; http://t.co/DihxDRf0b2
@tnewtondunn: Commentary: why the PM is about to play his single biggest card in the 2015 general election fight http://t.co/CmpNxlUMKk
The market determines how much that work is "worth".
And if their productivity is significantly below that of other workers, they won't be employed, unless a way is found of bridging the gap.
The GuardianThe Telegraph
The Times
The FT
The SUN
The Daily Mail
The Independent
The Metro
The I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If6gUDsEbkA
For those who chipped in with Stones suggestions the other day - I'm now the owner of a dozen tracks. Plus two Crystal Fighter albums courtesy of @Scott_P ... and a bunch of other pending so many thanks to all for chipping in.
Perhaps instead use your time to pen another masterpiece favourably comparing a key architect of South African apartheid to Nelson Mandela.
That story from july 2013.
Its like wrestling a pig. You get dirty and the pig enjoys it.
Nytol
Should brighten the mood on here
Did he give a reason?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/timworstall/100018044/message-to-the-tuc-the-minimum-wage-causes-youth-unemployment/
http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/unemployment-and-the-minimum-wage
But if he lays down a red line & then tries to back track he'll have as much credibility as Obama. And will get everything he deserves.
(FWIW, intelligent limits on EU immigration are probably sensible and wouldn't be incompatible with the free movement of labour concept. The objective was to avoid the need for work permits (or at least to make them a formality) not to allow anyone who wants to to move to the UK)
1) Can already have transitional arrangements applied limiting free movement for their citizens
2) Can't join without all member states agreeing
3) For the term of office in question, don't actually exist
Ipsos-Mori, ICM and Lord Ashcroft also had a similar pattern, wonder if tonight's yougov will show it again.
Might have implications for Rochester as the local Tories have said it's C2 country.
If UKIP is beating the Tories among C2 nationally then Rochester might not be an exception.
Perhaps start with one explaining Mandela's failure to utter a word in opposition to his wife's well-documented policy of torturing to death poor black South Africans who got in her (and by implication his) way?