´óÏó´«Ã½

The Glass Box for Monday

Comments

1. At 05:46 PM on 05 Nov 2007, Peter Davis wrote:

   Another proposal from the ignorent and increasingly puritanical labour party. Can we not make study of citizenship and history or sociology compulsory for all MPs?
   There should be no option for MPs to do nothing in educasting themselves.

2. At 05:56 PM on 05 Nov 2007, wrote:

   ´óÏó´«Ã½ talks to Sunny Hundal to give his liberal blog a boost - what a surprise.

3. At 06:00 PM on 05 Nov 2007, Lyn wrote:

   Waiting until 16 is frankly too late - if a child leaves primary school unable to read or understand basic maths, they are disadvantaged throughout the rest of their education

4. At 06:05 PM on 05 Nov 2007, J Stanley wrote:

   I cannot understand the response to this initiative. How much time is devoted to criticising the government, and the young people themselves, for the increasing number of children who have few or no qualifications or skills who cause trouble in towns and villages across the country? We have 10% of young people between 16 & 18 who are not in education, employment OR training - what do you think they are doing? Surely we cannot be so naive as to believe that they're living at their parents expense and going travelling on gap years! I have worked with young people who have no intention, at 16, of working or continuing training - they are intending to live at the expense of the tax payer. This surely cannot be acceptable. The options sound very varied - any form of employment, including volunteering and self-employment, which allows for the situation of the very successful, driven and, may I say, extremely rare young man who was interviewed on PM. It should not be acceptable in our society to do nothing at the expense of the tax payer. 16 year olds who are NEETs are extremely likely to remain unemployed or sporadically employed throughout their 'working lives'.

5. At 06:43 PM on 05 Nov 2007, J Smith wrote:

   Well i did the education route and guess what...still a NEET. Keep being told I'm overqualified. What exactly are all the McJob employers going to do without a supply of 16 yr old that they can pay peanuts to.

6. At 10:00 PM on 05 Nov 2007, wrote:

   I find it odd that people use phrases such as 'live at the expense of the taxpayer'.

   No doubt such people would like to sack all civil servants, police, nurses, doctors (when not doing private work), council workers, those working for various quangos etc?

   Not to mention those working for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ whose wages are paid by the television tax?

   Or indeed the entrepreneurs who fiddle their taxes or smuggle money off shore.

   But then such people are usually thinking from the rarified atomosphere atop their high horse, so one shouldn't expect the oxygen of clear thought to reach their brain.

   This measure is yet another example of the Labour party attacking the poor... or more precisely the English poor. Which is ironic because the Labour party do not have a mandate to rule England. If it is such a good idea, why not impose it on their voters?

7. At 07:38 PM on 06 Nov 2007, wrote:

   eeore I said something similar on the 16-18 year old thread.

   And lets not forget that people who claim benefits pay VAT and spend their money in the economy.

   Mary