Labour: We'll Scrap Benefits For The Under-25

[zugzwang]

I thought the Tories were meant to be the nasty party?

As someone said on here earlier today, Twenty-First Century Britain is like Logan's Run in reverse. :angry:

http://www.telegraph...-under-25s.html

Labour: We'll scrap benefits for under 25s

Only those in "purposeful" training or carrying out an "intensive" job search would be eligible for the allowance, under proposals being considered by the party

By James Kirkup

8:37PM GMT 19 Nov 2013

People under the age of 25 would be barred from claiming unemployment benefits under proposals being considered by the Labour Party.

The Institute for Public Policy Research will publish a paper later this week proposing a new means-tested "youth allowance" for 18 to 24-year olds who are not in work or education.

Only those who prove they are in "purposeful" training or carrying out an "intensive" job search would be eligible for the allowance, the group will say.

The allowance would be dependent on family income, with the children of parents earning more than £25,000 a year unable to claim it, the IPPR will suggest.

The youth allowance would be set at £56.80, the same level as Job Seekers' Allowance.

Under-25s would be banned from claiming additional benefits including Employment Support Allowance and Income Support. Paying those two benefits to under-25s costs taxpayers almost £1.3 billion a year.

It is understood that Rachel Reeves, the Labour shadow work and pensions secretary, is considering adopting the policy, though is undecided about applying a means test.

Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, has also hinted at taking young people out of the benefits system.

The Conservatives have also suggested stripping benefits from under-25s. David Cameron said last month that if he was re-elected in 2015, he would insist that young people would either "earn or learn", without the option of claiming welfare.

Signs that Labour is considering a similar policy will put Mr Cameron under pressure to act sooner on the issue, setting up a potential row with the Liberal Democrats.

Countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark have welfare rules that prevent young people claiming conventional benefits. The IPPR found that they have much lower rates of youth unemployment. Only 4 per cent of Dutch youngsters are not in employment or training, and 7 per cent of young Danes. In the UK, the rate is 14 per cent.

Graeme Cooke of the IPPR said the current welfare rules left many young Britons trapped on welfare. "Gaining decent qualifications and practical work experience are the two most important things affecting young people's job prospects. Yet the current welfare system prevents young people from continuing to study and permits them to spend unlimited periods on benefits without work."

Labour strategists admit the party has an image problem over welfare, since some voters associate the party with generous benefits.

Adopting the IPPR plan would allow the opposition to claim to be tough on welfare, though some party figures are wary of the means-testing proposal, since it would leave hundreds of thousands of young people without access to State help.

[durhamborn]

None of these benefits are supposed to exist after the next election,its all supposed to be Universal Credit.

Means testing on the parents income is a bad idea as it rewards feckless families.Sounds good in theory but it isn't.

The other problem is it doesn't do anything to address the big problem in welfare,tax credits,,and people with children can access those at anytime.

It would be a good policy if it also included all tax credits,but of course it wont.Its more tinkering.

Labour are struggling badly on welfare as they are behind public opinion by a long way.It doesn't help their choice of shadow to IDS is so poor.

[Executive Sadman]

Its just another scam.

Really, its dumb to claim Jobseeker's anyway. You get just as much with self employed tax credits, and dont have to sign on every two weeks.

Its meant to sound 'tough' but its just directing people to tax credits, disability or some non-degree to understate unemployment more than it already is.

[Executive Sadman]

The well-heeled retired of Kensington can still claim their bus passes, subsidised lunches with free transport to and from, winter fuel allowance, free eye tests, free medication etc etc (may be some more) all backed by Dave's triple guarantee (and apparently Red Ed).

But of course they paid their taxes so it is all due.

Logan's run?? It's like a mugging with the oldies battering the young.

Senile hag Esther Rantzen was at it again today, gushing over the elderly.

[Dorkins]

This will just encourage even more of them to have kids, because once you have dependent children you get full adult access to benefits.

[workingatthepyramid]

Bring it on. The sooner people realise they are all the 'nasty party' the better.

[tinker]

I actually think the new version of the Labour party are pretty nasty. Much of the Tory nastiness began under Labour. Hard to distinguish between really evil and pure evil.

It does seem that the extension of childhood grows apace with 25 being the new of entering adulthood. The expansion of education sacrificing quality for quantity is nothing more than an extension of school - key benefits being an engorged public (educational) sector, few youths on the jobs market paying for their extended (less valuable) education though student taxes (loans), whilst allowing immigration to provide the buffer for those jobs the young used to start off doing.

I really feel for the young. The old with their over-valued homes, benefit locks and voting power do seem to be favoured to the detriment of the young. The question is how long will it be before they wake up from their stupor? Will the preceding generations continue to support and turn a blind eye to this demonisation?

[gf3]

This will just encourage even more of them to have kids, because once you have dependent children you get full adult access to benefits.

can't see what's wrong with the baby sleeping with the mother in the mothers parent's home. If that was brought into force I don't think there would be so many accidents. Just get a bit fed up with hearing about single mother getting more benefits than I get working.

[Dorkins]

can't see what's wrong with the baby sleeping with the mother in the mothers parent's home. If that was brought into force I don't think there would be so many accidents. Just get a bit fed up with hearing about single mother getting more benefits than I get working.

Then the grandmother would just "throw out" the mother and daughter after a "row" and the state would have to feed and house them anyway.

The welfare system cannot be fixed by adding rules on top of rules on top of rules.

[gf3]

Then the grandmother would just "throw out" the mother and daughter after a "row" and the state would have to feed and house them anyway.

The welfare system cannot be fixed by adding rules on top of rules on top of rules.

So after 18 years of bringing up a child the mother would\let her daughter die on the street. Used to have shoot gun marriages.

I consider myself left wing and I believe in the welfare safety net but I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to realise it's gone to far.

[ska_mna]

It will be a popular with older voters.

I was at a dinner party the other day and one chap (boomer age group) started on a mail-esque rant about Immigrants.

His wife stopped him and I thought she was going to come in with a more intelligent counter argument... but instead launched into a similarly prejudiced and misinformed rant about how lazy young brits are.

Our most powerful voting block is nothing more than an unholy melting pot of the blind leading the blind.

[Dorkins]

So after 18 years of bringing up a child the mother would\let her daughter die on the street.

Maybe I wasn't clear. The grandmother isn't actually throwing the young mother and her baby out, that's just what they tell the council so they have to provide housing.

[dances with sheeple]

It will be a popular with older voters.

I was at a dinner party the other day and one chap (boomer age group) started on a mail-esque rant about Immigrants.

His wife stopped him and I thought she was going to come in with a more intelligent counter argument... but instead launched into a similarly prejudiced and misinformed rant about how lazy young brits are.

Our most powerful voting block is nothing more than an unholy melting pot of the blind leading the blind.

Young brits, boomers and immigrants are all w*ankers. IMO.

[gf3]

It will be a popular with older voters.

I was at a dinner party the other day and one chap (boomer age group) started on a mail-esque rant about Immigrants.

His wife stopped him and I thought she was going to come in with a more intelligent counter argument... but instead launched into a similarly prejudiced and misinformed rant about how lazy young brits are.

Our most powerful voting block is nothing more than an unholy melting pot of the blind leading the blind.

The only thing I got against immigrants and it is the only thing I have against immigrants is the fact we only have on average 2 children per couple in this country. I think we should build enough houses so house are affordable but how are we going to manage that with 10,000 more people pouring into the country each year? So my politics is for Britain to have a stable population. maybe Britain could cope with 100 million people but 200M 500M?

[(Blizzard)]

Paying those two benefits to under-25s costs taxpayers almost £1.3 billion a year.

So about 1/2 the winter fuel allowance. Young people, what a bunch of scroungers.

[crash2006]

If the under 25s don't get any benefits should they not pay tax.

[The Knimbies who say No]

If the under 25s don't get any benefits should they not pay tax.

Yes.(they should not pay tax)

Edited November 20, 2013 by The B.L.T.

[singlemalt]

If the under 25s don't get any benefits should they not pay tax.

+1

[ingermany]

If the under 25s don't get any benefits should they not pay tax.

This promises a whole new world of state managed age discrimination.

There is really no point of the NHS wasting money on the over 65s who are not contributing to the national workforce. Why do you need a new hip after you've reached pension age?

[ingermany]

Countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark have welfare rules that prevent young people claiming conventional benefits. The IPPR found that they have much lower rates of youth unemployment. Only 4 per cent of Dutch youngsters are not in employment or training, and 7 per cent of young Danes. In the UK, the rate is 14 per cent.

They have already reclassified 3million unemployed adults as disabled. Now they will classify another million as children. And what is significant about age 25? Why not extend childhood to 40?

[The Knimbies who say No]

This promises a whole new world of state managed age discrimination.

There is really no point of the NHS wasting money on the over 65s who are not contributing to the national workforce. Why do you need a new hip after you've reached pension age?

Yes, "two can play that game".

Hopefully plenty of under 25s will see this and emigrate.

[Dorkins]

All three major parties seem determined to lose the votes of people born in the 1980s and 1990s.

[fluffy666]

All three major parties seem determined to lose the votes of people born in the 1980s and 1990s.

The fact that as a 40-year-old, private-sector-employed, middle class male with 2 kids and a mortgage, none of the parties seem remotely interested in my vote is a bit disturbing. Perhaps they think I'm too stupid to realize that my kids will grow up... (I would add 'and leave home' but let's be realistic here..)

[19 year mortgage 8itch]

The fact that as a 40-year-old, private-sector-employed, middle class male with 2 kids and a mortgage, none of the parties seem remotely interested in my vote is a bit disturbing. Perhaps they think I'm too stupid to realize that my kids will grow up... (I would add 'and leave home' but let's be realistic here..)

Wrong, they think you want low interest rates. Whether you do or not I don't know. Add to that a raft of homeowner policies I can but dream of as a tenant. Hey ho.

Likewise as a 30 something private sector employed working class male, married but single income (40%er) family with 2 kids private rental sector tenant they offer me even less than they offer ypu although they think I want 'help to buy'. I certainly don't want that.

Edited November 20, 2013 by 7 Year Itch

[@contradevian]

Less Torygraph centric view. Labour planning to guarantee jobs or training for under 25's

http://www.newstates...er-25s-benefits

The first point to note is that the idea is contained in an IPPR paper due to be published later this week; it isn't, contrary to what the Telegraph suggests, party policy (yet). The second is that the report itself doesn't even propose scrapping benefits for the under-25s. Rather, it calls for a new means-tested "youth allowance" for 18-24-year olds who are not in work or education. This would be set at £56.80, the same level as the youth rate of Jobseeker's Allowance, and would only be available to those with parents earning below £25,000. This might seem objectionable but it's some distance from abolishing all benefits for the young.

Edited November 20, 2013 by aSecureTenant