Good Idea, Bad Intentions – Labour’s ‘Get Britain Working’ Scheme

One of the big domestic news stories in the UK this week has been Labour’s plans to overhaul the employment and benefits systems that have been correctly identified as being in serious need of a reboot. Prime Minister Keir Starmer spoke about inheriting a country that “isn’t working”, whilst Secretary of State Liz Kendall, in a rather curious Trumpian tone (a sad sign of the times), spoke of the need to “get Britain working again”. And whilst some elements of the announcement sound promising, such as Starmer’s pledge to make Jobcentres “fit for the modern age”, and his recognition of the need to prepare young people for “the jobs of the future”, the objectives of the proposals are the same old recycled attempts to force people into jobs they don’t want, jobs that offer no meaning or value. In other words – bullshit jobs.

I hope I’m proved wrong on this, that I’m just being cynical and pessimistic on the back of deceptive government policy announcements made since, well, time immemorial. Though there is a fundamental flaw to Labour’s design, one that is simply incapable of being made right over a mere five years. Firstly, at the most basic level, there are myriad causes to the problem they are trying to address, primarily the large number of 16 – 24-year-olds who are deemed ‘inactive’ (meaning not employed and not seeking employment, commonly misinterpreted as sitting around the house all day playing video games or something). Labour’s answer to this is to…wait for it…make work worthwhile again. And this is being sold as something that is a new and exciting approach. Not something we ever heard from David Cameron or Tony Blair. It’s the same old rhetoric, following the same old tactics, for the purposes of cutting the benefits bill and getting people out of unemployment.

Government past and, now present, dresses up benefits and employment reforms with pretty bows and fancy wrapping paper, making promises of apprenticeships at exciting enterprises (the present incentives including Channel 4 and the Premier League), which never have, and never will, prove to be of any substance, for the simple reason that they are impractical. Is the Premier League going to take on two million apprentices, for example? The reality is that anyone living in the real world knows the difficulty and pressure of not just getting a job, but maintaining a job. It is almost taboo to point this out, but simply having the stamina, both physically and mentally, for the decades-long Kafka-esque, routine - waking up at the crack of dawn or, because it’s the UK, in the cold and dark for most of the year, getting on a bus, a train, or stuck in a traffic jam (any of which can leave somebody at breaking point by 9am) to engage in some form of menial activity at the behest of some randomer (who is, in turn, working at the behest of another randomer, and so on, and so on) for eight hours with little reward - is not easy.

Now, as I write this, I can already hear them. I'm whinging, they're saying. Young people today (I’m not one of the young people anymore – and that I do whinge about) are just lazy. They don’t know how lucky they have it. It’s all wokeness and wokery and woke and stuff. In my day we all chipped in. It was all hard graft in my day. In my day, and in my day, and they’re all lazy nowadays, and in my day, I tell you, in my day, it was all hard graft.

In short, there is a lack of understanding, a total incomprehension, at what has happened, and what is happening. To provide some context, from a personal perspective, I was in work before I left High School. In June 2000, whilst preparing for my GCSEs, I walked into the old Kwik Save in the town I lived in and asked about a job. I spoke to the friendly woman on the till who took my details. Within half an hour of being home I got a call asking if was available for an interview. The interview consisted mainly of discussions about the area I lived in, of the local pubs, and I’m pretty sure that this isn’t a false memory, some football chat. And then I got the job. The likelihood of that happening now is pretty slim. By 2010 I was having to jump through hoops just to get a job at Primark. In 2024 I have to provide my life story, an entire skill set of ambiguous attributes that don’t actually apply for any actual dead-end job role, and pledge allegiance to the company in which I am applying to with the promise of treating every customer in the same, subservient manner.

I admit, I’m being a bit facetious. But again, more cries of outrage. It’s just the way of the world. Suck it up. Deal with it. It’s just life. Well, it isn’t just life, or at least it shouldn’t be, and needn’t be. Back in the 18th and 19th centuries, during the Industrial Revolution, young, pre-adolescent kids were put to work in factories, enduring the most horrendous working conditions. There isn’t room in this article to go into detail on this, so I implore anyone to learn about a history that is frequently glanced over. I will, however, cite this extract from the 1828 Memoir of Robert Blincoe (warning: the following account is a distressing one) –

“A girl named Mary Richards, who was thought remarkably pretty when she left the workhouse, and, who was not quite ten years of age, attended a drawing frame, below which, and about a foot from the floor, was a horizontal shaft, by which the frames above were turned. It happened one evening, when her apron was caught by the shaft. In an instant the poor girl was drawn by an irresistible force and dashed on the floor. She uttered the most heart-rending shrieks! The factory overseer ran towards her, an agonized and helpless beholder of a scene of horror. He saw her whirled round and round with the shaft - he heard the bones of her arms, legs, thighs, etc. successively snap asunder, crushed, seemingly, to atoms, as the machinery whirled her round, and drew tighter and tighter her body within the works, her blood was scattered over the frame and streamed upon the floor, her head appeared dashed to pieces - at last, her mangled body was jammed in so fast, between the shafts and the floor, that the water being low and the wheels off the gear, it stopped the main shaft. When she was extricated, every bone was found broken - her head dreadfully crushed. She was carried off quite lifeless.” (Beck, E. 2021)

Similar accounts are found in many texts from the period, as well as recollections on inhumane living conditions, of malnourished children (and adults), in ill-fitting clothes, without shoes, working 12–16-hour days, going to bed without a dinner, unable to make it to bed out of sheer exhaustion, collapsing before they could make it.

The point I’m making, if it isn’t obvious, is that just because something was acceptable for one generation, doesn’t mean it is acceptable for another. There is a word, much maligned by the weird, hysterical, “anti-woke”, snowflake-y, kind of people, and that word is ‘progress’. Things change. Things move on. Some things at a slower pace than others. Could you imagine, though, if someone turned round to a kid mid-tantrum, saying something like, “You don’t know how lucky you are! Back in the olden days kids your age were working in factories, earning for their families, being productive members of society, you little, expletive, expletive, expletive!” It would be a bit weird, to say the least.

Again, I feel the need to state the obvious (in itself another sad sign of the times). I’m not comparing the mundanity of working life over the last fifty to hundred years with the horrific use of child labour, or of alienated workers of the 20th century and present day with malnourished, over-worked and grossly underpaid workers of the 18th and 19th centuries. I am purely pointing to the progress, to some background, before attempting to make sense of the context surrounding the current malaise young people have to the idea of employment. Note that I am deliberately using the term ‘employment’ as opposed to ‘work’, as they are two separate things, despite being commonly seen as one and the same.

Speaking from my own experience, of what I know from myself and what I have learnt from others (including lessons learnt from observing the behaviour of older generations), employment can be absolutely soul destroying. My own working life has, possibly more than anything else, shaped my political opinions and worldview. Though I wouldn’t label myself a Marxist (I’m averse to labelling myself as anything at this point in human history), Marx was pretty bang on when it came to criticism of capitalism and, in particular, of the alienation caused by employment. It might sound crazy to some, but the loss of 40 hours a week, give a take a few hours, is a lot, especially when you consider that, for most people, there is not much room at the end of the working day to engage in activity that is meaningful, enjoyable, and enables them to grow as a person. In essence, the loss of so many hours to menial, pointless work erodes the sense of self, of our idea of who we are. In fact, it hinders or eradicates completely the person we could potentially become.

Another counterargument is the idea that employment gives purpose. This is total fallacy. For many, by having their sense of self destroyed, and, consequently, their own personal ambitions, employment disintegrates any purpose a person has. Life becomes meaningless, uneventful, the work undertook of little to no value. Note also that I refer to ‘for many’, when making my argument. I accept that a lot of people do enjoy their employment and do find purpose from it. These people, however, are in a way the lucky ones, as these are the people who earn a living doing something they enjoy. Also, some occupations do provide meaning and are of value. An obvious example is health care. But these occupations are also rendered problematic by current society and government policy. Health care in particular, is so underfunded and neglected by the State that it is currently barely functioning. Everyone knows this, so there’s no need for me to go in depth. What is relevant, though, is the working conditions health care workers are operating in, particularly in hospitals. Two hospitals I know of - Fairfield Hospital in Bury, and North Manchester General Hospital in Crumpsall - are, at best, chaotic. The most frustrating thing is that, really, health care should be a relatively quick fix. You would think that health care would be top of the government’s priorities, benefitting from massive investment, not just in terms of resources and infrastructure, but in workers pay (health care workers are criminally underpaid), in training, and in incentivising the idea of working in the sector. Without wanting to sound Farage-y, the current health care system is not fit for purpose, mainly by being unable to meet the demands of the current population. Basically, there are too many people and not a big enough health care infrastructure in place.

Unlike Nigel, however, I don’t point the finger instinctively at immigrants. The government can fix this problem simply by performing its basic duty. There are many possible solutions. One of which, privatisation (gaining increasing appeal in certain circles) is not one of them. The actual idea of private health care, or private companies operating in the health sector for profit, is actually, when you think about it, abhorrent. It is, also, paradoxical, as by operating primarily for profit, quality of care degenerates. Care is not the primary purpose or concern, and for that reason is immediately put at risk.

In terms of recruitment, the current state of health care in the UK disincentivises people from even considering a career in the sector. Hopefully, the government are aware of this and taking it into consideration when thinking about the “jobs of the future”, and in examining the core issues around youth unemployment.

The fact is, that employment now, for young people, is less rewarding than it has been at any other stage in modern times. When you take into account take home pay for young people, the obscene costs of rents, energy and utility bills, the effort of working a dead-end job is barely worth the hassle. This isn’t laziness, this is basic level intelligence. Why would anyone choose to be employed at, say, McDonald’s, for little recompense? Being employed at McDonald’s, or in a random call centre, retail outlet, or factory, is not a civic duty. It is not a way of finding purpose. The idea that it is only goes to show how far society has plummeted since the implementation of neo-liberal economic policies (something that is greatly overlooked), and of how low the bar is of our expectations for a fulfilling life.

Another factor, widely derided by older generations, are the issues around mental health. As a 40-year-old, I’m somewhere in the middle of Millennials and the generations born in the sixties and seventies. I’m also aware of history, and of the bleakness of 1970s Britain. But still, the pressures on young people are far greater today. Life back then was much simpler compared to now. A person born in 1960 would really struggle to get their head around life growing up in Britain today. Not just with the social media stuff, or smart phones, but in the actual pressure, expectation, and demand on the person. Even for a basic customer service job, there is a weird, almost dystopian, sense of competition. Everyone is competing, having to stand out. Again, this is for the most basic, banal, job. On top of that, there is also this strange idea of an actual person becoming a brand, especially in more artistic or entrepreneurial endeavours. Frankly, there is a lot of bullshit. Being born in the 80s I’m aware of this, and long since passed the point of jumping through hoops for jobs, but a younger person will not be as aware.

This emphasis on standing out, on image and expectations, will have an impact on the mental health of some individuals. Of course, the isolation of social media, particularly in young people and children, is a contributing factor to the mental health crisis. But so is, I would argue, the basic amount of bullshit “content”, the insane number of advertisements we are completely bombarded with, the constant selling of products and the supposed need for products. The current world is a myriad of complexities, one that I am struggling at this point, I feel, to effectively articulate.

An added nuance to the complexity of the issue is crime, and the potential status gained by engaging in criminal activity. This really shouldn’t be so nuanced, either. A basic fact most people are aware of is that a life of crime is rooted in, in most cases, poverty, but also takes hold in isolated, alienated communities. The lure of crime appeals not just to the under-privileged and impoverished, but to the vulnerable and desperate also. Taking up, for example, a little bit of drug dealing is seen as more worthwhile than McDonalds. I’m not saying here that I think that is right, or that there is in any way a noble quality in selling drugs or engaging in any other form of criminal activity. I am saying that engaging in criminal activity is one of many factors to youth unemployment. The pervasiveness of crime is attested to by prison populations that are so over-crowded, the new government had to take the unprecedented step of releasing thousands of prisoners early. There is more than enough evidence, if you live in the real world, of young people either choosing, or being coerced into, a life of crime. We can’t afford to be over-judgemental in all of this. At the end of the day, for people who join a gang or take up crime, it is where life has taken them. Yes, there are choices, but the experiences of the individual are paramount in guiding them along the road, and in the person they ultimately become.

Each of the factors raised require more in depth analysis than can be provided here. However, there is a link, I believe, an intrinsic feature throughout each causation. In a word, capitalism. If current society is failing, which it is, if the infrastructure is failing, which it is, and the State is not working, which it isn’t, then it is surely the foundation upon which that society is built that is faulty. A common counterargument typically involves Soviet or Chinese style communism, hysterics about Gulags or North Korea, or that delightful regurgitation, “Name one place where Communism has worked”. Well, as already stated, I don’t carry with me a label, I just work with what I see. In my lifetime, can I say that capitalism has worked, or point to any place on Earth where it has? Can anyone? Let’s start by looking at the supposed purpose of capitalism – the generation of wealth and the eradication of poverty. Well, that has not been successful. Bear in mind, capitalism has had over two hundred years to prove itself. To throw in a small concession, it can be argued that capitalism has accelerated many areas of progression, or provided improvement to many, but certainly not everybody’s, lives. I have to emphasise this point, though, that capitalism cannot be relied upon long-term or as the sole remedy to all of societies ills. Also, the benefits of capitalism have, irrefutably, benefitted the few. If we consider the so-called golden age of capitalism, 1950s America, perhaps, then we see that even then, there was a disenfranchised working-class as well as an under-class. 1950s America was a segregated society. Capitalism was never meant for everyone.

Furthermore, if we take the British or subsequent US empire, the wealth of these nations, also irrefutable, was gained from exploitation and conquest. The labour that generated the wealth was primarily slavery and, as mentioned, cheap labour and child labour.

Fundamentally, Capitalism only works through a cycle of debt and profit. It also has to be propped up, either by government or bank bailouts in economic crises (there have been so many!), or by way of a working-class. It cannot, however, self-sustain itself. And that’s the crux, and the irony behind many pro-capitalist arguments. We are often told to live within our means by proponents of a system that cannot live within its means.

My alternative is not communism, or anything else. I have no idea what the alternative is. But the current system isn’t working, and youth unemployment, and all the factors surrounding it, are symptoms of that failing system.

Back to the issue at hand. To my mind, preparing for the jobs of the future must surely begin with overhauling the education system. That’s not to say we do away with essential subjects like Maths, English, Science, History and Geography, but a new approach must be taken for the new world. It is no exaggeration to say we are, potentially, at the dawn of a new age. I would imagine that kids now would be well equipped by learning how to code, for example. This is just my own opinion, and the first thing that springs to mind. I think that more emphasis should be put on the individual at school age, focusing on what a child is interested in, what they enjoy, and what they want to do. This means more investment in education, more teachers per classroom even, or just more classrooms in general. Again, these are just abstract thoughts.

What is clear, though, is that the problems facing youth unemployment are not straight-forward. They can’t be summed up in a word. The causes are myriad and complex. The solutions will need to reflective of this, as opposed to tick-boxing and fitting as many people into as many bullshit jobs as possible.

References

Beck, E. 2021. 'Child Labour in the Industrial Revolution. https://www.historycrunch.com/child-labor-in-the-industrial-revolution.html#/