Have you ever been on benefits? It’s no laughing matter.

About 12 years ago I was on the dole. Not for long – but it was long enough.

For the first week I thought it was great. I’d get up when I woke up, watch a bit of telly, go for a walk, watch a bit more telly then it was time for my afternoon nap.

As you can tell I had a packed schedule.

However, after a fortnight I was climbing the walls and shortly afterwards was lucky enough to get my first job in journalism and the joys of the working week were mine.

And, 12 years later, here I am. However, a Labour Party announcement this week put me back in mind of my brief stint on the rock (as in rock and roll = dole).

Ed Miliband says that if his party is elected next year then 18 to 24-year-olds who have been out of work for a year will be offered a six-month work placement.

The placement will be 25 hours a week, last for six months and pay the minimum wage.

Should you be offered the placement and turn it down, then you can look forward to your benefits being cut

The employer would also be compelled to deliver training to you

The theory behind this plan, which would apparently be paid for by a tax on bankers’ bonuses and then by restricting tax-relief for those earning £150,000, is that young people would get the much-needed experience they need to in order to help them get on the jobs ladder.

Currently there are around 900,000 young people in the age bracket above looking for work, but just over 50,000 of them have been out of work for a year and would be eligible for the programme.

What seems less clear is if you’d get a choice of where you could do this placement? What if you’ve been to college and university and read philosophy and end up stacking the shelves at your local pound shop.

There’s nothing wrong with that sort of work, but I’d suggest our young philosopher may be looking for something else.

And that’s where the trouble kicks in. Where are the rights and responsibilities of the employee and where the Department for Work and Pensions who would presumably be administering this scheme?

Is there any point sending someone on a job they don’t have any intention of doing in the future or should the question be why isn’t this person doing any job to get off benefits.

It’s a tricky one - we do need to have our young people highly-skilled and motivated for the workplace in which they will spend the majority of their lives.

However, an enforced rush to get them into a job at any cost may well just be an expensive distraction for the taxpayer.

I don’t know what they’re planning on calling it but to me it sounds suspiciously like the good old New Deal.

Launched by Labour in 1998 New Deal was initially funded by a tax on privatised utility companies and saw people aged 18 to 24 who had been out of work for six months or longer take part in a subsidised six month work placement - or face losing benefits.

Wait a minute this sounds familiar. It appears Ed’s latest plan is simply a post-millenial version of a Blairite light bulb moment to trim the unemployment figures.

If a name’s not taken, the I suggest the Emperor’s New Deal.