Peter Hain is promising "full employment in our generation." If we're lucky, everyone will ignore him. Full employment - if it is attainable at all - is like falling asleep. It's achievable - if at all - only if you don't aim for it.
Back in the 60s, governments were committed to full employment. And this commitment ultimately proved self-defeating. The belief that governments would guarantee full employment led to wage militancy, shirking - vindicating Kalecki's forecast that the threat of the sack would lose its power - and over-investment as firms anticipated continued high demand.
The upshot was a profit squeeze, accelerating inflation, the crises of the 1970s and rising unemployment.
By contrast, we've recently been nearer (relatively) to full employment than we have been for years, and yet subjective insecurity - the fear of losing jobs to immigrants, offshoring or imports - is high. This is no accident. It's insecurity that makes fuller employment possible, by restraining wage demands, and so lowering the Nairu: it's not as if every boss can use this tactic to combat wage militancy.
In this context, Hain's hubristic aim for full employment is counter-productive. If people become confident that full employment is possible, job security will rise and with it wage militancy or shirking, making full employment even more unlikely.