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?

He means that the younger generation should have access to things that the older ones benefited from - state education, a health care system, more council housing, a welfare state to help the ones that need it. These things are disappearing fast.

I'm in favour of more council housing. It was easily available to everyone a few decades ago, now there isn't enough of it and people are being pushed into private rents that they can barely afford. Or there needs to be some sort of rent control as an alternative.

How can you ask us to react to one statement without knowing the context in which it was said and the surrounding words?
I don't do knee jerk responses - because otherwise you just fall back on engrained assumptions to fill in the gaps.

This thread is strange. People are talking about ‘young people shouldn’t expect everything for free’, yet. . .

on pretty much any thread about housing everyone acknowledges there is a housing crisis which affects young people more than most as they are least likely to own their homes

On threads about education people talk about underfunding of schools and talk about how ridiculously high student loans now are

On threads about healthcare it’s acknowledged how underfunded the nhs is

Older people who got student grants, cheap housing and the better days of the nhs telling young people they shouldn’t expect everything for free is one of the most laughable sentiments there is.

Young people should expect to

• work hard at school
• get a fulltime job
• look after their own health (eg eat sensibly, don't smoke, exercise)

In exchange the state should

• provide good quality education
• provide free healthcare
• provide backup for those who cannot work
• ensure that accommodation is available and affordable via some system or another, subsidised where needed

Why shouldn't a "young person" have a say over their education and healthcare.

It depends on the definition of young but at (say) 14 I would expect a young person to be able to seek out contraception on their own.
At 17 I would expect a young person to make the decision about which university to apply too, and bfore that to make subject choices.

What part is not reasonable about his statement? I mean, it is quite generically worded, and I actually agree with the sentiment, but OP clearly reads into it ‘sit on your backside and let the state provide’ while -based on the actual policies underpinning this statement- I would say he means to give opportunities to young people that their elders all had, and that should be possible to provide in the sixth richest economy in the world.

People need to work and earn money to pay for themselves. Corbyn and his band of evil idiots will bankrupt the U.K. (again) if people vote them in.

There are plenty of people who fail to take advantage of the free education available and you just look at the vast number of grossly overweight people who will be a massive burden to the NHS all their lives regardless of how many billions the government throws at it

I don't get what the issue is with this statement. Surely young people do deserve a good education, good healthcare and affordable housing just like other generations have had?
My niece is 18 and just started uni, her loans do not cover all her bills so she has a job as well. She isnt lazy by any means but still when she leaves uni she will have a shit ton of debt. She will then struggle to afford to buy a house of her own. The nhs is on its knees so god knows what healthcare she will receive in the future. Many young people really do feel abandoned by the government.

Lola I like that idea, funding for brightest and match funding in vocational courses.

Education will never fit or serve all so drumming into population that we all need to take responsibility is no bad thing. Even under the most amazing system in the world, some dc will be failed.

YABU What he said is what I expect from a civilised society.

Does anyone else also find it ironic that everyone focusses on how ‘socialist’ JC is, naming him a friend of the Kremlin etc while (1) BJ refuses to publish the Russia report on meddling in the referendum, (2) Dominic Cummings has very dubious links to Russia, and (3) it is the Conservative Party getting most money from Russia.

The NHS is not run well.
It's tied into strange contracts where it has to buy higher price stuff. Teeny example but using branded weet abix on ward?

Even I can't afford to buy branded wheat abix!
The whole structure and ethos and mentality needs looking at.

@leckford and people earning minimum wage should have the same rights to affordable housing as everyone else. Somebody has to do those minimum wage jobs, not everyone can be a high earner.

When people say that others need to earn money and pay for themselves it makes me wonder if they have tried to pay private rent on a minimum wage job or as a single parent etc. None of labour's policies are "no one should work and provide for themselves" just people should be able to access help when it is needed and shouldn't have to be relying on charities to fund the gap.

Personally I don't think university should be for everyone, but I do think it should be subsidised for the brightest

It would mostly just be middle class children who are subsidised then due to the effect poverty and all that comes with it has on the educational outcomes of young people.

TeenPlusTwenties Absolutely
From UN Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

And since children start education between 5 and 7, at what age do you suggest they start "taking responsibility" for it?

@Chattybum, it wouldn't make sense for councils to charge unaffordable rent. Because if they did, they'd have to evict people for non payment who would then either become homeless and economically inactive (policywise this would be a disaster) OR they'd be under a duty to house them, and it would go around like some mad circle.

Whereas now if people can't afford their rent we just give money to their landlords. Public funds going to landlords! It's like a bent deranged version of social housing.

*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.*

Thank fuck for this, I sometimes think that hardly anyone gets this.

There's a very sound business case for social housing, even before you take into account the social costs of private renting: people often in substandard housing that impacts their health, families having the upheaval of moving at the whim of a landlord and consequent disrupted education, financial harfdship because of high rents, lack of cohesion in communities because people often can't stay in one area for long.

It's a no-brainer for me.

Coch, corybn is living and breathing socialism. It's his policies, wishes, pp mentioned venuzuala comment, he and his deputy are aligned with chairman mao stalin supporters , macdonnel even clutched the little red book in Parliament! Imagine! Jrm walking into parliament with mein kampf??

But I'm supposed to be worried about a report on someone whose not even in governments links to Russia 20 years ago?

The opposite of the NHS is not the American health system. Also, alternatives to the NHS are not limited to the American heath care system!

True, but the current government isn't interested in European-style alternatives.

I do think it's unfair that under 25s get legally paid less for the same work... don't understand that logic

Lakie

Sub standard housing is one massive issue the country must tackle. The damp, no heating, tenants should have more rights to withhold rent if the ll exceeds timely repairs, has damp.

Council have no teety, there is no incentive to ll to make houses of good standard except their own moral compass. The ll I have witness have zero moral compass at all.

I'll bite. I'm not a Labour voter.

Young people have been absolutely shafted. If they want to get an education beyond 18 they have to pay thousands for it, unlike previous generations that got it cheaper (my tuition fees were about £1k a year) or free.

If they want vocational training instead then they can get paid £3.90 an hour to do an apprenticeship and most of those result in fairly meaningless qualifications and at the end the employer can sack them off and get another apprentice for another £3.90 per hour.

They're not entitled to a full minimum wage rate until they're fucking 25 which is a national disgrace. How many of you could support yourselves on £7.70 per hour.

Until very recently under 25s couldn't claim housing benefit. There are still limits to how much other benefits they can claim compared to over 25s. So if a 24 year old finds themselves redundant and has a family to support, well, fuck them.

Pretty sure that was what Corbyn was referring to. Like I said, I'm not a Labour voter, but I can see quite clearly how unbalanced this country is in the way we treat our young people.