When Labour returned to government, voters were promised competence, fairness and an end to headline-led policymaking. Yet, a familiar pattern is re-emerging. Major national announcements generate headlines, but the detail often tells a more uneven story, particularly when examined from a local perspective.
The Labour government’s £820 million “Youth Guarantee” scheme is a case in point. Announced as a decisive intervention to help young people on benefits into work, it was presented as a major opportunity for those struggling to find a foothold in sectors such as construction, hospitality and care. Ministers spoke of urgency, fairness and giving every young person a chance.
For Sussex and Kent, including communities across the Bexhill and Battle constituency, the reality is far less convincing.
Despite youth unemployment and inactivity rates that are higher than in several areas selected for the scheme, Sussex and Kent have been excluded from the programme’s most meaningful element: guaranteed jobs.
The result is another national policy that looks generous on paper but leaves local communities questioning why they have once again been overlooked.
According to official Department for Work and Pensions documents published in November 2025, the Youth Guarantee is intended to support around 900,000 young people aged 18 to 21 who are claiming Universal Credit. All eligible claimants will be offered an initial work support session followed by short-term assistance. Alongside this, the government has pledged up to 350,000 education, training or employment opportunities, with 55,000 guaranteed jobs in sectors such as construction, hospitality, health and social care.
However, those guaranteed jobs are limited to a shortlist of regions:
- Birmingham and Solihull
- The East Midlands
- Greater Manchester
- Central and East Scotland
- South West and South Eastern Wales
- Hertfordshire and Essex
Sussex, Kent and the North East of England are all absent from this list.
A policy that does not match the data
This exclusion is difficult to justify on the basis of need. Official labour market figures show that East Sussex has a higher proportion of young people claiming unemployment-related benefits than the national average. Around 6 percent of 18 to 24 year olds in East Sussex are claiming jobseeker-related support, compared with roughly 4.3 percent across England.
In Hastings, the figure approaches 10 percent. Across parts of Sussex and Kent, youth NEET rates are estimated at around 14 percent.By contrast, Central and East Scotland, which has been included in the guaranteed jobs element of the scheme, has a youth NEET rate closer to 11 percent.
If the Youth Guarantee is genuinely designed to prioritise areas of highest need, these comparisons raise an obvious question. Why are counties with higher youth inactivity being excluded, while others with lower rates are prioritised?
Sussex and Kent are not alone in being excluded. The North East of England, which consistently records some of the lowest employment rates and highest economic inactivity levels in the country, further undermines claims that the rollout is driven by evidence alone.
When the regions are viewed alongside recent political patterns, the choices invite scrutiny. Greater Manchester, Birmingham and much of Wales remain Labour strongholds, while Central and East Scotland and parts of Hertfordshire and Essex are areas where Labour is competitive or seeking to consolidate support. By contrast, Sussex and Kent are counties where Labour has traditionally struggled to win parliamentary seats. This does not prove political intent, but it does raise an uncomfortable question: whether a scheme presented as targeting the greatest economic need has, in practice, been shaped at least in part by electoral geography.
Perhaps the most awkward aspect of the Youth Guarantee for Labour is not criticism from opposition parties, but the silence from local Labour representatives.
Rother District Council, which covers Bexhill and Battle, is run by a Liberal Democrat, Labour, Greens, and Independents administration. Yet despite East Sussex having youth unemployment and inactivity levels higher than several regions selected for guaranteed jobs, there has been no public explanation from local Labour leadership as to why Sussex has been excluded.
Local councillors are left dealing with the consequences on the ground: young people unable to secure work, employers struggling to recruit, and families asking why opportunities available elsewhere are not available here. Yet the policy itself appears to have been designed without meaningful reference to the realities of coastal and rural communities like those in East Sussex.
The contradiction is hard to ignore. Labour nationally insists the Youth Guarantee is targeted at areas of “highest need”, while Labour-influenced local government in Rother presides over communities that clearly meet that definition but receive none of the scheme’s core benefits.
Young people in Sussex will still receive the basic, nationwide elements of the Youth Guarantee. These include Jobcentre support sessions, advice and access to existing youth hubs and training schemes.
What they will not receive are the guaranteed jobs, subsidised placements or intensive regional programmes being offered elsewhere.
In practical terms, this means a young person in Greater Manchester or Birmingham may be offered a structured pathway into paid employment, while a young person in Bexhill or Battle with identical circumstances will not.
This is not levelling up. It is a postcode lottery.
The exclusion is particularly striking given the structure of the local economy. East Sussex is characterised by small employers, seasonal work, an ageing population and limited public transport. These factors make it harder for young people to access stable employment or training.
These are precisely the conditions that targeted employment schemes are supposed to address. Instead, Labour’s policy bypasses the area entirely.
Reform UK locally has questioned whether Labour is playing politics with youth employment. If the objective is genuinely to help young people into work, why exclude counties with higher youth inactivity than some of the chosen regions? Why include Hertfordshire and Essex but not neighbouring Kent and Sussex? Why prioritise Central and East Scotland over coastal communities in the South East with long-standing employment challenges?
Reform UK argues that young people should not be treated as political tokens, rewarded or ignored depending on geography. Employment policy, it says, should be driven by need, not optics or electoral convenience.
Nationally, around 940,000 young people are currently classed as not in education, employment or training. Against that backdrop, the offer of 55,000 guaranteed jobs is limited at best. Restricting those opportunities to a handful of regions further weakens the scheme’s credibility.
Once again, Labour has delivered a policy that reads well in a press release but collapses under local scrutiny. For young people in Bexhill and Battle, the message is familiar and dispiriting. Once again, they are not the priority.
The government has yet to explain why Sussex and Kent were excluded from the guaranteed jobs element of the Youth Guarantee. Until it does, suspicion will remain that this is less about tackling youth unemployment and more about political calculation.
For local families, employers and young people themselves, that is simply not good enough. If Labour wants to convince voters it is serious about fairness and opportunity, it must explain why young people in Sussex and Kent are being left behind yet again.
