Cameron, No dole for under 25's

[SportsTrophy]

Why not put a big stick up corporate backs to go with the under 25 thing to balance things up. Tell employers they will not be able to employ anyone outside their county boundary, all their employees will be locally trained so you better get into schools to make sure they are learning.

[L00b]

You're trying to suggest that it might be some previously untried new form of education, which sounds like nonsense.

And you are asserting that educational methods are immutable. Why?

 

Were you educated in exactly the same way your parents were?

Were you educated in exactly the same way your grand parents were?

Are your child(ren) (if you have any) being educated in the same way you were?

State education failed these people by the age 18, yet now the magic, improved education will be applied because they don't have a job!

<...>

So we can only discuss the proposal as it stands then.

That sounds like the plan, so yes. And we are.

True, I was going along with your assertion that these people were over represented amongst the unemployed.

Of course they are. Who is most likely to gain employment, any type of employment? Someone with basic reading/writing/calculating skills or someone without?

 

But that is a subset of the unemployed population, which is itself a subset of a total population, given any class of age.

 

The statistic I am familiar with, for France, was around 20%. Of an entire class of age. The national unemployment rate there is 10.5%, making it approx 3.3 million people. The (logic) contention is that a larger proportion of the 20% is to be found within that 3.3 million than not.

Ah yes, and I pointed out that they are accessed via student loans, effectively free at the point of provision.

I don't think your definition of 'free' matches mine, nor that of most dictionaries: how is education dispensed subject to a student loan "free"?

Or be more clear in the first place.

I'll be sure to pass my posts in draft by you for editing and correction before posting them

[truman]

Time will tell

 

Questioning you about your opinion doesn't mean I think it's wrong.. what a strange logic you have...what is the question you seem desperate for me to answer?

[Cyclone]

It couldn't be anything to do with them lacking the motivation to learn whilst they were young could it? and then perhaps like many adults regretting their lack of effort and deciding to go on to further education to make up for it.

That's possible, but if the education is mandated it seems unlikely that their motivation will have changed.

 

Some kids just want to fool around, play, lark about whilst they are kids, should that then stop them from further education when they become a little more mature.

No it shouldn't. But that should be by choice, not mandate.

I know a few people that left school with zero qualifications, regretted their lack and effort and started to study in their late teens early twenties, ultimately going on to uni and gaining a degree. It wasn't the education they received that change, it was they that changed.

 

Good for them, and everyone should have this opportunity.

[Happ Hazzard]

Can some explain to me what is bad about this plan? What is good about allowing under 25s to spend their days unemployed and idle? Are they strivers or skivers? It's time to prove it.

[Cyclone]

And you are asserting that educational methods are immutable. Why?

If they are not immutable then why not change them now to be more effective for those under 18?

I made no such assertion btw, you've inferred it.

 

Were you educated in exactly the same way your parents were?

Were you educated in exactly the same way your grand parents were?

Are your child(ren) (if you have any) being educated in the same way you were?

If there is some effective form of education that is not being applied then why only use it for those who fail to find work when >18?

That's rhetorical btw - I do not believe that the education being discussed is any different from the education that will have already failed the people in question.

That sounds like the plan, so yes. And we are.

Of course they are. Who is most likely to gain employment, any type of employment? Someone with basic reading/writing/calculating skills or someone without?

 

But that is a subset of the unemployed population, which is itself a subset of a total population, given any class of age.

 

The statistic I am familiar with, for France, was around 20%. Of an entire class of age. The national unemployment rate there is 10.5%, making it approx 3.3 million people. The (logic) contention is that a larger proportion of the 20% is to be found within that 3.3 million than not.

I don't disagree with the logic that the poorly educated will form a higher proportion of the unemployed than of the general population.

I don't think your definition of 'free' matches mine, nor that of most dictionaries: how is education dispensed subject to a student loan "free"?

It is 'free' in that no immediate payment is required and the payment is potentially permanently deferred.

You are correct though, it's not really free, but then it never was and never can be, someone must always pay for it. All that has happened is that the burden is moved from the tax payer to the student (as a deferred kind of tax effectively).

I'll be sure to pass my posts in draft by you for editing and correction before posting them

I have no interest in vetting your posts. I do wish you'd stop complaining though when you object to implications I read in them.

[poppet2]

Can some explain to me what is bad about this plan? What is good about allowing under 25s to spend their days unemployed and idle? Are they strivers or skivers? It's time to prove it.

 

But that's the whole idea, they don't. Everyone who signs on has to go on some course or another a couple of months. This is therefore not news, it's Tory rhetoric for the conference to make Cameron appear popular instead of talking about policies.

[Cyclone]

Can some explain to me what is bad about this plan? What is good about allowing under 25s to spend their days unemployed and idle? Are they strivers or skivers? It's time to prove it.

 

Did you try reading the thread?

[angos]

That's possible, but if the education is mandated it seems unlikely that their motivation will have changed.

No it shouldn't. But that should be by choice, not mandate.

 

Good for them, and everyone should have this opportunity.

 

The motivation will be no money if they are not working or in education, and it will still be their choice. No one will be forced to stay in education.

[Cyclone]

Time will tell

 

Will it?

 

You think truman is in time going to pop up and tell you that he secretly agreed with the tories all along!