To think that a blanket ban on benefits for under 25s

[pointythings]

Is not only blatantly unfair but also unworkable?

Under a future Tory government, you can leave school at 18, work, lose your job at 23 and be forced straight onto workfare, because you are not eligible for benefits - never mind that you've worked and paid in!

And isn't it blatant age discrimination? Every time I think the Conservatices can't sink any lower, they do...

[pointythings]

I think there is a serious element to mildred's post in that the current party political and electoral system isn't working. We need a proper multi party democracy, and there would be a place for common sense left of centre policies like BoffinMum's.

[BoffinMum]

Exactly.
Would the MN party go down well in the next election, do you think?

[Threalamandaclarke]

Boffin marvellous post.

[Mumfortoddler]

I manage a homeless youth charity and all I can say is this is blatantly the most ridiculous policy, people can marry, own a house, have a job by the age of eighteen, have kids, but then if they even have one tiny break employment we're expecting them to move home?' Get a grip Cameron, this is ridiculous.

My charity spends ages trying to convince mums and dads to take their kids back when their sixteen, let alone eighteen or older. Half the time it not even possible- take today- we had a girl in whose been beaten by her parents since the age of 11, thank god for benefits we can move her out and she can continue her education.

[Mumfortoddler]

P.S. this is one of many hundreds of examples... !!

[Darkesteyes]

mum i think what you do is fantastic

Here is a poster i would love to see up in bus shelters everywhere.

twitpic.com/dfwvgl

[youretoastmildred]

apart from anything else it is blatantly discriminatory. In employment law you can no longer discriminate by age, although that law came in in about 2006 I think, later than some other anti-discrimination legislation, some employers have failed to internalise it. anyway in law you can't say "I want a seasoned mature person for this job" so why can you apply benefits in this way?

I honestly wish someone other than the shower of career-smarmers we have now would stand. I know everyone has real lives to be getting on with but I am so tired of hearing blatant shite from people who have never had to cope with real jobs and real life.

[mistyshouse]

yeah its crazy

people can get married at 16, leave home, leave school, drive at 17, buy a house at 18, vote at 18 etc etc they are classed as ADULTS and its perfectly acceptable for under 25's to have children and many do, so why the hell are the government infantilising them?

and what about young people in situations where they are in abusive homes?? are they just meant to stay there?

nuts :/

[JazzAnnNonMouse]

It's age discrimination.

[JazzAnnNonMouse]

Fucking ridiculous!!
I'm 22, married 2 kids, own our house

Are they honestly saying if we needed help/ benefits we wouldn't be eligible or are less deserving due to our age???

Cunts.

Btw I vote.

[youretoastmildred]

mistyshouse, right, and pay TAX at 18

These people are incredible. They take everything away and then complain you haven't got anything.

It's like

"give me that bottle of wine I am having a party"
later, you knock on the door
"hello are you having a party? Can I come in?"
"have you got a bottle of wine?"
"no, I gave it to - "
"fuck off then you can't come in"

[VoiceofRaisin]

Actually you pay tax from 1 day old if you have taxable income greater than the personal allowance.

mumfortoddler I couldn't agree more. Not everyone has ideal parents. Not all ideal parents can afford to support adult children. Why on earth should under 25's be treated differently from other adults?

[mistyshouse]

i have never voted - to my shame.

i was 29 when this shower of twats came in

but i sure as hell WILL be voting next time, and i will be making sure DH votes as well as i don't think he ever has either

and i am sure i am not the only person in a similar age group (say 25 - 35) who has never voted until now, but i am pretty sure that many 10000s of us will be using our vote come 2015 after all the shit of the last few years

[pumpkinsweetie]

I agree misty we must all vote or this is set to get worse!
What age range will he target next, babies??

I voted, but not many people i know did

[mistyshouse]

i think younger people are now so much more politically aware than in the last few years, so i do think the 18 - 40's will be out to vote in their droves - because we are the age group who are being royally screwed over. in my case, mumsnet has a lot to answer for, if i wasn;t on here i wouldn't know about half the stuff going on in the political world. and quite honestly would probably be believing the tabloid propaganda about scroungers etc. mumsnet has definitely broadened my mind. some of the shit i hear my friends of similar age spout is unbelievable (DM type stuff)

but i do think the tide will turn, its got to

the country can't get any worse, surely?? :(

[marriedinwhiteisbackz]

The country was handed economic security in 1997. Blair and Brown overspent, were feckless and destoyed that security. It hjas been painful for five years because the coalition has been mopping up the almighty mess they made. And some people want them back. Please look at the facts.

[LondonMan]

This reminds me of a similarly apoplectic anti-benefits-changes thread, where after hundreds of posts of outrage over some proposed change, someone pointed out that what people were outraged about hadn't actually been proposed, and posted a link proving it. And was completely ignored, as the thread raged on.

I believe there is no proposal to end all benefit for under-25s. The proposal is to end benefits if they refusing to do workfare or training. I believe no-one willing to co-operate will lose any money.

(I have paid hardly any attention to the news this week, barely skimmed the Independent article linked to previously, so may have posted bollocks in the previous paragraph. If you think I have, provide a link that proves it. This thread could use more facts and less emotion.)

[MelanieCheeks]

I find it astonishing that people dont vote!

[CreatureRetorts]

I'm opposed to workfare - fucking ridiculous.

And married I suggest you look at the facts. Have you forgotten the global banking crisis? And the amount of money being and was being pumped into the banking sector to prop it up. Labour had to sort out the NHS (remember the stories of people dying in corridors under the Tories) and the railways (remember british rail) and the poor outlook for money. So the Tories did have not have a wonderful legacy - if they did, ask yourself why was there such a landslide in 1997? Because voters just fancied a change?

[CreatureRetorts]

*many not money

[Dawndonnaagain]

The facts appear to demonstrate that the Tories are borrowing more in five years than the last government did in seventeen years.

[pointythings]

Ah yes, the enormous power of Labour to bring the UK to ruin by causing the global banking crisis. It's amazing they haven't taken over the entire world, given the amount of power they clearly have.

Labour did not do enough to rein in the behaviour of the banks, and that is a fact. However, David Cameron is on the record in Hansard in the early 2000s calling for more deregulation of the financial sector.

Labour did not do everything right. The Iraq war is probably the most glaring example, ID cards were also very bad indeed. However, literacy rates in primary schools went up under Labour, waiting lists went down under Labour and child poverty dropped too. The 'it's all Labour's fault' defence is wearing pretty damned thin after 3.5 years.

[HorryIsUpduffed]

Labour can't disclaim responsibility for the crash and blame the coalition for the non-recovery in the same breath, though.

[pointythings]

They can't, because they would have had to cut as well, but they did not set themselves a target of eliminating the deficit in one parliament. The Coalition did, and they have never stopped making excuses for failing.