Cameron needs to address youth unemployment, not slash benefits
Share This Article:
David Cameron, in an interview with the Mail on Sunday, has proposed the withdrawal of housing benefit for the under 25’s, saving almost 2 billion a year. Cameron’s argument is that our current welfare system sends out strange signals: we will be better off if we do not work, or work a lot less. Cameron argued that some young people have stayed at home, planned for the future and got nothing from the state, while others have left home, not made an effort to work and had their homes paid for by the welfare system unfairly. But is stripping 380,000 people of their housing benefit the right thing to do? This proposal is arguably more of an appeal to some of the core conservative values, and unhappy Tory backbenchers, who feel that such values have been ‘watered down’ during the coalition government, rather than the problem they are attempting to tackle. I can understand this argument completely. I can understand why this would annoy those who work hard and pay taxes, those who are ultimately paying for those who don’t work or contribute to the state. However, this argument fails to consider all scenarios and situations. What about those who are coming out of care and do not have a family to fall back on? How are those disadvantaged few meant to survive if living on low salaries with no option but to rely on welfare? Is Cameron throwing these people onto the street in taking away their help? And what about those individuals, who by Tory standards have done everything right; who have got jobs, saved, but then lose their jobs through no fault of their own? Should these individuals then be made to move back in with their parents? This is just going to leave people who have paid their dues feeling hard done by.
- Article continues below...
- More stories you may like...
- In defence of Jacob Rees-Mogg
- Fox hunting is back on the agenda. Don't overreact.
- President Trump is a bad thing - that's a fact