Valuing the disabled

This wasn't the entry I was thinking about making at the time but one that seems to have arisen in the last 36 or so hours.
Background is a Minister, Lord Freud, was overheard in a fringe meeting at the Conservative Party conference talking around the Minimum Wage and Disabled people and he was reported a suggesting it would be in order to pay less than it, a figure of Two Pounds was suggested on the basis that their work didn't justify the actual minimum wage as a means of increasing the number of disabled people in Employment.
Presently in the UK, as I know from personal experience, employers often receive financial help to employ suitable disabled employees and some assistance with any adaptations the person may need to do the job but the person is paid the going rate for their work even if it is the case they may have a co-worker provide some assistance too. 
What was suggested was they need not and that government would be prepared to pay employers to employ them on Two Pounds per hour basis.
This lead to a very heated debate in the House of Commons where the Prime Minister and "Disability" minister disassociated themselves from it saying nobody in Government agrees with this idea.
The first comment I would make is while Lord Freud isn't a Member of Parliament, he nonetheless  is a Minister and is therefore a member of Government by virtue of holding office and having power.  To suggest otherwise is deliberately ambiguous.
The second point is, It drives a coach and horses through the whole notion of the value of work, the presumption of labour having a minimum level of reward that dignifies it and furthermore it poses the question how you would assess when a person is so disabled that they should be expect to work for less than his or her colleagues for the most menial of tasks.
Most of us hold that everyone doing the same job should be expected to receive the same pay and a number might well think employers might well substitute disabled employees for cost savings.
The real issue is the nature of what some people by virtue of disability can achieve is limited by the absolute ability to perform one or more tasks or if indeed they can  then the amount of work they can usefully provide.
To put it plainly if they can work at all, it may not be economic to either the employer, the individual and may well cost the state a lot more  to support in the attempt than the value of anything they may well produce.
People often talk about integration - the mixing of disabled and non-disabled - in society but the preoccupation with employment in policy areas as the sole means of meeting the aim is flawed.
What some disabled people need is an outlet for their abilities that provides stimulation, the chance meet new people, make friends and learn new skills that can be shown to the wider community such as a well run day centre and maybe a break for their carers.
Providing this isn't writing disabled people abilities off, ghettoizing them or just enabling a dependency culture at all. It's about meeting disabled peoples own individual needs as they are and as I'm only too aware from person experience being honest, about your very real limits.

Caution you may become an O.A.P

First of all I'd like to start this edition of ze blog off by wishing everyone a happy new year and hope your plans do come to fruition.
One thing about new years is it reminds me about getting physically older even if somedays I don't half feel rough just wondering what I'll be like by the point I get into my sixties and that takes me to this weeks subject.
When you get to the point you need a lot of looking after often people move into care homes sometimes by pure choice sometimes because the Local Authority who part fund care having done the math have decided having people coming to you would cost more than you going into care.
Now the UK like many western societies, has an aging population so more folks are requiring care provision which is currently troubling our Politicians. They think they have a plan but the treasury are stalling over paying for it. It is being suggested that money currently given to every pensioner to cover the additional costs of staying warm in our cold winters - a cost that is increasing as energy costs are going through the roof - should only be given to the very poorest of pensioners. The idea being mooted is the money saved would go to pay toward care costs.
One problem I can see straight off is this will require systems and people to assess income levels to determine who gets it and who doesn't so you may not have that much by way of savings. Also in my experience, some people over 65 are still paying their mortgages off and if they have say more than £150 per week coming in it may be they have less disposable income than someone just under that amount who will get additional help.
Is that fair?
One is also inclined to say why is is  that this Winter Fuel Allowance rather like the welfare bill is touchable but Overseas Aid is not particular as many reports do question it's effectiveness in helping the disadvantaged overseas? And would it not make more sense to review the cost from the commitment to Co2 emission restrictions placed on energy providers that are in part pushing up the costs of heating our homes and factories?
If energy prices could be reduced then apart from anything else the cost of the Winter Fuel Allowance might well be more sustainable. And even now pensioners are going short on heat.
I can see this upcoming year being a worrying time for the elderly.