Under 25's 2015 benefits threat

[Mrluvaluva]

Young people under 25 could lose state benefits if they are not in work, education or training, David Cameron revealed today as he promised to extend the Conservatives’ welfare reforms.

In his closing speech the Tory conference in Manchester, the Prime Minister disclosed that his party’s manifesto at the 2015 election would include proposals to tackle the problem of so-called “Neets” – young people not in education, employment or training.

Later Tory sources suggested that under-25s could lose Housing Benefit or Jobseeker’s Allowance if they refused to take up offers of work, training or education. The move is unlikely to be introduced before the 2015 election because the Liberal Democrats have already blocked proposals by Tory ministers to curb Housing Benefit for under-25s.

Mr Cameron told the conference: “We should give young people a clear, positive choice: Go to school. Go to college. Do an apprenticeship. Get a job. But just choose the dole? We’ve got to offer them something better than that.” Insisting that such an approach is not “callous,” he said: “This is what we want to see: everyone under 25 – earning or learning.”

In his speech, Mr Cameron attacked Ed Miliband for “bashing business”, warning that was “crazy” because it would undermine Britain’s attempt to compete in the global economy.

The Prime Minister dangled the long-term prospect of income tax cuts before the public as he pleaded for the chance to “finish the job” of balancing the nation’s books. He sketched out the battle lines for the 2015 election as he responded to Mr Miliband’s pledge last week to impose a 20-month price freeze on the unpopular energy companies.

Without defending the “big six” energy giants, Mr Cameron said: “I know that bashing business might play to a Labour audience. But it’s crazy for our country. So if Labour’s plan for jobs is to attack business, ours is to back business.”

When Mr Miliband talked about the face of big business, Mr Cameron said, he thought about the faces of hardworking people in British design and engineering factories like Jaguar Rover Triumph. “Labour is saying to their employers –‘we want to put up your taxes – don’t come here – stick to your jobs and take them elsewhere.’ ”

He said: “We know that profit, wealth creation, tax cuts, enterprise…are not dirty, elitist words – they’re not the problem, they really are the solution because it’s not government that creates jobs, it’s businesses…that get wages in people’s pockets, food on their tables, hope for their families and success for our country.”

Mr Cameron admitted that the Tories needed to “do more” to help people struggling with what Labour has dubbed the “cost of living crisis.” But his answer to it was to reduce income tax rather than the “quick fix” offered by Labour.

He insisted that Government needed to cut the deficit to keep mortgage rates low, grow the economy, create jobs and cut taxes. “We’re Tories. We believe in low taxes. And believe me –we will keep on cutting the taxes of hardworking people.”

The Prime Minister’s 43-minute speech was light on new policies but previewed the Tories’ 2015 election pitch. He told the conference the economy was “beginning to turn the corner” but warned: “We are not there yet, not by a long way.” He added: “This struggle will only be worth it if we as a country finish the job we’ve started…We still haven’t finished paying for Labour’s debt crisis. If anyone thinks that’s over, done with, dealt with, they’re living in a fantasy land.” He warned that Labour’s plans to borrow and send more would “put us back to square one.”

His central argument was that he did not come into politics to cut the deficit, as he raised his party’s sights beyond the age of austerity to his mission – building a “land of opportunity for all.” He explained: “This isn’t job done. It is job begun.”

Mr Cameron accused Labour of leaving behind “a mess” in which “the casino economy meets the welfare society meets the broken education system.”

He emphasised his “one nation” credentials by heaping praise on social workers who wrestled with agonising decisions on whether to put children into care. “Social work is a vital and noble calling,” he said. “I have to make some tough decisions in my job, but none as tough as whether to break up a family and rescue a child, or try to stitch that family back together.”

Defending the Government’s “work for dole” plan for the long-term jobless, the Prime Minister said: “We don’t patronise people, put a benefit cheque in their hand and pat them on the head…this party is fighting for all those who were written off by Labour. It’s this party that’s for the many, not the few. The land of despair was Labour – the land of hope is Tory.”

Mr Cameron reassured the Tory faithful he would fight “heart and soul” for a majority in 2015 and was not looking for a second coalition with the Liberal Democrats, as some of his Tory critics suspect. He said Britain needed a “strong government, with a clear mandate, that is accountable for what it promises and,yes, what it delivers.”


The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-party-conference-david-cameron--reveals-young-people-under-25-would-not-be-able-to-claim-benefits-under-tory-government-8853560.html)


Welcome to Utopia.

[Vicky.]

Step 561 of abolishing benefits all together :whistle:

[Josy]

Step 561 of abolishing benefits all together :whistle:

Yep.

They may as well just cut out all the bull**** and do it that's what it's all coming down to anyway.

[Kizzy]

What a moron, cut income tax....who for millionaires?
Backing business has nothing to do with letting the big 6 keep their stranglehold.

[Josy]

Go to school. Go to college. Do an apprenticeship.

So say all these under 25's go into training and further education etc what then? there is nothing for them after that, no jobs to go in to down the line once they have qualified for whatever it is they are training for.

Get a job.

There isn't any...

[Nedusa]

Maybe the Govt could pass legislation making it a criminal offence to be unemployed and not in training/further education if you are under 25. Then they could get all these criminals to be forced to clean riverbanks or pick up litter.........???

Oh.....no wait..........They will be doing that anyway !!!!

Maybe we could round up all the young lazy,unemployed,jobless,gay,disadvantaged,injured, long term ill and put them in Internment Camps...Why not ? it would cut out a lot of red tape.......then we can make them wear specially marked jackets......

Wasn't that done once before by a right wing fascist Govt in a time of economic hardship....!!!!!

[Mrluvaluva]

I would like to pick up on a post made by Vicky in another thread...

A better way of helping the unemployed get back into work is to allow them to do (relevant) training courses.

A friend of mine has been laid off quite recently. He has been unemployed for about 6 months and tbh I dont see him getting a job in the near future, despite trying. He asked if he could go on a college course to better his chances of finding work as he has no proper qualifications or anything(wanted to do bricklaying/plumbing/a decent trade). He was told if he did, his money would be stopped as being on the course would mean he couldn't look for work enough. Yet working 30 hours a week for free...is fine? :crazy:

He kept pushing for this course mind. And they have now sent him on one of those useless CV courses instead. That helps noone and just wastes time :S

In short, a 20 hour a week college course would mean he wasnt entitled to JSA as he couldn't look for work, despite it bettering his job prospects. But a 30 hour a week CV building course (when it takes about an hour to do a CV) is fine. And apparently fulltime workfare or this new idea would be fine too.

Something massively wrong with that IMO.

And honestly, I wouldnt bother with the long term unemployed who dont want to work. Why stress about them when there are millions of unemployed who DO want to work? I know its wrong to think like that, but we will never have 100% employment, or even close.

This is crazy. So it's not ok to try and better your prospects currently, but under these new rules it may well be? The government wants to sort itself out. The trouble with getting qualifications/training now is that a lot of employers don't want to pay for it. A fair amount of courses cost money, as does travel and other things. Will people be helped out with expenses, or will this have to come from their £70 a week?

Qualifications can be gained. For example, an SIA licence can be achieved after a training course, but cost upwards of £200, plus the costs of the course itself. At one time there was help given with these things, but not any more. How are people expected to pay for this?

[King Gizzard]

All talk no real effective action, again, it's just cheap, easy talk to get more votes at the election

Disabled, NHS, Jobseekers..basically the vulnerable who have no right of reply..who next?

[Kizzy]

You used to be able to do part time college courses free on JSA not sure if you can now.

[Mrluvaluva]

You used to be able to do part time college courses free on JSA not sure if you can now.

"You can get JSA while studying part-time if you can combine your course with a job, or are willing to give up your course for a job.". What's the point in that? But like Vicky states above, a 20 hour weekly college course is deemed unacceptable as the claimant will not be available for work. Go figure.

There may well be some free courses available, for instance in numeracy and literacy, however, I know that there are far less options now than before. I use the SIA example as my nephew did this training for free, sat his exams, gained his certificates, and got his licence. This is not possible any more funding wise, and a 3 year licence costs £245. I don't understand how they expect people to pay such fees?

[joeysteele]

Actually nothing surprises me now with announcements of this nature.
This Govt. is pushing the blame for all ills on the people at the lower end of the scale.
The unemployed, the sick, the disabled, the poor, the most vulnerable.
Easy people to bully and humiliate and whip up anger against because it requires the State and funds from the State to help them and support them.

Everything they do with those groups pf people is 'they have to conform to this or lose their benefits'.
No understanding, no compassion and no fairness employed as to policy either.

However, a bright sign on the horizon for me, was this sounded a defeatist speech,not a bad one but a defeatist one, by a man who is at least now thinking he is already defeated.
He has nothing to say as to the rising energy bills, today Eon I understand has said it will be removing the over 60s tariff for customers on it which will mean rises again for them.
We hear not a thing from this Govt as to when big business cons and virtually robs their customers.
They just allow it to happen.

I will be stunned if this Govt wins in 2015 and now for me, I hope they really get booted out.
The Conservatives need a really good new leader,someone who will listen and demonstrate real understanding with the electorate and also who is willing to compromise too.
Some leader who will show also respect for peoples dignity and not hammer them into submission and even more hardship.

Labour are far from perfect in their ideals but they will bring fairness back and compassion to these welfare policies,I do believe that.

The Lib Dems, well if they wander the political wilderness for another 80+ years after this Coalition ends then that is fine by me.

[arista]

"Labour are far from perfect in their ideals "


Bloody Right Joey
they are stopping money for DSS Slackers
for all that do Not go to job center training
and the like

[user104658]

The Lib Dems, well if they wander the political wilderness for another 80+ years after this Coalition ends then that is fine by me.

The sad thing is, I don't think a straight Lib Dem government would actually be anywhere near as bad as the current one. They probably wouldn't do a great job... because they'd be sort of flying blind... but their policies (as they were before they sold their souls) were MUCH fairer than Tory policies. This is a Tory government through and through - in fact, it's the MOST Tory government we've ever had in many ways. Who even really thinks of it as a coalition government? Off the top of your head, when you think of the government, you think David Cameron, George Osborne, Tory.

The party has committed political suicide now. Their own traditional voters don't trust them any more. Really - who would vote Lib Dem now?? Their own website has morphed into a massive list of excuses for Tory policies and why they're secretly awesome. You can tell that the Lib Dem ministers themselves don't even believe this crap. Complete lap dogs. The best that can be said for them, is that they have managed to block one or two of the very worst Tory plans.

[Kizzy]

I feel really reassured after reading ed's dads views, the mail did me a favour there. If Ed thinks like him and has his heart in social justice and the greater good for the many instead of the few we may be ok.

[Glenn.]

"You can get JSA while studying part-time if you can combine your course with a job, or are willing to give up your course for a job.". What's the point in that? But like Vicky states above, a 20 hour weekly college course is deemed unacceptable as the claimant will not be available for work. Go figure.

There may well be some free courses available, for instance in numeracy and literacy, however, I know that there are far less options now than before. I use the SIA example as my nephew did this training for free, sat his exams, gained his certificates, and got his licence. This is not possible any more funding wise, and a 3 year licence costs £245. I don't understand how they expect people to pay such fees?

I actually got my SIA license through the Job Centre. I was offered a full time job but needed the qualification, so they paid. It was £170 for the training and £245 for the license. I had been signing on for about 6 weeks. Felt like I was getting something I didn't deserve to be honest but it led to a full time job so I just swallowed my pride and got on with it.

The welfare system is in need of a change but what's been suggested isn't the way to go IMO. Sending people on CV courses is just a complete waste of time, especially when you consider that you can't refuse the courses because you get sanctioned. Yet it's taking up time you could have looking for work.

It's just something they do to move you along. I never found the Job Centre useful. They just call you up, sign you on and that's that. Of course my experience wasn't quite like that, they did pay for my course for which I got a valuable qualification and I'm extremely grateful.

Making people do the equivalent if community service for their benefit is ludicrous. Not everyone who signs on is a waste of space down and out. It's not going to solve unemployment. If there's no jobs out there what are they to do?

[Mrluvaluva]

How long ago did you gain your licence Glenn?

[joeysteele]

The sad thing is, I don't think a straight Lib Dem government would actually be anywhere near as bad as the current one. They probably wouldn't do a great job... because they'd be sort of flying blind... but their policies (as they were before they sold their souls) were MUCH fairer than Tory policies. This is a Tory government through and through - in fact, it's the MOST Tory government we've ever had in many ways. Who even really thinks of it as a coalition government? Off the top of your head, when you think of the government, you think David Cameron, George Osborne, Tory.

The party has committed political suicide now. Their own traditional voters don't trust them any more. Really - who would vote Lib Dem now?? Their own website has morphed into a massive list of excuses for Tory policies and why they're secretly awesome. You can tell that the Lib Dem ministers themselves don't even believe this crap. Complete lap dogs. The best that can be said for them, is that they have managed to block one or two of the very worst Tory plans.

The start of your post above, which is another really interesting post Toy Soldier, was how I felt in 2010, I voted Lib Dem then.
I knew they couldn't win themselves but I did hope for a stronger push to either of the parties from them to ensure they were a real brake on the more severe policies.

I feel I will be unable to trust them until most of this lot of their MPs are gone.
Whether I would vote for them again is debatable after seeing all they would sacrifice of their principles and policies just to get a few Ministerial positions and a period of shared Govt.

I agree too this is really a Conservative Govt,however a very unpleasant one indeed.
Very little has been stopped by the Lib Dems as to policy from them and in fact, this has turned into likely the nastiest and most heartless Conservative run Govt post war.

Your last paragraph is so incredibly correct, it is a pity that the Lib Dem MPs don't get to see such things as you are saying in it.
One or two do think as you outline though, Sarah Teather for instance.
Your last paragraph, if you were to talk to Lib Dem councillors all over the Country,you would find very few of them disagreeing with the content of that paragraph too.

[Kizzy]

Agreed, I and others have been invited to a coffee morning with Racheal Reeves and Polly Tollynbee, regarding housing issues, what should I ask?...

[Kizzy]

The start of your post above, which is another really interesting post Toy Soldier, was how I felt in 2010, I voted Lib Dem then.
I knew they couldn't win themselves but I did hope for a stronger push to either of the parties from them to ensure they were a real brake on the more severe policies.

I feel I will be unable to trust them until most of this lot of their MPs are gone.
Whether I would vote for them again is debatable after seeing all they would sacrifice of their principles and policies just to get a few Ministerial positions and a period of shared Govt.

I agree too this is really a Conservative Govt,however a very unpleasant one indeed.
Very little has been stopped by the Lib Dems as to policy from them and in fact, this has turned into likely the nastiest and most heartless Conservative run Govt post war.

Your last paragraph is so incredibly correct, it is a pity that the Lib Dem MPs don't get to see such things as you are saying in it.
One or two do think as you outline though, Sarah Teather for instance.
Your last paragraph, if you were to talk to Lib Dem councillors all over the Country,you would find very few of them disagreeing with the content of that paragraph too.

Yep I totally agree too, except the point about this being the worst tory government, I feel that was Thatcher and her dismantling of industry.
The reason for mass unemployment since in many cities is this.

[arista]

"Nick Clegg: Lib Dems agree unemployed should work for benefits
Party leader supports workfare among people unemployed for two years and says youngsters should be 'active or learning' "

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/10/3/1380792809982/07a55065-fd52-4cec-b4b5-b2fbbfc3452c-460x276.png


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/03/nick-clegg-lib-dems-workfare


OK Joey

[joeysteele]

Yep I totally agree too, except the point about this being the worst tory government, I feel that was Thatcher and her dismantling of industry.
The reason for mass unemployment since in many cities is this.

Reading over political history,I agree I would have found it very hard to vote for Margaret Thatcher although I would have agreed with some curbs being placed on the Unions especially on the issue of secondary picketing.

I also would have agreed with her selling off Council housing but with the original plan that if they were sold,other housing was built to make up that loss.
I saw nothing wrong with helping people buy their homes if they wanted to.

We would have parted company at the privatisation programme,which in effect was only done to help massage the economical mess they were in and help make things look better.

Overall she at least had conviction and also fought the UKs corner in Europe in my view.Something else I would have admired.

She and her Govt were responsible for the first creation post war of a very large unemployment figure which ruined a lot of futures and lives of people.
A price worth paying it was said by some of the Ministers of the time.
However even she did not, make scapegoats of the unemployed and sick and disabled and reform benefits so cruelly and heartlessly like this lot have done.

She isn't someone I would have admired myself and the sickening almost church like adoration of her at this weeks Conservative conference has me feeling really nauseated.
This is the party that took this paragon of virtue and stabbed her in the back while she was working for the UK in Europe in order to get her thrown out as not only leader of the party but as the elected Prime Minister by the people too.

She was a hard woman no doubt however you knew well in advance where you were with her and what to expect.
This lot come up with more extreme measures,few knew about before and certainly never actually voted for.
That covers just about all their welfare reforms, which actually do likely have the support of the people as to reform being done but not the way this Govt has heartlessly discriminated against those who are the weakest and most vulnerable.

This policy is something I hope again, and feel sure since we now know the measure in this thread is on the table, is that this policy will end up being one of the already massive reserve of nails to be put in this Govts coffin.
If there is any more room for more to even be hammered in that is.

[Glenn.]

How long ago did you gain your licence Glenn?

It was two years ago.

[Kizzy]

Paragon of virtue or war criminal..the jury is still out haha.
I have to say on the subject of housing that the sell off was advised for a more dubious reasoning. Namely the failing of the steel frames in prefabricated post war houses which were also riddled with asbestos.
Who knows what was in the pipeline for the NHS or welfare.

[Livia]

If under 25s aren't employed, why would they not be in some form of training or education? Who would aspire to be on benefits?

[arista]

If under 25s aren't employed, why would they not be in some form of training or education? Who would aspire to be on benefits?


They must be active
Both Labour and Conservative demand that

[joeysteele]

Well they cannot have it all ways, under current rules according to what this Govt has brought in as additional to what Labour did up to 2010.

Anyone unemployed on jobseekers, has to regularly go to the jobcentre, has to prove they are actively looking for work, with the jobcentre having the option of checking the info out too.
If they cannot get a job then having to do some further education means they will have far less time to fulfil the things above as to actively looking for work.

If they go into some education again, then surely that will add to the Govts welfare bill, with at least part or all the costs of the courses having to be met.
Also if unemployed there must also surely be the likelihood of claiming of some or all exepenses.

Get the jobs created, then penalise people who will not take a job, stop companies reducing workers hours by 1 or 2 a week to pay less but keeping them in work.
Create real jobs, full time jobs, not part time jobs as is the case now.
That is the duty of Govt, then when you have the list of vacancies far more in proportion to those unemployed,then you can start to dicate like this. not before.

[arista]

"Create real jobs, full time jobs, not part time jobs as is the case now.
That is the duty of Govt,"


Yes when possible Labour or Conservative will.


Best to start their own Company
And Stick at it.


But the fecking Slackers
they are Bad for the British Tax payers

[joeysteele]

"Create real jobs, full time jobs, not part time jobs as is the case now.
That is the duty of Govt,"


Yes when possible Labour or Conservative will.


Best to start their own Company
And Stick at it.


But the fecking Slackers
they are Bad for the British Tax payers

By the same token, those who are seeking work will then likely be in work if a Govt gets that part of the problem sorted.

Only then after that is sorted, then penalise and dictate to those who remain out of work despite 'full time' positions being available.

[arista]

By the same token, those who are seeking work will then likely be in work if a Govt gets that part of the problem sorted.

Only then after that is sorted, then penalise and dictate to those who remain out of work despite 'full time' positions being available.



Joey the Young ask for too much.
They never fought in our Wars or Nothing


Full time was in the better years
You have to be High Up for that
So climb the Ladders

[user104658]

Best to start their own Company
And Stick at it.

Ahh yes I've heard this ridiculous suggestion before. Starting a company costs money. A lot of money. What are jobseekers supposed to start a company with; loose change and dust?

[joeysteele]

Joey the Young ask for too much.
They never fought in our Wars or Nothing


Full time was in the better years
You have to be High Up for that
So climb the Ladders

That's a good point arista but full time jobs have to be the standard for dealing with the welfare system and so many on it.

Part time jobs do not alter that to a great degree, allowing more and more part time jobs means more and more people will still need to claim benefits, if they stop the benefits or part of them for those in part time work then you create even more problems.

The question is for any Govt, how do they really get people off benefits and into work,those who really are able to work anyway.
Create and encourage business to create 'full time' jobs,not part time ones.
That is the main start.
Then you can guide people into those full time jobs, however no one who is unemployed should be being penalised when you have such an unemployment figure as we have now and something like at best only a third of vacancies to the number that are unemployed.

If this Govt, spent as much time looking at creating the environment for the full time jobs needed and stopped attacking people for not being able to get a job because there are none to get.
Maybe then they would find they would have more success rather than just waiting for companies to come up with temporary jobs or reduce the hours of workers alrwady employed to take on something like 5 more people likely at best, which has happened at my local supermarket.

The staff there have apparantly had 2 hours taken off their working week, 3 new staff have been taken on since that was done.
Leaving 3 people better off but all that workforce at least now £18 worse off every week.
This Govt is not creating real jobs, they are seeing an increase on a scale never seen before in part time jobs,part time jobs that hardly benefits anyone at all.

I am grateful I am fortunate to still be able to choose my career and have some security but I do know of so many people, even those who have been to Uni who really are struggling and nothing this Govt is doing is any help at all, in fact this Govt is more of a hindrance to success.
All it can do is hammer those unemployed and on benefits and really the blame doesn't lie with those people it lies with govt; (and in particular this Govt's), inadequate policies.

David Cameron was on about a land of opportunity as to the UK in his speech, well from all I have observed, there seemed to far more opportunity over the previous 10 years of Govt. than there has been during this last 3+ years of this Govt.
This lot have stifled opportunity not nurtured it,in my opinion.

[smeagol]

another plan by cameron to kill of the poor and the future of the country and fill his rich mates pockets , does it not realize most people dont have rich parents and memories of skiing in the alps .
spend billions on war and giving money to other countries then to get it back attack the poor in your own country. the guy is demented.

benefits are crucial as a hand up ,thousans of people dont have families to support them lots of people struggle on their own. take away help will just increase the suicide numbers in that age group.