Misspent Youth

Arguably being under 25 has never been harder. GCSE and A Level exam results have become distorted, graduate competition for jobs is harder than ever and yet house prices continue to rise making life less affordable. However, many young people also rely on the government to fund their lifestyle, often in sharp contrast to many others who study, work weekend jobs and help out at home, all without any form of government help.

Personally I supported the elimination of EMA. It was used by too many people I knew as a contribution to their Topshop fund. An even greater problem was that those who only turned up to class to get their EMA were hardly stimulating to the learning environment. The replacement system makes it a lot harder to get the money, making those truly motivated by their education the deserving recipients.

However, in education the much larger problem has been access to university level, or equivalent, education. The threshold for grants is unacceptably high and is abused by many two household families. Rent at most universities is at the level of the minimum loan. As such, I have known too many people fall into the void of being unable to afford university, or having to allow their studies to suffer so that they can work during their degree as much as possible to pay for it. 

The announcement by David Cameron that he intends to significantly reduce under 25 housing benefit is therefore, for me, a very welcome one. Some people do need and qualify for this benefit; a good friend of mine is legally emancipated from her parents and therefore had no other option during her sixth form studies than to claim housing benefit. However, those who have lived with their parents for 18 years and then suddenly claim that they cannot be accommodated - they represent questionable motivations.

Ultimately, the definitive problem of government is a limited supply of money. The distribution of this should be under constant scrutiny. When it comes to spending money on the under 25 sector, it seems that educating and motivating people by financing studies and apprenticeships is more beneficial to both our economy and society than financing a false sense of independence. The fact that too many younger people cannot access higher education could make Cameron's proposal entirely justified. 

The Myth of Ministerial Ethics

The second phase of Leveson entered it's most dramatic week this week. Although many expected Tony Blair's reappearance on the British political scene to bring the most drama - with the now infamous 'war criminal' heckle certainly making a case for that - the evidence that has received at least as much coverage has been that of the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt.

When considering inappropriate governmental relationships with the media, Jeremy Hunt's near personal relationships and bias during the BSkyB bid seem to be the definition of the problem. Whilst it's admirable that he has given open and honest evidence to the court - although he really had little choice in the matter - many have suggested his actions have damaged his ministerial career. It seems otherwise. Cameron has given clear indications that he will leave it to the inquiry to decide if Hunt acted incorrectly. Similarly, Hunt himself has failed to apologise for his actions and seems indignant in the face of calls to resign.

This all seems very different to the ethics of ministerial life just a decade ago. David Blunkett has been the most obvious example in recent years of a cabinet minister with distinctly questionable actions that clearly blurred the professional and personal boundary. Yet on both occasions Blunkett rightfully resigned - and yes second chances should even apply to politics. Similarly, Liam Fox resigned just last year over the issue of bringing personal and political life too closely together.

The issue here is not that these cases represent the rightful vilification of our politicians. They instead represent the action that anyone in any profession could reasonably be expected to take if they acted in such a grossly unprofessional way. In Hunt's case it is not specifically what he did that means a resignation seems the only moral decision to make but rather that he acted unprofessionally, failing to take his position, and the positions he could potentially hold, seriously.

Surely, of all the individuals we should be able to expect professionalism from, our elected representatives are at the top of the list? As such shouldn't Cameron at least have stayed relatively silent on the issue and, by now, should we not have had some apology from Hunt? The fact that neither has happened doesn't represent a gross case of injustice. It's just a gross case of immaturity, not a promising indication of ability to govern.