The Student Room Group

Ed Miliband would scrap Jobseeker's Allowance for 18-21 year olds

Scroll to see replies

Perhaps the title of the thread should be 'Ed Miliband would replace'. Currently, it is quite misleading.
This only continues what Labour started under Blair and Brown, making post-16 education mandatory and paying people to continue with it (ESA), in response to the enormous rise in youth unemployment that followed the introduction of the minimum wage. Essentially education is being turned into warehousing for people who are not useful enough to justify the minimum wage, until they calm down and mature a bit. Not an improvement on what existed in 1997, in my opinion.
Original post by Numberwang
Ed Miliband says 18-21 year olds would have to train or lose benefits if Labour gained power in 2015.

Miliband would scrap Jobseekers' Allowance for the age-group and introduce a "youth allowance" which is means-tested on whether they train in key skills.

Labour seem to be joining the Tories in scapegoating the young, on top of striking another blow to the value of the welfare state :rolleyes:


Well Milliband is a ******! I'd expect no less. The man can't even eat a bacon sandwich properly (with a fork and knife). And he's a four-by-two, too.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Three Mile Sprint
Ill generalise all I wan't thank you very much.

Generalisations are just that...general trends, they don't claim to be hard rules with no room for exceptions.

So don't tear up just because you and your brood happen to happy exceptions my friend.


I don't appear to be "tearing up". Yes, generalise as much as you please, I'm not going to try and stop you, but that won't make them in anyway representative of reality.
Original post by Observatory
This only continues what Labour started under Blair and Brown, making post-16 education mandatory and paying people to continue with it (ESA), in response to the enormous rise in youth unemployment that followed the introduction of the minimum wage. Essentially education is being turned into warehousing for people who are not useful enough to justify the minimum wage, until they calm down and mature a bit. Not an improvement on what existed in 1997, in my opinion.


Youth unemployment has nothing to do with the minimum wage

minimum wage was introduced in 1999

Youth-unemployment-figures-12-11.gif

- otoh the banker caused financial crisis of 2007-8....
Original post by RayApparently
That... would be ridiculous.


As is the current policy let's be honest here.

The levels of qualification inflation going on are ridiculous.
Original post by The Socktor
I don't appear to be "tearing up".

I saw the pictures...you can't lie to me.

But in all seriousness, don't get uptight about colourful language.

The fact that you even felt you needed to comment on that little statement is rather telling.
Yes, generalise as much as you please, I'm not going to try and stop you, but that won't make them in anyway representative of reality.


My friend you must remember that generalisations (as with most Stereotypes) are usually grounded in fact, memes and social concepts don't evolve in a vacuum, so again while you and your sibling might be shining examples of intelligence, or at least completely average, consistent educational and statistical/societal studies not to mention a cursory interaction with the larger population shows that those who perform very poorly in school are generally less intelligent and go on to perform poorly in wider society.

If that is an offensive statement to you and annoys you, be annoyed with reality.

My advice to you would be to have a cup of de-caf, put on some music and take a bath.

Edit:It can of course go completely the other way, for example I did exceptionally well in school and went on to get not one, but two degrees (one 1st and one 2:1)...yet am a benefit scrounge being forced to go retrain in warehousing, I have by any measure..done poorly in wider society.

The point here being, generally, not always.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Joinedup
Youth unemployment has nothing to do with the minimum wage

minimum wage was introduced in 1999

Youth-unemployment-figures-12-11.gif

- otoh the banker caused financial crisis of 2007-8....


For adults. The minimum wage for 16 and 17 year olds was introduced in 2004, exactly when the upward trend begins and several years before the financial crisis.
Hello, I wish you happiness and well-being.


What 'key skills'?
Do I need medical work experience, 100 hours of volunteering and sailing skills to work at Boots? There are NO jobs and 'key skills' are relevant for later careers, not when we are most vulnerable ie 19 years old, low income family and child benefit lost. Scrapping JSA is essentially telling 18-21 year olds 'ok we know you're poor, but **** you'


And people talking about the 5 GCSEs, not every person in this world is an academic, why is it that when you lose education you're instantly a lump of meat with no worth?
Let me remind you, the most amazing people in the world flunked school so get off your high horses.
Original post by redferry
As is the current policy let's be honest here.

The levels of qualification inflation going on are ridiculous.


Not encouraging more people to get more qualified due to grade inflation doesn't make sense.
Original post by RayApparently
Not encouraging more people to get more qualified due to grade inflation doesn't make sense.


It does if you bother to create some jobs that don't require pointless qualifications...
Original post by Three Mile Sprint



I saw the pictures...you can't lie to me.

But in all seriousness, don't get uptight about colourful language.

The fact that you even felt you needed to comment on that little statement is rather telling.


I was just pointing out your false statement. Does anybody on TSR come on here for reasons other than trying to convince other random wierdos on the internet that they're wrong?

Original post by Three Mile Sprint
My friend you must remember that generalisations (as with most Stereotypes) are usually grounded in fact, memes and social concepts don't evolve in a vacuum, so again while you and your sibling might be shining examples of intelligence, or at least completely average, consistent educational and statistical/societal studies not to mention a cursory interaction with the larger population shows that those who perform very poorly in school are generally less intelligent and go on to perform poorly in wider society.


Generalisations and stereotypes are usually just down to poor critical thinking skills as far as I'm concerned (e.g. "I met this one black guy who took drugs therefore they all/most of them do"). The problem of course is it being an anecdote (although I do admit I had made one myself earlier, however I think anecdotes are suitable in responding to absolute statements).

But in any case, I don't think leaving people to starve just because they had the wrong ticket in the genetic lottery is really ethical.

Original post by Three Mile Sprint
If that is an offensive statement to you and annoys you, be annoyed with reality.

My advice to you would be to have a cup of de-caf, put on some music and take a bath.


I have no concept of anger. If the mods delete your comment, it wouldn't have been thanks to me - I believe in free speech.
Original post by The Socktor
I was just pointing out your false statement. Does anybody on TSR come on here for reasons other than trying to convince other random wierdos on the internet that they're wrong?

Nope



Generalisations and stereotypes are usually just down to poor critical thinking skills as far as I'm concerned (e.g. "I met this one black guy who took drugs therefore they all/most of them do"). The problem of course is it being an anecdote (although I do admit I had made one myself earlier, however I think anecdotes are suitable in responding to absolute statements).

Extending steryotypes to all people and not allowing any room to be disproven is poor critical thinking.
However recognizing trends and behaviour among cultures/groups/notions is just smart.

But in any case, I don't think leaving people to starve just because they had the wrong ticket in the genetic lottery is really ethical.

Except, they wouldn't starve.

They would just sign up to a training course, hell I have done four on the doll in the past four months, no sweat of my back and I much prefer training (any training) to sitting around the house doing nothing.

If they after already failing in the educational system refuse to train for other jobs or qualifications, why should they expect to be supported by the state?


I have no concept of anger. If the mods delete your comment, it wouldn't have been thanks to me - I believe in free speech.

No concept of anger?

It would be nice to be you.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Amazing.
I'm left wing because I'm voting Labour. (also because I ****ing hate the tories :colone:) Happy now?


not really, Labour (or at least their leadership) is very Right Wing...I despise the Tories :tongue:
Original post by redferry
It does if you bother to create some jobs that don't require pointless qualifications...


What kind of jobs would those be?

This initiative is to get people trained up, within industry, rather than loafing around.
Original post by Jean-Luc Picard
not really, Labour (or at least their leadership) is very Right Wing...I despise the Tories :tongue:

So the only way to be truly left wing is to vote green, the socialist workers party, respect or the communist party of Great Britain. :/
It's all well and good people saying that this policy will 'weed out laziness' but why is it only being applied to the youth?
I think their are a lot of flaws in this policy but even if it were to be implemented, why is it always the 18-21's that must suffer? If they want everyone to get some qualifications or GCSE's or skills or whatever, surely that should apply to everyone on JSA, regardless of age?
Original post by RayApparently
What kind of jobs would those be?

This initiative is to get people trained up, within industry, rather than loafing around.


Manual jobs, call centre jobs, supermarket jobs etc
Original post by Amazing.
So the only way to be truly left wing is to vote green, the socialist workers party, respect or the communist party of Great Britain. :/


no, not at all, however just saying "Im in the Labour party" doesn't tell me anything about your politics, there are people in Labour I have a lot of time and respect for and consider valuable allies, there are also people in Labour who I despise and who I regard as Tories with red ties on...basically you have to do more than say "im in Labour" to convince me of your left wing credentials :tongue:
Original post by Viva Emptiness
I don't have a problem with making people work or train for benefits per se, if they are able, but I can't help but think the level of training will be basically useless to everyone. And when everyone has these minimum qualifications...where will the jobs for them be?


Its a load of nonsense to be honest put forward by Ed to try and regain some voters. One minute Ed is bringing socialism back and the next minute he's mentioning policies like this. Hilarious. Poor old Ed hasn't a clue what he stands for and sums up Labour completely.

Quick Reply