Welfare Reform Minister Lord Freud, pay the Disabled less than the minimum wage!
- This topic has 17 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
In a fringe meeting at the recent Tory Conference, the Welfare Reform Minister, Lord Freud was recorded as saying that perhaps Disabled Workers could be paid less than the minimum wage, presumably to make them more "appealing" to employers.
On Channel 4 news, Wed 15th Oct, Sam Bowman from The Adam Smith Institute, stated that Lord Freud was merely, "thinking outside the box"! He also stated, without an ounce of embarrassment, that many disabled people were not profitable to employ.
Well at least he was being honest about Capitalisms thoughts on those not able to contribute to their masters bank balance. The problem was, that those brought onto the News Programme were incapable of putting a cogent counter argument about these comments. They, themselves, cannot see "outside of the Capitalist Box", thereby diluting any counter argument they tried to muster. As Socialists, we know that Freud and Bowman are merely saying the way it is. Ideas about, "everyone having the right to contribute", are infantile and show a misunderstanding of the system we live in.
If, in Capitalism, 100's of millions are allowed to die of starvation or easily treatable deseases, because food and medicines are not produced in the first instance, to eat, but for sale with a view to profit, why would it surprise anyone, that the apologists for Capitalism speak so, of the disabled!!!
This is the reason we need to get our "case" over to more people!
Cameron in one of his replies to Miliband, said as he had a history of disability in his family, (disabled father and son) he would not be preached to on the issue!However, fuckwit Cameron just doesn't seem to get it, that there is a world of difference looking after a disabled father or son, whilst on the minimum wage or benefits, as opposed to doing the same as someone with tens of millions of quid in ones bank accounts. The tosser just doesn't have a clue.
steve colborn wrote:As Socialists, we know that Freud and Bowman are merely saying the way it is.Exactly my thoughts on hearing this news item. As far as capitalism is concerning some people are incapable of reproducing the value of the minumum wage let alone of producing a surplus value over and above this for their employer and so are effectively unemployable and useless from a capitalist point of view. Objectionable as he is (with a ten bedroom mansion in central London he seeks to justify the bedroom tax) on this occasion he is right and is being hounded for telling the truth. His critics are hypocrites.
This is the problem with the so-called "Left Wing". Their arguments are all constructed and centred within the strictures of Capitalism, not as is ours, on an alternative vision of how society could be and how man could live, really live.As I was watching the Channel 4 news, I only wished that "I" was the disabled person giving their reaction. It would have been totally different from the affrontary and umbrage expressed by those who were there. It would have been a dispassionate analysis of Capitalism and putting the case for a sane, rational world! Where disgusting shit like this, would just not happen.
On another news programme Sam Bowman, he of the Adam Smith institute said, "if the disabled wanted to work for £2 an hour, they should be allowed to and they should be subsidized by the state".With ideas like that, I wonder how long the ASI will take before they boot the loon out the door. Adam Smith, subsidies, just doesn't go together does it.
Here's thinking outside of the box"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"source, Marx in Critique of the Gotha Program 1875http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needHere's one from the BolsheviksAccording to Lenin, “He who does not work shall not eat” is a necessary principle under socialism, the preliminary phase of the evolution towards communist society. The phrase appears in his 1917 work, The State and Revolution. Through this slogan Lenin explains that in socialist states only productive individuals could be allowed access to the articles of consumption.
Nar JDW, it'll nivver walk marra. Unlike Capitalism! At least the amount of severely poor is down to manageable levels now, some 3 billion!!! Telt yer Capitalism walks.
The pleasant fellow has been caught out expressing the view that most Tories hold anyway. They see workers as mere economic units to be used to make a profit. If your physicaly fucked, then you aint profitable for an employer. So flog your wares on the jobs market on the cheap. I now notice that the Tories are going with the line that they are simply concerned about helping the severely disabled contribute to society and earn a sense of self worth that only employment can bring.Arbeit macht frei.
SocialistPunk wrote:Arbeit macht frei.Only employment gives a sense of "self worth". Thats the Capitalists fucked then. No wonder so many of them are committing suicide! oh no, thats not right, thats the workers, who have been conned into believing this shit.Arbeit macht frei, indeed!!!
What I don't get, is what's behind this, apart from the obvious Tory social Darwinist view of disabled workers being worth less than regular ones?Both Labour and Tories want an end to the welfare system as we currently recognise it, as it is a tax burden. So subsidising disabled workers is defeating the object. Unless it means they can make more savings by removing various disability payments from the subsidised disabled workers.I mean, does anyone seriously believe that these…err…people… have the interests of the disabled population of this country at heart?
What's behind this? How about, at some time, the Tories will have to demonstrate to their less than faithful supporters that they can be more ruthless than U.K.I.P. or the heamorrhaging of votes could prove fatal.
Not a fucking chance. No matter what Dave (Ihave looked after a disabled father and son, but on a fortune of millions, so I feel your stress and pain, so you can't preach to me) Cameron tries to con workers!! The useless piss bag.
Anything to divide the working-class. Couldn't they equally take the side of the less-abled against the more-abled, arguing the more-abled should be paid less?
SocialistPunk wrote:Both Labour and Tories want an end to the welfare system as we currently recognise it, as it is a tax burden. So subsidising disabled workers is defeating the object. Unless it means they can make more savings by removing various disability payments from the subsidised disabled workers.I mean, does anyone seriously believe that these…err…people… have the interests of the disabled population of this country at heart?I guess it boils down to individual employers currently having to shoulder the 'burden' (on profits) of a disabled worker, say, not being as productive as some other worker they could be employing, whilst still having to pay out the same, say Minimum wage, to either. So, to aid the profitabality of individual employers, and while the Employing Class as a whole still has to shoulder the 'burden' of the Minimum wage, and everyone having the 'right to work' (ie individual employers can't just pay their disableds in line with their perceived productivity, and can't just exclude them entirely, either) that burden should be shifted to the Employers as a whole, ie be paid thru' general taxation of the class as a whole. If that makes sense?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.