Sorry if this has been done before, but is this government just as horrible as I think they are?

[headfairy]

the government are choosing now, when there is rising unemployment, to close Remploy factories because they aren't cost effective. They're justifying their sheer nastiness by saying they can use the money more effectively to help disabled people find jobs on the open market. Er... what jobs?

coupled with cuts to disability benefits are the Tories seriously trying to put all disabled people on to the streets?

Or am I missing something here? Instead of a Tobin tax, or a mansion tax, they're going after those least able to fight for themselves for what amounts to a fraction of the deficit. I'm speechless.

They are not doing it to be "horrible" or to save money, and Labour didn't do it for those reasons either. They both think that it is a good thing to do.

What has changed is how they see things, how they think. Thatcher saw it differently.

However, now some Labour MPs are opposing it and Iain Duncan Smith is accusing them of 'rank hypocrisy'. Plus ca change; it's like the magic roundabout.

www.politicshome.com/uk/article/48214/dwp_labour%E2%80%99s_rank_hypocrisy_on_remploy_duncan_smith.html

Can't see the article anymore, was able to read it before. Don't no what's wrong with it, looks like you have to subscribe.

know

Blimey Claig... are you sure you agree with me? :o

Surely if it was a Labour policy that started it (and I don't doubt it started under labour) surely the Tories would stop it now? Especially if it was something obviously so close to Saint Maggie's heart.

I do think this government appears to be on some self destruct path. As if the benefit cuts, jobs losses, loss of child benefit, the massive surge in female unemployment, the loss of EMA etc weren't enough, now they're picking on disabled people. You really can't get a more emotive subject, and a group of people who are more vulnerable. Do they really not want to win in 2015? I don't think our economy will do some miracle about turn fast enough to make us forget all this. Even Wallace Ed M is a better prospect than this lot.

Don't even get me started on Iain Duncan Smith, the man is a danger to himself! I just wish the quiet man would bloody shut up and disappear. The harm he's inflicted on the poor and vulnerable in this country is incalculable.

'Surely if it was a Labour policy that started it (and I don't doubt it started under labour) surely the Tories would stop it now? Especially if it was something obviously so close to Saint Maggie's heart.'

No, because progressive thinking has spread to the Tories too. Lots of Tories are not even fans of the Daily Mail or Thatcher, that is how bad things now are.

'Do they really not want to win in 2015?'

They commission studies and are advised by charities. One study by the government's behaviour expert is now recommending

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2111844/Children-age-TWO-lessons-anger-management-contain-themselves.html

Again, this is not new. Blunkett was saying similar things many years ago.

"There is a tide in the affairs of men" and that tide influences thinking. It is difficult to swim against the tide, the tide progressively strengthens, and Thatcher is now gone, so she can't stop it.

Thatcher is gine, but at least the Daily Mail is still going strong, ever pointing out right from wrong

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2112115/Anger-management-year-olds-The-State-wants-control-cradle-grave.html

gone

Workers in Bolton who need extra hours can commute to the Nissan factory in Sunderland, according to the smug cow Treasury minister.After all, it's only 143 miles away.

They aren't even bothering to hide how spiteful they are. And destructive - one of the welfare cuts they've just forced through means foster parents will be penalised for having a spare bedroom. Even though foster parents HAVE to have a spare room - it's a requirement for fostering. Anyone in social housing, or who receives housing benefit, will face what the Lords were describing as a 'bedroom tax'.

Ridiculous, not least because there's a serious shortage of foster carers - so how does throwing them out of their homes help, exactly?

I suspect it would be cheaper to place children in less than brilliant children's homes run by for profit organisations. I suspect quite a high percentage of placements will be with people who rent, a high % with social housing tenants and people on modest incomes. If you make it impossible for them to foster, they can be added to the UC clamaints mandated to work and the kids can be placed with private profiteers in group homes.

Remploy seems to have given a lot of people, some with fairly severe disability the opportunity to work, to socialise and to gain skills and a sense of purpose. Whilst it isn't right to segregate people I suspect many of these people actually prefer their working conditions and the fact that in this closed environment they encounter less discrimination. I have worked with young people with learning disabilities and many would have loved the opportunity to work but to be honest no amount of reconfiguring the work space in an average factory or office would allow them to contribute.

I think the government focuses on physical disability, they think employers will make allowances and adaptations but then they also believe in competition. Well by it's very nature competition drives down the conditions of it's workers, squeezes out more work for less and obsesses with efficiency and productivity. This isn't compatible with doing the right thing for people with disabilities. Which is why Thatcher had the good sense to realise that remploy didn't need to be competitive. (that's the only good thing I'll say on the subject Claig )

It's not ghettoising though is it smallwhitecat, it's giving people opportunities to do things if they so choose that they would not have had a chance to do otherwise, like working. Obviously the preference is for everyone to work together, with working conditions reflecting their ability.

Put it this way, have you ever had any concessions made for you during pregnancy for example? I know I have, but then I do a very physical job and wasn't able to do those parts of my job for a while. I'm very grateful my employer was good enough to adapt the job to suit my situation, albeit temporarily.

Remploy have provided people who would otherwise fail to get a job on the open market with employment. It's not ghettoisation, it's providing realistic solutions.

Not having any experience of disabilities, I never know if I sound really patronising saying the above. I mean, who am I to know? It makes sense to me whenever discussing abilities or otherwise in many contexts - education, employment etc - that it makes sense to adapt conditions to help people work better with their disabilities. If you extrapolate the argument further, the logical conclusion would be to get rid of all schools that exclusively teach disabled children. And surely that's wrong too? Not all children can be taught in mainstream schools and really need extra help. Isn't the same true for those who want to work?

Or am I missing the point totally?

ok, I agree with you on that point smallwhitecat but how do you reconcile your perfectly valid arguments with commercial pressures?

But at no point have I said anyone with any kind of disability shouldn't be able to work in the mainstream. don't put words in to my mouth. What I asked was... doesn't Remploy find work for those who do find it hard getting work in the open market? I'm really sorry if you misunderstood my position in this matter, but there is a very important difference in my stance to what you were assuming I meant.

There are large numbers of people who could be perfectly well employed without adversely affect their employer's commercial position

Agreed: how do we make it happen though?

well legislation goes some way... but, and correct me if I'm wrong, current legislation states that an employer cannot discriminate against someone who is capable of doing the job stated in a job description on the basis of their disability, for example, using the example of the wheelchair bound receptionist, there's no way her disability affected her ability to do the job, so the employer could not use it as a reason for not giving her the job.

Of course, I imagine it's like much discrimination legislation, it's very hard to prove discrimination in an industrial tribunal.

I don't think minimaths was approving of the idea of making foster parents homeless. I think she was pointing out how stupid it is.

Thank you edam, I am cynical and I'm afraid that the Conservatives are not making these changes for the benefit of people with disabilities. This is driven by ideology and discrimination against the poorest in society.

I think headfairy makes an excellent point about education. Many children with disabilities do very well in mainstream state education. However many do less well in competitive private education. Some require specialist schools that can better meet their needs. We do not segregate them because we discriminate but we try to meet their various and diverse needs. This is the point I make about remploy, for some people remploy has proved to be an excellent opportunity, giving them a sense of purpose.

Yes society needs to change but if I needed to employ someone for a specific job which required certain skills sets, I would have to match the candidates to that criteria. Many people with disabilities can work and should be made welcome but always with the view that they can perform the tasks/job to which they are matched if you make modifications to allow them. I think employers are and will continue to be adverse to changing the job specification, so many people with severe disabilities are going to be very disadvantaged.

Thousands of 999 police axed as spending cuts hit frontline numbers

Figures reveal emergency staff have been hit despite pledge by David Cameron to defend them from spending cuts

The number of police dealing with 999 emergencies has fallen by more than 5,000 since the last general election, according to new figures that seriously undermine David Cameron's pledge to be defending "frontline" forces from spending cuts.

The figures, compiled from responses to freedom of information requests from all 43 forces in England and Wales, are a severe embarrassment to the government, which has insisted that its 20% funding cuts will not compromise public safety or the fight against crime.

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/10/thousands-999-police-axed-spending-cuts

Dont know what happened with the formatting, there. Sorry.

quel surprise, ttosca.

In London, many fire engines have been out of service. Because maintenance was contracted out and something's gone wrong with the private company. So firefighters are short of appliances. But hey, it doesn't matter whether someone dies, so long as public spending is cut...

Yes, yes they are.