At a loose end

Since at least the dissolution of the monasteries, when the English state first assumed direct responsibility for what was then called “alms”, there has been an irreconcilable tension at the heart of welfare policy: that the more external support you provide people, the more dependent on such support they tend to become.

That the Starmer Government is no closer to finding a sustainable equilibrium on this point is made clear by the latest intervention from Alan Milburn, the former New Labour minister now heading up the latest enquiry into youth unemployment and inactivity. Per the Financial Times, he is determined to draw attention to the role of parents; according to the research he’s drawing on, children more likely to become “NEETS” (Not in Education, Employment, or Training) can be identified at age five.

It all sounds very sensible. But it is difficult to reconcile a stern and unflinching view of inadequate parenting with some of the Government’s other policies. We are talking, after all, about a ministry which has made schools responsible for brushing children’s teeth.

As so often, one can see the logic behind the proposals: if children aren’t brushing their teeth at home, it is better for their health to do it at school than not at all. The move is also — depressingly but not unsurprisingly — popular with parents. But it invites the question of at what point “support for families’ crosses the line into simply replacing their proper functions.

Any fearless look at the question of youth inactivity would need also at least to consider all the ways in which modern society contrives to make young adults un-ready for work. 

Today, many young people don’t even face any general expectation that they should enter the world of work

There is nothing natural or inevitable about it, after all. Historically, people stepped into adult life in their mid-teens, and by their late teens were usually either in employment or, in the case of many women, assuming adult responsibilities in the home (and in a pre-modern home that was definitely work). Indeed, the entire concept of a “teenager” only really came about in the 1960s.

Yet today, many young people don’t even face any general expectation that they should enter the world of work until at least their early twenties. For many of those that pursue further or higher education, what might once have been a simple transition from a five-day school week to a five-day work week is broken up by several years in which they have very little structure at all. This suits some people very well, but there is little acknowledgement in education policy discussions about those whom it might not.

As for those who don’t pursue tertiary education, many have been kept in school longer than is sensible. Having been set at 15 in 1947, the school leaving age was raised to 16 in 1972, and then 18 (including college) under the last Conservative government. This not only traps some people (particularly some boys) in an academic environment to which they are ill-suited, but seems very likely to have a psychological effect. When I was in Sixth Form, we were all cognisant that we had crossed some sort of threshold into adulthood — reinforced by the school extending us special privileges, such as leaving the campus — and were there as volunteers. That is not true today (and my old school no longer lets sixth formers leave the site). 

Is the Government likely to do anything about this? Unlikely. Imagine you headed a progressive government which had just made youth unemployment worse by hiking the minimum wage and bringing in onerous new workplace rights. Would you rather a) admit your mistake, and at the same time that endlessly raising the minimum wage has downsides, or b) justify more spending in order to “invest” in even more education and training for young people? 

It’s obviously going to be “b”, especially when state policy has for decades (even under the Tories) been built around doing just that. Consider again that acronym, “NEET”; by giving education and training equal billing with employment, it means that from an official perspective, shunting a young person onto a course (even one of dubious quality and significant expense) is equivalent to finding them work.

But don’t worry, nobody can say the Prime Minister isn’t alive to the challenges facing young people. Banning chicken nuggets from the cafeteria ought to do the trick. Right?