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

It doesn't bother me at all, Gracesgran, whatever made you think it did?

I think it's probably because whatever subject we discuss you bring it in. What we are discussing now is a policy the Conservative government are talking about bringing in because, having tried to kid those who would believe the nonsense about DC getting changes to the treaties in the EU they now are forced to admit they will not be able to get that and so are clutching at whatever straws they can.

As has been explained, this may affect a small number who are not in work but, once again, the most people effected will be working people. Not only that but young working people who are prepared to take any job at low wages in order to get started in life. That, in this thread, is more relevant than the Labour Party leadership election. The people suggesting this are Conservative. The people who will bring it in are Conservative. It is perfectly reasonable to argue that you agree with what they are doing or that you don't but you do love to take threads of topic. What are you afraid of - democracy? If it is not fear why do you keep trying to bring the leadership election into every discussions about what is in the news? There is a perfectly good thread to discuss this.

I think I said; education is devolved in the EU and also within the UK.

If we want more devolved powers from the EU why should they harmonise the financing of education?
All parts of the EU and the UK can decide how they pay for education within their own countries. The anomalies are within the UK, because the government only wants rich people to be educated at universities. They are now trying to remove the cap from university fees. Did they promise that at the election? Can't remember.

The EU can ask for harmonisation, but the UK can ignore it anyway. The EU does not turn a blind eye to educational funding. It is devolved like lots of other areas.

I thought Bez made a perfectly fair point.

Why turn it into a comment that shifts from the point into them and us, anti English , other than of course to try and deflect from a perfectly acceptable comment by twisting the content.

The point raised in the post was there appears to be occasions when the EU 'turns a blind eye to'. The EU 'selectively does not persue' . The EU ' does not want to get involved in' some scenarios involving member states.

It was a valid comment to make given the consensus by so many the 'idea' will be non negotiable / illegal/ against EU rules for the British Government to implement.

It doesn't bother me at all, Gracesgran, whatever made you think it did?

And I'm not at all sure what you mean by 'unfair to the English. I'm sure you will not mind that, though.' durhamjen, which I presume was aimed at me?

Just out of interest why does it bother you Ana? You are obviously never going to vote for him or for a party lead by him.

In that case we leave it the mess that Bez talks about, unfair to the English. I'm sure you will not mind that, though.

He does seem to want to go back in time, doesn't he? Turn back the clock to the pre-Blair days, wipe out any progress that's been made since...

Education is devolved in EU member states, and within the UK.
My son's Danish partner took a degree here but was given a grant from Denmark, which was more than the grant here at the time. It was also for four years full time.

The solution is to go back to grants paid for through taxation so the whole of the UK is the same. Just what Jeremy Corbyn is saying.

Bez

A valid point you raised.

Very true!

It is strange how in this instance the young of England (and Wales, Scotland and NI) are classed as EU citizens but when it comes to English students going to Scottish Universities they are not and have to pay the full fees unlike the Other EU students! Just one of life's anomalies.
I am sure that there could be some other way of doing this - something like being resident in the country for the qualifying number of years - or being Educated there.
In Wales the Assembly pay some of the University fees for Welsh students - the qualifications for this reduction are to have a permanent Welsh address, and been educated in Wales - fair enough - when they did not have these qualifications in place the Welsh universities were inundated with applications from the rest of the UK and one year they did have to give all students the grant. There is usually some way round a problem if there is a will to find it.

Yes. I expect most EU countries would like to favour their own citizens too if they could get away with it!

Isn't the point being missed here?
Cameron wanted other EU citizens to be unable to claim benefits for 4 years. The EU says that Brits are also EU citizens, so it will apply to them as well. Cameron wants British citizens to be treated more favourably than other EU citizens.

Their friends who have never worked are a blot on the landscape VQ.Well done to your family that they do.

I agree but I'd like to refer you back to my posts about DD and her partner. They work hard but are in low paid jobs. If the working benefits top ups hadn't been available they'd have had to give up work and go on benefits full time.

They have friends who have never worked and mock them for 'being stupid' as they have pretty much the same income through working as they would if they were claiming unemployment benefits. In fact in winter they're worse off during very cold weather because they don't qualify for the cold weather payments that their friends received automatically even though they have children under five as well (the child triggers the top up).

Admittedly the proposed benefit changes won't affect them now but it will affect other young couples in position they were in.

A work ethic is all important at a young age.

What do other countries in Europe do?

I share the opinion that there are better ways to spend money than on people who are capable of working and living with their families.

Not just on this thread but generally on political threads we credit our leaders with coming up with all the ideas but I doubt if they do. I suspect that Civil Servants at least look at all the options and make proposals. I very much doubt if any politician in power just plucks something out of thin air and goes with it without it being looked into by those highly paid mandarins.

My DD was the same durhamjen. She worked from being 14, started with a Saturday/Sunday job in a large chemist and then worked her way through college and then university. She too left with a lot of student debt.

Sorry left school and started work!

I have 3 boys in this age group and I fully expect them to be at university or full time work. They know that sitting on their backsides and signing on isn't an option......Why should fit, healthy young men with a roof over their head get anything from the state. My 22 year old left school with reasonable A levels did an apprenticeship. He will move into his own home in a few weeks. The other two will go the university route.

With the NHS and disabled benefits under threat, children with no school places, and libraries etc. closing something has to give.

Some young people will need help eg. if they can't live in the family home. These young people do need short term help from the taxpayer to get them on their feet. If they are at home they should be working (even if it's not their dream job!) or in education.

Most people of my age would have left work at 15 or 16 and still have several years to go. I know that students of my generation did sign on at the dole hole in the summer holidays to boost their grants. Few would think that was acceptable now.

Was that in Scotland or England?

It may not have been much, I don't remember, but I definitely got money for a couple of weeks before I got a job. I remember also giving my brother a lift to the benefits office a couple of years later, when he would have been 16 and had left school.

I'm surprised that you were eligible for benefit at 17 FarNorth. I left home at that age and certainly wasn't - fortunately jobs were easy to come by in those days.

Why should young people who work hard be penalised because Cameron cocked up again?

Mind you they'd spin it by saying how much they'd saved by not paying out benefits.

The impression I get is that Cameron and friends come out with ideas without giving them any real thought then try to push them through into legislation.

As Gracesgran said, this would cause a lot of problems in areas of high unemployment, and how could people be expected to 'get on their bike' to another area if they have no money?