UNDER-25s TO BE STRIPPED OF HOUSING BENEFIT, AS WELL AS JSA
People under 25 will lose their housing benefit unless they are “earning or learning”, David Cameron has announced. That will include graduates who have invested tens of thousands of pounds on their university degree — only to find they are unable to find a proper, paid job that fits their skills and qualifications. It is the latest development in what appears to be a sustained attack aspirational young jobseekers who are perceived to be turning down work.
Outlining new plans for a major overhaul in benefits to 18- to 24-year-olds, the prime minister said that in the future no one in this age group will be entitled to dole or housing benefit unless they are in work, training or education. He told the Conservative Party conference:
“Today it is still possible to leave school, sign on, find a flat, start claiming housing benefit and opt for a life on benefits. It’s time for bold action here. We should ask, as we write our next manifesto, if that option should really exist at all. Instead we should give young people a clear, positive choice. Go to school. Go to college. Do an apprenticeship. Get a job. But choose the dole? We’ve got to offer something better than that.”
He claimed plans would help “equip the vulnerable for the global race” and insisted it was wrong to “paint ideas like this as callous”, saying the state should act like parents would towards their children. He told the conference:
“You’d nag and push and guide and do anything to get them on their way.”
The proposal goes further than the idea suggested by Mr Cameron last year to take away housing benefit to the under-25s, in or out of work. The idea as discarded — but in recent months the Tories have been steadily cranking up the pressure on welfare claimants in their eagerness to cut the country’s £57 billion-a-year benefits bill. The latest suggestion comes days after chancellor George Osborne said the long-term jobless would have to do voluntary work or lose their jobseeker’s allowance (JSA). Initially, it was assumed little would happen before 2015 because of opposition from Liberal Democrat coalition partners – but in an interview today, Nick Clegg suggested today that he would back both Cameron and Osborne’s plans.
Details of how the benefits would be withdrawn, and any groups exempted, will be included in a review into Britain’s complex patchwork of youth unemployment initiatives now being led by the cabinet secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood. Tory sources said JSA and housing benefit would be removed from anyone unreasonably turning down the offer of work or education.
But the idea of denying young people their benefits widely condemned, with critics saying it would damage the lives of countless young people. TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady said it would “push hundreds of thousands of young people, including those with young families, even deeper into poverty.” And the University and College Union urged Cameron to “move beyond glib and superficial analysis of youth unemployment and its causes We will not resolve this massive problem by forcing young people into unstable, low-paying employment or inadequate training.”
Whitehall has already acknowledged has been the failure of its chief youth unemployment initiative, the £1bn three-year youth contract. Employers have proved deeply reluctant to offer work placements to young unemployed people at the subsidy levels offered by the youth contract. “The average school leaver doesn’t have a clue about which government departments or agencies look after the schemes that are out there to help them,” Clegg conceded. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says 410,000 under-25s were currently on JSA, costing £1.2bn a year. A further 380,000 are on housing benefit, costing £1.8bn. The housing benefit claimants who are in work will not be affected. Tory sources said there would also be exemptions for people in care, disabled people and probably single parents.
The proposal was the only policy announcement in a speech dedicated to setting out the prime minister’s vision of a society in which there is opportunity for all.
*WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE NEW ‘EARN, LEARN – OR LOSE YOUR BENEFITS’ PLAN?
Is it fair to strip young people of their welfare payments if they aren’t in work or education? Is the government doing enough to support young people, create jobs and help them into work? Or do you feel as though you are being punished for following advice to invest in your education – only to find that you can’t get a good job once you graduate? Is it right that young people should have to accept any job they can get, or does investing tens of thousands of pounds in your degree give you the right to hold out for a graduate level role that pays a decent wage?
Is this really a good idea? We have already invested 20k in a degree, even more for people who started from 2012 onwards. The last thing that I want to do now is spend more years of my life studying and getting myself into debt even more. I just want to start earning to pay it off! Surely everyone else feels the same?
It’s like it’s our fault for not finding a job. I’m sorry but if anything employers are to blame for setting the bar so high with unrealistic demands of how much experience you should have, or branding you overqualified when you go for something not requiring a degree. Why should grads have to suffer just because employers don’t want to give anyone a chance? It’s them that make it so difficult, not us!
I think the problem is that the government are assuming that the government are making the assumption that if graduates are not in a graduate job or on a graduate scheme then they are being picky.
If you are a graduate and you are forced to take a role that you believe you are overqualified for then this can have a harmful impact on your careers progression moving forwards. Graduate schemes are very competitive to get on to and this could lead to students feeling as though they cannot aim too high because if they don’t get the job they want then they could be in deep trouble financially. As if there isn’t enough pressure on students and graduates in the application process
Brits dont want the low paid jobs but the immigrants do.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-24275092
I’m 26, and I’m incandescent with wage at this declaration of war on the future of this country. Cameron has basically just confirmed that anyone without considerable private wealth who is under 25, or their parents, who vote Tory in 2015 are turkeys voting for Christmas.
Does anyone think forcing a 21-year old graduate into further “training” — in reality, probably unpaid work or <£3 an hour apprenticeships or poorly organised A4e courses teaching them how to read and write — will really help anyone, or address the real problem? Or what about a 24-year father of 2, who loses their job and despite paying taxes is sent back to their parents (who may live somewhere like Middlesbrough or the middle of nowhere with virtually no jobs — what happened to "get on your bike"?).
Not to mention the risk of homelessness for young people without a family home to return to, and the increased burden the government wants to impose on long-suffering parents by effectively extending compulsory education and childhood to 25 in a transparent and desperate attempt to fiddle the unemployment figures.
It wouldn't even necessarily save money: paying A4e, or paying to put homeless under 25s in prison for stealing food costs money too (prison can be up to £60K a year).
And how do we know it would stay at 25? Housing Benefit is already less for under-35s: how long before it's decided under-30s aren't "real" adults, and should have their social security withdrawn too if they lose their job?
Moreover, Cameron seems to be over-estimating exactly how easy it is for at least a single, childless and out-of-work school- or college-leaver to “find a flat” – either a council flat or a private room (NOT a flat due to the Shared Room Rate) that says “DSS welcome”, then just sign on to live the life of Reilly (as opposed to spending almost every penny of JSA & Housing Benefit on rent if in a room, or a helluva a lot on rent and bills in a council house.
The vast majority of these people are stuck with their parents, even if they want to “get on their bike” and seek work elsewhere.
There the issue with perverse incentives with homeless pregnant women or women with young kids though – sometimes the “emergency housing” is a flat an ordinary worker couldn’t hope to afford (as was the case with a battered mother housed on that TV programme about emergency housing in East London – and is the case with pretty much every flat in Tower Hamlets surely, since rooms are £650 a month).
But plenty of other single mothers end up in hostels and dosshouses, or anywhere else they can be put. And in some cases, the benefits system rather crazily actually incentives pregnant woman not to live with boyfriends or husbands in low-paid work.
Though the answer to these perverse incentives isn’t to just make all these people homeless, or to take everyone’s kids off them when they lose a job. Though some parents really aren’t fit and should have kids taken away – although of course our overcrowded and under-resourced carehomes aren’t exactly always great either, and it’s hard for older kids to get adopted.
@Alex
Is life fair? No. Has it ever been fair? No. Is life hard? yes. If you do not like your life and want to change it you must become competitive and do whatever it takes to win.
All you should care about is increasing revenue, cutting expenses, and maximising profits. Once you change your mindset from “the world is against me mindset” to a “Pure Capitalist mindset”. Only then you will have the resources you need to help others.
Students living with their parents man what losers. I would never let myself move back with my parents.
I promote this program because it will make people more competitive and get them off their butts and do something about your life.
^ I would like to take the opportunity to remind GF users not to feed the trolls.
I would like to take the opportunity to remind CostaDel that just because someone has a differing point of view then you shouldn’t call them names or be dismissive.
Peter F: I’m fine with differing point of views. In fact, I relish them, and I’m sure you’ll appreciate from my previous posts that I am quite happy to engage with contrary, rational opinions.
However, I’m afraid I don’t think Chris is being sincere. I believe he is an extreme contrarian for trolling sake. I’ve dealt with enough trolls in my time to know one when I see one.
As such, I’m choosing not to engage and I don’t believe there is nothing wrong with telling other users to think twice before letting their blood boil over.
Agreed with CostaDel. There is a difference between someone with an opposing point of view and a troll. I find it sad how much of this I see on this website considering it is meant to support graduates.
Hi all
I have never been aware of the need to block or ban anybody from commenting on Graduate Fog, but if anybody ever wants me to consider it, please email me via the Contact page.
In the meantime, this is just a reminder that Graduate Fog is a website where debate is encouraged. However, I ask that you always address each other respectfully, avoiding swearing and other such language, especially when aimed aggressively at other users.
@Chris Wells – saying people who live with their parents are ‘losers’ would apply here. Please avoid that kind of reference in future.
I don’t want to have too many rules and regulations on GF but as we are a community it’s important that the discussion is always respectful.
Thanks
Tanya
@Tanya,
perhaps you should shoulder some of the responsibility. I can’t see as how framing around a ‘war’ is a reasonable term of reference as a starting point for calm debate.
Do you want to create divisiveness and disharmony?
@ Peter F that’s exactly what Tanya wants. Rationality and balanced opinion wouldn’t get her any attention would it?
Calling students who live with their parents ‘losers’ is typical of someone who is blinkered to the reality of the housing situation in this country. So, in order to avoid being labelled a ‘loser’ by ignorant people, students should instead throw away hundred of pounds a month they can ill afford into the pockets of private landlords?!
errr what’s so wrong about private landlords. By and large its a legitimate way of earning money. We can’t all live in communes.
and whats so wrong with paying rent? Why is it that this country is so hung up on home ownership that being a tenant makes you a lesser class of human being? Doesn’t happen in France.
I shouldn’t really have to point this out (and the fact that I am pointing it out makes me suspicious that you might be coming on here to wind people up) but people who rent privately in this country do not have the same rights as people in countries such as France and Germany. Just yesterday evening Channel 4 news featured a report on the reality of renting in this country (private rental properties often being of poor quality for the rent that is being asked). Shelter frequently campaigns for better legislation to be applied to the private rental sector- if private renting were such a great alternative to home ownership (or living with parents), then there would be no need for Shelter to do this.
@Tanya: I apologise for losing my temper with Chris above. I agree with some of the other posters, there is a difference between differences in opinion, and trolling and meanness. (Particularly with his comments about the homeless which were either on a different page or removed above, I can’t remember).
@Peter F:
I’m not hung up on home ownership personally. It does make sense financially for plenty of young adults with low incomes to stay home if their parents will let them, and I get that.
However, when a girl in her 20s at an old job called rent (i.e. paying for shelter and keeping yourself out of the gutter) “wasted money” all I could think was that attitude was only possible because she assumed her rent-free or below-market-rent accommodation at her mum’s house on the outskirts of a big city whilst she and her bf saved for a deposit was somehow an entitlement rather than something she should be thankful for.
With me, I could live at one of my parents’ houses: they would certainly take me in if the alternative was homelessness. As of course, I would do with them or any close family if I was in a position to do so.
But since they live in the countryside, where the cost of commuting 20 miles by train is 50, 60% of the cost of renting a room in my city, I can’t help feeling my employment situation will be better off in the long term by staying put. If my parents lived a £3.60 a day (or £15 a week) bus ride away from the second largest city in the country instead of a £200+ a month train ride from smaller cities in a place where running a car approaches a necessity if you want work, perhaps the arithmetic would change.
Although I don’t really think a mortgage would be feasible, I would however prefer to pay a reasonable proportion of income (there can clearly be disputes about what that is) when only renting a room (and not even a whole flat or house), and it would be nice to think renting a flat of my own in an achievable ambition, rather than something fraught with risk due to unpredictable bills, Council Tax, and the risk of losing your job and (being under 35) only receiving enough to rent a room from the dole and JSA when hypothetical savings run dry.
When I was working full-time on a bit above NMW and paying 40% in rent I was OK with that, and if I was more disciplined could probably have even saved a bit (though a hypothetical deposit would have taken donkeys years, of course).
@A4E – I think you’ll find its an attitudinal/cultural trait rather than one born out of a legislative need. The attitude stems from decades back and may even be ingrained in the British psyche. Thatcher didn’t help. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/mortgages/10084693/More-people-renting-houses-rather-than-owning-them-would-be-better-for-our-economy.html
@Peter F – Agreed. Personally, even whilst recognising the vulnerabilities tenants have (particularly in old age) – I’ve never really got the whole home ownership/development mania, which seems to have been taking to utterly unhealthy levels.
Personally, I wouldn’t say you truly and securely own a house until you’ve paid the mortgage off.
@abc123 and Peter F
Point taken – but the general idea of a headline is for it to be attention-grabbing! So it stays for now…
Also, please remember that GF is a blog, so you’re going to get opinion and fact blended together. If you want straight news, I hear the BBC is good! : )
Tanya
@Tanya
My bad. I know getting graduate jobs are really tough. I also saw how hard it is for your country. It seems you have a coporate/government tie that is not making situation any better for graduates. What your country needs is full-time permanent “JOBS!!”
@Alex – I apologise for the comments I made earlier. But it just annoys me when people say cannot achieve their dreams or get their dream job because of the economy. I realise how tough it is for you guys. I did some research about your country and you will find out that your country’s Crisis was caused by the big banks borrowing unholy amount of money from the reserve bank and making bets that would wipe out the entire economy and government allow it to happen.
Just to make matters worse is that your government has really destroy your generation. In the end we need to change the system so it provides for everybody instead of a small minority of people who are disgusting rich beyound belief.
that prick!!. so basicly if i cannot get a job any were after i leave college i will not be able to go on the dole if it is my ‘LAST’ option in life until the prime minister pulls himself out of his own ass to sort out this country because he or former prime ministers have run this place into a shit hole!!… give the country back to it’s people i say!!
There is absolutely no shame in living with your parents after you graduate. I was unable to do so but it’s a 1000 times better than a shoddy bedsit (especially in London), dealing with unscrupulous Buy-to-Let Landlords via agencies that charge for a fee. Utility bills, etc. And that’s if you have a job! Otherwise, you are left on the street to fend for yourself, like in Victorian times! Welcome to Britain where property is unaffordable, the rich are getting richer with 1% of the population owning the country’s wealth. Marx was right after all.
That Eton Toff with his Westminister-educated public school pal Clegg, an abomination. These people have never experienced a day’s proper work. Like most career parliamentarians…