It was an extraordinary leap by most standards, even for British journalism. The headline ‘Labour: We’ll scrap benefits for under 25s’ in the Daily Telegraph at the end of last month provoked a storm of online outrage and counter-outrage as the Twitterati crowded into the echo chamber to revel in mutual indignation and demand that Labour refute the allegation. There was precious little in the story itself to support such a title: ‘It is understood that Rachel Reeves, the Labour shadow work and pensions secretary, is considering adopting the policy, though is undecided about applying a means test. Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, has also hinted at taking young people out of the benefits system.’
It is not often that such a conflation is made, and so wilfully. The policy paper in question was released by a thinktank often associated with Labour, IPPR; ‘No more NEETs: A plan for all young people to be learning or earning’ sounds like just the sort of thing a party of any political hue should be looking at. It even drew specifically on the experience of youth welfare systems in Denmark and the Netherlands, normally watchwords that can be dropped in to bolster any argument on the centre-left, and some of the main ideas had been discussed in the September edition of Progress by author Graeme Cooke. But the reaction remained visceral and hostile, as Progress columnist Stephen Bush said in a piece on the New Statesman website, ‘The success of the next Labour government is dependent on the Labour movement learning to read something before developing an opinion on it.’
The episode was a shame on two levels, the first being that while it is often remarked upon, but too little acted on, those heading for university have a relatively structured route set out for them, at least up to the age of 21, while those leaving school at 16 or 18 have no such clearly defined path and arrive at the cliff edge with no single bridge between formal education and work or formal education and further study or training. That we might finally consider introducing a system which helps people get decent training and work at the start of their working life, and introduces a new welfare package that support this, should have been the cause for real discussion not digital censure. Instead it was turned into a political football between teams both nominally playing for Labour United. Twitter has been compared to the chattering of 18th century coffee houses of London where science and philosophy flourished and ideas progressed but one wonders if sometimes the chance for politicians to be able to sit back, reflect and not react instantaneously might be better for politics, and, more importantly, for the people who are meant to benefit from Labour’s policies.
Talking of talking heads and why it is best to ignore them, IPPR also released a report entitled ‘Divided democracy: Political inequality in the UK and why it matters’, which argued that falling turnout is a problem second only to the disproportionate influence being gained at the ballot box by well-off and older voters. ‘Ignore Russell Brand’ was one co-author’s message, with the celebrity being firmly designated as belonging to a group – the affluent – already overrepresented among those who turn out. ‘A peculiar mix of Dave Spart and Adrian Mole’ was Progress director Robert Philpot’s own take on Brand. IPPR backed a compulsory trip to the polls for first-time voters, and cited Progress chair Andrew Adonis’ idea that polling stations should be located in schools, ‘thereby allowing young people to share the experience of voting rather than seeing it as a solitary, individual act’. And, while recognising that such a plan would not dispel political disaffection, the tank argued that ‘introducing an obligation for new electors to turn out once would go a long way towards breaking the habit of non-voting that often gets passed from generation to generation’ and could even work in reverse, with parents’ interest piqued by the choice their children have to make – perhaps a second example of reform for the young with benefit for the many.