EMA

[ukwill]

What with the Govt having just defeated Labours (honestly we would cut as well) attempt to derail the abolishing of EMA, I thought I'd chuck a poll up to see what we all think. Clearly I'm biased as being a middle aged, miserable old git, I amazingly managed to get by without EMA, and while Thatch was busy "ruining our society" (allegedly).

So, over to you...

[550Hep]

Labour's education spokesman, Andy Burnham, told MPs that social mobility would be "thrown into reverse".

What a prize tit!

[Jim the Sunderer]

It bought me a lot of Sonic the Hedgehog silk ties and cigars.

I bet it costs 70p in the pound to administer, probably.

P.s. scrap it.

Edited by Jim the Sunderer on Wednesday 19th January 20:54

[Taita]

It funds a LOT of beer and fags for 90% of people I knew on it.

[FraserLFA]

It's never spend wisely. Kids just use it on cigarettes and x-box games.

[Fittster]

GF works in the sort of inner city school that most PHers would dread sending their kids to. According to her reports it will put many of the kids leaving year 11 off from going to college.

[Slagathore]

When I started my apprenticeship, loads of the other kids in the class were getting EMA money.

Pretty much all went on booze and fags, pretty much anything unrelated to college.

Might be slightly different for other people, as apprentices earn a little bit of money aswell.

A complete load of bks, get a part time job if you want money for college.

[Condieboy]

In my experience it only served to encourage the s of the class to stay on and therefore disrupt those that gave a st about their education.

[550Hep]

Fittster said:

GF works in the sort of inner city school that most PHers would dread sending their kids to. According to her reports it will put many of the kids leaving year 11 off from going to college.

Did the same report give any indication on how many of those that would be put off would be because they simply are not getting "free money"? As opposed to the ones that grasp the concept of the advantages a properly targeted further education course (that is not a foundation course in basket weaving!) might give them and how they will benefit themselves and society at large in the long term, which now will not be able to as they could not afford to do it?

[Piersman2]

To buck the trend my daughter actually uses her for her bus fare and books etc...

But that mainly seems to be becuase her mother is happy to take my child support money and NOT spend it on the daughter.

[Fittster]

550Hep said:

Fittster said:

GF works in the sort of inner city school that most PHers would dread sending their kids to. According to her reports it will put many of the kids leaving year 11 off from going to college.

Did the same report give any indication on how many of those that would be put off would be because they simply are not getting "free money"? As opposed to the ones that grasp the concept of the advantages a properly targeted further education course (that is not a foundation course in basket weaving!) might give them and how they will benefit themselves and society at large in the long term, which now will not be able to as they could not afford to do it?

There are certainly poor kids around, quite where the benefits goes seems a bit of a mystery but they aren't turning up to school well fed and clothed. There parents (and they certainly don't all have them, they quite often appear to have chaotic home lives, on the brink of being taken into care). Recent amusing story was of some year 7 almost being taken into care after his mother got into a fight with his sister in the local Asda, the weapon of choice was a bottle of lambrini!

The sort of course the likely to have end up on are things like hairdressing, catering, bricklaying. Nothing hugely demanding but with some degree of use. However without some very simple form of funding available they will drop-out. They will try and find low level jobs, which with poor GCSEs and no experience they won't get so will turn to the dole and start dealing if they aren't already.

Keeping NEETs isn't cheap. Nicked from Wiki "The first large-scale study of the phenomenon, The Cost of Exclusion, estimates that up to a million young people cost the UK economy £3.65 billion per year."

I'm not sure if stopping EMA will save the taxpayer anything.

[JK55]

This EMA Crap should never have started in the first place.

I remember when I was at school, I worked aswell, never got any sort of a tax reduction. My tax money went towards giving people sat next to me a better chance than I had.

I think this was a great lesson for kids about life in general. Steal money of hard working people and give it to a bunch of wasters; herein lies the first lesson of British social justice.

[550Hep]

Fittster said:

550Hep said:

Fittster said:

GF works in the sort of inner city school that most PHers would dread sending their kids to. According to her reports it will put many of the kids leaving year 11 off from going to college.

Did the same report give any indication on how many of those that would be put off would be because they simply are not getting "free money"? As opposed to the ones that grasp the concept of the advantages a properly targeted further education course (that is not a foundation course in basket weaving!) might give them and how they will benefit themselves and society at large in the long term, which now will not be able to as they could not afford to do it?

There are certainly poor kids around, quite where the benefits goes seems a bit of a mystery but they aren't turning up to school well fed and clothed. There parents (and they certainly don't all have them, they quite often appear to have chaotic home lives, on the brink of being taken into care). Recent amusing story was of some year 7 almost being taken into care after his mother got into a fight with his sister in the local Asda, the weapon of choice was a bottle of lambrini!

The sort of course the likely to have end up on are things like hairdressing, catering, bricklaying. Nothing hugely demanding but with some degree of use. However without some very simple form of funding available they will drop-out. They will try and find low level jobs, which with poor GCSEs and no experience they won't get so will turn to the dole and start dealing if they aren't already.

Keeping NEETs isn't cheap. Nicked from Wiki "The first large-scale study of the phenomenon, The Cost of Exclusion, estimates that up to a million young people cost the UK economy £3.65 billion per year."

I'm not sure if stopping EMA will save the taxpayer anything.

There are deserving cases out there and there always will be, the challenge I think as with all things benefit related is firstly having a sensible way to target support at those that have a genuine need and secondly to be able to have confidence that it is being used for the correct purpose, and if not yank it away.

Unfortunately what you generally get is an inability to do either as the first ends up costing (due to the governments inability to do anything efficiently!) a st load and the second people baulk at as it is considered an infringement of their 'human rights' to monitor what they spend the money WE give them on!

The cynic in me says the reason for the second is by majority the voice of those that are not spending it on that for which it is intended wanting to be 'caught out'. But yes I get the Big Bother 1984 style arguments it engenders but I am only talking about those that are given money by the state, I personally think the state should make them accountable for how they spend it. After all I cannot think of another situation in life (MP's excepted!) where those of us here who spend other peoples money for whatever reason do not have to account for it!

Oh Lambrini, you couldn't make that kind of stuff up, priceless!

[lauda]

Complete waste of money IMO. I worked part-time throughout my GCSEs, A-levels and degree (admitedly for beer money rather than to buy books) but if £30 a week is the difference between being able to continue your full-time education or not, get a part-time job to fund it.

[rover 623gsi]

sadly, there are very few part time jobs around these days for 16-18 yr olds

[550Hep]

rover 623gsi said:

sadly, there are very few part time jobs around these days for 16-18 yr olds

No restaurants, pubs, food outlets, petrol stations, supermarkets, mini-markets, shops at all then?

[Sticks.]

The disagreement on R4 this morning was centered around what proportion of students in receipt of EMA would still take up further education if it stopped. Both sides had very different figures.

If they'd be in education anyway, it's a waste. But if not, then it's better than spending that money on the dole, and an investment in their and or future. Without clear evidence it's impossible to know, so it's down to political dogma.

[Martin Keene]

I'd never heard of EMA until all this stink was kicked up because they threaten to can it. Now, if my understandering is correct it stands for Education Maintenance Allowance and is paid to 16-18 year olds to help fund their A-levels and I have heard some students saying they couldn't make ends meet without it.

I'm sorry, but wtf...

How can you not make ends meet? By the very nature of your age means you don't own a house, only 50% maximum can have a car, and if they have a car then they will almost certainly have a job because £30 a week doesn't buy and run a car.

So, what are they spending it on and why does the public have to fund it? When I left school in 1992 I went to college full time for a year as apprenticeships were few and far between. 4 days wehere normal 9-5 type collage days and on Wednesday's I did the first year of my ONC and didn't finish until 8. On Thurdays and Fridays I went straight from college to the local Sainsburys and finished at 10pm and I was back there on the Saturday morning at 8am!

Fking kids of today...

[johnfm]

Over 50% of 16-18s get the grant. So it seems like not just the needy are getting it. Unlikely that over 50% are from skintight households.

The earning limit of the household to qualify is £31k. Hardly the poverty line.

It costs £36 million to administer.

The classic quote in PMQs today was Cameron quoting Brown - winky said when he introduced the EMA that it would be paid for by the reduction in debt under labour. Priceless!!

[rover 623gsi]

550Hep said:

rover 623gsi said:

sadly, there are very few part time jobs around these days for 16-18 yr olds

No restaurants, pubs, food outlets, petrol stations, supermarkets, mini-markets, shops at all then?

I used to work in a supermarket on Saturdays when I was 15 and I loved it. But times have changed.

I've just done a back-of-the-fag-packet calculation and I reckon there are about 1,500 16-18 yrs old in the small town in which I live. I can tell you now there are not 1.500 part-time jobs available. You'd be hard pushed to get a job in pub under the age of 18 and even most supermarkets don't like employing under 18s because of the licensing restrcitions and even getting a job in a local mini-market isn't easy. There's a new Spar down the end of my road and all job applications had to be done via the internet - you can't just wander in off the streets and ask to speak to the manager anymore.