Share this post:
I’m having deja vu.
According to the BBC,
“Young people will be stripped of their right to claim benefits if they refuse a taxpayer-funded job after 18 months without a job, the work and pensions secretary says.
“Pat McFadden told the BBC they would need a “good reason” to decline one of the 55,000 six-month placements, to be rolled out from next April.
“The government has announced the roles could span areas including construction and hospitality – although companies taking part are yet to be confirmed.
An honest future-direction message
“Vox Political is nearing the end of its fourteenth year, and I want to be honest with you: the online advertising model that kept the site free to read has deteriorated so sharply that it can no longer sustain the work.
This is not a reflection on the readership; it is a structural shift affecting small publishers everywhere.
Rather than quietly winding down, I’m giving you clear notice: Vox Political will close at the end of the year unless something dramatically changes. The good news is that The Whip Line already exists, is reader-funded, and is growing. That is where I can continue producing the journalism you value, free from the chaos of advertiser algorithms.
If you want the work to continue, please join me there. Free and paid subscriptions are available, but please remember it is the paid subscriptions – monthly and annual – that directly fund the reporting.”
“The placements will begin to be rolled out in six parts of the UK with high youth unemployment from spring 2026, it has been confirmed, following the initial announcement of the scheme in September.
“The six-month roles will be “fully subsidised” for 25 hours a week, paid at the legal minimum wage from an £820m pot announced at the Budget, allocated until 2029, which will also fund training and work support.
“The placements will be offered to 18- to-21-year-olds on universal credit who have been looking for work for 18 months.
“In total, the government plans to create 350,000 training and work experience placements.
“McFadden added: “This is an offer on one hand, but it’s an expectation on the other. Because the future we don’t want for young people is to be sitting at home on benefits, when there are other options out there.”
“McFadden’s Conservative counterpart Helen Whately said… “This scheme is nothing more than taking with one hand to give with the other.”
The Conservatives introduced very similar schemes between 2010–2024, and their criticism now is largely political theatre rather than a principled objection.
Back when they were in government, the Tories ran a series of workfare-style and sanction-linked schemes that worked on exactly the same principle:
They included the Work Programme, Youth Contract, Mandatory Work Activity, and later versions of Sector-based Work Academies. All of these tied benefits to “offers” of work, training or placements, with sanctions if claimants refused without what the department called a “good reason”.
The logic was always the same as Labour’s current line:
– “We’re helping young people”
– “We’re giving them experience”
– “It’s an offer, but there’s an expectation.”
That last phrase could have been lifted straight from an ex-Conservative minister’s briefing note.
So why are the Tories now attacking Labour for doing something so similar?
It’s because they’ve shifted the argument. When they were in power, they framed this approach as “being tough but fair.”
Now they frame Labour’s version as “too expensive” and “not creating real jobs.”
That’s not a moral objection to coercion or sanctions. It’s a political repositioning: they want to attack Labour on economic management, not defend their own record.
The uncomfortable truth for them is this: Labour’s scheme looks like a softened, rebranded version of Conservative-era welfare conditionality.
The big difference isn’t the concept – it’s the packaging and the scale of subsidy.
So when Helen Whately says Labour has “no plan to create real jobs”, what she’s really doing is trying to pretend the Conservatives didn’t do the same thing, repeatedly, for 14 years.
This is a recycled model, with a new logo.
The other aspect is that these placements never worked – for those who were put on them.
They made money for participating businesses because they profited from the work without dipping into their own payrolls.
The evidence from the 2010–24 Conservative-era schemes showed three consistent problems.
First, they were poor at creating lasting jobs.
Internal DWP assessments and later independent evaluations found that a large number of placements did not lead to permanent employment. People rotated through short-term, low-wage roles and were often back on benefits shortly afterwards.
That’s not a credible “route into work” – it’s churn.
Second, they acted as a wage subsidy for employers.
Businesses got workers whose wages were paid by the state. That let them fill shifts, cover vacancies, or expand output without increasing their own payroll costs. In real terms, the taxpayer was underwriting labour while private firms pocketed the profit.
That’s not a conspiracy theory; it’s basic economics. If a business is getting labour it doesn’t have to finance itself, its costs fall and its margins improve.
Third, they distorted the labour market.
Instead of encouraging firms to invest in training or raise wages to attract staff, the schemes gave them a revolving door of state-backed workers. That undercut real job creation and depressed wages, especially in hospitality, retail and care.
The result was that claimants were pressured into placements with little long-term benefit, while employers learned they could rely on subsidised labour rather than create proper jobs.
So when this new scheme is marketed as “help”, the uncomfortable reality is:
– similar schemes failed before,
– they benefited employers more than young people, and
– they did not reduce youth unemployment in a lasting way.
This isn’t “help into work”. It’s social policy being bent to subsidise private business via the welfare system.
So a Labour government is plotting to exploit vulnerable young people for the benefit of big businesses.
Pat McFadden might as well be Iain Duncan Smith and the Labour Party might as well change its name to “New Conservatives”
Share this post:
Like this:
Like Loading...
Labour’s lowest betrayal yet: exploiting vulnerable youngsters to profit big business
Share this post:
I’m having deja vu.
According to the BBC,
“Young people will be stripped of their right to claim benefits if they refuse a taxpayer-funded job after 18 months without a job, the work and pensions secretary says.
“Pat McFadden told the BBC they would need a “good reason” to decline one of the 55,000 six-month placements, to be rolled out from next April.
“The government has announced the roles could span areas including construction and hospitality – although companies taking part are yet to be confirmed.
“The placements will begin to be rolled out in six parts of the UK with high youth unemployment from spring 2026, it has been confirmed, following the initial announcement of the scheme in September.
“The six-month roles will be “fully subsidised” for 25 hours a week, paid at the legal minimum wage from an £820m pot announced at the Budget, allocated until 2029, which will also fund training and work support.
“The placements will be offered to 18- to-21-year-olds on universal credit who have been looking for work for 18 months.
“In total, the government plans to create 350,000 training and work experience placements.
“McFadden added: “This is an offer on one hand, but it’s an expectation on the other. Because the future we don’t want for young people is to be sitting at home on benefits, when there are other options out there.”
“McFadden’s Conservative counterpart Helen Whately said… “This scheme is nothing more than taking with one hand to give with the other.”
The Conservatives introduced very similar schemes between 2010–2024, and their criticism now is largely political theatre rather than a principled objection.
Back when they were in government, the Tories ran a series of workfare-style and sanction-linked schemes that worked on exactly the same principle:
They included the Work Programme, Youth Contract, Mandatory Work Activity, and later versions of Sector-based Work Academies. All of these tied benefits to “offers” of work, training or placements, with sanctions if claimants refused without what the department called a “good reason”.
The logic was always the same as Labour’s current line:
– “We’re helping young people”
– “We’re giving them experience”
– “It’s an offer, but there’s an expectation.”
That last phrase could have been lifted straight from an ex-Conservative minister’s briefing note.
So why are the Tories now attacking Labour for doing something so similar?
It’s because they’ve shifted the argument. When they were in power, they framed this approach as “being tough but fair.”
Now they frame Labour’s version as “too expensive” and “not creating real jobs.”
That’s not a moral objection to coercion or sanctions. It’s a political repositioning: they want to attack Labour on economic management, not defend their own record.
The uncomfortable truth for them is this: Labour’s scheme looks like a softened, rebranded version of Conservative-era welfare conditionality.
The big difference isn’t the concept – it’s the packaging and the scale of subsidy.
So when Helen Whately says Labour has “no plan to create real jobs”, what she’s really doing is trying to pretend the Conservatives didn’t do the same thing, repeatedly, for 14 years.
This is a recycled model, with a new logo.
The other aspect is that these placements never worked – for those who were put on them.
They made money for participating businesses because they profited from the work without dipping into their own payrolls.
The evidence from the 2010–24 Conservative-era schemes showed three consistent problems.
First, they were poor at creating lasting jobs.
Internal DWP assessments and later independent evaluations found that a large number of placements did not lead to permanent employment. People rotated through short-term, low-wage roles and were often back on benefits shortly afterwards.
That’s not a credible “route into work” – it’s churn.
Second, they acted as a wage subsidy for employers.
Businesses got workers whose wages were paid by the state. That let them fill shifts, cover vacancies, or expand output without increasing their own payroll costs. In real terms, the taxpayer was underwriting labour while private firms pocketed the profit.
That’s not a conspiracy theory; it’s basic economics. If a business is getting labour it doesn’t have to finance itself, its costs fall and its margins improve.
Third, they distorted the labour market.
Instead of encouraging firms to invest in training or raise wages to attract staff, the schemes gave them a revolving door of state-backed workers. That undercut real job creation and depressed wages, especially in hospitality, retail and care.
The result was that claimants were pressured into placements with little long-term benefit, while employers learned they could rely on subsidised labour rather than create proper jobs.
So when this new scheme is marketed as “help”, the uncomfortable reality is:
– similar schemes failed before,
– they benefited employers more than young people, and
– they did not reduce youth unemployment in a lasting way.
This isn’t “help into work”. It’s social policy being bent to subsidise private business via the welfare system.
So a Labour government is plotting to exploit vulnerable young people for the benefit of big businesses.
Pat McFadden might as well be Iain Duncan Smith and the Labour Party might as well change its name to “New Conservatives”
Share this post:
Like this:
you might also like
Coalition spins a li(n)e about disabled people and work; media ignore it
Like this:
Divisions in Coalition as MPs demand independent inquiry on poverty
Like this:
Workplace battleground: Labour and Tories at war over employment
Like this:
Like this: