Young people should take responsibility for themselves, not the state?

[Chattybum]

Quote from Jeremy Corbyn - "Think of the young people who are given the subliminal message to look after your own education and look after your own health forget about council housing, make your own way in the world. It’s depressing, it’s unnecessary and it’s all part of the contraction of the public realm and the public state."

I'm not a fan of JC and this statement perfectly sums up why. AIBU to ask why people like this idea without this turning into a bun fight?

They have an undisputed right to healthcare and education. It's a statement which deliberately puts a reasonable message first but follows up with a message that takes it too far. It is wrong to suggest to young people, who should be starting out in life full of ambitions, energy and dreams, that they will be looked after with housing or that they will not have to "make their own way", because this will stop them growing into the job of looking after themselves and realising those ambitions. Life does not look kindly on people who are taught to expect that they will be looked after.

Very well said positivepixie.

Presumably those who think the state shouldn't be responsible for education etc are also happy for no maternity oay/ leave, all childcare to be at market rates - no free hours etc. Because those are choices, being young isn't.

The statement was really in reference to larger issues

• education: have not U.K. state schools been cut repeatedly so that the £/student is now below 2008 levels? This means “young people” aged 5 to 18 are not getting a good education.
• education: does not the U.K. have the highest tuition fees in all Europe and a massive public student debt write off due in the billions in next 20yrs? This will affect there even being universities in near future.

-health: direct reference to NHS being sold off to US postBrexit. And the US system is the opposite of the NHS although there are other systems like French one they’re not even being discussed. -council housing: I watched a documentary about population levels and the reduction in council housing stock. Wait lists in some areas in the U.K. exceed ten years. I think his comment was in reference to it not even being there for those who need it.

BlueGinger you are aware that council tenants pay rent too aren't you? Why should young people aspire to paying rent to a private landlord - why do you think this is preferable to a system whereby the state provides good quality affordable housing (which much private rental housing isn't) at a fair price?

I think the statement he made on how venezuala is to be admired should be more concerning

Healthcare - absolutely YES should be provided by the state, no arguments from me there.

Education - should be provided by the state up to 18 but after that I believe it depends on the reason for you wanting to do further education. If it's because you need a degree for your chosen career and that career adds something back to society (eh doctor, dentist, teacher, lawyer etc etc) then as another PP said there should be help available.

But if you want to do a degree in some made up doss off subject just because you either a) don't know what you want to do or b) just don't fancy being an adult yet then no, it shouldn't be funded. Get a job. I do think however the state should do more to help with this eg apprenticeships and similar incentives like improving the minimum wage (which is shocking).

Housing - there should be no expectation that this will be provided by the state, absolutely not. Social housing should be there for those who find themselves in an unfortunate position and need it - elderly, disabled, homeless, parents who find themselves single, ex-veterans etc etc.

A lot of people seem to be wildly misinterpreting part of the OP's quote relating to housing - nowhere in Labour's manifesto does it say anyone will be "given" free housing. There is currently not enough affordable housing available to those on low incomes (including people in full-time work) and much private rental accommodation is poorly maintained, overpriced and insecure. I really can't fathom why people think his is acceptable, desirable even.

I absolutely don’t think the state should provide housing besides as a complete emergency.

It’s a very odd UK thing to expect it to. I don’t think many other countries do. Certainly not where I’m from.

Why shouldn’t you pay rent to a private landlord?

Schools should be better funded, but again that won’t solve the fundamental problem which I think is that 25% of pupils have SEN. All the money in the world is not going to help a teacher teach 30 kids when 5 or 6 of them have significant problems.

Obviously I’m not a socialist and I truly don’t understand why so many people in the UK are.

What are the made up doss off subjects please?

'Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.’

Very much this!!!

Why shouldn’t people expect decent housing at an affordable price? Nobody is suggesting young people should be given a council house and allowed to sit on their arse for the next 50 years, but we do have a shortage of decent, affordable housing and that needs to be addressed.

Plus council tenants do pay rent, they’re not free houses.

Shame the current government didn’t get round to sorting out all of those affordable houses they promised...

There is a difference between the state offering education and a healthcare system and taking some responsibility to not abuse it.

I think it is totally reasonable to expect young people to learn that although they are entitled to an education by the state, they should respect it and make the best of it, rather than seeing it as something imposed on them that is a waste of their time.

Similarly with healthcare, if younger people learn that it is there for when they are ill, but that it is their responsibility primarily to do what supports a healthy lifestyle to reduce the need of it, the NHS might survive.

I think he is the one who is taking the notion of responsibility out of context, but then it's all part of the campaign, people love to hear that others are responsible for them and can then blame the system rather than themselves when things go pear shape.

I like the idea of an inclusive society and I’m happy to pay a contribution in tax for it as long as everyone else does, too.

This with bells on, when people earning over £100k a year and large companies stop tax avoidance for greed reasons the country will be a better place, we should take pride in contributing to society

A lot of people seem to be wildly misinterpreting part of the OP's quote relating to housing - nowhere in Labour's manifesto does it say anyone will be "given" free housing. There is currently not enough affordable housing available to those on low incomes (including people in full-time work) and much private rental accommodation is poorly maintained, overpriced and insecure. I really can't fathom why people think his is acceptable, desirable even.

Absolutely! It’s almost as if they think it’s more morally acceptable to live in a slum than to live in a council house.

They shouldn't expect everything on a plate for them

However, there's quite a bit of ladder pulling up going on in the last decade where people who had a lot more support, the welfare state, free university or grants and so on now look back and say "I worked hard to get here so they should too", whilst conveniently ignoring the support they had. It's not everyone but it does seem to dominate.

Personally I don't think university should be for everyone, but I do think it should be subsidised for the brightest and then equal funding should go into bringing back polytechnic colleges that offer brilliant vocational courses.

I know heaven forbid that today's generation should actually benefit from the same things previous generations have.

That was my first thought. Apparently though that makes them all scroungers.

Why would you not like the idea of young people being properly educated and staying healthy, even when their parents can't afford to pay for private education and health care?

@CactusAndCacti Other than the boomers which generations are you referring to?

Council housing actually makes economic sense, more so than private renting. A council buys a house, charges rent on it forever, in
20 years the cost is paid off but they get to charge rent forever after that - free money! - happy days.

As opposed to: a private individual buys a house, charges whatever the fuck they like to a tenant, doesn't have to carry out repairs, tenant although working claims housing benefit as landlord is charging what the fuck they like, state pays housing benefit forever, not so happy days.

Similarly, it's in the state's interest that its citizens are educated and healthy and not going bankrupt to be either of these things.

I know it's early, but I still can't understand why this statement sums up your dislike for JC. I've read the thread twice, and still can't see your response to this question.

CactusAndCacti exactly. It's amazing how many people who insist that younger generations should "stand on their own two feet" didn't do so themselves, and benefitted from free university, even universal grants and the expectation they'd sign on and get unemployment benefits in the holidays (yes, this did used to be allowed and expected), and have had a cradle to grave NHS experience and state pension from 60 or 65, which they don't think anyone else deserves...

Chattybum even boomer's children had free higher education and housing which could be bought on one wage.

No, young people shouldn't be led to think that the state will provide for them unconditionally or that living a life dependent on the state is a lifestyle choice. Equally though, in a civilised society the state should take care of the young, the unfortunate, the disadvantaged and the weak. It shouldn't be an every man for himself/dog eat dog, world.

Without free access to education then young people are unlikely to find success beyond that that of which their parents did before them. Is that really what we want? The education system is already providing a two tier system which the Tory government has managed to create, reversing the progress which had been made in previous years. Socialism has it's faults, but do we really want the alternative?

@Goodnightseamer I take your point and my question would be, if private rent was abolished what would stop councils increasing rent for perfectly legitimate reasons such as to fund the building of more houses for example, and who would set the amount. What would happen if the amount became unaffordable to you? Genuine question.