Is this fair criticism?

[Borin' Baggie]

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?

No. The charity she works for is clearly stated in the article, you're more than welcome to Google it.

[baggy1]

Sorry again then BB, I'm a bit confused, what is she (Hart) being accused of then?

Again apologies but I would like to understand what is being said here. It appears in the video that Hart made some comments / wrote an article on the subject of a reduced minimum wage for people with disabilities. I'm interested in that article - hope that makes it clearer.

[Borin' Baggie]

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.

This isn't about welfare, stop conflating her point with welfare. This is about employers and employment opportunities. There's two factors that act as a deterrent: employers being deterred by pay and disabled people not being offered a sufficient support network by potential employers and recruiters. How big a role each factor plays relative to the other is up for debate, Ismail Kaji of Mencap offers a fair retort from his experience that the latter is the biggest problem, but attacking someone for being a heartless shrew when they genuinely believe their opinion will work (and is reciprocated by evidence, as per the referenced article) isn't helping anyone.

[baggy1]

On the face of it it appears that Hart is pointing towards simply paying disabled people less to encourage employers to take them on. Is there another side to her point where she is saying that this employment could be supported by the government in the way of on the job training and an allowance to bring them back up to the minimum wage levels.

[Borin' Baggie]

Sorry again then BB, I'm a bit confused, what is she (Hart) being accused of then?

Again apologies but I would like to understand what is being said here. It appears in the video that Hart made some comments / wrote an article on the subject of a reduced minimum wage for people with disabilities. I'm interested in that article - hope that makes it clearer.

She endorsed the article I provided, she did not write it. Someone at the hustings brought up her support over it and used it to say she wants disabled people not to be paid, Hart then reacted poorly and started responding as though it was an attack on her character (which, to be fair, it was) instead of breaking down the article. An argument then ensued.

Dekka has just corrobated the attack line instead of breaking down her point as to why she's wrong, I'm merely providing context.

---

On the face of it it appears that Hart is pointing towards simply paying disabled people less to encourage employers to take them on. Is there another side to her point where she is saying that this employment could be supported by the government in the way of on the job training and an allowance to bring them back up to the minimum wage levels.

No, but nor does she advocate the removal of the disability allowance. Schemes which have been implemented in other countries andusually have a "top-up" system, like Denmark.

---

Well maybe if the hustings didn't descend into an angry shouting match and people actually questioned her on it to break down her plan on how to implement her opinion into policy, then maybe that point would have been raised and we'd actually know where she stands on it.

[baggy1]

Thanks for that - I agree the hustings moved very quickly to a shouting match and I believe that just letting her talk would have been the best approach (giving her the rope...).

Again, on the face of it she appears to advocate the one side of the point (paying them less) whilst ignoring the support required element. That is the bit that I would like to have drawn out - if she is advocating reversing the government funding decisions of the past decade to address this by supporting employment options / training organisations that will get that 1.4M (or some of them) into 'real' work then that is great. I suspect she was just keen on the pay them less so that the employer takes the burden.

[Derek Hardballs]

Sorry again then BB, I'm a bit confused, what is she (Hart) being accused of then?

Advocating that those in work with learning difficulties should be paid less because they aren’t doing the same level of work as someone who is more able. The idea is the person gets enjoyment from simply doing the job and the money is secondary. I think she may have been accused of saying ‘people with learning difficulties don’t understand money’. I’m not sure that was the exact words but it’s something along those lines.

---

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.

This isn't about welfare, stop conflating her point with welfare. This is about employers and employment opportunities. There's two factors that act as a deterrent: employers being deterred by pay and disabled people not being offered a sufficient support network by potential employers and recruiters. How big a role each factor plays relative to the other is up for debate, Ismail Kaji of Mencap offers a fair retort from his experience that the latter is the biggest problem, but attacking someone for being a heartless shrew when they genuinely believe their opinion will work (and is reciprocated by evidence, as per the referenced article) isn't helping anyone.

This is intrinsically linked to welfare. The idea you can encourage employers to employ disabled people in low skilled jobs for less than the minimum wage without the intervention of the state is flawed. 

They get employed at a reduced rate, who stops people from being exploited? Will their carers / family suddenly find their money is stopped because they are working? Will their wages cover that expense? Can they live independently below the minimum wage?

Jobs, and welfare for this demographic are intrinsically linked. There were organisations and charities that employed people with learning difficulties that had their funding cut and the idea was the private sector would solve the problem all it did was move the problem directly to the state and families caring for disabled loved ones. The difference been many now find themselves isolated and unable to find / make ends meet even now, before the private sector starts employing people for less than the minimum wage.

---

On the face of it it appears that Hart is pointing towards simply paying disabled people less to encourage employers to take them on. Is there another side to her point where she is saying that this employment could be supported by the government in the way of on the job training and an allowance to bring them back up to the minimum wage levels.

Here’s what happened