I wonder where he got this "idea" from ?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27911518

At the 2013 Conservative Party conference, PM David Cameron suggested benefits paid to people under the age of 25 could be cut in an effort to reduce long-term worklessness.

In The Know wrote:
I wonder where he got this "idea" from ?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27911518

At the 2013 Conservative Party conference, PM David Cameron suggested benefits paid to people under the age of 25 could be cut in an effort to reduce long-term worklessness.


I am not keen on this bit....."But it will be means-tested so those with a family income of more than £42,000 a year will not be entitled to the new allowance"


Surely someone classed in law as an adult should sink or swim on their own without relying on their parents?

If I am legally responsible for them, as before the age of eighteen , fair enough, but If they are classed as adult they can take a hike! Obviously we support them through college, but not to sit around doing nothing. (Not that mine would)
I cant see this being very popular with voters. Or anything else that Milliband suggests. The horse has well and truly bolted.

Labour have a second idea !!!!

Free Owl for everyone !

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27926420

Most young people would be glad to be put on a training course to improve their employment opportunities if they had no work experience or qualifications anyway. They used to put a lot people on training courses if they'd been unemployed for more than 6 months as well anyway, regardless of their age...

Anon wrote:
Most young people would be glad to be put on a training course to improve their employment opportunities if they had no work experience or qualifications anyway. They used to put a lot people on training courses if they'd been unemployed for more than 6 months as well anyway, regardless of their age...

It will affect those who have completed university or college too, though. So if someone is fully qualified and is looking around for a job, they could be sent off to work in poundland, taking the place of someone who needs it, and giving them less time to look for a job? It doesn't make sense. I prefer the owl idea.

Anon wrote:
Most young people would be glad to be put on a training course to improve their employment opportunities if they had no work experience or qualifications anyway. They used to put a lot people on training courses if they'd been unemployed for more than 6 months as well anyway, regardless of their age...

ITK makes me laugh.

This training course is nothing new it was introduced when Labour brought in new deal, other job seekers were building class rooms for schools it's more cheap free labour. The work programme is still here after billions being spent on it. Labour set up new deal, then it was scrapped by Labour, then they brought in FJF that was scrapped by Tories then they introduced a43 which is the same new deal.

If these training scheme was in place now would they be recognized qualifications so employers knew what they are ?

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
In The Know wrote:
I wonder where he got this "idea" from ?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27911518

At the 2013 Conservative Party conference, PM David Cameron suggested benefits paid to people under the age of 25 could be cut in an effort to reduce long-term worklessness.


I am not keen on this bit....."But it will be means-tested so those with a family income of more than £42,000 a year will not be entitled to the new allowance"


Surely someone classed in law as an adult should sink or swim on their own without relying on their parents?

If I am legally responsible for them, as before the age of eighteen , fair enough, but If they are classed as adult they can take a hike! Obviously we support them through college, but not to sit around doing nothing. (Not that mine would)
I cant see this being very popular with voters. Or anything else that Milliband suggests. The horse has well and truly bolted.

Yeah that's stupid, if they're a legal adult, especially if they're living away from home, how can they be expected to be judged constantly by what their parents have or their parents are earning - not everyone has parents that are willing to pay for everything, some even have no relationship with their parents at all. As adults they should be viewed as separate individuals from their parents I think...

Anon wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
In The Know wrote:
I wonder where he got this "idea" from ?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27911518

At the 2013 Conservative Party conference, PM David Cameron suggested benefits paid to people under the age of 25 could be cut in an effort to reduce long-term worklessness.


I am not keen on this bit....."But it will be means-tested so those with a family income of more than £42,000 a year will not be entitled to the new allowance"


Surely someone classed in law as an adult should sink or swim on their own without relying on their parents?

If I am legally responsible for them, as before the age of eighteen , fair enough, but If they are classed as adult they can take a hike! Obviously we support them through college, but not to sit around doing nothing. (Not that mine would)
I cant see this being very popular with voters. Or anything else that Milliband suggests. The horse has well and truly bolted.

Yeah that's stupid, if they're a legal adult, especially if they're living away from home, how can they be expected to be judged constantly by what their parents have or their parents are earning - not everyone has parents that are willing to pay for everything, some even have no relationship with their parents at all. As adults they should be viewed as separate individuals from their parents I think...

My parents were well off, when I couldn't get a job when living at home they said 'sign on job centre is down the road' I did that and my parents took £20 out of my JSA each fortnight. I was supporting them in a way.

andrew wrote:
Anon wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
In The Know wrote:
I wonder where he got this "idea" from ?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27911518

At the 2013 Conservative Party conference, PM David Cameron suggested benefits paid to people under the age of 25 could be cut in an effort to reduce long-term worklessness.


I am not keen on this bit....."But it will be means-tested so those with a family income of more than £42,000 a year will not be entitled to the new allowance"


Surely someone classed in law as an adult should sink or swim on their own without relying on their parents?

If I am legally responsible for them, as before the age of eighteen , fair enough, but If they are classed as adult they can take a hike! Obviously we support them through college, but not to sit around doing nothing. (Not that mine would)
I cant see this being very popular with voters. Or anything else that Milliband suggests. The horse has well and truly bolted.

Yeah that's stupid, if they're a legal adult, especially if they're living away from home, how can they be expected to be judged constantly by what their parents have or their parents are earning - not everyone has parents that are willing to pay for everything, some even have no relationship with their parents at all. As adults they should be viewed as separate individuals from their parents I think...

My parents were well off, when I couldn't get a job when living at home they said 'sign on job centre is down the road' I did that and my parents took £20 out of my JSA each fortnight. I was supporting them in a way.


At ten pounds a week? Hardly!

andrew wrote:
My parents were well off, when I couldn't get a job when living at home they said 'sign on job centre is down the road' I did that and my parents took £20 out of my JSA each fortnight. I was supporting them in a way.

I had to post my signing on thingy and job searches to the nearest job centre cos it was 36 miles away - my parents never asked for dig money out of it - probably felt partly responsible for me not being able to find a job straight away in the first place, and knew i'd sooner have been anywhere else than under their roof...

Wasn't 25 the new definition of "child" being promoted by the trick-cyclists a few months ago? I wonder how long before the parents will be held liable for the debts of their 24 year old "children", and it is illegal to have pictures of them, or engage in courting grooming them?

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
andrew wrote:
Anon wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
In The Know wrote:
I wonder where he got this "idea" from ?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27911518

At the 2013 Conservative Party conference, PM David Cameron suggested benefits paid to people under the age of 25 could be cut in an effort to reduce long-term worklessness.


I am not keen on this bit....."But it will be means-tested so those with a family income of more than £42,000 a year will not be entitled to the new allowance"


Surely someone classed in law as an adult should sink or swim on their own without relying on their parents?

If I am legally responsible for them, as before the age of eighteen , fair enough, but If they are classed as adult they can take a hike! Obviously we support them through college, but not to sit around doing nothing. (Not that mine would)
I cant see this being very popular with voters. Or anything else that Milliband suggests. The horse has well and truly bolted.

Yeah that's stupid, if they're a legal adult, especially if they're living away from home, how can they be expected to be judged constantly by what their parents have or their parents are earning - not everyone has parents that are willing to pay for everything, some even have no relationship with their parents at all. As adults they should be viewed as separate individuals from their parents I think...

My parents were well off, when I couldn't get a job when living at home they said 'sign on job centre is down the road' I did that and my parents took £20 out of my JSA each fortnight. I was supporting them in a way.


At ten pounds a week? Hardly!

When your 16 years of age it seemed a lot. lol.

Anon wrote:
Yeah that's stupid, if they're a legal adult, especially if they're living away from home, how can they be expected to be judged constantly by what their parents have or their parents are earning - not everyone has parents that are willing to pay for everything, some even have no relationship with their parents at all. As adults they should be viewed as separate individuals from their parents I think...

The parents will have been benefiting from every handout going thus far ... why should they then dump the cost of US ?

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
It will affect those who have completed university or college too, though. So if someone is fully qualified and is looking around for a job, they could be sent off to work in poundland


... and why not ???

It is not up to US to support these people.

In The Know wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
It will affect those who have completed university or college too, though. So if someone is fully qualified and is looking around for a job, they could be sent off to work in poundland


... and why not ???

It is not up to US to support these people.


Because if, for arguments sake, we imagine that there are two unemployed men and two jobs available... One for a scientist, and the other for a poundland assistant, and we spend a fortune training one of them up to be a scientist only to give them the poundland job, he might be (finally) supporting himself, but we are still paying out dole money to the other man with no training who cant be be a scientist. (unless we pay for him to go to university too!)

AND....
The obvious way to get around the new rule is to have a heap of babies and a pony.

In The Know wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
It will affect those who have completed university or college too, though. So if someone is fully qualified and is looking around for a job, they could be sent off to work in poundland


... and why not ???

It is not up to US to support these people.

Poundland is worth millions and they pay peanuts. they only offer part time positions work programme now refuse to do anything with them, managers are bullies there is a lot of unpaid over-time. Poundland are notorious for exploiting dolers to do work fare, making false promises there be a job at the end of it.

ITK might not like the dolers but it's life, Ed other idea is good bring back the FJF scheme for people aged 25 to 37.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
Because if, for arguments sake, we imagine that there are two unemployed men and two jobs available... One for a scientist, and the other for a poundland assistant, and we spend a fortune training one of them up to be a scientist only to give them the poundland job, he might be (finally) supporting himself, but we are still paying out dole money to the other man with no training who cant be be a scientist. (unless we pay for him to go to university too!)

Then the scientist will be able to pay back his student loan which will pay for the doler !

The doler is going to be a drain anyway !

AND....
The obvious way to get around the new rule is to have a heap of babies and a pony.

Won't happen, honey!

Those who dropped kids are already regretting it - a life of sponging and never having anything, is finally waking up to them.

I call them the NO people ....

NO money
NO jobs
NO future
NO (decent) clothes
NO luxuries
NO (decent) holidays etc ...

andrew wrote:
Poundland is worth millions

Good !

Someone has to pay the taxes ... to pay the dolers !

Great to see someone who took a risk (with their money) and it pays off. Its great for the pension funds (that invest in them) too.

Good for everyone ... investors, employees, customers, the country (yes, and even the dolers).

(Whats the betting that the ones who whine about Poundland are the first through the door every day ????)

In The Know (as always) wrote:
andrew wrote:
Poundland is worth millions

Good !

Someone has to pay the taxes ... to pay the dolers !

Great to see someone who took a risk (with their money) and it pays off. Its great for the pension funds (that invest in them) too.

Good for everyone ... investors, employees, customers, the country (yes, and even the dolers).

(Whats the betting that the ones who whine about Poundland are the first through the door every day ????)

Then why don't give people full time work who do work experience with via work fare ?

Those who dropped kids are already regretting it - a life of sponging and never having anything, is finally waking up to them.

I call them the NO people ....

NO money
NO jobs
NO future
NO (decent) clothes
NO luxuries
NO (decent) holidays etc ...

What do you call a decent holday, luxuries and clothes, remember you moan when that slot of dolers have these ?