UK Labour may scrap benefits for under 25s

November 22nd, 2013 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

The Telegraph reports:

People under the age of 25 would be barred from claiming unemployment benefits under proposals being considered by the Labour Party.

The Institute for Public Policy Research will publish a paper later this week proposing a new means-tested “youth allowance” for 18 to 24-year olds who are not in work or education.

Only those who prove they are in “purposeful” training or carrying out an “intensive” job search would be eligible for the allowance, the group will say.

The allowance would be dependent on family income, with the children of parents earning more than £25,000 a year unable to claim it, the IPPR will suggest.

The youth allowance would be set at £56.80, the same level as Job Seekers’ Allowance.

Under-25s would be banned from claiming additional benefits including Employment Support Allowance and Income Support. Paying those two benefits to under-25s costs taxpayers almost £1.3 billion a year.

It is understood that Rachel Reeves, the Labour shadow work and pensions secretary, is considering adopting the policy, though is undecided about applying a means test.

Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, has also hinted at taking young people out of the benefits system.

Good on . But can you imagine NZ Labour ever adopting such a policy? They have opposed almost every single aspect of the reforms designed to prevent long-term benefit dependency.

Tags: ,

19 Responses to “UK Labour may scrap benefits for under 25s”

  1. martinh (1,272 comments) says:

    i just read this exact thing on whaleoil

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Archer (220 comments) says:

    Instead the New Zealand Labour Party is busy defending people on 100k+ incomes having state houses for life while families in need are left without.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. martinh (1,272 comments) says:

    Well labours full of people working for Lens council on 100 k plus now so i expect them to keep pushing that agenda

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Longknives (4,951 comments) says:

    Sue Bradford will have steam coming out of her ears reading that.
    I wonder if ‘impartial’ TVNZ reporter Katie Bradford will do an ‘impartial’ report on the adverse effects this would have in New Zealand on all our own poor, suffering unemployed…..

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. labrator (1,851 comments) says:

    Hasn’t the “18 means you’re an adult” thing been thrashed out already?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Nigel Kearney (1,095 comments) says:

    No able bodied person of working age should get welfare, ever, under any circumstances. But I fail to see why 20 year olds and 30 year olds should be treated differently.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. burt (7,424 comments) says:

    The NZ Labour party response will be to make it compulsory to be on a benefit (and join a union) until you are 25.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. dime (10,208 comments) says:

    means tested? so another rich prick tax of sorts

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. gump (1,676 comments) says:

    It sounds like a good idea.

    There need to be some safeguards for young people in desperate situations – but everyone else could do with a good kick up the bum.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. unaha-closp (1,067 comments) says:

    Might be a good idea, but only if they also start means testing pensions and healthcare.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. gump (1,676 comments) says:

    @Nigel Kearney

    “No able bodied person of working age should get welfare, ever, under any circumstances. ”

    —————-

    What do you mean by “under any circumstances”?

    There are some (thankfully rare) circumstances in which the authorities should provide assistance.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Rightandleft (691 comments) says:

    I don’t like this one bit as it essentially says parents are now responsible for their 24 year old adult children’s poor decisions. It’s crazy that we keep having governments trying to treat people over 18 like children as it just encourages them to continue acting like children. All unemployment benefits should be temporary safety nets which require intensive job search or training, but that should apply to people of all ages.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. artemisia (268 comments) says:

    What’s the bet the UK black economy is similar to NZ’s, in proportion to population. NZ black economy is usually estimated as a *minimum* of $2billion per annum. So on that basis, UK’s would be upwards of $NZ30 billion pa. So plenty of room there for people to supplement their income tax free. Until caught, anyway, which no doubt is as likely in the UK as it is here. (Not very.)

    Of course in the UK people being paid under the table will be competing with the vast and increasing influx of immigrants, legal and illegal. Some having a good rep for hard work in menial jobs.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. artemisia (268 comments) says:

    The UK has a serious immigration issue which is impacting on welfare and health budgets in a big way, as currently the UK is seen as a soft touch by EU members in eastern Europe. Interesting that when the gates were opened in 2004, allowing EU migrants immediate access to work and benefits, the Government predicted up to 13,000 migrants would come to Britain each year. The actual total over nearly a decade was more than a million. The government could have imposed a 7 year moratorium, as most other EU nations did.

    That’s a lot of entry level jobs scooped up by migrants, many of whom would be less risky for employers than inexperienced, unmotivated and ill educated young people.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. kowtow (8,932 comments) says:

    Only a “Labour” party would be allowed to implement such “punitive” social policy.

    Any right of centre party and especially the Conservatives suggesting the same thing the media would have a field day with “Nasty Tories”.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. DJP6-25 (1,389 comments) says:

    kowtow 3.oo pm. Yes, I agree.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    Meanwhile back in Godzone:

    Cunliffes sixth Labour Government will increase retirement age to 85 (means tested) for White Natz supporters while lowering it to 45 for Murri, Trade Unionists, Folk who are Gay and vote Green or Labour (Sorry Chris.. :) ), Anyone who has protested against Andarko, Anyone who signed the referendum against asset sales (as long as they never bought shares),
    Folks who look like a Turtle/Russel/David and who weren’t rich enough to pay for cosmetic surgery to make themselves look that pretty……etc…etc. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. SPC (5,664 comments) says:

    When another paper interviewed Rachel Reeves a day later, and 3 days ago, this was the report they wrote.

    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/20/labour-unemployment-benefits-under-25-neets

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. SPC (5,664 comments) says:

    And by the way, the proposal from the IPPR, a Youth Allowance for UB for those 18 to 25, has a singular objective.

    1. diminish the independent status of those of that age, leading to
    2. a bar on those on Youth Allowance receiving accommodation support (forcing them home to their parents), leading to
    3. make it means tested, so that those 18 to 25 with parents in the middle class incomes get nothing and thus are reliant on both free board and pocket money from their parents.

    PS the being in training or intensive job search, qualification for Youth Allowance is a red herring, it won’t be any more onerous than Job Seeker UB, the real purpose is cost saving.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote