Under Tory plans you could make National Insurance contributions for nine years yet still not be entitled to social security support should you lose your job.
David Cameron has announced that under an all-Conservative government under-25s would not be able to claim benefits. Young people must “earn or learn”, Cameron said.
“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.”
It’s important to look at the background against which Cameron’s remarks were made: during the period April 2013 to June 2013, there were 1.09 million young people (aged from 16 to 24) in the UK who were Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEET). Over a longer term, youth unemployment has been within 50,000 of the one million level since Apr-Jun 2011.
Notwithstanding the fact that a ‘life’ on benefits is no longer an option due to government reforms (if the coalition are to be believed, that is), simply withdrawing the right of NEETs to claim benefits is no solution at all to the problem of youth unemplyment.
David Cameron said today that young people must “earn or learn”. Noble words indeed, but language which misses the point: many people want to learn but can’t because they need to earn, and many others want to earn but are prevented from doing so because the jobs just aren’t there. Analysis from UNISON has shown that in some parts of the UK more than twenty people are chasing each vacancy.
The evidence that young people want jobs but are unable to get them is supported by recent research from Comres, which found that 88 per cent of young people want to work or study.
Cameron went on:
“the [Conservative] party should give young people a “clear, positive choice” to go to school or college, do an apprenticeship or get a job.”
Except, on this government’s watch, youth apprenticeships are down by 12 per cent. In 2009/10, under 19s accounted for 40 per cent of starts; in 2011/12 that figure was just 25 per cent.
This is before we even get to the potential injustice of the measure: under Tory plans you could make National Insurance contributions for nine years yet still not be entitled to social security support should you lose your job. Is this ‘rewarding hard work’? Hardly.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
20 Responses to “Message from Tory conference: Don’t vote Conservative if you’re under 25”
Paul Corcoran
Your headline: “Message from Tory conference: Don’t vote Conservative if you’re under 25”. Really? Why? Because everyone under 25 wants to claim benefits? How very naive.
Will
Not everyone under 25 wants to claim benefits but all those who are will not want to vote for a party that could effectively cut off any security that might be provided should they lose their job. Imagine working from 16 to 21 or 22 and then finding yourself out of work and then told you are not entitled to any benefits whilst out of work even though you had spent four or five years working
Paul Corcoran
Granted they haven’t said this, but it’s highly unlikely that contribution-based benefits would be withdrawn from anyone. What HAS been made clear is the intention to remove the option to “leave school, sign on, get housed” etc as a lifestyle choice.
Yes there will be haters of this but having had this discussion with frontline workers whose customers are claimants since Cameron first suggested no HB for under 25s (one of Clegg’s “No”s), I think it’s a powerful vote winner. Not everyone who supports these moves is a nazi you know. Again, it is naive to think otherwise.
Paul
I am with Paul Corcoran – nice to hear a voice of reason for a change instead of the usual ‘its the governments fault’ However if you want to look at governments who might be responsible for the financial mess, feel free to discuss the Blair / Brown years of reckless governance of the UK that almost left us bankrupt.
Difficult times mean difficult choices – it will never be implemented with such simplicity as stated and benefits will undoubtably be available to some but we have to address the cultural reality of four generations on benefit and living on benefit as a life choice.
A return to a contributory and non-contributory benefit system would address Pete’s concerns
Jake
Neither Labour or the Conservatives understand:
A) the concept of ‘helping’ the average person, and
B) what its really like to live as a normal person in the UK
The Labour ‘left wing’ philosophy of the ‘state everything’ & increasing taxes for the rich & throwing benefits at pretty much anyone (who isn’t considered rich) who wants them, just makes everyone ultimately poorer.
Then you have the Conservative ‘right wing’ philosophy of the ‘limited government’ and not really thinking about individual circumstances when it comes to introducing a policy, like the above.
How much government is in control of your life should be decided according to how much YOU want it to be. If you want the governments help, you can get it (within reason). But If you want to own a house and ‘be rich’, you can. This is why I believe in central politics and believe in a free & liberal society.