Follow @HortonEddison
Last night on BBC Newsnight, Harriet Harman MP claimed that the cutting of Educational Maintenance Allowance had contributed to the recent appalling riots. Further to this, James Mills (the Labour researcher behind the ‘Save the EMA’ campaign) today tweeted his agreement with Harman that EMA was a factor behind the social unrest on our streets.
In this excellent article, guest blogger @JoshPugs explains in detail and first hand why Harriet Harman and the Left are so wrong.
'EMA was inefficient, wasteful and essentially corrupt'
During the autumn and winter of 2010 we witnessed the clamorous outcry of thousands of students who were furious with the Coalition Government’s education policies. Angry and bespotted quasi-academic youths filled our streets and television screens with ever-so-trendy Arabic neck scarves and defiant placards. Ostensibly, they demanded a Government U-Turn on the plans to raise tuition fees and to scrap Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA). However, when it comes to EMA, their protests were either based in ignorance, or mired the same greed with which they scornfully brand the Bankers.
In 2004, the Labour Government introduced the Education Maintenance Allowance. Officially, its purpose was to assist certain college students who come from lower income families with the day-to-day expenses associated with their further education. However, whilst removing barriers to education appears to be a worthy and noble objective, the reality is that EMA was an inefficient, wasteful and essentially corrupt system.
Under EMA, students who were eligible (their family income would have to be at least below £30,000) would be able to receive weekly awards of £10, £20, or £30 so long as they attended college. Additionally, if their attendance was high enough, they would qualify for termly £100 bonuses. The logic is clear, with these payments students could afford to attend college, be incentivised to keep their attendance up, and be rewarded with cash for pursuing further education… So far so good!
'EMA was paid to students directly in cash to be spent exactly how the individual wished'
However , the problems with EMA were huge. Firstly it was poorly targeted. Students with divorced parents could qualify for cash awards despite the fact that the Mum or Dad who didn’t live with them might be on £30k + and be providing them with regular stipends anyway. Secondly, and of far greater significance, EMA was paid to students directly in cash to be spent exactly how the individual wished. Whilst some students most certainly spent their EMAs on those items which were necessary for education, a vast amount was undoubtedly spent in TopShop and Starbucks across the nation. Or as one student commenting on The Guardian website (of all places) wrote: “The local drug dealer did very well out of EMA”. Just as duck ponds and pay-per-view porn were inappropriate uses of taxpayers' money when it comes to MPs' expenses, surely pairs of Nike trainers, tickets to V Festival and bottles of Lambrini are an equally wasteful and equally corrupt use of state coffers?
'...students who have genuine need will be able to get more support through the Bursary scheme than through the rightfully scrapped EMA'
 |
| Generic Lefty Protest Scarf, 'Buy it now with EMA'. |
I’m not saying that some students don’t need financial support for further education. I firmly believe some provision is absolutely necessary. But rather than huge state-led blanket hand-outs, we need a system of support which takes into account the real need and real requirement of individuals who are committed to improving their educational lot. Fortunately Michael Gove has established the ‘16 – 19 Bursary’ which provides this. Unlike the EMA, schools, colleges and training providers will be responsible for awarding individual bursaries to students. They will also decide when bursaries are paid, and will set conditions that students should meet to receive a bursary, for example, linked to behaviour or attendance. In fact, students who have genuine need will be able to get more support through the Bursary scheme than through the rightfully scrapped EMA.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I can understand where those angry and protesting students were coming from. If I were a 17 year old student from a left-wing family who’d seen my £30 weekend money get denied to them by those “…what are they Mum and Dad? Oh yeah.. Tory Bastards!!!” I’d probably be protesting too. But let’s not take the piss. Get a part-time job. Or even better, found your own multi-million pound company.
'...graduate 3 years later with a 2:2 in media studies expecting decent employment to fall into their hands like manna from state-heaven'
This approach worked for Richard Branson and it worked for ‘Lord’ Alan Sugar. Do we really think that these business moguls would emerge as entrepreneurs if they had grown up in the benefit-centric hand-out culture of today? Is it in-fact more likely that they would be massaged into college, given their £30 a week (and their £100 bonus for actually turning up) and then ushered into University to graduate 3 years later with a 2:2 in media studies expecting decent employment to fall into their hands like manna from state-heaven?
No, far better for college students to get a part-time job (I was an Argos Monkey at the weekends) and learn the value of money. Let them gain some real work experience and some talking points on their CVs. Let them, like many others their age, learn that one must put something into society to get something out. And then yes, if they want to spend their hard-earned cash on clothes, booze and drugs – then I say ‘Go crazy!’ ‘Go mental!’ ‘ENJOY!’ But don’t expect the state to fund all this, and don’t march through the street protesting for your ‘right’ to largely disposable cash. Last night on BBC Newsnight, Harriet Harman MP even claimed that the cutting of Educational Maintenance Allowance has contributed to the recent and appalling riots. Further to this, James Mills (the Labour researcher behind the ‘Save the EMA’ campaign) today tweeted his agreement with Harman that EMA was a factor behind the social unrest on our streets. And Harman and Mills will not be alone among the Left to voice such claims. And here, the Left might just have a point… After all, if you were a local drug dealer who’d seen your business with local Sixth Form smoking-area dry up, you’d probably have enough beef with Gove and Big Dave to smash a few shops up. But to suggest the scrapping of EMA led these young people to those awful deeds is simply absurd.
Let’s see EMA for what it was: an expensive Labourite bribe to gain young people’s votes. Now without it, the 16 – 19 Bursary is far better placed to provide for those who are truly in need.
Click now to follow @JoshPugs on Twitter
Click now to follow DPRUK.blogspot.com on Twitter
Related articles you may enjoy:
Follow @HortonEddison
