“I COMMIT this Labour Government to nothing less than the abolition of long-term youth unemployment,” the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, declared in a speech to her party’s conference on Monday. In an initiatve building on the “Youth Guarantee”, announced last November, any young person who has been out of work, education, or training for more than 18 months would be given a paid work placement, bringing them “real work, practical experience, new skills”, she said. The Labour faithful greeted this with cheers and applause, having been reminded of the Blair government’s New Deal, which, Ms Reeves said, had “supported hundreds of thousands of young people back into work”.

While Ms Reeves brandished the carrot to party members from the platform, it was evident when the speech was briefed to the press last weekend that a stick would also be used. “Young people to lose benefits if they refuse job offers”, said a Times headline; “Young people could be stripped of benefits if they turn down job after 18 months”, said the Telegraph. It was not quite Margaret Thatcher’s invocation of St Paul’s words to the Thessalonians — “If a man will not work he shall not eat” — in her 1988 “Sermon on the Mound”; but headlines of this kind did suggest that, behind the positive talk of aspiration and hope, the Government is prepared to threaten any young people deemed to be work-shy with penury.

Ms Reeves was right in her speech to speak of the dignity and security of work, although a safety net is also important for those who cannot work — for health reasons, for example. The deeper question is how more young people can find jobs that provide long-term security and fulfilment. Political action alone is not enough, and, ultimately, the carrot is more effective than the stick: the prospect of losing benefits may encourage the unemployed to put on a good show of seeking work, but it does not address the root causes of worklessness, such as lack of self-confidence, motivation, and support. The labourer is worthy of his hire.

The Government would do well to pay attention to the relational approach of faith and civil-society groups that work in this area. Charities such as Resurgo, which runs the Spear programme (Features, 29 August), Rise Up, and the Youth Futures Foundation mentor and coach disadvantaged young people to gain “work-readiness skills” and to develop the motivation and confidence to seek out opportunities. Such approaches are demonstrably effective: Spear says that three-quarters of those who complete its programme are in a job or in education a year later. The stories of those who have completed such schemes show that the fruits of work — self-respect and a sense of purpose — are more of a motivation than the threat of sanctions. The Government could benefit from the organisers of these initiatives and perhaps even fund their wider availability. Parishes with venues and volunteers available might consider offering them to help young people to gain dignity and purpose.