vote Boris

[eloise0]

Boris has made london a much cleaner place, he cares about London, and doesn't waste money on stupid projects.
He's got my vote.

Its not a case of feeling entitled to be paid to go to school.
Its a case of being enabled to carry on with further edcuation.

What is it that requires British children to need to be paid to carry on with education that doesn't affect children in any other country in the world, and also didn't affect children prior to Labour introducing the EMA?

The need for food, clothing, money for books and so on do affect children and young people in other countries. That's why ds's school raised funds for Mary's Meals. Kids in the UK may not be in the same dire straights as the poverty-stricken in Malawi but there are plenty of families who struggle. EMA made a difference for those families, making it possible for young people to say on in education post-16. Of course, now the economy's fucked there would be no ruddy jobs for them anyway...

The OECD called on the government to keep the EMA - is that international enough for you?

Don't kids need food and clothing prior to the age of 16?
Why does it suddenly become an issue at that age? It should become easier at that age as kids are old enough to work and should be helping out more around the house as well.

EMA was the classic "throw money at the problem" mentality of the previous government.

It was a stupid idea. I'm glad it's gone. It was clearly a luxury as a country we cannot afford.

Do you think that children from poor homes should be sent out to work rather than continue their education josephine?

I dont get why you keep harping on about the UK being the only country with EMA. The UK is one of the relatively few countries with free universal education. Should we dump that too?

niceguy it might have been a luxury for you, for some of us it was a real help. Not everyone is in the position they thought they would be when their children become teenagers.

Josephine, may the "it" is the lack of a burning need to get the best education you can to help you in future employment and independence.

After all, you could just have a baby, stay at home, and the state will provide a home and cash. Much easier (though, is it really?)...

niceguy - that's a lazy slur. EMA made a real difference for poorer families. Typical of this lot that they can't wait to kick the support out from under them.

My ds16 get's EMA, we're in Scotland.

I'm very glad EMA has gone. The idea that 16 year olds have to be bribed to go to school is ridiculous.

They can buy their own trainers and fund their Friday evenings with a Saturday job - that's what we all had to do, after all.

I know you are on the extreme right of the Tory party, longfingernails, but can you at least be honest about what we are discussing? This isn't about a bit of pocket money for teenagers, it's about paying for lunches and books - the essentials so they can stay on at school or college.

And in case you haven't noticed there are millions of people unemployed - there simply aren't enough jobs out there for young people, either full time as an alternative to education or part-time for people at school or college.

The economy was booming when EMA was introduced. What was the need for it then?

The economy was booming? For whom?
I think some posters are deliberately obtuse. Insisting that ema is for trainers ffs.

EMA didn't exist when my mum was a teenager (70's) that's why she left school at sixteen, there has always been a need for it.

Just to throw some light on claig's misperceptions of green party policy: the party believes in sustainable job creation and a steady-state economy rather than an endless cycle of unsustainable growth followed by economic collapse.

I got my perceptions from listening to Andrew Neil's interview with the Green Party Deputy Leader, Adrian Ramsay, on the Daily Politics.

I forgot that he also says that there must be an "optimum population" for the UK. Sounds a bit sinister, but it's green, so must be good.