Didn't the Labour party watch Question time on the 16th October?

Ian Lavery MP tweeted this earlier today:

 

 And later on @LabourUK tweeted this:

to which was attached this survey:

Just so you can decide what you do feel about this issue, here is the transcript of what Lord Freud actually said in response to a question from a Tory councillor who was concerned about some disabled people in his constituency who wanted to work for reasons of self esteem but were currently finding it very difficult to find employers willing to take them on:

It is crystal clear that Lord Freud was responding in a way which explained that he did recognise the issue, understood it, didn't think there was a system in place now that could help, but that he would go away and have a look at it and that he understood the issue of some seriously disabled people wanting to work for their self esteem and that such a system could be topped up by the government in order to help these particular disabled people to get what they wanted, which is to work.

Yes he used the word 'worth' in shorthand, to a colleague. That was clumsy, but it was not nasty or malicious just explaining that he understood what was meant by the question. The fact is that many employers who may be sympathetic, simply cannot justify employing some severely disabled people on the NMW but if it were to be topped up by government then they might be able to help. So these unfortunate people wouldn't be working for £2 an hour but a 'topped up' amount that would be at least the National Minimum Wage.

Essentially Lord Freud was trying to help disabled people. And by pursuing this again today, Labour are effectively trying to stop this help being provided to severely disabled people.

If you really don't understand this from reading the above, then I'm sorry to say this, but you are a moron. I'll leave it for you to decide about Mr Lavery and the Labour Party.

When Angela Eagle raised the issue on #BBCQT she was roundly dismissed by most of the panelists and the audience applauded long and loud when she was called out about it. You can watch it here if you'd like to. It starts at 47.49. Isabel Oakshott effectively nails this debate.

What's happened since, it seems to me is that Labour thinks we'll all have forgotten about this shameful debacle and that they can now have another go. It's just being nasty and vindictive towards someone who was trying to help. It is also true to say that Mencap, who criticised Lord Freud on the day, proposed a very similar policy and solution in 2000.

Nasty party? Don't know about you but I'd suggest candidacy for this sobriquet ought not to be based on who shouts it loudest and longest but upon what it (the party) actually does. If the UK population as a whole was able to do this I know who would be seen as the nasty party. The one that effectively fucks the country every single time it is in power, that encourages unskilled immigration in a way which can only undermine British workers demonstrating, quite clearly that they don't really give a toss about the workers for whom they're supposed to be the party of choice.

And which uses this kind of underhand recording activity in order to try to distract people from hearing about good news for the country whatever the reality of what was actually being discussed.

Thanks for reading.