George Osborne Gets Booed Handing Medals at the Paralympic Athletics Medal Ceremony

[ttosca]

The nation boos at the Tory scum:

sammypaws, it is great that some people with Downs Syndrome can work, but it does not follow that therefore all people with Downs Syndrome can work.

Maybe the government should mandate that all employers should employ a certain number of people with disabilities, and that if necessary they should be allowed to work flexibly (e.g. if they are unable to work for 6 months because of mental illness, or if they have an illness that means that some days they can work for an hour, some weeks not at all, and some weeks 3 days).

Have the Conservatives put forward such a policy? If so I haven't noticed.

Equally, cut backs to public services (libraries, swimming pools etc. etc.) always hit those without money more than those with, and people with disabilities, because of higher living costs and fewer opportunities to find work tend to have less money.

Meanwhile, we all know that there is plenty of money around, because, Sam Cam sells "feeling groovy" 96 leaf notebooks for £35. If Smythsons can make money doing that (and selling £1000+ handbags), really good luck to them. But there are therefore plenty of people in the world who have more money than they know how to spend. (Infact, George Osborne's father was interviewed in the 'How to Spend it' part of the FT, aimed at just such people, only this year).

lancaster - yes, Joanne was a wonderful person, and always wanted to do things for herself.

merrymouse, I believe that a number of large companies already have such policies in place to support those with disabilities into work, I know the Big 4 company that I used to work for certainly did - and I am pretty sure that there are others. The Equality Act protects from discrimination but I think you are arguing for positive discrimination - something that can turn into an administrative nightmare for businesses. A volunteer is always better than a conscript in my experience.

Cuts have to be made somewhere unfortunately as 'the pie' is pretty much fixed in size so someone has to make the hard choices when it starts to shrink as to what services take the hit. I think if you asked most people where to make cuts and you gave them the choice between schools and swimming pools, they would probably cut the swimming pools.

I fail to understand what point you are making about Smythson handbags? Surely, if they have earned their income, paid their taxes, then it is up to them how to spend the remainder?

Xenia.
I'd be quite happy to pay more tax if it meant that those that needed it, got it.
Sammy, most of us have said all along, it is the implementation of the policy. However, despite various reports, including the Harrington report, the government have chosen to support ATOS in their bid to remove 20% from disability and sickness benefits, regardless.

Dawndonna, 20% doesn't seem that big a cut given that there are probably a fair few people claiming disability benefits who should actually be claiming unemployment benefit or nothing at all.

Careful Sammy, someone will be along with a post all about 0.5% and the DWP at you now.

What they fail to realise is that some benefits, although not DLA IMO, are given out too generously.

What would you say are the best interests of the disabled, Xenia?

I agree.

In principle I think the welfare state is an excellent idea, but because it has been abused so much by a significant section of the population, it is now subjected to ridicule and those under its protection generally vilified. It was designed as a safety net, not a way of life.

I cannot understand why people would argue that the status quo should be maintained, when all this means is that much deeper cuts will be needed in the future to prevent us from state bankruptcy.

I think mandatory economics lessons in schools would be useful - if more people understood how a balance sheet worked, this country might not be in the mess it is in.

I don't think I'd commented on the disabled.

On the requirement to have a % who are disabled this has been law for big companies for decades. i think that is still the law.

The lower tax rates go the more tax is recovered and the more the poor benefit. It is not surprising that now we are at our highest tax levels since the 70s July's tax receipts were much much less than the Government expected.

I hate this thread.
It's soooo depressing.

You said the right have their best interests at heart xenia. So what do you think they are?

LadyBeagleEyes
^I hate this thread.
It's soooo depressing.^

Yep. All the patronising fuckers are out now. You see all we need is to learn how a balance sheet works... (and other sanctimonious shit...)

...it's gone totally off-topic, too.

What boorish use you make of the beautiful and extensive English language.

To whom do you refer, Sammy?

To the person, who when they fail to make a valid point, has to resort to vulgar and offensive language.

I know, totally off topic.
There were 80,000 people in that stadium, many of them, I would imagine, with personal interest in the Paralympics, but the majority who just utterly admire what these athletes have had to go through just to get there.
As I said, the booing was spontanious, unbelievable that the person responsible for the cutbacks to our most vulnerable was there to present a medal.
And now, suddenly, we have the right wing frothers coming out from under their rocks defending Thatcher and (some of them) making disablist remarks.
And Xenia says that the right are more caring?
Fuck that.

Ahh, wasn't me then. But I have no truck with the rather odd working class problem with swearing.

No, definitely not you dawndonna.

"A volunteer is always better than a conscript in my experience."

Glad to see your whole-hearted condemnation of workfare, sammy.

But I don't quite get how requiring an employer to make more extensive adjustments (as described by merrymouse) would mean a disabled employee would be a "conscript"?

Btw, I'm rather pro-business and feel it's entirely right that businesses should only be required to make reasonable adjustments to disability. They are not charities, and being surprised when they don't behave charitably is naive.

But the other side of the same coin is that if you don't believe businesses should be forced to pick up the tab for people they find unemployable due to disability, then you need the state to pick up that tab - or you leave the disabled to destitution.

Workfare is aimed at the unemployed, so those capable of work.

Therefore, the way I see it, is that these people are being paid to do nothing (via benefits) when they are physically able to do something. I therefore don't see what the problem is with asking them to do something for their benefits - be it work with a charity or working for a business. Surely gaining some experience is better than petrifying on the sofa.

At some level, they could perhaps even be considered employees of the state - that's how it works normally, you work for an employer and he gives you some money in return?

I think I already made my point on the Equality Act and the protection it provides for the disabled and which extends to recruitment policies. I also was referring to companies as 'conscripts' not the employees - a lot of companies have such policies in place already without further need for government bureaucracy.

As I have also stated before, I have no problem with the 'state picking up the tab' for those judged incapable of work - that is entirely fair, and indeed expected in a society with any sort of moral conscious.

Nope, disabled people are already being sent on workfare, and the govt are discussing making it mandatory for those found Not Fit to Work.

And whether disabled or unemployed, mandatory workfarers are conscripts. Satisfying your urge as a taxpayer to get a pound of flesh out of them does not change this.

I fail to understand what point you are making about Smythson handbags? Surely, if they have earned their income, paid their taxes, then it is up to them how to spend the remainder?

Completely.

However, nobody should then argue that the country has run out of money, or that "we are all in it together". You can argue that rich people shouldn't have to give poor people money, but not that the money doesn't exist.

Re: Large companies, yes many have policies on employing people with disabilities, but there aren't enough suitable jobs available for all people with disabilities. You can't condemn people for not working if the work isn't there. Of course few companies are enthusiastic about employing somebody who, for instance, can't guarantee whether they will be able to turn up from one day to the next - that is why government support is necessary for many disabled people. Equally, the big supermarket chains may be happy to employ disabled people to collect trolleys, but how many people with disabilities are in well paid jobs at head office?

You are welcome to argue that swimming is a luxury. However, you must be able to see that cutting public funding of things like swimming will have more of an effect on people who are relying on disabled access to public pools than people who can afford to pay for gym membership.

It is a fantasy that if everybody just pulled their socks up a bit, they would all be able to support themselves and there would be no need for the welfare state. People who argue for more drastic cuts to disabled services should at least admit that they are prepared to accept other people being left destitute as 'collateral damage', rather than all this mealy mouthed talk of benefit fraud.

Again, disabled people wouldn't be sent on workfare if their assessments were carried out property and in a manner which is actually relevant to work. It is not the workfare policy that has something wrong with it, it's the assesment criteria.

The idea of forcing companies to have a certain percentage of disabled employees is ridiculous and unworkable and patronising to those who would be given token jobs that they are incapable of doing.