to think that the sad facts of Ivan Cameron's life and death do not exempt Cameron from criticism for his government's policies. [Titled edited by MNHQ to correct spelling of Ivan Cameron's name]

[nippiesweetie]

Again, today during Question Time he uses his son's disability and untimely death to close down discussion on a matter of disability.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/15/welfare-reform-minister-disabled-not-worth-minimum-wage

"But in my personal opinion exceptions should only be granted for the severely disabled. "

really
you think that because some one is severely disabled they should earn below the min wage??
the continuing discrimination on this thread, shows how shit things are for disabled people.
well done DC bet your proud of your government......not

Longfingernails - firstly if there are exceptions then it is no longer a minimum wage.

Secondly, excluding people with disabilities from the minimum wage is just plain discrimination.

If someone is able and wants to work, but their productivity in any job is directly affected by a disability then yes, there is a case for government support to enable that...letting employers pay less than the minimum wage and then giving the employee more benefits is not an ok way to do it.

thereturnofshoesy Yes. Believe it or not, generally employers won't employ people unless they add value; they simply can't afford it.

However they may still want to do a good turn for a severely disabled person by giving them the sense of purpose that comes with a vocation, even if they don't make it up in the value they bring into the business. It's an act of charity; what is donated is a colleagues, routine, satisfaction, self-confidence.

The choice isn't between paying £2 an hour and paying £8 an hour. It's between paying £2 an hour, topped up by the government - or not bothering as the act of charity acts is unaffordable.

The government financially supporting employers who take on severely disabled people who would not otherwise be employed is one of the few forms of positive discrimination I wholeheartedly encourage.

I am always of the opinion that MN is a privately owned site and can have what ever rules it wishes, but I find HQ's posts on this thread very disappointing.

This site should exist for its users, not David Cameron. There have been many nuanced, excellent posts here.

tabulahrasa I agree actually, I don't think benefit top-ups is the right approach at all, for various reasons. It should rather be support for the employer to make any necessary modifications to the premises and work environment, and discounts on the employers' national insurance required etc.

It doesn't change the moral argument though, just the details of how the government provides financial support.

Because some people who are disabled don't already struggle with feelings of poor self worth due to other issues, let's rub it all in a bit more by employers confirming it by paying them less because they have a disability - so they're employed not because they can contribute or have value - but because they're a "charity case." Oh well done. That'll be a big shot in the arm for the person's self-confidence.

This just means that anyone with any type of disability will end up being devalued as employers scramble to make sure anyone with any type of "disability" is hired at a lower rate so they can take advantage of it. Yep, way to make them disengage and feel sub-human.

The posts from MNHQ on this thread are an embarrassment.

MMNHQ - is now the time for you to declare your support for the Tories or Ukip or are you going to try and pretend you're not in favour of either.....

I think this is the most horrible thread I've read on Mumsnet, by quite some way. You can disagree vehemently with someone's politics and still respect the pain of their personal experiences. As for the comments that seem to suggest it's all a bit minimised by being posh or having money...really? Really? I don't think people know what they're saying.

My seven yr old listened to the news tonight and said 'that man is mean, if he gave K in my class less money than me I would give her some of mine because she has to pay for things like her splints and wheelchair that I don't'

Now if a 7 yr old can work that out all by herself why the fuck can't someone who is supposedly one of the ruling elite?

I wasn't on here for the last GE. How was it?

NumanoidNancy What if your seven year old doesn't have any money, but still wants to play with K and make her feel welcome? Should she be forbidden from doing so?

It's basically the same question.

"This just means that anyone with any type of disability will end up being devalued as employers scramble to make sure anyone with any type of "disability" is hired at a lower rate so they can take advantage of it. Yep, way to make them disengage and feel sub-human. hmm"

^ THIS!!! as AliceDoesntLIveHere says.

So, all disabled people will be lumped together and treated the same.

Then, we'll drop 'people' and just call them THE disabled, shall we.

DIS-ABLED.

No, they are people who come in many shapes and forms and have many needs and skills to offer. Not just a homogenous lump to patronise and pay less to - or pay less ON - as someone charmingly put it upthread. Like 'they' were tables, or something....

A friend of mine emailed R4 this afternoon and got her point across and it's worth considering - that this is a media row blown up for political purposes. ( and she's not a Tory). Her severely disabled daughter works as a 'volunteer' for a day nursery. She loves going to work and buying her lunch , she loves feeling useful and part of life. But to have her there the nursery has to have a worker specially allocated to my friends daughter and a carefully structured tasks list for her. She cannot write so she cannot fulfil any of the normal paid roles. As her mother says - without workplaces being willing to take her on, she and others like her will be sitting at home and developing further mental health problems through isolation and boredom - but workplaces will simply not assist if the cost is too high. She points out that if the employer were Govt assisted to fund her daughters place at work this would still be cheaper than daycare. In the absence of that, she says 'please don't take my daughters role away because politicians decide that her volunteer role is demeaning to her! She doesn't think it and neither does anyone who works with her'. I thought it was interesting to hear a view which comes from someone in that position.

Of course it is blown up for political purposes. The Labour party cannot see people as individuals with different skills, ambitions, desires, regardless of financial position or upbringing. To them, there are interchangable 'poor' people with no brains who vote for them regardless and evil people with money who piss on the poor.
In honesty, they understand that minimum wage and union bargaining hurt people who work hard and do not just coast, but it suits them to ignore this.

"It doesn't change the moral argument though, just the details of how the government provides financial support."

It completely changes the moral argument.

The government could/should support employers to employ people whose disability affects work is completely different to employers should be able to pay people with disabilities a wage lower than minimum wage.

I don't have a problem with the Govt assisting people such as BCBG's friend's daughter to continue with her voluntary work. I DO have an issue with them suggesting that she is only "worth" £2 an hour.

The problem is the same as with everything under the current Govt - there is no thought to the people, no humanity - it's all about profit, productivity and value. So no, companies won't want to employ people who are less productive because they don't feel that they give "value for money" - but they could provide much in human terms.

It really says a lot about "civilisation" when it reduces every person's worth to their level of productivity - I guess it won't be long before children are being put to work again as well because they'll need to earn their food.

I agree with Mintty

This thread is a great example of Mumsnetters' ability to debate rationally

Also dismayed by Rowan's response.

I'm afraid I agree with Newt. I don't think for one second that having millions in the bank reduced the Camerons' suffering at the loss of Ivan one tiny little bit. I feel for them as I would any other bereaved parent.

But I also think he does cite his experience as the father of a child with disabilities to shut down the debate, when he's asked awkward questions.

Sorry MNHQ, but IMO you're being a bit trigger-happy on this one.

I keep remembering that time he spoke to Riven (webchat and in person, I think?), and admitted he didn't know how much nappies for older children cost (IIRC Riven's DD was only allotted four a day by Social Services, regardless of how many she actually used, and they're expensive). She pointed out pretty gently that was because he'd never needed to worry about that, but for many other parents it was just one additional pressure. It really sounded as if he'd learned something. And then he got into government.

NumanoidNancy Wed 15-Oct-14 23:42:31
My seven yr old listened to the news tonight and said 'that man is mean, if he gave K in my class less money than me I would give her some of mine because she has to pay for things like her splints and wheelchair that I don't'

Now if a 7 yr old can work that out all by herself why the fuck can't someone who is supposedly one of the ruling elite?""

a very clever and kind child, who gets it

INVALID DOES NOT MEAN INVALID
Think about it.

However they may still want to do a good turn for a severely disabled person
So, why not bring back the sheltered factories where disabled people were made to work to earn their keep. There were a number of 'villages' in the uk doing exactly that, right into the 1980s. Before they were 'villages' where those with a disability could learn independence and work skills they were called work houses.

Oh, and if we pay disabled people a pittance, what do we pay those who care for them? We already pay them a pittance. £65 per week for working 24 hours a day, seven days a week. No maternity leave, no holidays.

And who gets to decide who specifically falls into this "worth less than minimum wage" group? Because you can't just automatically say anyone with a disability qualifies for "honour". Are they going to spend milions of pounds going through assessments to see who is and who isn't "worth less than minimum wage"?? And who is qualified to make this decision... oh wait... so they're paying a company to decide whether or not someone is disabled enough to get PIP (and they will be deemed fit enough to work) but paying a company to decide if they are worth minimum wage (and they will then be deemed not worth minimum wage). So there you have it. Disabled, but not enough for PIP, but not worth enough for minimum wage. A whole subsection of forced labour. Oh, yes, aren't we a civilised country.....

Yy to the important point alice makes above.

We will end up with a group of people who are not 'PIP' worthy, yet not worth minimum wage either???? This is nonsensical!

It's completely disgusting too.

But, where the Tories lead, Labour / others will follow

The EVIL thing is - it is NOT all about money / productivity -

re BCBG's friend's dd:

"She points out that if the employer were Govt assisted to fund her daughters place at work this would still be cheaper than daycare."

However her dd's workplace assistants wage is funded, it is still cheaper - as well as in this case clearly 'better' for the dd - to work in this job - than be stuck in daycare.

It is cheaper to pay DLA to those who claim it as the % of fraud is miniscule than to pay ATOS to humiliate a whole group of people - whilst ignoring their Consultants medical Reports -

This ISNT about money / productivity - it is ideological.
It's divide and rule and it's frighteningly effective.

Hmm, bit of an Orwellian feel to this thread.