This isn't a 'benefits for two weeks only' kinda thing, 18-21 years just aren't going to get any at all in the first place. Which is ludicrous to me.
Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Pretty sure that's not the case. My understanding is that for JSA, 18-21 year olds will get 6 months initial entitlement but after that must take part in a community work placement if they haven't found work during the 6 months. On housing, the restrictions seem to be aimed at single young people who have a safe parental home they could stay in. Those with children or without living or safe family residences won't be subject to the same rules it seems.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/28/david-cameron-welfare-youth-unemployment
That's still ludicrous to me. The people it's going to have the worst effect on are kids from poor families, in areas with high levels of unemployment who actually need that little bit of money.
He says:
Which doesn't fecking happen. Does he have any idea how expensive life is in comparison to how little benefits give you?
He says:
Which doesn't fecking happen. Does he have any idea how expensive life is in comparison to how little benefits give you?
What do you mean it doesn't happen? There are lots of school leavers who go on to claim JSA and Housing Benefit without a period of work or further education in between. Apologies if I've misunderstood your point.
It's clearly a controversial policy, but it will be popular with a lot of people so the comment about 'bet that will get them a lot of votes' whilst I assume was meant sarcastically, is likely to prove quite accurate.
The lifestyle he's alluding to is impossible. Leaving home to live on nothing but JSA and Housing Benefit doesn't work, because they don't give you enough money.
If there are people who will change their vote to the conservative party on the basis of that policy, it's just tragic. But I was talking about young people, who are the target of horrible policies on a pretty much yearly basis. I'd be surprised if a significant amount of young people didn't vote Green. Everyone else is screwing us over left and right.
From experience working in the area, there are young people that do live off those amounts. Not an affluent lifestyle of course, unless there are other forms of income, but it does happen. I think most would agree, apart from the mod hardened of right wingers perhaps, that lowering the benefits rate further for young people would not be manageable or effective. However, increased conditionality and the idea of 'community based work' for those that have been out of work for long periods of time does seem to hold wider support from a range of political outlooks. This is also what was seemingly being suggested by quite a few in the Caf thread last week (unfortunately I can't remember the name of it).
I'm not sure I agree that young people are bearing the brunt of the problems (despite being one of them). From my experience of the benefits system, those at 18-24 level have much more on offer to them from both the govt. and employers, plus they are likely to be closer to work through circumstance anyway, either from recently leaving education, taking advantage of the range of short term work often aimed at young people or simply from not having learned detrimental behaviours over time. It's the 25+ group where there's a dearth of opportunities on offer and you're much likelier to get your long term claimants who are miles away from the workplace and are more likely to be suffering from entrenched problems.
Has this been posted already?
Cameron's Conference Rap
Cameron's Conference Rap
Last edited:
How many single 18-21 yr olds without a child actually are there who don't live at home. This is going to save pretty much no money, it's just pulled out of osbournes arse to impress thick twats. I don't even disagree with the whole 6 months then community work idea but they could have introduced much more useful things.
It's just useful for them to be saying things that are tough on benefit receivers, safe in the knowledge that those who are targeted wouldn't be voting for them anyway. But they will clearly be cutting away vast swathes of the welfare state should they win in 2015, else they won't be able to fund their tax cuts.
Could really live without politicians referencing personal and private tragedies to score political points.
If I had a grand for every time I've heard someone on the political left say that down the years about the terrible results of electing a conservative (with a small c) party.
And the amazing thing is that it never happens!
It's verifiable. Just look at how few council houses conservative councils build in comparison to labour councils. And the amount they've already cut, and the bloody bedroom tax. And consistently having the lowest aims for minimum wage compared to the other major parties.
If I had a grand for every time I've heard someone on the political left say that down the years about the terrible results of electing a conservative (with a small c) party.
And the amazing thing is that it never happens!
By never, you mean every time?
Apart from the rather vague bolded bit, what has any of that got to do with government action on the Welfare State?
Nope, I mean never. What Tory government has cut away 'vast swathes of the Welfare State', as it's commonly understood?
There's clearly going to be (further) huge cuts to the welfare budget, and very little will be coming from the pensions side of things. Their already announced tax cuts cost about £10bn, and they've got over £35bn of cuts to get through until they reach Osborne's surplus target. Don't really see how it's a contentious claim at all.
Yep.
I was uncomfortable enough, when he used to just say "I know what it's like to rely on the NHS" but "How dare you question my policies because of the thing that you all know happened" isn't appropriate, nor were the close ups of his wife's reaction.
Not huge amounts, but there are some, it's not a tiny minority. From how it's presented, it's obviously more of an ideological point about the welfare state and attitudes to work for education leavers, rather than a savings measure.
Cameron's speech went down with the blue rinses (in the hall and in the media) but I thought it was a clusterfeck:
- he appeared to be giving tax cuts next year and it transpires they're by 2020
- he launched some pathetic diatribes against Ed&Ed and Tristram Hunt (who he? Ed)
- he used is own kid as a stooge like Gummer feeding his daughter a burger at the height of mad cow
Cynical, manipulative and desperate.
I thought the Tories would win next May but now I'm not so sure. Their big bazooka was a tax cut for the middle earners (having bought off the old gits and high rollers) but I think they've forked that up.
Any politician who does that I always dismiss as a shameless humbug.
Largely agreed.
- Tax cuts for highish (not middle) earners that evaporate with inflation
- Promise to raise the personal allowance inline with inflation
- Consequent implicit promise to continue decimation of welfare and other public sector budgets
- Also throws away possibility of bashing Labour for unfunded spending promises
- Tried to play the "You can trust me" card, the biggest feck up imo
But I never thought the Tories were going to win.
Well I pray you're right but I thought Osborne had:
- bought off the higher earners with tax cuts (mostly bought-men already it has to be said)
- bought off the old gits with pension stuff etc
All that remained was the £35-50k band of I'm-alright-feck-you-Jacks.
And they've blown it.
Today's You Gov poll has Tories ahead for first time since 2012 after yesterday, seemingly on the basis of the proposed tax cuts.
Could be a short term boost of course, but too early to say they've blown it.
Wait til the manifesto comes out and it gets real - most people (me included thought that was a 'now' pledge). There will be a big backlash when it's a 'maybe by 2020'.
So basically most people in the country really dislike us 18-21 year olds
Possibly. In my experience most people seem to have a depressingly low appetite for detail or accuracy though. They'll see 'tax cut' and stop reading before they hit a timeline.
Well I think even the undynamic duo Ed&Ed will nail that one.
That's it.
But not when it comes with a manana tag.
So basically most people in the country really dislike us 18-21 year olds
This particular policy doesn't have much to do with 18-21 year olds. If anything, 18-21 year olds are some of those most likely to benefit from the increase in personal allowance.
A lot of the welfare changes are going to make conditionality in the 18-21 year bracket quite intense though, yes. Consensus on here seems to vary as to whether those changes are reasonable or not (in particular the community work placements for the long term youth unemployed).
Personally think its a shit idea from the tories (no surprise there I guess), you can't live on JSA so the idea of taking it away and replacing it with community work (which won't guarantee you a job afterwards anyway) won't save any money. Just classic get on yer bike politics.
You know they'll still get JSA? It's just on the condition of them doing the community work after the 6 month point. It will get people off the register, either because it gives people that base level work experience or simply because claimants decide (for whatever reason) they'd rather sign off than do the effort of the placement, though question will be what happens to them next.
I know, its still a shit idea. Why does it have To be strictly them anyway and not everyone else, especially as older people have a better chance of getting jobs, because of experience.0
Ok fair enough, just wasn't sure what you meant by the 'taking it away' comment.
Edit: It's not true that older people have a better chance of getting a job. Quite the contrary actually. The rate of those taking up employment in the 18-24 bracket is much higher than those in the 25+ categories. Younger claimants are fresher out of education/previous employment, still fairly enthusiastic and compliant, employers want young employees, youth unemployment reducing is a govt. priority so there's more programmes on offer etc. etc.
Older claimants are more likely to have established barriers to work that have set in over time. Lack of recent work experience, addiction or other social justice challenges, lack of support networks, a more jaded attitude as a result of prolonged unemployment, fewer opportunities, sometimes less digitally savvy.
Basically, you've got a better chance if you're young!
Sometimes I am not specific
Wouldn't surprise me at all if they got a boost from it short-term, but after next thursday the narrative will be right back on UKIP taking Clacton and getting second in Heywood and Middleton. If they can't get the big lead they need after Ed's balls up last week, then it's certainly looking bad for their majority prospects and likely their Downing Street ones too.
Yeah because they can get away with paying them fork all.
I really do not believe most of the words you're telling me Agent Red, I'm far too left wing to take what ever the tories (especially the lib dems as well) seriously.
Which bits do you not believe? Most of what I've put is just based on stats. I'll leave it up to others to make their own opinions on things.