Young Britons could lose the right to claim some benefits for four years

DJ

So what is the answer to my question re university fees , interested to know.

Gracesgran

Thank you.

40% seems a very high percentage.

Link has good and bad points I guess.

I live part time in Cyprus, an EU member, and you must have paid into the state system for three years before you can get any benefits. My daughter returned from working in Egypt when it became too dangerous and was told that, as she was British, she was unable to claim anything for 6 months when she returned to UK, although she had paid into the system for 10 years before she left.

Why are so many so extreme? How can anyone know what is in the mind of DC, JC or anyone else? Surely we can all take a more objective view and not get so wound up and make so many assumptions?

I too don't understand how the English have to pay for Scottish universities but the rest of the EU doesn't. Surely we can use the same model for some things here?

Someone has brought up the old thing about giving all students grants like they had in their youth but how would we pay for it? There are so many university students these days that I don't know how we could possibly fund it. When we were young a lot less went to uni. I suspect if we returned to that system the number of places would be drastically reduced.

Another poster said that young people will take any job but I think that has always been the case. The only difference now is that some have been brought up in families where no one has ever worked so the ethos is different.

Zero hours contracts is another red herring as some huge percentage of people want these contracts and I read recently that the average hours worked on them is 35 per week.

on R4 a few days ago I heard that a lot more jobs are now full time rather than part time and that employers are looking after their existing workers rather than taking on more.

It is obvious to me that those who feel disadvantaged will make the most fuss and get the most publicity and so objectivity goes out the window. I am not suggesting they are wrong to do so, just explaining why people get the wrong impressions.

Haven't read from Bez onwards yet but need to apologise because I think I completely misunderstood you

I am still not sure what you feel we could achieve; we could use different criteria but whatever we use would apply - to look at it the other way round - to our citizens as well as those from the rest of the EU. Have I still got the wrong end of this?

I do feel DC shoots from the hip. Oh look, here's a solution. We will stop the EU immigrants claiming in the first four years. This is a) something they are unlikely to do in that time. They are far more likely to be both paying tax and claiming as they get established and have families and b) he seems to have given no thought to those it will affect in this country who will, generally, be younger and possibly more at risk.

That is not to say we should not look at changes in our own benefit system but we must look at it's unintended consequences surely. For instance if, for some strange reason Scotland thought they should withdraw their payment of tuition fees for students coming from other EU countries they would surely take into account the fact that this would affect the students in Scotland. I think they would take that into account.

Nonnie: Why are so many so extreme? ... I don't think people are being extreme and often, when people complain of this, it is just because they do not agree with what is being said. Some people from both the left and the right would man the barricades for what they believe is right for all but most are trying to discuss the OP. I would also say that there is sometimes the odd person who just seems to want to destroy the discussion rather than add anything to it.

I too don't understand how the English have to pay for Scottish universities but the rest of the EU doesn't. Surely we can use the same model for some things here? We could, but we have democratically decided not to. You seem to have missed the point that it is the UK that is the member of the EU not the devolved countries. The devolution we have all agreed to means each area of the UK gives it students the same deal as if they stayed in their home area. The EU student coming from outside the UK will get the same as the Scottish student if that is where they are going, or the Welsh student in Wales or the English student in England. Why would they get the same as the English student if they were studying in Scotland? Understanding the devolved areas of one country that is a member of the EU is the answer to your question. This may, and certainly could, happen in other EU countries too.

Someone has brought up the old thing about giving all students grants like they had in their youth but how would we pay for it? Whichever way we do it, it costs a huge amount. Just because we say the students get "loans" does not mean they are all being repaid, the amount outstanding is far larger than the Conservatives ever expected. This is not a thread about funding University places however, some views of this can be done are extremely simplistic and we have to understand the complexity and necessity of higher education for our population.

The only difference now is that some have been brought up in families where no one has ever worked so the ethos is different. The percentages for families such as these is very low and often in areas where employment has been decimated. I do not expect you to believe that however. I don't think anything anyone said would change the mind of most of those who have been brainwashed to believe this.

It is obvious to me that those who feel disadvantaged will make the most fuss. Gosh, you mean just like the serfs rebelled and the slaves in America fought for equal rights. It's such an awful world isn't it.

No Grace no points missed and the patronisation ignored!

Yes, I do mean just like the serfs and slaves, that was my point but it would appear your preconceptions got in the way of your understanding.

"^The only difference now is that some have been brought up in families where no one has ever worked so the ethos is different. The percentages for families such as these is very low and often in areas where employment has been decimated. I do not expect you to believe that however. I don't think anything anyone said would change the mind of most of those who have been brainwashed to believe this.^" Wow, you know what I think, how very clever! This is just the point I was making that some posters think they know what politicians think and it now seems they also know what I think! Did I say anything about how many? Did I say anything about the reason? No, I didn't and your jumping upon just about everything I said seems to me to prove all my points. Simply read what I say and don't 'interpret' it please?

" I would also say that there is sometimes the odd person who just seems to want to destroy the discussion rather than add anything to it.^ I think you have made your own case for this, it feels like that is just what you are doing in your response to me.

But Gracesgran started the discussion. She is just trying to keep it on track, I think, as she has the right to do.

durham if that was addressed to me I don't think that 'interpreting' my post to suit a personal agenda has anything to do with keeping it on track! Please explain as I am a simple soul who only reads what is written.

Simply read what I say and don't 'interpret' it please? Or you could say "read what I say but do not try and understand what I mean^. That would make the whole discussion a little pointless. What people write does not always mean we can understand straight away what they mean - if only. This is particularly true online where there is no facial expression or body language to help.

Your main question was about the differences in the Scottish and English grants systems. Do you now understand that these differences between the UK countries is because of devolution and does not stand up as an argument for differentiating what is available to UK citizens and for those coming from the EU?

And can we now get back to the subject or start a new one about grants, etc.

Nonnie, your posts are spot on! Well said.

GG we don't all need you to 'kindly explain' things to us, we may simply disagree with your viewpoint.

she was unable to claim anything for 6 months when she returned to UK

I have not heard of this Pippa000 but if that applies to everyone coming back to the UK - did they say how long you had to have lived abroad before it kicked in? - it would surely already apply to anyone coming from the EU ... or not.

Does anyone know?

Gracesgran. Re. people claiming after returning from abroad. This has been happening for years. At least 10 years in my memory. Mind you, that could be wrong, ha ha.

Thanks Petra. What I really wanted to know (probably didn't make myself clear) was how long you had to be out of the country before this applies. I have done a quick bit of research and it seems to be to do with the Habitual Residency Test which applies to all people entering the country. I still feel I don't know much more but reading it the same rules would apply to anyone entering the UK from an EU country.

The reason I ask (back to the OP) is that this seems to mean that someone coming from always having lived in an EU country would already have to wait six months and I wonder why they didn't decide to extend these rules. Of course, this would then affect everyone returning or coming to live here rather than those in their first years of work and that is probably as unacceptable to just as many people. It was never going to be easy was it?

Grace Or you could say "read what I say but do not try and understand what I mean. That would make the whole discussion a little pointless. What people write does not always mean we can understand straight away what they mean - if only.

IMO it is extremely arrogant to decide what someone means rather than what they actually say! Unless you actually know someone you are in fact making an uninformed opinion and trying to convince others that the person has said something they have not. I would have expected better.

Thanks Roses seems like you have taken the trouble to actually read what I said and accept that I said what I meant. It beggars belief that someone else can tell me what I meant!

I saw a programme a couple of nights ago where someone who had been out of the country for two years could not claim benefits. I'll see if I can find it.

It's called Disabled in an Instant, on BBC iplayer.

IMO it is extremely arrogant to decide what someone means rather than what they actually say!

Perhaps it is more arrogant to believe any of us can absolutely always say something in a way that can be understood, in exactly the way you meant, by all who are reading it Nonnie. If you can you are much cleverer than me. Sometimes we have to ask if you mean this or did you know that. I did not 'interpret' what you said any more than everyone does with each post - including how you read mine.

I will not be replying to anymore of your posts as I prefer a quiet life and do not need all the haranguing about a topic which has, in parts, been very interesting.

Two years - that's not long is it Jen? I think things change for drawing pensions after a matter of months so perhaps this is the same.

Not long at all. The girl in question was travelling round Australia, etc., when she became ill and had to come back.
After she came out of hospital, she applied for PIP or other benefits. She was told she could not have work related. When she applied for income related her partner had enough money to live on as she had a student loan and a part time job. The girl herself had no income.
I cannot remember how old she was, but she would probably be caught in the four-year rule if it came in. By the end of the programme she was actually receiving some benefit in her own right, I think.

It is all so complicated and, before people start making changes, again I will say that I am not saying we don't need them, we really need to know that no only do we understand what changes are being suggested but that the politicians who are suggesting them do too and I am not convinced.

There are loads of anomalies in our system - years ago a friend of mine who had lived and paid tax etc in UK married a man who had always lived in Africa and she moved there - a couple if years later on one trip home to visit her parents she had the misfortune to suffer a miscarriage - immediately she was told that she needed to pay as she had been out of the country - and yet we hear of tourist health care - I cannot fathom it out at all.

There are Bez. The whole system has grown like Topsy and it does need simplifying but each government will add more complications and none of them from the best of motives. I do dislike these kneejerk suggestions which give little thought to the people involved. If you think of the bedroom tax perhaps we did need to change how council houses were subsidised but many of the people who moved into them were given to understand they had a home for life. The changes to retirement age are the same. These could have been planned for in the 1970s and 80s. To then accuse those who are affected as being the cause of a problem that is part of a system followed by all governments seems like cowardice to me. We (via all governments) need to think ahead and be prepared to help people over any changes.

Naive I know, but it does feel like a time to work out what we actually believe.

If Corbyn gets in, perhaps the government will be challenged more om the changes they try to make. I notice he is supported by ten unions now, all of which have a stake in the changes that are being made.