Labour jobs plan attacked by the wealthy who would pay for it

Tue, 11/03/2014 - 12:35 -- nick

The Labour party's plan to guarantee a job for every young person who had been unemployed for more than a year has come under attack - by the Institute of Directors.

The IoD represents some of the wealthiest people in the UK, and they will have pension allowances cut to pay for part of the scheme.

The rest of the money will come from a levy on bankers' bonuses.

The guarantee will mean those aged under-25 who have been unemployed for a year, and older people who are workless for two years, would be given a job paid at the minimum wage for six months, along with training.

The party wants to have its cake and eat it though; those offered work would lose benefits if they turned it down.

The language of 'guarantees' versus ' compulsory' mean it is not clear whether Miliband and Balls are pro- or anti-unemployed people.

A similar scheme has been operating in Wales, and showed that 78% of those going through it were offered permanent jobs when public funding ended.

Ruth Porter, of right-of-centre thinktank Policy Exchange, told The Guardian: "Schemes like this have tended to fail because they have not been able to attract many private sector employers."

This view came despite the fact that the Welsh experience showed that 80% of jobs were provided by the private sector.

"As this proposal is mandatory for young people, private businesses are even less likely to participate, especially given the negative media reaction to companies such as Tesco and Poundland which participated in the government's voluntary work experience programme."

The solution to this negativity is to make the scheme voluntary, trusting in the fact that the vast majority of unemployed people want to work.

A tide of media and government propaganda designed to deny this has been released over the last years, meaning the majority of the public holds anti-benefits views.

This results in schemes such as the job guarantee, which couch valuable offers in the language of forcing and mandating.

Main Stories: