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.
No comments:
Post a Comment