Tory backbencher Philip Davies caused outrage today by telling Parliament that disabled people should work for less than the minimum wage, reports Shamik Das.
Tory backbencher Philip Davies caused outrage today by telling Parliament that disabled people should work for less than the minimum wage. The remarks were described as “outrageous and unacceptable” by a select committee chair, and “a preposterous suggestion” by a leading charity. Davies made his comments during a debate on the Employment Opportunities Bill, which had its second reading today.
Anne Begg, chair of the work and pensions committe, said:
“These comments are utterly outrageous and unacceptable. To suggest that disabled people should be treated as second class citizens is shocking and shows just what a warped world some Tories demonstrate they inhabit.”
Davies also said people with learning difficulties should be made to work for sub-standard wages – made to work for less than £5.93 an hour.
Responding, Mind spokeswoman Sophie Corlett said:
“It is a preposterous suggestion that someone who has a mental health problem should be prepared to accept less than minimum wage to get their foot in the door with an employer.
“People with mental health problems should not be considered a source of cheap labour and should be paid appropriately for the jobs they do.”
Last month, Davies described Britain’s contribution to international aid as “stark raving mad”; more sinister were his recent comments that there was nothing offensive about ‘blacking up’.
Davies had said:
“Why it is so offensive to black up your face… I have never understood this.”
As I said before, what a sad, pathetic little man Mr Davies is.
98 Responses to “Tory MP: Disabled should work for less than minimum wage”
Mason Dixon, Autistic
I am being abusive because you are. When you say I said things which I didn’t, that is abuse to me. When you adopt a position, only to U-turn on it (as you did the last time we crossed swords) when it is scrutinised and then pretend you haven’t, that’s abusive. No one can have a discussion with you because you’re content to change the topic on a whim and personalise it. Following my disbelief that you might actually follow evidence-based reasoning for once I would have been happy to discuss the figures available. You were not content with that though and instead accused me of ‘making excuses’ when I merely pointed out a mathematical fact: that is that the average pay for each group that the Commission publishes is ‘statistically insignificant’ which means that the tiny differences in them are best explained by chance. I linked you to the Wikipedia page so you could check for yourself what statistical significant means.
Despite it being a topic YOU brought up, you then went on to say it was I who was making the positive claims and making a big issue out of it, something demonstrably false by the thread history.
You invite everything on yourself and do everything you can to advertise that you are a troll not interested in good faith discussion on anything.
Anon E Mouse
Mason Dixon, Autistic – I do not accept is ‘statistically insignificant’ when it is in reference to someones pay and a person with disabilities gets paid less. What a surprise.
If a 2.66% difference is ‘statistically insignificant’ then people should stop bleating on about the government’s 0.7% year on year cuts. By your own reckoning they are definitely insignificant, (being 3.8 times less than the figure you quoted) and before you start your usual indignant ranting, you are the one who linked to Wiki not me.
Why is the “chance” not in favour of people with disabilities? Whose side are you on Mason Dixon, Autistic?
I’d have thought you’d have been as annoyed at the pay differential as I am instead of being objectionable just for the sake of it. You’re not as bad as joe kane above, who has shown himself to be a racist, anti-semitic, holocaust denier like the BNP but you are still unnecessarily rude and there is really no need for it.
You are perfectly free to ignore my posts Mason Dixon, Autistic as is the fascist joe kane.
As for calling me a “troll”, as I’ve said before, from a supporter of a party that forced Gordon Brown on the public, it is really not an insult…
Mason Dixon, Autistic
“Mason Dixon, Autistic – I do not accept is ‘statistically insignificant’ when it is in reference to someones pay and a person with disabilities gets paid less. What a surprise.”
‘Statistical significance’ has a specific mathematical definition. Maths doesn’t change just because you don’t like the answer and in this case the differential is best explained by chance.
If you care even slightly about the truth you’ll stop with the Mail-speak and listen for once in your life. The figures are *averages*, neither of us know how many employees there are at the Commission (whilst I’ve been looking for facts, what have you been doing?), meaning we don’t know what jobs are being paid what and who is being paid what. Going by those numbers the highest paid employee could be disabled but the average brought down by two extra disabled working as a junior researcher if the number of Commission employees is quite low.
If you have not grasped the point here, then you wouldn’t pass GCSE Maths.
Anon E Mouse
Mason Dixon, Autistic – YOU produced the figures not me. Either HE’S right (which I suspect is the case) or HE’S not.
The figures YOU produced show that HE’S right and the disabled get paid less.
You can excuse that all you want with as much psycho babble as you like but HE appears to be correct in HIS assertion that able people are paid more than people with disabilities.
I haven’t been looking for the facts because I simply asked if he was right and you Mason Dixon, Autistic, as per usual, went off on one. I’m prepared to accept him at his word regarding the commission and their double standards. The numbers you produced would seem to validate HIS remarks. That’s all.
I took O Level maths btw – too old for GCSE’s…
George McLean
@ Anon E Mouse and Mason Dixon, Autistic (passim)
Calm down, dears. Davies is only a Tory trying to undermine the minimum wage …