With the BBC’s Democracy Day having brought 24 hours of political discussion and debate to British screens last Tuesday, focusing on present-day issues as well as celebrating the 750th anniversary of the first Parliament of elected representatives at Westminster, it seems the perfect time to address some of the of the most pressing issues relating to the UK political system today. Disengagement with politics is a big problem in general but particularly so for today’s youth, with 60% of 18-21 year olds predicted not to vote in this May’s General Election. The Wilberforce Society’s Annual Conference invited a range of speakers and students to comment on this damaging state of affairs on Sunday, intelligently promoting a holistic approach to reengaging young people not only with Parliamentary affairs but society at large.

What was emphasised by the structure of the conference was that problems related to youth unemployment, youth justice and youth politics are inextricably linked, and that a coherent policy approach accounting for all three is needed to lift large portions of young people out of their precarious predicament. Improving citizenship education and teaching democratic competencies in schools will inspire more young people to vote and engage more broadly with politics, which will in turn increase the focus of politicians on youth services and the reduction of youth unemployment. Better job prospects should reduce crime levels and promote a more integrated society in which all young people see themselves as part of the 'whole', as part of the British nation in which they can fully participate.

The Wilberforce Society calls itself a non-partisan organisation "avoiding ideological battle" and focusing on "creative solutions to real world problems", a refreshing stance in a university of many tribal political societies, but an outlook that nevertheless holds back any radical critique of the status-quo, something desperately lacking on Sunday. The two speakers on youth unemployment, Lizzie Crowley, a Senior Researcher at the Work Foundation, and Laura-Jane Rowlings, founder of Youth Unemployment UK, both offered great detail on what could be done to enhance the work experience and ‘soft skills’ of young people, and how they could be inspired to become self-driven and take ownership over their future, but all proposals were situated within the neoliberal economic system as it exists today.

When one member of the audience asked whether a Basic Income could be one aspect of a more inclusive society that didn’t stigmatise the unemployed, the reply from Crowley was, “Well that all sounds very nice, doesn’t it?” Both emphasised that we live in a system demanding contributions from all individuals, and that it was up to Cambridge students to start any revolutionary movements that might radically alter this system. A Basic Income hardly wades into the territory of revolutionary socialism, though, and the conference could have benefited from a more critical approach to the underlying economic structure of society and how this forms the root of many of the problems for which Crowley and Rowlings are trying to find solutions.

Only a certain amount can be achieved when inequalities are so ingrained and unemployment so cemented, with society encouraged to view those out of work as ‘scroungers’ feeding off the taxes of those who bother to exert themselves. Large-scale unemployment is in fact an inevitable part of a neoliberal order that shifts priorities from the ‘human’ to the ‘economic’, with the percentage of the workforce without a job falling to the pre-Thatcher levels of 5.5% between only 2000-2006 since her economic revolution. The coalition is edging closer to that level again, but only with the help of zero-hour contracts and forced work experience, providing little financial security for those involved and hardly promoting the kind of inclusive society that will spark motivation for those out of work to find a job and make a contribution the 'whole'. Crowley herself admitted that life chances are determined to a large extent by the age of four, something not surprising given that the brain grows to two-thirds of its size by then, with differences in economic and cultural capital (most often linked) leading children to gain different amounts from the educational system and diverge in their academic outcomes even when attending the same school. Much of this inequality stems from the economic system.

Other speakers did allude, however, to a more inclusive and socially-oriented vision of society, despite not offering radical critiques. Professor Roger Smith from Durham University highlighted the negative impact of 'othering' youth and criticised ineffective punitive measures aimed at tackling crime. A rehabilitative approach which respects human rights is what is needed, re-connecting offenders to society rather than pushing them further away from it. Enhancing youth participation in politics is about including young people in national discussion, too, and giving them a voice on issues that they deem important. The feeling of citizenship can only grow if democratic projects within schools are successful. The prospect of withdrawal from politics and society would decline. The challenge here is to move teenagers beyond jokes about Ed Balls' surname to an understanding of democracy.

What certainly won't help in furthering this inclusive, holistic approach is reducing our responsibility as a society to re-engage disaffected young people. One student paper at the conference suggested that the onus be passed to Social Impact Bonds for cutting rates of youth reoffending, an effective privatisation of justice that would withdraw accountability from the state, the highest authority of our democratic political system, to further the welfare of society and lower levels of crime. Bonds centred on competition and profit are very unlikely to prove mechanisms by which society can become more inclusive and shift the pendulum further from the 'economic' to the 'human'. Perverse incentives would be created.

While the Wilberforce Society Conference drew attention to the links between unemployment, justice and politics and called for a more inclusive society to re-engage the youth, it’s inherently non-ideological outlook meant that a certain critical edge was lacking. Furthering the work experience and 'soft skills' of young people and incentivising recruitment for employers can only achieve so much within an inherently unequal and profit-driven society. On you go, Cambridge students, with your revolutionary masterplans: the world needs them.