York students in allowance protest (From York Press)

The problem is that we cannot afford it.

Before Labour, people managed to go to school and sixth-form without cash from the government - and there is no reason why they cannot now.

Overproof wrote:
The problem is that we cannot afford it. Before Labour, people managed to go to school and sixth-form without cash from the government - and there is no reason why they cannot now.

that just the point Overproof, before Labour they didn't unless their family's had the money to subsidize them. The choice is a simple one, do we spend money in order to educate more of our young citizens in the hope that they will become high salary earners and tax PAYERS or do we waste money paying them dole or social security because the Con Libs have destroyed all the jobs, remember Thatcher do you? remember the industry Britain had before she imposed similar policies to the lib con tory boys?

melted wrote:

Overproof wrote: The problem is that we cannot afford it. Before Labour, people managed to go to school and sixth-form without cash from the government - and there is no reason why they cannot now.

that just the point Overproof, before Labour they didn't unless their family's had the money to subsidize them. The choice is a simple one, do we spend money in order to educate more of our young citizens in the hope that they will become high salary earners and tax PAYERS or do we waste money paying them dole or social security because the Con Libs have destroyed all the jobs, remember Thatcher do you? remember the industry Britain had before she imposed similar policies to the lib con tory boys?

You remember the unions bringing down industry do you? Remember Scargill? Remember Labour pandering to the unions to the unions to the extent that we ceased to function as a developed country? Remember power cuts and no rubbish collections for months? Remember being unable to pull coal out of the ground at a profit? Remember the burgeoning and much cheaper industry of the developing world doing everything we did for half the price AND doing it better? It seems not!

I am from a poor family and I didn't need the EMA to encourage me to stay on at school. I didn't buy new trainers or have expensive mobile phones etc etc. Thats all the EMA buys, not course books or an education. If you can't convince the child of the benefitr of education without sweets money then you shouldn't be a parent. Its just not needed, it never was!

perhaps students should have a part-time job through college. I certainly did and my parents encouraged this. My college wasn't close to home and I paid bus fare and lunch costs myself. I'm surprised students are now saying they need this money to attend college. I am sure studies conducted by the University of York prove they would otherwise have gone anyhow.... Furthermore are we really to believe without this money students would get a full time job. I think not, after all isn't the latest mantra of the post 16's 'education is a right'. It is but not life long education. We are all given a good start in life, surely at some point these young adults (who class themselves as adult) should take responsibility and contribute. College attendence is not prohibitive to a student taking on a part time job to cover the costs of travel. A good number do and set a good example. Others prefer to be handed everything on a plate, in my humble opinion. A point to check would be if the parents still receive child benefit up to 18?

College attendence does not mean high salaries, it does not mean you'll get a job unfortunately either.

In the ideal world the money would be available.... But we live in the real world where money is tight and the elected government has to spend the money it has in the most beneficial way for the majority of citizens it can.Can these young people not get work to subsidise their income while still in education?

York Fox wrote:

melted wrote:

Overproof wrote: The problem is that we cannot afford it. Before Labour, people managed to go to school and sixth-form without cash from the government - and there is no reason why they cannot now.

that just the point Overproof, before Labour they didn't unless their family's had the money to subsidize them. The choice is a simple one, do we spend money in order to educate more of our young citizens in the hope that they will become high salary earners and tax PAYERS or do we waste money paying them dole or social security because the Con Libs have destroyed all the jobs, remember Thatcher do you? remember the industry Britain had before she imposed similar policies to the lib con tory boys?

You remember the unions bringing down industry do you? Remember Scargill? Remember Labour pandering to the unions to the unions to the extent that we ceased to function as a developed country? Remember power cuts and no rubbish collections for months? Remember being unable to pull coal out of the ground at a profit? Remember the burgeoning and much cheaper industry of the developing world doing everything we did for half the price AND doing it better? It seems not! I am from a poor family and I didn't need the EMA to encourage me to stay on at school. I didn't buy new trainers or have expensive mobile phones etc etc. Thats all the EMA buys, not course books or an education. If you can't convince the child of the benefitr of education without sweets money then you shouldn't be a parent. Its just not needed, it never was!

no I do not remember the unions bringing down industry, I remember them fighting to get working people health and safety and a decent living wage and I remember them striving to help the Labour movement to establish the National Health Service and decent housing. I do remember Scargill and I would say that history has proved him right because we could do with all that coal now and will increasingly over the next centuary, thats the trouble with you daily mail believers you have a jaundiced view caused by the conservative press poison & lies.

Just a few points.
Firstly where to fnd the money - more money could be made available if the richest in society, who made alot out of the last period of economic growth who have benefitted from higher profits at the expense of workers, were to pay more tax. In the 1970s top rates of tax were 83% and people realised that markets do not provide a divine right to income. Furthermore if big businnesses paid their current tax obligations there would also be more money. For example Vodafone recently got out of 6bn by making a deal with the treasury.

Secondly - why do college students need the money? They have to pay for their own transport in most cases and this can be extremely expensive as our textbooks and other materials. Many students work part time jobs but more than 10 hours of work can reduce their grades significantly. They will have to compete for jobs and uni places with students who have had private education, tutoring and all the benefits of a wealthy upbringing. Some students have caring responsibilities at home and some have to contribute to accomodation and food costs at home. The EMA did not solve this problem - but it gave them a bit more of a chance. If we believe in equality of opportunity we cannot support the cutting of EMA which worsens the position of medium and low income youngsters who have to compete in an ever more difficult job market.

melted wrote:

York Fox wrote:

melted wrote:

Overproof wrote: The problem is that we cannot afford it. Before Labour, people managed to go to school and sixth-form without cash from the government - and there is no reason why they cannot now.

that just the point Overproof, before Labour they didn't unless their family's had the money to subsidize them. The choice is a simple one, do we spend money in order to educate more of our young citizens in the hope that they will become high salary earners and tax PAYERS or do we waste money paying them dole or social security because the Con Libs have destroyed all the jobs, remember Thatcher do you? remember the industry Britain had before she imposed similar policies to the lib con tory boys?

You remember the unions bringing down industry do you? Remember Scargill? Remember Labour pandering to the unions to the unions to the extent that we ceased to function as a developed country? Remember power cuts and no rubbish collections for months? Remember being unable to pull coal out of the ground at a profit? Remember the burgeoning and much cheaper industry of the developing world doing everything we did for half the price AND doing it better? It seems not! I am from a poor family and I didn't need the EMA to encourage me to stay on at school. I didn't buy new trainers or have expensive mobile phones etc etc. Thats all the EMA buys, not course books or an education. If you can't convince the child of the benefitr of education without sweets money then you shouldn't be a parent. Its just not needed, it never was!

no I do not remember the unions bringing down industry, I remember them fighting to get working people health and safety and a decent living wage and I remember them striving to help the Labour movement to establish the National Health Service and decent housing. I do remember Scargill and I would say that history has proved him right because we could do with all that coal now and will increasingly over the next centuary, thats the trouble with you daily mail believers you have a jaundiced view caused by the conservative press poison & lies.

I read the Times and the Guardian thanks. Mirror for you? It does have great celeb news.

OK fair enough - the unions wanted H&S and a living wage. However in asking for those things (they were very well paid) they made british coal and other industry unviable. They simply (and rightly) wanted much more money than the equivalent chinese or polish labourer, ergo british coal ceases to be profitable. There is no way around it, we couldn't do it cheap enough so no one bought it and therefore we stopped mining. Thats capitalism for you. On the up side, we now have rising coal prices and even though british workers want more than their international counterparts, the time will soon come when it is profitable again and in a BIG way. It's really not difficult to grasp.

melted wrote:

Overproof wrote: The problem is that we cannot afford it. Before Labour, people managed to go to school and sixth-form without cash from the government - and there is no reason why they cannot now.

that just the point Overproof, before Labour they didn't unless their family's had the money to subsidize them. The choice is a simple one, do we spend money in order to educate more of our young citizens in the hope that they will become high salary earners and tax PAYERS or do we waste money paying them dole or social security because the Con Libs have destroyed all the jobs, remember Thatcher do you? remember the industry Britain had before she imposed similar policies to the lib con tory boys?

Hi there. You seem to be generalising massively (melted that is) so I just thought I'd take the opportunity to point out that I went to college before EMA and didn't receive a penny of support from my family. I got a weekend job. I'm also from a humble background as were most of my peers. You never had to have financial support to attend college and you still don't. It was a luxury and not an entitlement. Oh, and I despise the daily mail before you generalise further.....

From some of the comments above it would seem that the answer to our problems would be to send small children back down the mines, thus at a stroke we dramatically reduce labour costs and become competitive with the far-east and at the same time eliminate the need for all this expensive education malarky. Too good to be true.
On a slightly more serious note, there are far more pupils staying on at school than was the case twenty years ago. There is also the point that education is now demanding of equipment which is far more technically proficient and thus expensive than was the case hitherto. We have a young population which is better educated than used to be the case, when one could find a job with virtually no qualifications. The massive soakers-up of unskilled labour no longer exist and that is the real problem: what to do with those who have poor social and educational skills and who don't stay on. The answer is not to cut away whatever support there is which might encourage more of them to do so. The money exists; it's a matter of what you decide to spend it on.

York Fox wrote:

melted wrote:

York Fox wrote:

melted wrote:

Overproof wrote: The problem is that we cannot afford it. Before Labour, people managed to go to school and sixth-form without cash from the government - and there is no reason why they cannot now.

that just the point Overproof, before Labour they didn't unless their family's had the money to subsidize them. The choice is a simple one, do we spend money in order to educate more of our young citizens in the hope that they will become high salary earners and tax PAYERS or do we waste money paying them dole or social security because the Con Libs have destroyed all the jobs, remember Thatcher do you? remember the industry Britain had before she imposed similar policies to the lib con tory boys?

You remember the unions bringing down industry do you? Remember Scargill? Remember Labour pandering to the unions to the unions to the extent that we ceased to function as a developed country? Remember power cuts and no rubbish collections for months? Remember being unable to pull coal out of the ground at a profit? Remember the burgeoning and much cheaper industry of the developing world doing everything we did for half the price AND doing it better? It seems not! I am from a poor family and I didn't need the EMA to encourage me to stay on at school. I didn't buy new trainers or have expensive mobile phones etc etc. Thats all the EMA buys, not course books or an education. If you can't convince the child of the benefitr of education without sweets money then you shouldn't be a parent. Its just not needed, it never was!

no I do not remember the unions bringing down industry, I remember them fighting to get working people health and safety and a decent living wage and I remember them striving to help the Labour movement to establish the National Health Service and decent housing. I do remember Scargill and I would say that history has proved him right because we could do with all that coal now and will increasingly over the next centuary, thats the trouble with you daily mail believers you have a jaundiced view caused by the conservative press poison & lies.

I read the Times and the Guardian thanks. Mirror for you? It does have great celeb news. OK fair enough - the unions wanted H&S and a living wage. However in asking for those things (they were very well paid) they made british coal and other industry unviable. They simply (and rightly) wanted much more money than the equivalent chinese or polish labourer, ergo british coal ceases to be profitable. There is no way around it, we couldn't do it cheap enough so no one bought it and therefore we stopped mining. Thats capitalism for you. On the up side, we now have rising coal prices and even though british workers want more than their international counterparts, the time will soon come when it is profitable again and in a BIG way. It's really not difficult to grasp.

thats right, it is capitalism for you! and we do have rising coal prices but few pits and even fewer miners. We are also dependant for energy on a state run be gangsters and ex KGB officers , thanks to Thatchers energy policies,who are about to take a controlling interest in one of the biggist British energy companys, but still thats capitalism for you, glad you are happy with it seeing as it recently almost caused the melt down of the U.K. economy, if it was'nt for the good judgement of a Labour Prime Minister and his Chancellor, that is.Stop boosting your ego by talking about yourself and open your mind to what really happened in the 19th and 20th century, daily mirror indeed, you pompous patronising piffler

hifive wrote:

melted wrote:

Overproof wrote: The problem is that we cannot afford it. Before Labour, people managed to go to school and sixth-form without cash from the government - and there is no reason why they cannot now.

that just the point Overproof, before Labour they didn't unless their family's had the money to subsidize them. The choice is a simple one, do we spend money in order to educate more of our young citizens in the hope that they will become high salary earners and tax PAYERS or do we waste money paying them dole or social security because the Con Libs have destroyed all the jobs, remember Thatcher do you? remember the industry Britain had before she imposed similar policies to the lib con tory boys?

Hi there. You seem to be generalising massively (melted that is) so I just thought I'd take the opportunity to point out that I went to college before EMA and didn't receive a penny of support from my family. I got a weekend job. I'm also from a humble background as were most of my peers. You never had to have financial support to attend college and you still don't. It was a luxury and not an entitlement. Oh, and I despise the daily mail before you generalise further.....

I take your point Hi five and good on you, I am not specifically talking about EMA but about the principle of equal education opportunity for all, a goal which has always been opposed by the Tory party but which has always been one of the Labours great principles! I do not believe I am generalising I believe I am defending one of these principles and they will need defending believe me! look at what is planned the Health Service

i now live in leeds,tell ya what fkn students playing poor me im short of cash an all that,what a load of rubbish try going in the pubs round headingley on a night ya can't get in.too many students.lol

I would just like to say that also I didn’t receive EMA and had to have part time jobs during my whole education experience from the age of 16, and have done well. But I was lucky enough to be blessed with a family that supported an encouraged my endeavours in other ways. Many people are without this nurture which is just as important as financial support. When there are people who lack both financial support and the support of their families the chances of them being successful in education beyond GCSE level drops. EMA in no way makes up for this, but it was a start. I know many people who have said to me if it were not for EMA they don’t think they would be where they are today. I think we do have a choice over how to handle the debt, and making repeated cuts that will be detrimental to the poorest in society is wrong. We can let Cameron dress it up any way he likes but the fact is that EMA is just one in a long line of cuts that will harm people who have so little already, I dont belive that is acceptable.

melted wrote:

York Fox wrote:

melted wrote:

York Fox wrote:

melted wrote:

Overproof wrote: The problem is that we cannot afford it. Before Labour, people managed to go to school and sixth-form without cash from the government - and there is no reason why they cannot now.

that just the point Overproof, before Labour they didn't unless their family's had the money to subsidize them. The choice is a simple one, do we spend money in order to educate more of our young citizens in the hope that they will become high salary earners and tax PAYERS or do we waste money paying them dole or social security because the Con Libs have destroyed all the jobs, remember Thatcher do you? remember the industry Britain had before she imposed similar policies to the lib con tory boys?

You remember the unions bringing down industry do you? Remember Scargill? Remember Labour pandering to the unions to the unions to the extent that we ceased to function as a developed country? Remember power cuts and no rubbish collections for months? Remember being unable to pull coal out of the ground at a profit? Remember the burgeoning and much cheaper industry of the developing world doing everything we did for half the price AND doing it better? It seems not! I am from a poor family and I didn't need the EMA to encourage me to stay on at school. I didn't buy new trainers or have expensive mobile phones etc etc. Thats all the EMA buys, not course books or an education. If you can't convince the child of the benefitr of education without sweets money then you shouldn't be a parent. Its just not needed, it never was!

no I do not remember the unions bringing down industry, I remember them fighting to get working people health and safety and a decent living wage and I remember them striving to help the Labour movement to establish the National Health Service and decent housing. I do remember Scargill and I would say that history has proved him right because we could do with all that coal now and will increasingly over the next centuary, thats the trouble with you daily mail believers you have a jaundiced view caused by the conservative press poison & lies.

I read the Times and the Guardian thanks. Mirror for you? It does have great celeb news. OK fair enough - the unions wanted H&S and a living wage. However in asking for those things (they were very well paid) they made british coal and other industry unviable. They simply (and rightly) wanted much more money than the equivalent chinese or polish labourer, ergo british coal ceases to be profitable. There is no way around it, we couldn't do it cheap enough so no one bought it and therefore we stopped mining. Thats capitalism for you. On the up side, we now have rising coal prices and even though british workers want more than their international counterparts, the time will soon come when it is profitable again and in a BIG way. It's really not difficult to grasp.

thats right, it is capitalism for you! and we do have rising coal prices but few pits and even fewer miners. We are also dependant for energy on a state run be gangsters and ex KGB officers , thanks to Thatchers energy policies,who are about to take a controlling interest in one of the biggist British energy companys, but still thats capitalism for you, glad you are happy with it seeing as it recently almost caused the melt down of the U.K. economy, if it was'nt for the good judgement of a Labour Prime Minister and his Chancellor, that is.Stop boosting your ego by talking about yourself and open your mind to what really happened in the 19th and 20th century, daily mirror indeed, you pompous patronising piffler

Hang on old fruit. So you are saying that you accusing me of being a Daily Mail reader is acceptable but as soon as I throw the Mirror at you I'm the one being patronising?! How moronic. How blinded by red are you to believe what you say - It's really quite astounding that in this day and age any person can be so unaware of the reality of international economics and politics. The coal is still there, and rather than giving away the natural assets of the nation for nothing as we were, we will make a fortune.