Ed Miliband to cut out of work benefits for under 21s
 

I know it's seen as a bad move but is it?.... what's the alternative workfare?


''I relish the next 10 months, I relish the opportunity to fight for my vision for the country."

He made the remarks after setting out Labour's first plans for cuts to the welfare system, ending out-of-work benefits for 18-to-21-year-olds and replacing them with a less costly means-tested payment dependent on training''


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...-party-attacks

Yes he is saying you get A levels
or do whatever work they give you

Or Loose your Money.


Complex and Not like Labour

Who is saying? I can't understand your point from two sentences arista.. expand a bit please.

It was on the Daily Politics yesterday
saying that any young person must do Education to A level standard
or Do Work they give them (like clearing up public places)

If they do not
their Money will be stopped

It's like that now, you have to be in education or vocational training till 18, so that's being extended to 21?

So its a Conservative Remix

How is it? ...

With workfare you get to work for your benefits ...taking benefits as well as a job from someone who would other be in employment, to me that's lose lose.
There is NO guaranteed job at the end of it as there are not enough employers signed up to support that goal.

With this proposal by 21 you are actually equipt with the necessary academic or vocational qualifications to get a job, it's means tested so it's not like they get nothing.

I would prefer a slightly different approach to this rather than the 'stressing' of the loss of benefits tone.I like 'most' of what I have heard as to this so far but 'not all of it'.

I feel it is a good thing for those who are really struggling to find work to be given the opportunity to work by ensuring if there is a job available then they do it.
It is also a good thing as to this policiy that it doesn't have to end there and that further education or training for skills can also be put into place.

It needs simplifying and more clarity but overall I support it as in fact I have supported the present govts. attempts to get this age grouping into work, however they have not gone far enough and don't do more of what is needed.
This policy goes some way to starting to address the shortfalls of the presnt govts.policy and so is welcome for that at least.

It still, even under the Labour proposals,needs a bit more sensitivity and compassion as to the tone of presenting the policy,to make sure the media are not able to totally distort it.

If it's truly means tested then I don't think it's a problem - I personally think that if everything else is being "extended" (later retirement, mandatory education until 18 rather than 16, etc.) then it's not a stretch to expect parents to be prepared to support their children, if necessary, up to the age of 21. I'm certainly more than happy to have my girls live at home until that age (or older, if they want! They can stay forever :joker: ).

However, not all 18+ year olds are lucky enough to have supportive or even semi-decent parents (or in some cases, any parents at all) and I think there need to be safeguards in place for young people in those circumstances.

Also, if parents from lower income working families are to be expected to support their offspring up until the age of 21 then, by necessity, in-work support for families (child benefit, child tax credits) also need to continue until that ages, if there's still offspring living at home.

Partially, though, it sounds a little bit like the same old qualifications "head in sand" problem that we've been seeing for a decade now. Education / training is not a "cure all"... it doesn't guarantee employment. Far from it. Many young people who are unemployed or underemployed have degrees... good ones, from good Universities... and are still struggling to find employment. Capable, intelligent, motivated, educated/trained or both, young people - especially away from the major cities - are still often struggling to find employment so there are clearly much bigger problems to be tackled. It's not all down to a lack of education or skills.

My current career path doesn't require (or utilize) a fraction of my level of education (AAAABB Scottish Highers, AA Advanced Highers, plus a degree, not to blow my own trumpet :p )... most of it was "a waste of time" in terms of employment. Although I am employed, I could be where I am now if I'd started straight out of school at 18 with NO Highers. Not that I agree with the sentiment that higher education is "a waste of time" unless it leads to employment prospects... I might be earning the same as I am now had I not gone, but I'd be there as an uneducated, less well-rounded, and probably still-blinkered individual. God knows, most of my workmates are. Education is not only about and should NEVER be only about employment.

However, generally the govt. do think along those lines... so I'm not really sure why they're back to pushing "education education education". I don't think it actually achieves what they want it to achieve. Quite the opposite, really... the more educated our youth become, the LESS willing they will be to spend their lives as a soulless cog in our hideous capitalist economy. If the government knows what's good for them, they'll keep the kids out of education, and under control.

Like in free schools full of 'teachers' with 3 NVQs? :laugh:
Then if they do get rowdy blast them with a water cannon ...

get them out!!!!

Rachel Reeves, the shadow work and pensions secretary, insisted in an interview with the Today programme on Thursday morning that the policy was not punitive but was designed to get people the skills they needed to secure a job.

She said: "The youth allowance that will replace JSA [jobseeker's allowance] will be paid at £57 a week, which is the same as young person's JSA but it will be means tested on parental income. It is tapered off between £20,000 and £42,000.

"It is treating people in further education in the same way as we treat people in higher education. It is not saying all young people are required to go back and get this training; it is if people don't have level 3 qualifications – the equivalent of an A-level."

The removal of JSA for those with skills below level 3 would affect seven out of 10 of the 18-to-21-year-olds currently claiming JSA, and initially save £65m

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...ng-ed-miliband