Liz Kendall: Young People Must Work.

In a recent interview with Trevor Philips on Sky News Liz Kendall said young people will lose their benefits if they do not take up jobs or training. Ms. Kendall stated that there will be "conditions" attached to new skills opportunities the government intends to create.

Currently, there is a record number of unemployed young people. Labour promised in its manifesto that it would tackle this. Labour promised what it called a "Youth Guarantee" for 18-21 year olds. This will lead them to have access to training and to find work.

Ms. Kendall said if young people repeatedly refuse to take up these "training work responsibilities" there would be sanctions on their benefits. Ms. Kendall elaborated that: "We will transform those opportunities, but young people will be required to take them up".

Labour has stated it will keep to a commitment under the former Tory administration. This is to reduce the welfare bill of 3 billion over 5 years. There has been a rise in unemployment over the last few years. And tax-payers resent having to fund a burgeoning and bloated welfare system. Hence Labour stays committed to reducing the welfare bill as the Tories wanted to. Many have accused Labour of having been soft on welfare claimants in the past. Liz Kendall with these measures seems to have adopted a very 'Tory' objective on this.

Understandably, Labour wants to address the bloated welfare problem. Thousands of young people drifting aimlessly through life is no good for them or society. Kids need something in their life to keep them goal-focused. Whether it be taking up government training schemes, college/uni, or just going straight into work.

Conversely, is it right to threaten young people who do not take up opportunities with the stick? What about a carrot approach also? At the end of these training opportunities, what's in it for these youngsters? Will these training opportunities lead to a guaranteed job? Or are these training schemes just a gimmick to get the welfare bill down? Just a gimmick to get tax-payers on side? Or is it another well-intentioned idea that will crash and burn like all other similar ideas?

Of course, whether something is successful depends on how these schemes are implemented. It also depends on how many people will take up training. Will sanctions make younger people take up more training opportunities or go straight into jobs? Will reducing young people's benefits or stopping them altogether make younger people more pliable? We will only know once the 5 years of this Labour government is over.

If kids do not want to engage then they will turn to crime. It's easier for kids to be drug dealers and make a pot load (no pun intended) than jump through government hoops. That's why these schemes must be thought out and have both a carrot and stick approach.

Many kids may stay at home and live off the bank of mum and dad if mum and dad can afford it. Other kids from less affluent backgrounds do not have this choice. Being young today is even harder than ever it was. You have so much information coming at you from social media. Life now is so materialistic. Kids are presented with celebs and their lifestyles in a way like at no time in human history. Many youngsters (even some older people who really should know better) try to ape these people. Aping them in how they dress, what they live in, what they drive, and what they do to earn a living. While positive role models can lead to success they can also lead to despair.

The world of work for young people and older workers needs to change. Change for the 21st Century like UBI, a shorter working week, more tech doing jobs that people don't have to, more emphasis on mindful pursuits, more value of a workers welfare rather than how they can be exploited. However, while Ms. Kendal's intentions may be good they are still stuck in a very 20th-Century rose-tinted view of the world.