Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Here's one group you won't hear from in tonight's debates

The youngest and the poorest are being shut out of the election

This week, the election got underway with much fanfare  about the ‘most closely ever’ contested campaign, and both David Cameron & Ed Miliband warning dramatically from the campaign trail that a ‘stark choice’ and ‘two futures’ lie ahead for the electorate. There’s onegroup of voters, however, for whom this portrait of a vibrant democracy at work could not be further from the truth.

Over the past few months Barnardo’s has been asking the vulnerable young people that it works with how they feel about the forthcoming election.

“Politics is for richer, older people”, is one comment we’ve heard repeatedly, along with ‘they’re all the same’, and followed depressingly by “why should I even vote?”. The sad reality is that for this group of voters, who are young, largely on welfare and facing difficulties finding work, there has been very, very little announced so far in the way of political offering that would be likely to change their minds.

They are, for example, exactly the group who’ll be ignored by Labour’s pledge today of 80,000 ‘youth apprenticeships’ -  but only for those academically privileged enough to have two A Levels. Similarly, they are the voters who’ll be hit hardest by the Conservative Party’s recent proposals to make unemployed 18-21 year olds ‘do community service’ or lose benefits. 

The idea that all school leavers face a stark choice between fecklessness & employment, punishment and reward, is an enduring political theme. It’s a simple moral narrative that’s changed little since the 1982 call to get ‘On Yer Bike’, and has re-surfaced in the run-up to this election in the welter of proposals from across the political spectrum which aim to restrict the young from claiming benefits.

Yet, for most young people, this notion is hopelessly outdated and untrue.

Over the past twenty years the labour market has undergone a fundamental shift. At the bottom end of the market, a proliferation of part time & zero-hours contracts have left job insecurity increasingly the new norm for the lowest paid. At the top end high level positions are also on the increase, whilst jobs are fast disappearing at mid-level.

Young people have been particularly disadvantaged by the new ‘hour glass economy’. Lacking skills and experience, they are twice as likely as older people to be in part-time or zero-hours work. They bore the brunt of the last recession, carrying double the burden of unemployment than their proportion in the labour force. Even now, worklessness remains stubbornly high.

For the disadvantaged people Barnardo’s works with, it's a struggle to even get a foot on the bottom rung of the career ladder. One young woman told us that she had applied for ‘about 100’ jobs in the space of a week without a single call back, because she didn’t have the qualifications or experience.

Whilst youth unemployment hasn’t gone under the radar of the political establishment, the solutions on offer often simply don’t work for the most marginalised.

Apprenticeships, for example, have been offered as a panacea by successive Governments, spurring a 77% rise in placements in just three years (2009 – 2012).  Yet whilst the number of older people on apprenticeships trebled in this time, amongst 16-18 year olds it has fallen.

There's a commonly held idea that apprenticeships offer a leg up for a young person who isn’t academic. The reality is that young people cannot even get on an apprenticeship unless they have achieved good (A-Cgrade)GCSEs. Placements are often offered to people who are already in work.

It’s sadly unsurprising then that young people from our London service only knew one person who’d managed to get on a good apprenticeship.  A young man who’d left school with two GCSEs explained that “we apply for apprentice ships all the time, but just don’t have the qualifications”.

Meanwhile those who try to gain  crucial qualifications through college or university, often tell us that they simply can’t afford it.

One young care leaver told us that she had started a graphic design course, but had to drop it after she was told she couldn’t claim benefits and study. Without parents to fall back on for accommodation, she told us, she had no other choice.

Following the abolition of the old ‘Education Maintenance Allowance’ hardship grants – and its replacement with a ‘Bursary Fund’ a third of the size - many students tell us they struggle even to pay the day-to cost of study such as food and bus fare.

These issues have been well documented by organisations like Barnardo’s. Despite this, neither of the two largest political parties has committed to providing either adequate financial support to allow the most disadvantaged to study, or appropriate routes into work.

I would like to see the next Government introduce a ‘Skills suitcase’, that will help every young person to fulfil their potential. This includes increasing education hardship funding for the poorest, so that lack of money is no longer a barrier to study.

They also need to completely overhaul vocational training in this country to ensure that places go to the people who most need them. They can start by reclaiming apprenticeships as something primarily for the under 25s.

To impose punitive sanctions on young people without taking these measures is to throw them out of a plane without a parachute. A Government that does this, sends young people the life-long message that the political system works against them, giving them no reason to take part.

To borrow a phrase from David Cameron, democracy is a two way street. The political establishment now needs to prove it is willing to get ‘on its bike’ and represent young people. Or, they will walk away from the election booth entirely, and that will punish us all.

Javed Khan is CEO of Barnardo's. He tweets at @JavedKhanCEO.

Getty
Show Hide image

Is defeat in Stoke the beginning of the end for Paul Nuttall?

The Ukip leader was his party's unity candidate. But after his defeat in Stoke, the old divisions are beginning to show again

In a speech to Ukip’s spring conference in Bolton on February 17, the party’s once and probably future leader Nigel Farage laid down the gauntlet for his successor, Paul Nuttall. Stoke’s by-election was “fundamental” to the future of the party – and Nuttall had to win.
 
One week on, Nuttall has failed that test miserably and thrown the fundamental questions hanging over Ukip’s future into harsh relief. 

For all his bullish talk of supplanting Labour in its industrial heartlands, the Ukip leader only managed to increase the party’s vote share by 2.2 percentage points on 2015. This paltry increase came despite Stoke’s 70 per cent Brexit majority, and a media narrative that was, until the revelations around Nuttall and Hillsborough, talking the party’s chances up.
 
So what now for Nuttall? There is, for the time being, little chance of him resigning – and, in truth, few inside Ukip expected him to win. Nuttall was relying on two well-rehearsed lines as get-out-of-jail free cards very early on in the campaign. 

The first was that the seat was a lowly 72 on Ukip’s target list. The second was that he had been leader of party whose image had been tarnished by infighting both figurative and literal for all of 12 weeks – the real work of his project had yet to begin. 

The chances of that project ever succeeding were modest at the very best. After yesterday’s defeat, it looks even more unlikely. Nuttall had originally stated his intention to run in the likely by-election in Leigh, Greater Manchester, when Andy Burnham wins the Greater Manchester metro mayoralty as is expected in May (Wigan, the borough of which Leigh is part, voted 64 per cent for Brexit).

If he goes ahead and stands – which he may well do – he will have to overturn a Labour majority of over 14,000. That, even before the unedifying row over the veracity of his Hillsborough recollections, was always going to be a big challenge. If he goes for it and loses, his leadership – predicated as it is on his supposed ability to win votes in the north - will be dead in the water. 

Nuttall is not entirely to blame, but he is a big part of Ukip’s problem. I visited Stoke the day before The Guardian published its initial report on Nuttall’s Hillsborough claims, and even then Nuttall’s campaign manager admitted that he was unlikely to convince the “hard core” of Conservative voters to back him. 

There are manifold reasons for this, but chief among them is that Nuttall, despite his newfound love of tweed, is no Nigel Farage. Not only does he lack his name recognition and box office appeal, but the sad truth is that the Tory voters Ukip need to attract are much less likely to vote for a party led by a Scouser whose platform consists of reassuring working-class voters their NHS and benefits are safe.
 
It is Farage and his allies – most notably the party’s main donor Arron Banks – who hold the most power over Nuttall’s future. Banks, who Nuttall publicly disowned as a non-member after he said he was “sick to death” of people “milking” the Hillsborough disaster, said on the eve of the Stoke poll that Ukip had to “remain radical” if it wanted to keep receiving his money. Farage himself has said the party’s campaign ought to have been “clearer” on immigration. 

Senior party figures are already briefing against Nuttall and his team in the Telegraph, whose proprietors are chummy with the beer-swilling Farage-Banks axis. They deride him for his efforts to turn Ukip into “NiceKip” or “Nukip” in order to appeal to more women voters, and for the heavy-handedness of his pitch to Labour voters (“There were times when I wondered whether I’ve got a purple rosette or a red one on”, one told the paper). 

It is Nuttall’s policy advisers - the anti-Farage awkward squad of Suzanne Evans, MEP Patrick O’Flynn (who famously branded Farage "snarling, thin-skinned and aggressive") and former leadership candidate Lisa Duffy – come in for the harshest criticism. Herein lies the leader's almost impossible task. Despite having pitched to members as a unity candidate, the two sides’ visions for Ukip are irreconcilable – one urges him to emulate Trump (who Nuttall says he would not have voted for), and the other urges a more moderate tack. 

Endorsing his leader on Question Time last night, Ukip’s sole MP Douglas Carswell blamed the legacy of the party’s Tea Party-inspired 2015 general election campaign, which saw Farage complain about foreigners with HIV using the NHS in ITV’s leaders debate, for the party’s poor performance in Stoke. Others, such as MEP Bill Etheridge, say precisely the opposite – that Nuttall must be more like Farage. 

Neither side has yet called for Nuttall’s head. He insists he is “not going anywhere”. With his febrile party no stranger to abortive coup and counter-coup, he is unlikely to be the one who has the final say.