Britain's youth are facing a dire situation, and the country is paying the price for its failure to invest in them. The generation that grew up during the post-2008 crash austerity years and in the shadow of the Covid pandemic is feeling the pinch, and it's not hard to see why. The level of public service provision their parents enjoyed is gone, living costs are rising, the AI revolution is changing everything, and the planet is on fire. This is a critical moment for Britain, and the review into youth unemployment by Alan Milburn is a vital step towards addressing the issue. The problem of young people not in education, employment, or training (Neet) is a symptom of a much larger problem: the erosion of the building blocks of a just and prosperous economy. The austerity years have had a devastating impact, and the consequences are now maturing. The cuts to funding for youth services, education, and the public sector have been severe. Spending on youth services in England has plummeted by 76%, resulting in the closure of thousands of youth clubs and the loss of social workers. Meanwhile, per-pupil spending for schools has been frozen for 14 years, and investment in school buildings has collapsed by a quarter, leading to the Raac (crumbling concrete) crisis. The tragedy is that Britain has ended up allocating vast sums to the consequences of these failures, rather than investing in prevention. The Neet crisis is a stark example of this. For every £1 spent on employment support for young people, the state spends £25 on benefits. This is a costly and unsustainable situation, and the consequences are only set to worsen without intervention. The Sure Start program, which was effectively scrapped by the Conservatives, is another cautionary tale. As funding dried up, spending on looked-after children and safeguarding rose by more than half. The cost of helping disadvantaged families did not vanish; the support simply shifted from prevention to crisis management. This pattern is repeated across government, with a shortsighted approach to public services. Instead of investing in prevention, the state is in firefighting mode, reacting to problems rather than addressing their root causes. This is where Andy Burnham comes in. As the new leader of the Labour Party, Burnham has the task of ending this shortsighted approach and rebuilding a preventive state. This model involves investing in the foundations of society to support the next generation. The economic, fiscal, and social prize would be substantial. The NHS provides a clear example of the benefits of prevention. As much as 40% of the NHS budget goes towards treating preventable conditions, and preventable illness accounts for half of GP appointments and 70% of inpatient hospital bed days. Restoring the deteriorating health of the UK's population to the level of 2014 would boost GDP by 2% and generate a £72 billion dividend for the public finances. The Office for Budget Responsibility has also said that investing in prevention could keep the spiralling health budget in check, resulting in a significant reduction in national debt. However, building a preventive state will come with challenges for a prime minister hemmed in by the UK's current tight fiscal predicament. The costs of preventive spending take time to materialize, and spending on acute need and welfare cannot be simply turned off. This timing problem is why the Treasury has often been skeptical. The costs appear immediately, while the savings arrive years later, often benefiting a different government. The incentives favor firefighting over fixing. But refusing to make the transition is a bad choice. Britain is already paying the price of a crumbling NHS, rising welfare bill, jobs market inactivity, and consequent weak economic growth. The review by Milburn is a critical test of whether Britain will grasp the nettle to rebuild a preventive state from the ashes of the austerity years. The alternative is a country hamstrung by the costs of failure, where young people feel lost. Personally, I think that the review is a wake-up call for Britain to address the Neet crisis and invest in its youth. The consequences of inaction are too severe, and the benefits of a preventive state are too great to ignore. From my perspective, the review is a call to action for the government to take a long-term view and invest in the foundations of society. What makes this particularly fascinating is the potential for a preventive state to transform Britain's economy and public finances. What many people don't realize is that the costs of failure are already being felt, and the benefits of prevention are within reach. If you take a step back and think about it, the review is a critical moment for Britain to address the root causes of its problems and build a brighter future for its youth.
