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...

Why just pick on the under 25's? I know an old lady who never worked, scrounged off benefits as a single parent for decades and didnt work when her kids left home then at 60 went straight onto pension tax credit and housing benefit.
Well? Or is it just young people who get starved and no mitigating circumstances allowed eh?

Even without the practical and emotional aspects, there are almost 1000000 people aged 16-24 who are currently unemployed. Putting a million people on workfare removes a million jobs from the real economy. A million jobs that could be filled by taxpayers but instead will be funded by taxpayers while poundland gets free labour.

One final point.

What would you say to a 16 year old who came to you distraught, asking where they were meant to go if the benefits were stopped...

They said I should just go back home, do people not think if that was an option I would, do people not think that I dont want to live how I am and if I had other choices I wouldn't be.

Mum and Dad both dead, absolutely NO other family...

I didn't say that I agreed with policy, or that it is fair, i don't (as I don't agree with many Tory policies), just that people seem to be saying that under 25's will get no money at all regardless, which is not true.

In the previous post with 4 examples of different circumstances, from the way I read the article it would suggest that 3 out of 4 of those people would still get JSA and HB as they are in education or training. .

Why just pick on the under 25's? I know an old lady........

Because the conservatives rely on the senior vote who are reliable voters, and they will never jeopardise that.

afromom
There are people who have said categorically that they dont think people under 25 should get any thing as they have not put anything in.
They are the posters I would personally be interested to hear what they would propose in the above circumstances, for what they say they agree with.
Also what they think the other costs would be to other services.

There are a few points i want to make.

1. The views on this site do not represent ,80-90% of the population .

1. The "TORIES" are not evil, probably wrong with many policies. I dont think they wake up thinking lets ruin someones life because its fun.

Now to some sensible points.
I agree 25 is a bit old, especially if some one has been paying NI and tax
for 9 years and is in a potential difficult situation. There needs to be slack
in the system so that if there are some tragic situations like what have
been described the required benefits will still be paid.

However i do believe the benefits system should take account of how much one person/family has paid in, has to how much they should be allowed to take out. The system should be based on contributions. l

I do agree with many that Cameron/Osborne have probably never met a poor person though. That is why they say the things they do.
They are Marie Antonniette.

The problem is the alternative CLEGG/ MILLIBAND, is enough to advise all young graduates to pack their bags just like the 1970s.

Kukeslala. Like labour rely on the public sector and would never jeopardise that.

soul, I have to disagree with you there...the Tories ARE evil.

Ah ok kukesala I was referring to the initial post linked to the announcement from govt, I definitely do not think there should be nothing available for under 25s, regardless of whether they have paid in or not. But I do think people should do something for their benefit.

Of course the benefits system should not take account of how much someone has paid in. That is so unfair.

The rich man who has been paying tax in a higher tax bracket would get more benefits than the bloke who works at the local tip, or the single mum who is a carer to her disabled child, or the 16yo who is orphaned and has no home, or the person who is too ill to work? Give over!

The rich would win again, wouldn't they?

I wonder if there should be two levels - those who have never paid a contribution, and those who have paid 26 weeks in or something. This isn't that dissimilar to what happened before, and also similar to the old arrangements for pensions.

Soul, last year I dh lost his respite care due to cuts. This year we lost the OT budget, due to cuts,which means no stair lifts or extra grab rails. We also had to appeal dh's dal because somehow he could miraculously walk again. We,ve lost his nurse too. If we were on benefits they would require dh to appear at the job centre daily fron next April. That is evil.

Six months workfare as fry cook for 18 to 24 yr old.

twitpic.com/dfsagj

Six months worfare as catering assistant for 18 to 24 yr old.
twitpic.com/dfs5oo

Afromom but that would have been impossible for me with a 1 year old, 4 years to go until he started school. When I did start working, he was at nursery and I was lucky to have a sympathetic employer who was happy to put me on the earlier finishing shifts which minimised my childcare costs. For a 20 hour working week, averaging around £120 per week, I was paying out £60 in childcare and that's when I was lucky with the times, when a different person started to do the rota who thought it was unfair that I got the early shifts because she preferred leaving early to getting up late, I was paying out more like £84. Luckily I got tax credits and housing benefit, because who the fuck can live on £46-60 per week? I was spending about that on food!

Yes maybe I shouldn't have got pregnant in the first place, but I fully believed my ex when he said he would always be there for me and support us.

24 month contracts for things (everything, it seems) are brutal too - when DP moved in with me we bought the superfast Virgin internet, choosing to go without other luxuries to afford it, but when our situation changed drastically a year in they didn't want to know, refused to even lower it to a lower tariff. I literally could not afford it, and ended up not paying it at all, getting into debt. Helpful! But when you're desperate and young, debt seems preferable to starving now. I predict that if this comes in then under-25s will end up taking out a lot of credit which will cripple them in later life.

why 25 though?
have they just plucked this figure from the air?
it mkes no sense
do you suddenly become responsible on your 25th birthday?
are they going to raise the age you can join the army and become cannon fodder to 25 too?
I thought age discrimination was illegal under the Equality Act 2010?
and the tories are evil, whoever said upthread that they are not, well, you are wrong

I agree Soul2000. I don't think they do it for fun or to purposefully ruin lives.

I think they have absolutely no idea what it is like to go to bed hungry because you can afford to feed your child but not yourself. I think they have no understanding of the utterly fucked up and chaotic lives some people lead and retain some victorian notion of the poor being poor through some fault of their own.

I think they see the world through their nice, calm, clean, middle class lens and assume that everybody has the same resources as them. I expect it's inconceivable to them that somebody's parents couldn't afford to support them to the age of 25 if they needed to. They have no idea what it's like to grow up on an estate where nobody has worked for the last 3 generations or to be a young girl who is pressured into pregnancy by a man who is older than her and promises the world but fails to deliver.

Local MPs could help but not all of them do. I remember one of ours came to visit the children's centre on an election drive and was moved to tears by the tale of a woman who was racially abused while walking with her mixed-race grandson. If he had been more involved and got to know other people they could have told stories which would turn your hair white, but they were suspicious of him and didn't want to approach him with their sob stories. Why should they? When have politicians ever done anything for them?

I find them abhorrent because they don't even try to see a different perspective, but they are not evil.

I have just had the opportunity of hearing "Shiny Dave" make his speech about this.

It is still possible apparently to leave school at 16, sign in the dole, get a flat and have housing benefit.

Clearly he has never had to try doing this...getting a flat on housing benefit. It isn't easy getting ANY kind of property on housing benefit except the worst kind of place. In my area the most the 16 year old would get is a shared house and owing by the regularity with which the landlord advertises the turnover is high. This makes me suspect the condition of the properties he owns.

I do agree that we need to offer more but this will take funding and I didn't hear Shiny Dave mention anything about supportive infrastructure.

I do think the way benefits are given needs to be reviewed. I do think it's wrong that young girls are purposefully thrown out of family homes in some circumstances so they get local authority housing, etc. I know that happens; I have worked with some of the families - alongside them - not with them in the support sense.

I do think these views/policies are based on the worst sorts of abuse of the system and that there needs to be a full review but it has to be on a case by case basis.

Also, I think there needs to be a re-emphasising of family and more support for families rather than the way hey anything goes, no need to even try to make sound decisions but here's some money anyway.

I don't want to see young people suffer abuse in poor homes or suffer when they really have no-one but neither do I want to fund a system which supports a minority to manipulate it.

It's really difficult for me to relate to because I have always had somewhere to go and my children (older teenagers now) know that they will always have a home and will always be cared for whatever happens to them and whatever they do.

Will read the thread in full later - no time now - because I have learned about things I didn't know existed from Mnet.

The funny thing is Jake, it isn't actually possible to sign on the dole at 16 anymore. They have to stay in education or training until 17! So once again the silly fucker hasn't got a clue what he is on about!

This plan needs two things to make it work:

1. Free tuition for all kinds of further and higher education, as well as vocational training, along with student loans and grants for all students that can actually cover the cost of living. Y'know, like the Cabinet all had.

1. Guaranteed jobs for 16-25 year olds that pay at least minimum wage. Y'know, like the future jobs fund that Labour brought in, which the Tories ditched as soon as they came into power.

Simples.

I do think some mumsnetters are being naieve. I know there are some difficult stories re. vulnerable young people (and i speak from experience, not an ivory tower), but unfortunately the law of unintended consequences has meant alot of people have used this and exploited the system all their lives - "on the social" from cradle to grave and bringing up a whole new generation who expect nothing else. Of all people, healthy young people should be the most economically active or in training, education.