[user104658]

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 ).

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 )... 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.