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?

@FrangipaniBlue what you and a lot of people make the mistake of not realising most people with degrees in the UK do not work in their first degree area.

The lawyers I personally know do not have an undergraduate degree in law. They have it in a variety of subjects.

Only a few of the teachers I know have a first degree where education was a part of it so they could go straight into teaching.

I know, work with and have met lots of people with engineering degrees. Only a few of them have ended up working in their engineering degree area for more than 20+ years. (Most people that are called "engineer" in this country are technicians.) They are the group of people who have ended up in a wide variety of professions though in recent decades most have been drawn to the City

Most people tend to get postgraduate and professional qualifications in the area they end up working in.

Why does this only apply to young people?

And I agree with a pp, a country as rich as the UK CAN pay for high quality health and education for all. I agree with Blue that there is a lot wrong with the NHS and it's not just down to funding.

I don’t particularly see why university should be free I disagree because we need doctors, nurses, teachers, engineers, business people and all the other professionals who contribute to the country and to the economy. You pay it back many times in your taxes, there is no need to saddle young people with massive debt (and it IS debt because it affects affordability for mortgages and stops you saving).

Businesses should pay a living wage so people can afford to rent or buy decent accommodation and if a living wage was paid, benefits and council housing would not be needed except for the most vulnerable. I don't see why the state should subsidise business except in certain circumstances eg encouraging businesses to set up operations in areas of need for whatever reason - my husband's employer was given a subsidy to set up in Belfast for example. If you can't afford a higher wage for someone, your business model is wrong.

Also agree strongly with the fact that the minimum wage should apply from the age of 18. You are doing the same work, your birth date shouldn't' come into it.

@LakieLady absolutely, there are massive associated costs to having a third of households living in insecure poor quality accommodation, as well as the £10 billion in cold hard cash that landlords get off the state every year. It's a really inefficient system.

A lot of people who think young people should have less for free (higher education) and less of a safety net (free at the point of use NHS, council housing, benefits) than were available to preceding generations also don't think older generations should have to take responsibility for paying for their own elderly care by selling their assets. "Why should I?" is the usual eloquent argument always coupled with a feeling of entitlement to leave substantial amounts of money to their own descendants (who presumably shouldn't be expected to take responsibility for themselves but are entitled to an inheritance) - neat bit of compartmentalisation...

I agree with him (to an extent- not totalitarianism)

We are a society and society should work together for the benefit of all. Inevitably that means the more vulnerable memebers of society getting more support than, and from, the more capable members. But without this framework where are we? Do you want to live ina. Country without that support?

Think of the young people who are given the subliminal message to look after your own education

Huh? Is this out of context as it makes no sense? What message? Which children are being told they need to take care of their own education?

Does he mean students and having to pay tuition fees?

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

Hmm, well speaking from my perspective.....I had to work part time for many years as a young person due to mental health issues. It was the best thing I ever did, it gave me the time and space to work on those issues, I fortunately lived somewhere cheap (thanks social housing), lived simply with minimum impact on the environment, had access to excellent counselling, therapy and medication (thanks nhs), eventually completed a degree (just before prices for study were hiked to totally unaffordable levels).

I'm now happy, well, strong, have a brilliant job that makes a positive difference in the world, volunteer, help my local community and about to buy my first (very small!) house.

If as a young person I had to struggle through and pay extortionate amounts for private healthcare/medication or education was at the unaffordable rates they are now (so unattainable for me) and feel totally pressurised to work full time just to live a very basic existence I would be dead.

There's a difference between 'young people taking responsibility for themselves', as I clearly did, and the state providing a safety net of free healthcare, affordable education and housing, to allow humans to be human because you never know what turns your life will take.

Personally, I think stuff like housing, healthcare, education and access to basic, nutritional food shouldn't be commodified anyway.

I agree with Corbyn there. I think young people today have it tough. We had free university education, a student grant, the NHS was less stretched and people could actually get unemployment benefit without jumping through hoops.

My relatives bought a house in the late 1980s, a 3 bedroom semi for £30k. She is a teaching assistant, he worked in a factory. They had 2 children and raised them comfortably, they have been mortgage free for years, he is retired in his early 50s and she has just gone part time.

That house is now worth £250k, a young couple doing the same jobs they did would not be able to afford that house now let alone afford 2 children in it. And retiring in their 50s would be out of the question.

That is why things are not fair these days.

Boomers and Gen X had these things readily available/free ..... YABU

I think society as a whole benefits from having a society level approach to education and healthcare rather than a commercial free market approach.

Housing I’m less sure about. IF we go for a commercial model then we need FAR more regulation for the rights of renters and the cost of rent. AND we need to ensure that working people can afford rent!! (Combination of living wage regulation and rent capping).

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

You do know that the state do no such thing for anyone. Homeless shelters are run by charities. Council housing is a brilliant investment for so many reasons (read Marx & Engels The Condition of the English Working Classes or Orwell's The Road to Wigan Pier to see why) as PP have explained. Even in a desperate emergency the British government provides nothing as far as i can see. And did you see the report about the 200,000 social housing build that the Tories promised? Do you know how many were built? You do know there is a serious housing crisis in the UK?

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.

Apart from most European countries do have some form of social housing as do many others worldwide. Britain is actually turning into the exception there.

The NHS needs to be overhauled but the basic premise is correct, or do you want to live in a country where personal bankruptcies are common because of healthcare costs? Education - an educated society is a better (more equal, more happy) society. Study after study shows that. Inequality is the scourge of modern society (see Stieglitz The Price of Inequality for more info on that)

If you object to paying (slightly) higher - or indeed any - taxes what is the actual issue? the fact of having to pay them or the fact that publicly funded projects are often wasteful and inefficient? There are ways to fix that.

I definitely don't want to live in a society where only those born into money and the VERY sharp elbowed get a nice life and everyone else feels ground down.

I think society as a whole benefits from having a society level approach to education and healthcare rather than a commercial free market approach

Isn't that what we have? When did you last pay anything for healthcare and education apart from prescription charges, if you need to pay those?

When did you last pay anything for healthcare and education apart from prescription charges, if you need to pay those?

Tuition fees?

also @GenuineQuestions

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

No. Labour's policies are much more alligned with places like Sweden and Germany. And last time I looked the Germans weren't living in Venezuelan conditions.

PP made a good point: people who are saying young people should be bearing the full costs of everything (housing, education, health) are outraged that they have to sell their house to pay for care. Well a lot of those care-workers are minimum waged young people. Watch out!

Those of you whining and objecting to the idea that the state owes at least some duty of care to the public - do you really think that only those who just happened to be born to wealthy parents are entitled to education, healthcare and housing whenever they need it? Few really wealthy people alive these days 'earned' their wealth, most of them have it because their ancestors sucked up to the right predator, or killed people themselves.
Despite the bullshit peddled by a lot of the rightwing press, Corbyn is more of a social democrat than a Stalinist, and the bulk of his ideas are similar to those in operation in the Scandinavian countries which tend to have happier, more stable societies because there is much less inequallity. A system which allows the already-wealthy to keep on grabbing while others starve is simply unsustainable.

Yes, tuition fees good point! Universities very happy about those though so not sure how far Labour will get trying to abolish them.

Labour's policies are much more alligned with places like Sweden

They fucking well are not! I know we all think Sweden is a good model (and i used to live there and love it) but JCs Labour is nothing like Sweden - if he was campaigning for much higher taxes FOR EVERYONE, plus a charge for using the NHS, then I'd vote Labour!

“Most people tend to get postgraduate and professional qualifications in the area they end up working in.”

@ColaFreezePop I think you make a good point (although you can’t say most people don’t work in their degree area without some evidence to back it up, tbf)

But look at it a different way- isn’t this indicating the higher education system is failing people? Or is it just that you’re misapplying the idea?

Very few degrees qualify you for a career, professional or otherwise. Why is this? The professions are forcing people into post grads and often with good reason ie Medicine. Sometimes it’s less
Clear cut ie accountancy or law.

This isn’t necessarily the fault of the young people is it? Are they getting independent help and assistance in choosing a. Course, with a career in mind? I didn’t.

if he was campaigning for much higher taxes FOR EVERYONE, plus a charge for using the NHS, then I'd vote Labour!

Why? Don't you think the super rich can afford more tax?

Conservatives love the idea of meritocracy but hate the idea of a level playing field, which is what policies such as these seek to create. If you only like playing a game where the most privileged win almost every single time, then you aren't a good sportsperson.

And charge for using the NHS? Then it would cease to be free healthcare and the sick would pay more than the well. Very sick people can find it harder to keep working....

Councils have insufficient resources to use their existing powers, @GenuineQuestions.

Until they have enough funding to employ sufficient staff to take rigorous enforcement action in disrepair cases, there's precious little point in increasing their powers. I'd support legalising witholding rent, but only if the unpaid rent was held in some sort of scheme, so that it could be handed over to the landlord if the landlord was subsequently found not to be at fault.

It’s in the states interest to have a healthy (saving NHS long term) and educated (employable) public.