Housing Benefit to end for jobless aged 18-21 beginning next month

The Tories announced this new policy two days ago for a change that will begin on April 1. They estimate it'll save a paltry £25m per year. What utter bastards they are.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politic...obless-9968096

The Department of Work and Pensions chose a non-sitting Friday in the Commons two days ago to confirm 18 - 21 year olds will lose their benefits in less than a month.

BYNIGEL NELSON
00:37, 5 MAR 2017

Ministers have slipped out plans to deny jobless young people housing benefit when MPs weren’t looking.

The Department of Work and Pensions chose a non-sitting Friday in the Commons two days ago to confirm 18 - 21 year olds will lose their benefits in less than a month.

That means they will either have to continue living with parents or find their own rent money.

But shadow Housing minister John Healey is furious the government published the legislation at a time when MPs could not object.

He said: “These shameful cuts in housing benefit will put young people on the streets.

“They’re old enough to marry, work, pay tax and fight for our country but are being denied the same right to basic help with housing costs as any other British adult.”

The measure was first floated by then Chancellor George Osborne two years ago to massive opposition.

It would save £25million in the first year rising to £40million a year by 2020.

But Theresa May was expected to abandon the plan when she became PM and fired Mr Osborne.

Now Mr Healey is calling on Chancellor Philip Hammond to scrap the cruel measure in Wednesday’s Budget.

Private landlords say they would not consider unemployed young people as tenants unless they had the benefit to fall back on.

And homeless charity Shelter predicts it would force thousands more youngsters onto the streets.

Councils are already struggling to cope with 60,000 homeless households with 100,000 children stuck in temporary hostels.

Mr Healey added: “Ministers should hang their heads in shame. They will find next to no one who thinks this should go ahead.”

Theresa May and her new 'caring' Tory Party.
Same old ..

It should backfire on them. As if the Tories need worry about that. They have no real opposition.
The plans have been long cast - heaven help us.

Weren't they going to do this before? I'm sure I moaned about it some time ago, I don't know what the hell they expect people with no families to do? Very low indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mrs Steve R

Weren't they going to do this before? I'm sure I moaned about it some time ago, I don't know what the hell they expect people with no families to do? Very low indeed.

---

Yes, George Osbourne tried it and got knocked back.
Obviously 'they' were determined to get it through, and have tried to do it on the sly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mrs Steve R

Weren't they going to do this before? I'm sure I moaned about it some time ago, I don't know what the hell they expect people with no families to do? Very low indeed.

---

And those with abusive parents who they need to get away from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vimana.

Theresa May and her new 'caring' Tory Party.
Same old ..

---

I remember that, I even raised an eyebrow at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vimana.

Yes, George Osbourne tried it and got knocked back.
Obviously 'they' were determined to get it through, and have tried to do it on the sly.

---

Yeah that's right, I remember now, they always manage to get things through eventually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

And those with abusive parents who they need to get away from.

---

Indeed, It's going to cause loads of problems.

^^
Reasonable? - in principle? - What about in real life?

As with any scheme which is supposedly about 'doing the right thing' (and not solely about clawing back money from the most vulnerable ...) it will be the fair implementation and practice of it which would be the real test.

What is actually in place regards this: "helping young people get the training, skills and experience they need to move into a job and build a career"
Really.. Jobs , careers .. great! - get in line kids

Best prove and illustrate that is genuinely happening - first - before looking to implement some measure on the back of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vimana.

^^
Reasonable? - in principle? - What about in real life?

As with any scheme which is supposedly about 'doing the right thing' (and not solely about clawing back money from the most vulnerable ...) it will be the fair implementation and practice of it which would be the real test.

What is actually in place regards this: "helping young people get the training, skills and experience they need to move into a job and build a career"
Really.. Jobs , careers .. great! - get in line kids

Best prove and illustrate that is genuinely happening - first - before looking to implement some measure on the back of it.

---

It is okay. If there is nothing in place and the kids end up without a job/career we can just call them lazy.

:facepalm:. you offered that statement as an illustration of why this policy is reasonable!
Sorry to have bothered you! I hope you manage to stay away for the day. :thumbup:

:thumbup:
Just to be clear - in my post above, I suggested that it was the Gov't that need to illustrate the opportunities - not you.
Aye, have a good un' :thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninianclark

If it's your aspiration to get NEET kids on to housing benefit as soon as they leave school than that's up to you. What they appear to be trying to do is stopping that route and instead :-

As the dept rep said "We want to make sure that 18 to 21-year-olds do not slip straight into a life on benefits, which is why we are helping young people get the training, skills and experience they need to move into a job and build a career"

Lets see how they get on - I would support this aspiration, the fact that it is saving so little money means it is not being done for fiscal reasons - even you could agree on that one I would have thought. Unless of course you are a ranting raving anti everything type of guy - in which case , there is little point bothering.

Have a great day and thanks for your input

---

Obvz anything the Tories ever do is to the detriment of the working man or women.......No questions asked.

Tories baddies, Labour the goodies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninianclark

Do you expect me to go and get the information data for you ? , sorry sunshine - Im trying to work from home and not get distracted by this place. Why not ask the the dept responsible for the information - they'll be much better placed to give the details you need Vim

---

You could have not opened it, then you could have not read the thread, then you could have not replied to the thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordKenwyne

Obvz anything the Tories ever do is to the detriment of the working man or women.......No questions asked.

Tories baddies, Labour the goodies.

---

Who said that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordKenwyne

Obvz anything the Tories ever do is to the detriment of the working man or women.......No questions asked.

Tories baddies, Labour the goodies.

---

C'mon! - that's as ridiculous a statement as the attitudes it pretends to challenge.
Do you blindly nod at everything that the Tory party offer to you to nod at? - No, I'm sure that you don't! Because that would be equally idiotic.

If the Gov't of the day - whoever they be - implements a policy which takes away existing benefits, on the basis that a certain situation is in place, then they need to illustrate the situation is as they describe.

Regards the amount of full-time jobs and training opportunities leading to proper jobs, you know that currently that is simply not the situation. If they can make those genuine opportunities happen - brilliant good on them.

Should Labour form a government again then they won't reverse this policy in spite of their fake outrage presently. How do I know? Because I remember the 1979-1997 Thatcher/Major years when they pretended they were against privatisation, dismantling of trade union rights, sales of social housing stock, etc, but kept them all between 1997-2010.

Some other benefit changes begin April 1st. Single unemployed parents in receipt of Universal Credit will have to seek work when their youngest child is three (from aged five), and disabled ESA claimants in the WRAG group's weekly payment will drop from £102 per week to £73 per week.

I vaguely recall a furore a few years back when they were set to reduce some Tax Credits. Such was the backlash this government pledged to not make more welfare cuts before the 2020 election. It appears they were fibbing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Organ Morgan.

Should Labour form a government again then they won't reverse this policy in spite of their fake outrage presently. How do I know? Because I remember the 1979-1997 Thatcher/Major years when they pretended they were against privatisation, dismantling of trade union rights, sales of social housing stock, etc, but kept them all between 1997-2010.

Some other benefit changes begin April 1st. Single unemployed parents in receipt of Universal Credit will have to seek work when their youngest child is three (from aged five), and disabled ESA claimants in the WRAG group's weekly payment will drop from £102 per week to £73 per week.

I vaguely recall a furore a few years back when they were set to reduce some Tax Credits. Such was the backlash this government pledged to not make more welfare cuts before the 2020 election. It appears they were fibbing.

---

Good cop/bad cop, until people accept that they are both the same thing nothing will ever change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninianclark

“This government is delivering on its commitment to ensure young people in the benefit system face the same choices as young people who work but may not be able to afford to leave home.

“We know that personal circumstances will differ so we have worked closely with charities and the housing sector to develop a fair and robust set of exemptions to protect the most vulnerable young people.”

---

It sounds a lot like :-

“This government is delivering on its commitment to ensure the chronically sick and disabled in the benefit system go to work just as fit and healthy people do, or otherwise they will face the risk of becoming destitute.

“We know that personal circumstances will differ so we have worked closely with Atos/Capita/Maximus to develop a fair and robust set of exemptions to protect the most vulnerable chronically sick and disabled people.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninianclark

The sums in terms of savings are so low as to not be worth the effort. Safe guards have been apparently put in place to cover the arguments made re not being able to go back and home live with parents etc. So after that the savings are down to about 3 mil - which is nothing. So that means there is another reason for doing it, which is apparently

"We want to make sure that 18 to 21-year-olds do not slip straight into a life on benefits, which is why we are helping young people get the training, skills and experience they need to move into a job and build a career,”

“This government is delivering on its commitment to ensure young people in the benefit system face the same choices as young people who work but may not be able to afford to leave home.

“We know that personal circumstances will differ so we have worked closely with charities and the housing sector to develop a fair and robust set of exemptions to protect the most vulnerable young people.”

To be that seems reasonable enough - they dont want kids leaving school and going straight on to housing benefits and as said the savings are not the issue as they are too small.

---

Perhaps it's aimed at one parent young girls . And potentially getting parents to work harder in being responsible for there children , motivating them to seek employment/ further education, prelong living in thier parental homes , rather than allowing a drift into housing , paid for via benefits, in an already challenged housing market.

http://giphy.com/gifs/prime-parliame...hXG/fullscreen

^^
:hehe: Grotesque.

Considering the national living wage (or the new minimum wage to be more accurate) comes for those over the age of 25, this seems to be a further cut made targeting the young. Stats also show women are bearing the brunt of 80% of austerity.

Tax credits being cut may put more emphasis on employers to pay decent wages but better wages should have been followed by tax credit cuts rather than the other way round. Likewise, HB cuts may encourage the young and their families to rely less on the state but it should have followed an effective move to increase affordable housing stock and greater control over private landlords rent demands and in general for irresponsible landlords.