Labour Party UK: No welfare for you!

[Geilinor]

That's why I would vote for the Conservatives in 2015, Labour is in a tailspin just trying anything to get seats. The Tories are actually making sense and have really out maneuvered Labour for the Centrist voters and issues

I might also vote Tory but there sure aren't moving towards the center. Instead, many are pandering to the Ukip voters, which is deeply troubling. The party is also divided over several key issues, namely Europe and foreign policy. The conservatives have a more clear vision for Britain but it isn't exactly the best one.

The UKIP-pandering from the Tories and a couple more weak attempts to get seats by Labour would drive me to the LibDems if I lived in the UK.

[Great Nepal]

But how will this actually get those people the same education as those who graduated in the years to follow?

This will ensure that unemployed people of that age is either in work or study; essentially there is no option to 'just sit around while I find my passion' or 'while I find something that I enjoy' or 'not doing job that I am not interested in' etc.

[Valaran]

Well if debt or budget deficit isn't reduced then all this added tax will eventually be useless. You can't always increase tax to fix problems. It will just buy some time but won't matter in the long run.

Well not really, not if higher rates of taxes means that your books become balanced. I'm also not suggesting a tax raise to fix our problems what I suggest is that you can solve the cost of living crisis by changing where the tax burden falls. You cut taxes on low and middle income earners and THEN pay for that by raising taxes on the very rich. You could also cut public expenditure in some areas at the same time.

I like to think the same, but honestly the tax revenue from the rich won't really pay for the other tax cuts, it just simply won't be enough. I still agree with your policy, but not for that reason; though it is certainly to good to change where the tax burden falls.

[Greater-London]

So why not change the failed system?

You have to do both. You can fix the education system to make it better, provide better skills and qualifications for students up until there 18 which would increase their confidence too. I personally don't think this needs to be A levels or even full time education but their should be something theirs a shortage of unskilled jobs and a surplus of unskilled workers.

However the system has failed generations of kids before this; people in my age group (I think I was the last year to be able to leave school at 16) will be doomed to a life on welfare if they don't get up to scratch NOW. This means going back to college for some and if they don't they will be perpetually be unemployed.

[Valaran]

I might also vote Tory but there sure aren't moving towards the center. Instead, many are pandering to the Ukip voters, which is deeply troubling. The party is also divided over several key issues, namely Europe and foreign policy. The conservatives have a more clear vision for Britain but it isn't exactly the best one.

The UKIP-pandering from the Tories and a couple more weak attempts to get seats by Labour would drive me to the LibDems if I lived in the UK.

Yeah, I am seriously considering it, but the Lib Dems are well, getting mauled. Like I actually agree with their policies the most but... they aren't a viable alternative, at least for the moment. Also I live in battleground Labour/Tory seat so tactically there is no point voting Lib Dem there anyway.

[Malgrave]

The UKIP-pandering from the Tories and a couple more weak attempts to get seats by Labour would drive me to the LibDems if I lived in the UK.

Yeah, I am seriously considering it, but the Lib Dems are well, getting mauled. Like I actually agree with their policies the most but... they aren't a viable alternative, at least for the moment. Also I live in battleground Labour/Tory seat so tactically there is no point voting Lib Dem there anyway.

You'd be better off voting for the Greens.

[Atlanticatia]

I think this kind of encourages the idea that people want to be on welfare, which isn't true.

Rather than cutting 18-21 year olds off from benefits, they should do things like raise the minimum wage, raise the tax free threshold, decreasing tuition fees (so people are more likely to study), improving education etc.

But obviously those between the ages of 18-21 aren't going to have a 0% unemployment rate at any time ever, esp. now when there's not enough jobs for people, so I don't think cutting off benefits will do anything.

I think the best fix for welfare 'dependency' is to make structural fixes that make working attractive and always the best option, as well as improving services and education.

But I do like their plan to have a real job guarantee for young long term unemployed people, after they've been looking for work for like a year or something.

[Greater-London]

I like to think the same, but honestly the tax revenue from the rich won't really pay for the other tax cuts, it just simply won't be enough. I still agree with your policy, but not for that reason; though it is certainly to good to change where the tax burden falls.

Probably not completely but it will go some way to recovering the money. To be honest I think a defeict funded tax cut so long as its for low and middle earners is probably a good idea, it will get them out their spending their money and probably help raise living standards.

You could probably cut in work benefits for some workers too in order to recoup more money - no point taxing people to pay their own benefits.

[Valaran]

Yeah, I am seriously considering it, but the Lib Dems are well, getting mauled. Like I actually agree with their policies the most but... they aren't a viable alternative, at least for the moment. Also I live in battleground Labour/Tory seat so tactically there is no point voting Lib Dem there anyway.

You'd be better off voting for the Greens.

Probably would to be honest, but if the Tories keep a roughly centrist path I might go for them. Anyway its in a year and a lot can happen before then.

[Geilinor]

I think this kind of encourages the idea that people want to be on welfare, which isn't true.

Rather than cutting 18-21 year olds off from benefits, they should do things like raise the minimum wage, raise the tax free threshold, decreasing tuition fees (so people are more likely to study), improving education etc.

But obviously those between the ages of 18-21 aren't going to have a 0% unemployment rate at any time ever, esp. now when there's not enough jobs for people, so I don't think cutting off benefits will do anything.

I think the best fix for welfare 'dependency' is to make structural fixes that make working attractive and always the best option, as well as improving services and education.

But I do like their plan to have a real job guarantee for young long term unemployed people, after they've been looking for work for like a year or something.

Combined with some of their other proposals, this could help, but I'm not too optimistic about it. Better funding for education and other educational improvements would do a better job of encouraging people to go back to school.

[Greater-London]

You'd be better off voting for the Greens.

He's really not. The Greens are less likely to make a difference in the general election than the Liberal Democrats. Also it depends where they sit in the Liberal Democrats; if he's an orange booker like myself then he's probably not going to be swayed by the Green Party.

[Greater-London]

I think this kind of encourages the idea that people want to be on welfare, which isn't true.

Rather than cutting 18-21 year olds off from benefits, they should do things like raise the minimum wage, raise the tax free threshold, decreasing tuition fees (so people are more likely to study), improving education etc.

It needn't it depends how you frame the policy. Recently the school leaving age in the UK has risen from 16 to 18; this means that people in this age group if they don't have A levels or equivalent will be vastly underqualafied especially compared to the next batch of people entering the jobs market.

It's not demonizing those who are on benefits its ensuring that these people won't be stuck on benefits for the rest of their lives.

[Geilinor]

I think this kind of encourages the idea that people want to be on welfare, which isn't true.

Rather than cutting 18-21 year olds off from benefits, they should do things like raise the minimum wage, raise the tax free threshold, decreasing tuition fees (so people are more likely to study), improving education etc.

It's not demonizing those who are on benefits its ensuring that these people won't be stuck on benefits for the rest of their lives.

By assuming that those people would stay on benefits for the rest of their lives if the benefits weren't taken away.

[Malgrave]

You'd be better off voting for the Greens.

He's really not. The Greens are less likely to make a difference in the general election than the Liberal Democrats. Also it depends where they sit in the Liberal Democrats; if he's an orange booker like myself then he's probably not going to be swayed by the Green Party.

The Greens outperformed the LibDems in many areas of the country during the euro's and look to maintain that advantage during the general election. Green Party policy also supports re-nationalisation of rail, health services and the removal of tuition fees all policies popular with LibDem voters.

[Greater-London]

By assuming that those people would stay on benefits for the rest of their lives if the benefits weren't taken away.

They probably will but it wont be through choice. Like I keep on saying they will be so underqualafied compared with school leavers just a few years younger than them. It just won't be good enough and they will suffer HUGELY.

[Greater-London]

The Greens outperformed the LibDems in many areas of the country during the euro's and look to maintain that advantage during the general election. Green Party policy also supports re-nationalisation of rail, health services and the removal of tuition fees all policies popular with LibDem voters.

Yes but only marginally; that doesn't mean their anywhere near close to making a difference in the general election or winning more than 2 or 3 seats at most. You cannot tell this far ahead if the Greens will keep their momentum or not.

European elections are also different because they use PR and are fought on separate issues. The Liberal Democrats for instance chose to their demise to campaign on being the "party of in" during a time when the EU is incredibly unpopular in Britain.

Some green policies may be popular with Lib Dem voters that doesn't mean that people will up sticks and vote for them. It's also worth noting that the Greens may appeal to the social democrat wing of the party but not the traditional Liberals.

The Greens seem doomed (somewhat unfortunately) to being a bit of a non-entity in British politics.

[The Matthew Islands]

He's really not. The Greens are less likely to make a difference in the general election than the Liberal Democrats. Also it depends where they sit in the Liberal Democrats; if he's an orange booker like myself then he's probably not going to be swayed by the Green Party.

The Greens outperformed the LibDems in many areas of the country during the euro's and look to maintain that advantage during the general election. Green Party policy also supports re-nationalisation of rail, health services and the removal of tuition fees all policies popular with LibDem voters.

Yes, and the Lib Dems have achieved so much outside of the coalition.

[Olivaero]

Just another reason for me to vote Green tbh. I don't really care if it's not going to make a difference. We need a change and more than change for changes sake a progressive change not a regressive one like the ones UKIP and the SNP offer.

[Valaran]

The Greens outperformed the LibDems in many areas of the country during the euro's and look to maintain that advantage during the general election. Green Party policy also supports re-nationalisation of rail, health services and the removal of tuition fees all policies popular with LibDem voters.

Yes, and the Lib Dems have achieved so much outside of the coalition.

Wells they have (or had) a strong grassroots base and numerous MPs before the coalition. The Greens only have one.

[The Matthew Islands]

The Greens seem doomed (somewhat unfortunately) to being a bit of a non-entity in British politics.

I think its also down to them mostly being completely out of touch with most of the British public.

Pro-EU, yeah real vote winner there guys.
Scrap the welfare cap? Yeah, because the British love people on Welfare, and totes want to help them.
Increase green taxes? Yeah, tax increases are always guaranteed winners.

And that is just from briefly looking at their manifestos.

[Valaran]

Just another reason for me to vote Green tbh. I don't really care if it's not going to make a difference. We need a change and more than change for changes sake a progressive change not a regressive one like the ones UKIP and the SNP offer.

Yeah definitely not that kind of change *shudders*.

[Olivaero]

The Greens seem doomed (somewhat unfortunately) to being a bit of a non-entity in British politics.

I think its also down to them mostly being completely out of touch with most of the British public.

Pro-EU, yeah real vote winner there guys.
Scrap the welfare cap? Yeah, because the British love people on Welfare, and totes want to help them.
Increase green taxes? Yeah, tax increases are always guaranteed winners.

And that is just from briefly looking at their manifestos.

You really don't know much about the Greens or the "British people" Do you?

[Tlik]

This is being spun as a plan to cut benefits to people who don't have the training to get jobs, and refuse to take training to get jobs. This is really just window-dressing, the more fundamental change is that people who are on Jobseeker's Allowance can now get state-funded training to allow them to get new jobs. Currently, people who are on benefits are prevented from training while looking for work, so this is actually just a change in those rules that allows people to train and look for work at the same time.

Hopefully, this would help young people to find jobs that under the current system they would not have the training to do.

Denying them benefits is going to pay for training? Why not let them stay on benefits and still have the government fund the training? They're still going to need food and housing while in school.

That's... what this does.

[Tlik]

I think its also down to them mostly being completely out of touch with most of the British public.

Pro-EU, yeah real vote winner there guys.
Scrap the welfare cap? Yeah, because the British love people on Welfare, and totes want to help them.
Increase green taxes? Yeah, tax increases are always guaranteed winners.

And that is just from briefly looking at their manifestos.

You really don't know much about the Greens or the "British people" Do you?

He's right. That's what makes this policy so interesting.

You've got to remember this is a good policy for the welfare state. This allows people to get an education while on benefits and looking for work, something they currently can't do. However, the flip side of having benefits kept from them if they refuse to get basic training (remember basic education includes a number of diplomas, and, iirc, a set of government-approved apprenticeships, alongside the more "standard" A levels, meaning this will apply to an extreme minority) is being portrayed as the key idea, because that's what the British public wants.

Essentially, we now have a left-wing Labour government masquerading itself as a right-wing, hard-on-benefits party, and we have to assume that this is because they don't think anything else will work. That's a scary idea for those of us who still hold out hope for a mainstream left-wing party in politics, because it essentially means that a majority of this country wants to see cuts to our welfare state, and this ridiculous attack on "welfare scroungers".

About four years ago, we started hearing this rhetoric, and everyone laughed, and pointed out the obvious point that going after tax-dodging companies and individuals would be far more effective, but then it started becoming a reality, and now it is what the country believes. We laughed at nudge-theory as well, but by the looks of it, it worked.

[Geilinor]

You really don't know much about the Greens or the "British people" Do you?

He's right. That's what makes this policy so interesting.

You've got to remember this is a good policy for the welfare state. This allows people to get an education while on benefits and looking for work, something they currently can't do.

So if they get training, they stay on benefits? I thought the proposal was "if you don't have an A-level, you'll be taken off benefits".