For all of the noise Labour’s making about the EMA, you might not realise that it was their idea to scrap it. Before he was an ex shadow chancellor, Alan Johnson was Secretary of State for Education and in April 2007 he made it clear that Labour was planning to scrap the EMA.
An incentive scheme that rewards 16- to 18-year-olds for staying in education post-16 will be abolished when the leaving age is increased to 18.
The Secretary of State for Education said last week that education maintenance allowances (EMAs) would no longer be necessary when the age is raised in 2015.
Giving evidence to the Education and Skills Select Committee inquiry into 14-19 education, Alan Johnson said: “The EMA is there as an incentive to stay on. We will not need to incentivise after 2015.”
It’s notable not only that Labour have conveniently forgotten their plans from Government, but also that the Labour Government did not see the EMA as the best way to help poor students through their post-16 studies.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
#interrail2025: Day 6 - turning for home... but how?
Two Lib Dem gains in council by-elections
Lochee Park - free family fun day #dundeewestend
Labour failing on social care reform
Photo gallery
Raven (1977) - by the writers of Children of the Stones
Learning from the Zen masters
Mike Peters
Stephen Harte
Michael BG
Jenny Barnes
71 Comments
Yes but education is not currently compulsary until age 18 so an incentive scheme is still required. In case you didn’t notice the coalition is scrapping it before the school leaving age rises in 2015. Unless of course you do not believe in incentivising the poorest in society to continue education, i.e. the Tory party.
This is typical spin, that Liberal Democrats have become accustomed too now.
Yes Labour where going to abolish in 2015. but then It would make perfect sense to abolish it in 2015 when the compulsory age of education has risen to 18.
The coalition has axed it immediately, There is a huge difference.
The articles also states: He (Johnson) insisted that doing away with EMAs was not a money-saving exercise. “We are saying that we need to look and have a genuine discussion about how we divert that money,”
That is the differenc e between Labour and the LibDems – your MPs want not only ro scrap EMA but to drastically cut the money available under the replacement scheme – I may be wrong but I think the cut is 90 per cent that the LibDems are supporting.
Every day that passes the LibDems are learning the use of weasel-words and bending of statistics to support their new Tory beliefs.
We hear all about LibDem concern for Civil Liberties – don’t you think that actually giving the public the full facts might be an essential building block for Civil Liberties so that fully informed decisions can be made by them instead of this warping of reality for narrow political ends to support another savage Tory cut.
Steve Way – “Unless of course you do not believe in incentivising the poorest in society to continue education, i.e. the Tory party.”
I think it depends upon what you mean by “incentivising”.
Paying individuals to turn up on time and to work hard? No. These things are intrinsic goods in their own right and the state should not be handing out sweeties for them.
Enabling motivated but poor students to remain on in post-16 education if their personal circumstances otherwise would not permit them? Absolutely yes. But not by the indiscrimnate dolling out of money and bonuses, a good proportion of which seem to get spent on things other than what the money is intended. Far better to hand out travel warrants, book vouchers, canteen vouchers etc etc.
They don’t like it up ’em Iain!
Another example of Labour saying ‘the sky is falling’ when the coalition follows through on a proposal acceptable to Labour members when it was them that were in and running the government.
I don’t see how abolishing EMA a full 4 years before the compulsory leaving age is raised to 18 can in any way be described as ‘following through on a proposal acceptable to Labour members’ when the Labour party was in government. It’s clear from the full article that Labour were planning to remove EMA only after the leaving age had been raised, Alan Johnson also stated that they were open to a full discussion on how the funds could be diverted rather than cut.
Personally I think it’s completely unacceptable to cut the EMA for students midway through their courses – particularly when this policy was not in either of the governing parties’ manifestos for the general election. I wish the government would reconsider rushing through this cut, when they have not fleshed out what the replacement will be. I am disappointed that more Liberal Democrat and Conservative MPs did not make a stand on this point and encourage the Government to bring forward a more considered and well thought out proposal. I also think it’s disappointing that some people seem willing to misrepresent the facts in support of an ill thought out cut to say effectively: ‘well Labour would have done it anyway’. Even if that were true, it’s not a justification for proceeding.
Andrew
That is just rubbish, Labour where Axing it in 2015, when Education was to become Compulsory till the age of 18.
The coalition has axed it immediately, there is a massive difference.
At the moment, when someone turns 16, If they are not in education or training, then “Child Benefit” & “Tax Credits” Stops.
If they are living at home with parents, they are unable to claim any benefits in their own right, Unless there are exceptional Circumstances, like caring for a parent or relative.
Not being in education, and not being employed, put massive strain on families.
Lets not forget, that unemployment amongst under 20’s is at over 20%
EMA, not only encouraged, those to stay on in education, it insured that the parents continued to receive child support.
@EcoJon – the fact that Labour wanted to spend the money “saved” on something else whilst the Lib Dems are happy simply to reduce public spending does indeed, as you say, illustrate the difference between our two parties; you still fail to recognise the scale of the pit that your party has put this country in – with national debt having just edged over the £1 trillion mark.
The key line is that Johnson says “EMA is an incentive to stay on”, yet 90% would stay on without EMA.
I thought Simon Hughes’ position last night was right. A 90% cut is unacceptable, but there is a deal to be done.
I am unhappy about the way the government cut EMA before its replacement had been settled upon. Unlike the University funding changes, there are currently genuine reasons for the poorest to be deterred by the affordability of continuing education, as they have no way or knowing whether or not there will be any allowances available to them. Plus it’s just bad politics and has given the Coalition an unnecessary headache.
The point, my Labour friends, is this:
– Labour did not thinking EMA was an appropriate incentive
– They believed it made no difference to FE participation for 90% of students and was poorly targeted
– They did not believe students who would not receive it would suffer hardship or inability to continue their studies as they were happy to withdraw the funds when FE became compulsory.
The coalition is making these same arguments, but Labour, in reactionary opposition now disputes them.
The coalition intends to provide a replacement for those 10% for whom EMA makes the difference to continuing their studies, while dealing with family hardship and disadvantage through a reformed, simplified and more targeted benefits system. The facts of the argument have not changed, just Labour’s position on them; the coalition accepts an argument Labour themselves advocated and Labour members complain about it. What else should we expect from a party that criticises the government for listening to opposition and changing its mind?
Sounds like this very post where the only response is “well, Labour was going to do it as well (albeit on completely different terms)”.
Bohica, girls.
@Kehaar
Sure Labour’s terms were different – the scale of their reforms was timid, and the pace of them pitifully slow; when historians look back on Labour I think they’ll judge them to have spent more money, and wasted it, on keeping things the same; a statist conservative party, to afraid and self serving to do what was necessary.
@Tabmnan who said: Far better to hand out travel warrants, book vouchers, canteen vouchers etc
Yea, can’t think of a better way of stigmatising them and identifying them as poor.
As to the deal to be done let’s see what comes of that if anything.
One thing I haven’t seen mentioned is the Tory/LibDem pan that schools and colleges should administer the new much-reduced ‘pot’ and decide which pupil gets help and how much. So means-testing for all and no uniformity of treatment. And let’s be realistic about human nature – anyone doling out money at a local level is going to be pre-disposed to giving it to the stronger academic students to help the figures for their institutions/schools and let the rest drop-out.
So the ones that probably need the most help are sacrificed so the bankers can keep their bonuses.
When are the LibDems going to stop trying to justify the ideological cul-de-dac they have entered with the Tories and actually look at the policies they are supporting and how the affect ordinary people.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11998992
‘The government says the education maintenance allowance (EMA) is not cost-effective and is scrapping the £30 weekly allowance payments next year.
But a report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) says its cost is “completely offset” by its benefits.
The EMA is claimed by some 600,000 youngsters from poorer families.
The report by the IFS found EMA increased the proportion of young people who stay on from 65% to 69% among 16-year-olds and from 54% to 61% among 17-year-olds.
The research found that in areas where EMA was available, students had A-level grades averaging four points higher than would otherwise be reached and were 2% more likely to reach thresholds on the National Qualifications Framework.’
‘Ministers argue that only 12% of those receiving EMA say they would have left education if the cash was not available, creating a “deadweight” cost of paying 88% of them to do something they were planning to do anyway.
The IFS report said: “The question is: to what extent does the wasted spending on those whose behaviour was unaffected offset the beneficial effect of the spending on those whose behaviour was affected?
“The simple cost-benefit analysis mentioned above suggests that even taking into account the level of deadweight that was found, the costs of EMA are completely offset.”
The programme may have other benefits, the report went on.
“Those who receive EMA and would have stayed in education regardless of it might still benefit educationally through other channels, for example through better attendance, or more study time as a result of not having to take on a part-time job.
“Moreover, even if the EMA had no impact on educational outcomes, it would still represent a transfer of resources to low-income households with children, which may in its own right represent a valuable policy objective.”
So, according to the IFS the benefits of EMA are clear and obviously worth the cost. When the school leaving age rises, however, EMA in its current form wouldn’t be appropriate and it is entirely right to replace it with other support.
What we have here is a case of Lib Dem sophistry in order to save face. You’d be screaming blue murder if the Tories were doing this without you and rightly so.
@Tabman
“But not by the indiscrimnate dolling out of money and bonuses, a good proportion of which seem to get spent on things other than what the money is intended. Far better to hand out travel warrants, book vouchers, canteen vouchers etc etc.”
Two things, firstly it is not indiscriminate, my son did not get EMA as I was fortunate enough to be able to support him.
Secondly, that would be like the plan to give food vouchers to asylum seekers and certainly more New Labour / Old Tory than you would expect for a Lib Dem.
@Andrew Tennant
“Another example of Labour saying ‘the sky is falling’ when the coalition follows through on a proposal acceptable to Labour members when it was them that were in and running the government.”
I agree on many policies but not this one. If the full quote is used you will see the aim was then to divert the money (Divert not reduce to a paltry amount).
“while dealing with family hardship and disadvantage through a reformed, simplified and more targeted benefits system.”
Like cutting housing benefit if people are unable to find a job after a year (even if they meet all DWP requirements to prove they are looking).
By the way, like many who disagree with this I am not a Labour Supporter, I simply don’t like ideological Tory policies. If it was that obvious a policy for Liberals why not put it in the manifesto and let people decide on the basis of knowledge…
Eco Jon – “Yea, can’t think of a better way of stigmatising them and identifying them as poor. ”
Because it won’t be obvious to everyone already who’s poor and who’s not, will it? Meanwhile, taxpayers money that could be better spent helping those genuinely who need it is frittered on people with no interest in furthering their education just so they can spend it on i-pods, clothes and going out.
“And let’s be realistic about human nature – anyone doling out money at a local level is going to be pre-disposed to giving it to the stronger academic students to help the figures for their institutions/schools and let the rest drop-out.”
Whereas at present we have a system which rewards disinclination and in all likelihood fills classrooms with pupils who have no interest in being there (other than to collect the money), and who probably disrupt the education of those who do actually want to be there.
Yes they were. As others have said, the EMA was to be abolished at a time when the school leaving age had risen to 18 anyway. There really has to be a better way of defending a certain policy than insisting that Labour would have done the same (on different terms).
As for the ‘timidity’ of Labour policies, and your idea that the hands of history are about to propel your Party to greatness, the urban poor and socially disadvantaged are less inclined to concern themselves with grand, macro-economic issues – or yet another chuffing Iraq inquiry – than with simple things like buying study materials or not spending 40% of their meagre benefits on fuel.
The 90% would stay on without EMA argument is probably as ‘correct’ as the pathetic 11 per cent figure for cops on the beat.
The basic difference between Labour and the LibDems is that Labour was keeping the same amount of money in EMA but going to have a discussion as to how distribution might alter after the leaving age was raised in 2015. They were not gpoing to like the LibDems cut the amount by 90 per cent and scrap it immediately.
If LibDems see their position as assisting poor students might I suggest a visit to their local GP quickly before mental health services are scrapped by GPs as too expensive to buy and the GPs decide that, with their vast knowledge of the subject, that it would do no good anyway.
Steve Way – “Two things, firstly it is not indiscriminate, my son did not get EMA as I was fortunate enough to be able to support him.
Secondly, that would be like the plan to give food vouchers to asylum seekers and certainly more New Labour / Old Tory than you would expect for a Lib Dem.”
The statistics I heard on the radio yesterday indicated over 40% of those in 16-18 education were in receipt of EMA; that does not strike me as being a saftey-net payment. Anecdotal evidence supplied by recipients indicates that many of them do not spend it in the way that it is intended (driving lessons, i-pods, clothes etc).
And to your second point, I have some degree of sympathy with that POV – it shouldn’t be for the government to tell peole how to spend their money. But, I suppose, the point is that its’ not their money is it? Its taxpayer’s money being provided for a specific purpose – to enable poor pupils to remain in education.
@Tabman
What a negative world you appear to live in – it seems there’s no hope for anyone. Maybe I should start buying the Daily Mail and like all the rest of its readers become too frightened to leave my home.
Of course some abuse the money – some will abuse the money given under the new scheme. That is a fact of life. What we have to look at is what the majority are doing and listening to the individual stories being recounted in Parliamanr during the EMA debate I was humbled at what some of these EMS kids are achieving.
How dare you write them off Tabman and paint them all with the same brush because a few abuse the position. We have a whole banking class abusing their position and power and collecting billions in bonuses and LibDems are doing nothing to call them account.
No, you don’t have the B*LLS to tackle them but poor students are easy meat for you – well we’ll see how easy they turn out to be in the years ahead. Still don’t worry about the Bankers because we have two Eds with plenty of B*LLS who will do the job you are frightened to tackle in case it annoys your Tory Masters.
This is one of the many reasons why I could not find myself supporting the LibDems, the mendacious nature of not only their MPs, but also their activists and campaigners. It’s obvious to anyone with a gram of intelligence, that the Labour proposals are vastly different to that of the Tory led coalition.
@jayu
I don’t think any of us held the impression that you were teetering on the point of joining.
Eco Jon – “How dare you write them off Tabman and paint them all with the same brush because a few abuse the position. ”
Please point to where I have done that. Oh yes, I didn’t.
“Of course some abuse the money – some will abuse the money given under the new scheme.”
And it doesn’t concern you that in a situation where we have a national debt of £1 Trilion and growing we should be wasting money on driving lessons and i-pods when that money would be far better off spent on those who genuinely need it?
They won’t abuse the money if that money can only be spent on what it is supposed to be spent on.
“Still don’t worry about the Bankers because we have two Eds with plenty of B*LLS who will do the job you are frightened to tackle in case it annoys your Tory Masters.”
Oh yes, that will be the same two Eds who with their boss Brown sucked up to Goldmann Sachs, and gave Fred Goodwin all his money. Don’t make me laugh …
My daughter gets maximum EMA (because in the last tax year my income was less than £10k), sadly I know not all the most needy kids get it, parents who can’t be bother to find their P60, or don’t understand their income etc. I’ve helped a few access grants from charitable trusts. So I’d agree give the administration to the colleges (£36 million just to administer EMA!), but keep most of the funding.
I am constantly amazed at the comments on this site which complain that the coalition government is not being as generous as the previous Labour government.
Aren’t you guys aware that the government is spending £150,000,000,000 per year more than it is raising in revenue? That we are borrowing one pound for every four that we are spending?
@Tabman
Well if cutting 90 per cent of the EMA budget isn’t writing poor kids off then I don’t know what is.
If you don’t understand the stigma caused by handing out coupons to poor people then I feel sorry for you.
I don’t actually see driving lessons as a waste of money – in fact I think it’s a great idea and I think the LibDems should tell their Tory Masters to provide free driving lessons for all FSM kids – it would really help their job prospects and be great for building a bit of self-esteem.
I notice as usual Tabman that you never ever answer the difficult questions but just throw in a bit of abuse. So let’s return to my question – when are the LibDems going to carry out their promises to do something about bankers bonuses or are you too scared to upset your Tory Masters and their banking chums.
Very easy to look back in hinsight and hurl abuse much harder in government as the LibDems are now learning – especially the decent LibDems who don’t agree with backing Tory policies which you certainly appear to do.
Eco Jon – “If you don’t understand the stigma caused by handing out coupons to poor people then I feel sorry for you.”
Please explain why handing out coupons is any different from handing out money?
“I notice as usual Tabman that you never ever answer the difficult questions but just throw in a bit of abuse. So let’s return to my question – when are the LibDems going to carry out their promises to do something about bankers bonuses or are you too scared to upset your Tory Masters and their banking chums.”
Says the man who just ducked the difficult question i asked.
I’ll answer that question when you answer the question about why the so-called socialists of your chosen party (Ed, Ed, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble and Broon) didn’t deal with it during their thirteen years in power
Oh – and where exactly have I abused you (or anyone else) in any posting I have made? it strikes me that the basis of your attempt at argument is ad hominem attack when you can’t answer the point made.
>> I don’t think any of us held the impression that you were teetering on the point of joining.
What a shocking, undemocratic comment from a so-called Liberal. Voters, who needs them?
@EcoJon
Has it occurred to you, that if studies show 90% don’t need EMA, were the budget to be cut 90%, that would still leave the money for everyone that needs it?
On your driving lessons idea – let’s assume for a moment we pay for kids’ driving lessons, who pays their insurance when they’ve passed? Good use of money?
@Kehaar
Are you serious? You think it practical that we should expend vast amounts of our energies on attempted conversion of dyed in the wool vocal Labour tribalists? You equate not doing so with having no interest in voters? You parody yourself surely?
@EcoJon
“If you don’t understand the stigma caused by handing out coupons to poor people then I feel sorry for you.”
I agree with you, I remember when I was at school. Being a free schools meal kid.
We used to have to line up, {At the entrance to the Dinner Hall} In a separate cue, to first have our names marked of a register, in order to be given our free school dinner token.
This was humiliating enough, as all the other kids, automatically got to know, who came from families on welfare. And we all know how cruel Kids can be.
And once you had your “oversized” shiny Silver Token worth 75pence, You could then cue up with the other kids, and chose your lunch.
I know from myself, after my first year at school, instead of going through the humiliation every lunch time, instead we used to sneak out of school, and go to the fish and chip shop instead. I guess I was fortunate enough to have been able to afford to do that, whilst being a FSM Kid, but then, I always held down a job from a young age, doing more hours and work than i was supposed too 😉
I also remember the embarrassment of being given a voucher to spend on a school uniform, In Debenhams no less, As this was the only department store at the time, where my particular school uniform could be purchased. I recall having the voucher, the very first year I started high school, and then having to go into Debenhams with my mother, Then hand over this Charity voucher, in exchange for my clothes, I will never forget the Snotty old cow, looking down her nose at me, as you had to fill out a form, and prove who you say you are, whose named on the Voucher,
It was an awful and humiliating experience.
Maybe things have moved on since then, and schools do not operate like that anymore, I have no idea, it’s been 20 years since I left school, and one would hope things have moved on to more discrete methods.
I do remember though, that is why I was so keen to work and to pay my own way, And though although “Illegal” I ended up working part time from the age of 13, working 25hrs a week @ £1 an hour. But still at least that meant I could pay for my own lunches and my own school uniforms.
So
@Tabman
“Please explain why handing out coupons is any different from handing out money?”
I am afraid, unless you have experienced this for yourself, then you have no idea what you are talking about, I do not mean that yo be rude or disrespectful, it is just telling it how it is.
Matt – genuine thanks for answering that question from your own experience. And (despite what EcoJon might believe) I do understand where you are coming from.
“I do remember though, that is why I was so keen to work and to pay my own way, And though although “Illegal” I ended up working part time from the age of 13, working 25hrs a week @ £1 an hour. But still at least that meant I could pay for my own lunches and my own school uniforms.”
And how do you view this?
“This was humiliating enough, as all the other kids, automatically got to know, who came from families on welfare. And we all know how cruel Kids can be.”
Yes, that is unfortunate. But kids are cruel about anyone who deviates from the “norm”. Certainly income heirarchies exist in schools today regardless of whether kids are in receipt of welfare or not. This is one reason why uniform policies should be introduced and enforced. There are also jibes and taunts about the fat kid, the clever kid, the short kid, the tall kid … I could go on. And I’ve been the recipient of some of it too.
But in this day and age it is easy enough to get round some of the distinctions you mention. For example, many schools operate a canteen card system for all children where no-one need know how the credit on the card gets put on.
@Tabman
Indeed, or even less technologically; when I worked in a primary school, dinner money envelopes containing cheques were collected from every child each Monday, the kids who were on free school meals also handed in an envelope, but there was no expectation there was a cheque inside.
I went to grammar school on a scholarship, with free bus travel, uniform and lunches; to be honest, it was a sense of pride that I’d earned for free what others were paying for – I didn’t care who knew it.
@Tabman
“But in this day and age it is easy enough to get round some of the distinctions you mention. For example, many schools operate a canteen card system for all children where no-one need know how the credit on the card gets put on.”
That’s why I said in my post, I am not sure how school’s do things now, and I hope that they have seriously moved on.
I would not be so confident to believe though, that ALL schools operate a canteen card system.
I hope for the sake of the Pupil Premium, things have moved on, and schools are more discrete in the way FSM are delivered.
Students and Parents are not obliged to take up FSM, And if the parents chose not to, for whatever reason, Then the school misses out on the extra funding.
Anyway I was just trying to make the point, that from my own experiences, many kids from disadvantaged backgrounds really hated being exposed as relying on welfare, Tokens and Vouchers.
I accept the argument that the current regime of poor targeting of EMA had to be scrapped but not because of making FE and Sixth Formers contribute by default a share in the paying down of the `National Deficti’.That is non sequitar and a ludicrous proposition, as most of the impacted students did not vote or their parents responsible for the legacy of £170B debt of Labour handed over to the `Coalition Government’.The Bankers shouls really be made somehow to pay that £560M EMA .
For the past decade there has been great concern by Government about PCET staying on rates i.e post 16 ,at a time when there were higher rates in most EU mainstream countries due to their closer match with personal choices at post 14 on `Hands-On’ kinetic vocational programmes and training and getting life-time careers and academic students recognised. and set much earlier.
Post 16 UK students still deserve on merit financial help from Government to pay for travel,an alcohol-free diet books and equipment and tools in Apprenticeships.
Post 16`s in FE often are travelling on public transport for up to 3 hours per day to get them into some rurally located FE Colleges in England and Wales.
A Government sponsored travel replacement to the abolished EMA has to be put instead as a signal to boost confidence in the minds of many least off students that the Secretary of Education cares about what they are doing with their lives.
I do not support the reasoning that is fair to post 16`s, in college, to say to them that 90% of their numbers would be there in any event and there is a saving to be made and there are savings by removing `the deadwood’.
Better to tell them that there is a new fairer method to pay sufficient funds to those least deserving from poorer families on a more targeted basis.
This will prove fairness and to ensure that the money is spent on what it is supposed to used for : namely travel,books and equipment etc.
@Andrew Tennant
“if studies show 90% don’t need EMA”
Please supply a link to this study.. I thought it said 90% would go anyway without the EMA not that they did not need it. Next you’ll be telling us it’s progressive to remove this money, let them eat cakes eh?
@Tabman
“The statistics I heard on the radio yesterday indicated over 40% of those in 16-18 education were in receipt of EMA; that does not strike me as being a saftey-net payment.”
It is a tapered payment system 40% do not receive the full amount.
“And to your second point, I have some degree of sympathy with that POV – it shouldn’t be for the government to tell peole how to spend their money. But, I suppose, the point is that its’ not their money is it? Its taxpayer’s money being provided for a specific purpose – to enable poor pupils to remain in education.”
And now we have the great Lib Dem Nanny State replacing New Labour…
Child Benefit is for the benefit of children, using your new rules let’s give mothers vouchers that can only be spent on children. The Pension credit system is to ensure pensioners have enough to live on. Let’s ban them from using any money to buy their grandchildren sweets. Tax credits is not their money, war pensions, invalidity benefit, where do you want to stop with restricting how people spend the money supplied by the state.
Or is it just poor teenagers you have a thing against ?
Giving a child at 16-18 money to manage is part of the growing up process. I was able to do so with my son, he made mistakes and learnt from them. I buy my six year old dinner vouchers for school, that is how mature the 16 year olds will feel using your proposal.
Can you not see you are using the arguments of the Conservative Club. How low can the right of this party go. A small state in a Liberal democracy does not prescribe exactly what the benefits it provides are to be spent on. It allows the recipients the dignity of doing so themselves.
Thanks to Steve Way for a cogent and concise distillation of the key points right back in post number one.
A whole thread dedicated to another “well Labour we’re going to do it too!” topic doesn’t look very good.
The scheme overall breaks even so why make the lives of our young people harder in the current climate where I in 5 is officially out of work.?
@Steve Way
Read your response to me and kindly note the difference between ‘need’ and ‘want’.
On a personal level I would definitely approve of restricting what child benefit for instance could be spent on (though personally I don’t actually believe in it as a benefit!); there’s so much wastage on booze & fags, irresponsible parents who have little concern for their child’s interests.
These benefits aren’t the only income individuals receiving them have; they can use their own money for discretional spending; like the difference businesses and charities see between grant and cleared funds.
Commenting reminder: Please remember to respect our moderation policy when commenting, including in particular the references to off-topic comments and to personal insults. We have this policy so that people can choose to take part in the discussions which interest them, rather than finding the same discussions shoe-horned into threads on posts on a wide range of other topics. More details are at https://www.libdemvoice.org/comment-policy Thanks.
@Andrew tennant
Please read my response. You have stated that 90% do not need the EMA, that is not what any study has shown. It has been shown that 88% people would not have left education, but at what cost to the remainder of the family? The IFS study clearly showed a more balanced view of the benefits of EMA.
You are equating two facts that are not directly related. The fact someone wouldn’t leave FE if it was withdrawn does not mean they (or their family) don’t need it. I would go without just about anything for my children as would most parents. For parent with a finite and shrinking budget finding the bus money, lunch money etc that EMA is intended for will mean sacrifice. For those on disability allowances or those who are unemployed this will hurt significantly. A Liberal society is surely about giving those childrent he same opportunity as those with more afluent parents.
As to restricting what benefits should be spent on. I would like to see that debated at conference. We could start with your generalistions regarding booze and fags and tabman could tell all about those who have “no interest in furthering their education just so they can spend it on i-pods, clothes and going out.”
Perhaps Lord Tebbit could then take the floor to present a more moderate stance on benefits…….
@Steve Way
Hey, at least that was vaguely witty.
I think, and feel free to tell me how evil I am for it, that the benefit allocated for a specific purpose should reflect the actual costs of what it is intended to pay for; if as you say, an individual is taking from one spending area to subsidise another then I’d prefer to correct the root problem than mask it with shifting money around and continuing an inefficient scheme that doesn’t work as intended.
@Andrew Tennant
“I think, and feel free to tell me how evil I am for it, that the benefit allocated for a specific purpose should reflect the actual costs of what it is intended to pay for”
Where did i state that. Benefits should give enough money for the purpose only a fool would disagree, but only a nanny state then resorts to vouchers. Remember how asylum seekers couldn’t find any shops to spend theirs in and went hungry? That was Labour at it’s worst, an illiberal, nanny state adding degrading hoops to jump through for some of the most needy.
“if as you say, an individual is taking from one spending area to subsidise another then I’d prefer to correct the root problem than mask it with shifting money around and continuing an inefficient scheme that doesn’t work as intended.”
Take a close look at the benefit proposals. Some of the most needy will be losing money in more than one area (disability, housing benefit etc). Far from correcting the root problem the coalition is currently exacerbating for many. As for an inefficient scheme. Take a close look at the IFS findings. If the scheme is as they find it is anything but inefficient. Of course the IFS figures are good enough to justify the VAT rise as progressive but cannot be trusted if they disagree with Tory policy?
You still haven’t shown us where a study shows EMA is not needed. The impact of withdrawing a benefit does not relate directly to it’s need.
@Steve Way
Please quote for me where the IFS claim EMA is efficient?
You are aware that the majority of benefits are ultimately being replaced with a Universal Credit?
@Andrew Tennant
“Please quote for me where the IFS claim EMA is efficient?”
http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/5370
http://jhr.uwpress.org/cgi/content/abstract/44/4/827
As for the universal benefit, if it is to replace other benefits then cancel them when it is established and not before.
Now where is your data supporting the lack of need for EMA ???
Game, set and match Way.
@Steve Way
You’ve read the whole article and not just the headline?
It’s a further research proposal, not a conclusion.
Importantly there’s also no attempt to determine opportunity cost; on a capped budget, you can’t say something is an efficient use of money and provides good return on investment (or in this case that it *might*), unless you’ve considered other options that could provide different rates of return.
Please also not, if we’re going to be debating research papers that effective means ‘has an effect’ (and not necessarily a significant one), which differs from being efficient.
@Andrew Tennant
You are now clutching at straws. “The simple cost-benefit analysis mentioned above suggests that even taking into account the level of deadweight that was found, the costs of EMA are completely offset.”
How many benefits can say that.
“Furthermore, the key assumption behind the Government’s methodology for calculating the deadweight is that the impact on participation is the only outcome that matters. But the EMA may have other benefits: those who receive EMA and would have stayed in education regardless of it might still benefit educationally through other channels: for example through better attendance, or more study time as a result of not having to take on a part-time job. Moreover, even if the EMA had no impact on educational outcomes it would still represent a transfer of resources to low-income households with children, which may in its own right represent a valuable policy objective.”
It’s pretty clear and is certainly not a further research proposal, as it’s title suggests it is a reflection on current events and based upon previous reserach.
Now for the umpteenth time where is the reserach you so happily quote regarding the need for EMA????
I suspect it does not exist.
“the costs of EMA are completely offset”
‘nough said!
That IFS ‘observation’ piece is an opinion, not science; if you’re happy with it, fine for you.
The figures you need in response to your needs query are linked to from the article you quoted, which you’d know, if you’d read it.
@Andrew Tennant
“That IFS ‘observation’ piece is an opinion, not science; if you’re happy with it, fine for you.”
Read it and you will see it is based upon previous studies and therefore is informed opinion, not spin…
“The figures you need in response to your needs query are linked to from the article you quoted, which you’d know, if you’d read it.”
I know all about that report. Perhaps if you had read it you would know it does not talk about the “need” for EMA at all. Yiou were quite specific about the difference between need and want. For completeness the summary from the financial barriers section is below:
Overall, although finance is an issue for some young people, the majority of young people do not experience finance as a barrier. However, young people who are NEET, those in JWT and teenage parents have increased odds of experiencing finance as a barrier or constraint. In particular, one quarter of young people in JWT say that having to pay their parents rent is a barrier or constraint when deciding what to do post-16. Furthermore, around a third of young people who do not participate in learning after leaving school think that they would have done some education or training if they had received more financial support. Otherwise, finance is more likely to be experienced as a barrier or constraint when deciding what to do by those who feel it is important to earn money straight away and those who subsequently receive or apply for an EMA or hardship funding. However, only 12 per cent of young people overall receiving an EMA believe that they would not have participated in the courses they are doing if they had not received one. This contrasts with much higher proportions of young people with LDD who say that they would not have participated in learning without this support. Together these findings suggest the need for financial support to be increasingly targeted at those most at need. Although the majority of young people report they are aware of what an EMA is when asked about it specifically, many young people feel that they are not aware of other financial support available to help them continue in education or training. Moreover, those who feel well prepared and those who feel it was easy to make a decision about what to do post-16 are less likely to experience finance as an issue. Increasing awareness of other types of existing funding is therefore important, as well as providing suitable guidance on accessing this support.
Note finance as a barrier. Remember parents going without and siblings suffering allow people to avoid a barrier this is nothing to do with need.
This is scraping the barrel again, replacing EMA when the school leaving age is raised is a perfectly sensible thing to do and it was planned years in advance of the school leaving age raising, the discussion was about how to redirect EMA funds, not cut that funding off, education will need funding to cope with children staying on until 18.
The need identified Steve, in the paragraph you’ve posted, is the ‘need for financial support to be targeted at those most in need’.
“The need identified Steve, in the paragraph you’ve posted, is the ‘need for financial support to be targeted at those most in need’.”
Not the need you referred to I’m afraid. You talked about the need of the receipients as opposed to their wants not the need to target resource. To identify recipients needs you would need to further assess the finances of the family and broader issues.
The basis for stating that 88% would have stayed in education anyway is the responses of the children themselves. Perhaps a broader survey identifiying what percentage of the EMA would need to be replaced by the parent(s) and whether that could actually be replaced, and in some cases whether parents would be willing to fund this, would have given credence to such a claim. Until the age changes to 18 there is, as far as I am aware, no obligation on parents with care to provide the means for attendance at FE (absent parent can still be made liable for maintenance but there is no voucher scheme to ensure this is spent on the child!).
If you take the IFS study(s) and use the extended data they utlise, it is clear that EMA is not the financial drain claimed, it has benefits outside of attendance and there are sound arguments for it’s retention. What’s more there is a financial case for it’s extention, “Furthermore, around a third of young people who do not participate in learning after leaving school think that they would have done some education or training if they had received more financial support.” with the current levels of youth unemployment this is a significant minority.
@Tabman who said: ‘Eco Jon – “If you don’t understand the stigma caused by handing out coupons to poor people then I feel sorry for you.”
Please explain why handing out coupons is any different from handing out money? ‘
Well Tabman if there is no difference between cash or vouchers what is the problem with handing out cash.
You say I ducked a difficult question you asked – well I don’t actually believe you have the ability to pose a difficult question but in case I have made a mistake then please let us know the question which I will have no problem in answering.
And btw I still feel sorry for you 🙂
@Tabman “Please explain why handing out coupons is any different from handing out money? ”
You’ve got to be kidding, it’s demeaning, I went to school with kids who wouldn’t claim their free school meals because they didn’t want everyone to know they got free school meals. Whereas in theory forcing people to spend the money where it should be spent is probably fiscally advantageous, it’s certainly not liberalising.
@Tabman
Enabling motivated but poor students to remain on in post-16 education if their personal circumstances otherwise would not permit them? Absolutely yes. But not by the indiscrimnate dolling out of money and bonuses, a good proportion of which seem to get spent on things other than what the money is intended. Far better to hand out travel warrants, book vouchers, canteen vouchers etc etc.
……………….
Sorry tadman this seems more youth bashing which the conservative led coalition seems to love so much. A bit like saying that the unemployed only spend their benafits on drink so perhaps they should get food vouchers instead. At the age of 17 young people need some kind of income to function in society . If their parents are well off enough all well and good . If not …it is simply not your business to analyse what they spend it on .
@Andrew tenant
The coalition intends to provide a replacement for those 10% for whom EMA makes the difference to continuing their studies, while dealing with family hardship and disadvantage through a reformed, simplified and more targeted benefits system.
……………………
Another example of how you thoseblinded by the Conservative led coalition seem to be treating young people in a different and somewhat disdainful way .
You are clinging on to one suvery that claims only 10% will be pull out of higher education (conveniently ignoring others that say different) . Lets just assume this survey is correct . Would you get rid of disability helpers allowances if it could be proved that those who got it would continue to help those who were disabled in their family ? (I hope you wouldn’t?) Even though you knew deep down that life would become a struggle for them. The point is that even supposing the 10% is true a far greater % would face and overcome genuine hardship just to improve their lifes chance ….but then again a bit of genuine hardship seems to be good for the young and poor according to the new society you are creating .
As for dealing with family hardship though the new improved benafit system .. !!!!!!!
@Iain Roberts
The content of your article compared with the ‘Sun Style’ headline makes it look rather silly . Have you not realised that parties reassess their policies after a general election defeat . Your quote for very different reforms of this allowance was one piece of input to a select committee by a former member of the Labour shadow cabinet .
Why this obsession with trying (Unsucsessfully) to prove that Labour would do the same . It comes out time again in LDV posts by you and some others ??
@ Duncan Scott
I thought Simon Hughes’ position last night was right. A 90% cut is unacceptable, but there is a deal to be done.
…………….
You are correct in this Duncan … …. there can always be sensible looks at policies in hard times. However the Conservative Led coalition does not have a very good history with doing deals with outsiders such as Hughes, and if as I fear the vast majority of this benafit is simply swept away I would hope you would rightly condemn it ?
@Antony
During a really bad time for my single parent mum she took me to the means-tested school uniform store in Glasgow at Charles Street – out of pride she had always previously resisted this step because the uniform you got was instantly recognisable as coming from the poorse hoose.
But times were hard.
She was upset as was I – looks as though the LibDems want us to go back to the good old days – and you wonder why people hate you for being Tory bag carriers?
@ EcoJon
Great comment, all those brought up in poverty can emphasis with it.
And how about this? Unison report that he cost of cancelling the EMA contract with Capita two years early, could cost up to £40 million in penalty charges. (See today’s Guardian) So, thousand of teenagers lose a paltry £10-£30 a week, which for them, is a life line, and as a consequence a huge company stands to pick up forty million pounds. Some saving! And what a trope for our times. One cannot help loathing the Liberal Democrats for their complicity in the Tory party’s crusade against the poor.
er … that should be empathise not emphasis … I have noticed the other careless spelling mistakes too.
“Sorry tadman this seems more youth bashing which the conservative led coalition seems to love so much. A bit like saying that the unemployed only spend their benafits on drink so perhaps they should get food vouchers instead. At the age of 17 young people need some kind of income to function in society . If their parents are well off enough all well and good . If not …it is simply not your business to analyse what they spend it on .”
There is a huge difference. Adults (by definition those over the age of 18) legaly are responsible for themselves. Children are not. Furthermore, again unemployed adults have (in theory) paid income taxes and so have a stake in the welfare payments they receive.
The basic point about EMA as currently it is constituted is that it has unintended consequences. My contention is that education has its own intrinsic value. Turning up on time, completing assignments, working hard to get better grades have their own intrinsic value. Taxpayers money should not be used to bribe pupils to do all the above.
Providing assistance to pupils who through family hardship otherwise would have to leave school to seek employment absolutely should be the case. Bribing pupils to acheive minimum stanards of behaviour and attainment with taxpayers’ money does not constitute this.
EcoJon – “You say I ducked a difficult question you asked – well I don’t actually believe you have the ability to pose a difficult question but in case I have made a mistake then please let us know the question which I will have no problem in answering.”
Why did the Labour Party not deal with the problem of bankers’ bonuses in its 13 years in power?
“And btw I still feel sorry for you 🙂 ”
I don’t need your sympathy.
@Tabman
“Providing assistance to pupils who through family hardship otherwise would have to leave school to seek employment absolutely should be the case.”
Perhaps a closer look at the report that Andrew Tennant was erroneously quoting from will help with this. They also have stats on the JWT (job without training) element of the agegroup. Financial help is an even bigger issue with these, pointing to an extension rather than a squeezing of EMA. The cost of EMA is proven to be completely offset by it’s benefits by the IFS. Add to this the £40 million bill for ending the contract early and there is no logical justification for this approach.
Also there is much talk about what wil be thee instead, but no details. As with the tuition fees vote (where no details are available as yet about what constitutes exceptional circumstances or the details of the access measures for poorer students) the cart is being put before the horse. It’s plain Tory ideology.
Incidently the same organisation that produced the report the government are (mis) quoting from also produced an interesting one on the reality of the pupil premium. I note they are not talking that one up!!
I would have welcomed the EMA when I was a teenager and it might have allowed me to stay on in education. Instead, I received nothing and was better off signing on as unemployed than I was studying at FE college. Vouchers and means-tested benefits are insulting to teenagers. Then again, I believe in the concept of “citizen’s income” to replace to most means-tested benefits and recognise the changing patterns of work in the modern age.
@Tabman
When I was talking about a difficult question I was talking about the subject under discussion which was robbing EMA money from poor kids but as I have previously observed about your style of debate, when faced with answering a difficult question or throwing an unrelated retort back we know which course you always choose.
However, as you have obviously taken time to come up with your difficult question then let me answer although I make it clear that I do not regard economics as one of my areas of expertise.
I will also refrain from reminding every one about how the previous Tory administration to Labour’s 13 years in power laid waste this country in economic terms and blighted the future for millions of people and brought the NHS to its knees as well as education and too many other things to list.
I would also point out my own position and that is that I resigned from the Labour Party when Blair became leader – after many many years as an activist who held a lot of party positions. I am therefore not actually in a position where I have detailed knowledge of the LP bonus position over the 13 years and as I was not a member then I actually have no real need to justify their position.
However, I am happy to give some insights into my own thoughts on bonuses and would make it clear that if I had been a party member at the relevant time then I would have fought for my position if necessary.
You obviously have no problem with the direction the LibDem party is going on bamkers bonuses so I assume you are perfectly happy about supporting right-wing Tory ideology and therefore there will be no chance of you resigning on a point of principle.
However, back to your question which was: ‘Why did the Labour Party not deal with the problem of bankers’ bonuses in its 13 years in power?’
I assume that instead of Labour Party you actually mean Labour Government and I will proceed on that understanding although you are factually wrong because the Labour Government was doing things in the last few years about bankers bonuses. Probably not enough – but difficult to see how any government – prior to a public bail-out of the banks – could actually tell private companies what to pay its employees.
I think that deals with at least 10 of the 13 years – perhaps you might have asked the harder question as to why the LP failed so badly in terms of bank regulation – now that is a harder question to answer 🙂
Obviously, the main priority of the incoming Labour Government was to restore a shattered country. In the course of doing so the whole finance sector became a major engine for growth in the economy. High bonuses were always part of the City culture but the international nature of the financial sector in London saw mainly American-based parent companies starting to pay obscenely high bonuses to their staff.
This culture increasingly leaked into British banks who argued that they had to compete on a level financial playing field to keep their ‘best’ most-productive employees in terms of profit-generation and not lose them to higher-paying companies.
Of course what a number of these employees did to maximise company profits and therefore their own bonus was to take ever-more risky gambles and casino gambling was let rip.
We then moved into the American mortgage/banking crisis and its spill-over into the exposed British banking system and that of other countries because of the way the mortgage debt had been parcelled up and split into debt parcels and sold-on.
Then we had the taxpayer bail-out of British banks but the bonus culture continued and there was rightful outrage from the public. Labour found that it was actually difficult to act because the recipients of the bonuses actually had legally enforceable employment contracts that made it impossible to prevent the bonus payments.
I think this is a factor that people either don’t know about or tend to gloss-over. But it’s a major sticking-point.
What should never be forgotten is that the Labour Government did introduces a bonus tax last year – meant to be one-off because of the ease which the banking system would be able to escape a permanent tax unless it was applied universally throughout the banking world. Labour made a major thrust on the international side because it realised the portability of capital and banking and the ease with which the top bonus earners could move country.
Then of course we had a new government and all sorts of mouth music from Cable about what he was going to do to the bankers and their bonuses – what has he done? Virtually zilch. So Tabman – perhaps you would like to ask your party what they are going to do about bankers bonuses. No point in asking Cameron because his pals are bankers.
Whether my reply answers your question – I don’t know and frankly don’t care because I am more interested in poor students than multi-millionaires in the Cabinet and their millionaire banking chums which the LibDems have bottled doing anything about.
And I do feel sorry for you Tabman and so should everyone else that you choose to make and lie in a bed with rich Tories and bankers and make poor schoolchildren pay for bankers excesses which still carry on and your party does nothing about it other than a piddling bonus bill.
Shame on you!
Clegg doesn’t want poor children getting an education. You want to knock those silly ideas out of them at an early age. Education is for those that can afford it.
Is there any difference between the liberals and conservatives now? Don’t those pre-election promises look like lies. It’s so disappointing to see liberals trying to justify selling out.
Hey, let’s re-name Control Orders as “Stay at Home Holidays” and tell everyone it’s labour’s fault and that changing the name makes it more ‘fair’ and ‘progressive’
*sigh*…