How did we cope as a society before all these State hand-outs were put in place to "buy" the loyalty of their recipients to a Labour government as the sole provider of these benefits?
The latest political football is of course the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA), described by Guido as "dole for teenagers". As with all such new-style benefits, they aren't their to produce a "benefit" to society, only to the Labour party. After all, we coped perfectly well before they existed, and the world hasn't changed all that much since those times. Yes, it's entirely artificial, and the EMA can certainly go, especially as it was based around now out-of-date criteria anyway.
Whether or not it should be replaced by something else that is better attuned to the perceived needs of today is a good question. I suspect that it shouldn't be replaced at all; however real-world politics undoubtedly requires an in-between stage before (I hope) scrapping the idea completely. Why should we subsidise tomorrow's high earners in any way?
If they have any strength of character they'll find their own way to cope, which will set them up well to deal with the real world they'll have to face in the future anyway. If they can't hack it now, what is the point of wasting University places on them when there is plenty of better-equipped material out there?
No comments:
Post a Comment