WBAUnofficial

I think it is, others may disagree. 

What a surprise!

Show this to all the centrist enablers who are about to elect the most dangerous right wing govt in our history.

"I don't like Corbyn, he's a bit scruffy and doesn't like the queen. So instead I'll elect an actual fucking fascist who wants to end poverty by killing all the poor people"

Hopefully she'll be rewarded with fewer votes, if only on the basis that she doesn't understand the term 'marginal constituency' in the way that a more able candidate would.

Nobody should really be surprised by this, or in any doubt that this is the kind of philosophy which underpins much of the new right thinking, here and in the US. Just happens that this woman was either sufficiently stupid or arrogant to say it out loud.

Edit: A week from now we'll know precisely how many people are still prepared to vote for this candidate, notwithstanding her odious views.

(12-06-2019, 09:42 AM)Ted Maul Wrote: [ -> ]Show this to all the centrist enablers who are about to elect the most dangerous right wing govt in our history.

"I don't like Corbyn, he's a bit scruffy and doesn't like the queen. So instead I'll elect an actual fucking fascist who wants to end poverty by killing all the poor people"

They are both a bit scruffy and my bet is that Queen is not keen on either, but the killing
Line sadly makes you come across rather siĺly

This is a complete misrepresentation of her point and the programme noted in the article she referred to. The essential premise is that the economic output of the work provided by people with severe learning disabilities is below their economic output, disincentivising employers from taking them on which in turn alienates the people with severe learning disabilities. A scheme that allows employers to pay below minimum wage to these employees encourages businesses to take them on, this has been introduced by other countries successfully and usually with the state partially subsiding the employers.

(12-06-2019, 11:04 AM)Borin\ Baggie Wrote: [ -> ]This is a complete misrepresentation of her point and the programme noted in the article she referred to. The essential premise is that the economic output of the work provided by people with severe learning disabilities is below their economic output, disincentivising employers from taking them on which in turn alienates the people with severe learning disabilities. A scheme that allows employers to pay below minimum wage to these employees encourages businesses to take them on, this has been introduced by other countries successfully and usually with the state partially subsiding the employers.

Hang on, those very types of business / charity funding was cut by Conservatives who argued disabled people would be better off in ‘normal’ employment. Most severely disabled people will never be able to work regardless of set-up but they still deserve a living wage as do those who could of worked within the now defunct business’s and charities the Tories got rid of. No matter how you dress this up this is an appalling attitude to take. Those aforementioned charities warned the government what the consequences of shutting their companies / pulling funding would be but they did it anyway.

Weasel words that ignores what has happened over the last nine years.

Do you have a link to the original article BB?

(12-06-2019, 11:17 AM)baggy1 Wrote: [ -> ]Do you have a link to the original article BB?

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/03/the-...-paid-job/

(12-06-2019, 11:20 AM)Borin\ Baggie Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-06-2019, 11:17 AM)baggy1 Wrote: [ -> ]Do you have a link to the original article BB?

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/03/the-...-paid-job/

Sorry BB, That article is written by Rosa Monckton, is that the pen name of Sally Ann Hart?

(12-06-2019, 11:13 AM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-06-2019, 11:04 AM)Borin\ Baggie Wrote: [ -> ]This is a complete misrepresentation of her point and the programme noted in the article she referred to. The essential premise is that the economic output of the work provided by people with severe learning disabilities is below their economic output, disincentivising employers from taking them on which in turn alienates the people with severe learning disabilities. A scheme that allows employers to pay below minimum wage to these employees encourages businesses to take them on, this has been introduced by other countries successfully and usually with the state partially subsiding the employers.

Hang on, those very types of business / charity funding was cut by Conservatives who argued disabled people would be better off in ‘normal’ employment. Most severely disabled people will never be able to work regardless of set-up but they still deserve a living wage as do those who could of worked within the now defunct business’s and charities the Tories got rid of. No matter how you dress this up this is an appalling attitude to take. Those aforementioned charities warned the government what the consequences of shutting their companies / pulling funding would be but they did it anyway.

Weasel words that ignores what has happened over the last nine years.

I personally know a number of people who are in properly-remunerated employment as a direct result of work trials arranged via Remploy; one of a number of organisations hit by funding cuts. 

A few years back (but certainly under the Tories), a controlling stake in Remploy's services arm was sold off to an American company called Maximus - an organisation described as a 'Service Provider'. Whether this should cause concern regarding the future of, for example, parts of the NHS is a matter of judgement, but it seems pretty consistent with Tory philosophy when it comes to unburdening itself of unwanted responsibilities.