Blatant Electioneering Or Caring??

[Eric Cartman]

Your points are well positioned but in my view don't help young people , it just provides a vacuum and excuse not to progress in life .


The wonderful recent plethora of offerings I'm sure are well meant certainty very popular .


The deployment of such a programme of giveaways in my view will simply kill off or reduce employment for 16 - 18 year old ,as employers seek to offer less roles to folk by the doubling up of their wages .


In my view they need better funded education ,not £10 an hour jobs , a wage/job to aim for , better paid and more Apprenticeships, funded centrally direct into businesses who prove they have a genuine up skilling pathway .

I'm sure free tuition fees will soon appear again , free money is the word , and yes a very popular one ,and I'm sure gathers in the new populist politics , who have no other view .

That's me done .

What do you mean when you say better funded education? I would make a significant proportion of university courses fee-free but you seem to be opposed to the reduction of tuition fees so I am struggling to work out where you would put this money.

To flip it around because it adds a different dimension to the discussion - Why do you think we should have a minimum wage system that depends on age? I don't think it is radical to suggest that people should be paid according to their contribution and skill set and not their demographic. Is it proper for the government to effectively tell employers that a 17 year old is inherently worth less than a 21 year old and a 21 year old is inherently worth less than a 26 year old?

[Taunton Blue Genie]

What do you mean when you say better funded education? I would make a significant proportion of university courses fee-free but you seem to be opposed to the reduction of tuition fees so I am struggling to work out where you would put this money.

To flip it around because it adds a different dimension to the discussion - Why do you think we should have a minimum wage system that depends on age? I don't think it is radical to suggest that people should be paid according to their contribution and skill set and not their demographic. Is it proper for the government to effectively tell employers that a 17 year old is inherently worth less than a 21 year old and a 21 year old is inherently worth less than a 26 year old?

Not only are younger people short-changed on the grounds of age discrimination but their older peers may be under threat of being replaced by cheaper labour i.e. the younger people.