Micro-level policy is sometimes the hardest to get right

Our education system still funnels people towards universities.

It's rare you come across a completely obvious policy prescription which ought to be implemented immediately and would be unlikely to be opposed by anyone of any political bent, but this from Tyler Cowen is one:

College students even get discounts at the movie theater; when was the last time you saw a discount for an electrical apprentice?

Of course, nothing perfect remains so for long, and the problem here is that student discounts are a thing of civil society, not government policy. Companies decide whether or not to offer them, and then decide what forms of evidence to accept as proof that a customer is a student; and most of the widely accepted student cards, like NUS and ISIC, aren't state-backed.

(The government might have more lobbying ability to get apprenticeship co-ordinators to issue "student" cards, but no guarantee that those cards would be accepted).

But the wider point is worth bearing in mind: the structure of our education system is still built around a 3-year full time undergraduate degree immediately, or shortly after, leaving school, and that's true for little things as much as it is for the general structure of society. If you're an apprentice, it's harder to get subsidised loans to pay for your education; it's harder to get subsidised accommodation if your apprenticeship is away from home; there are fewer companies aiming entry-level positions explicitly at you; there's no co-ordinated national entry scheme; and so on. It's not quite a case of "look after the pennies and the pounds will watch themselves" – fixing all of those things wouldn't solve anything if there wasn't also an effective nationwide apprenticeship policy backing them up – but it certainly underpins quite how hard it is to turn around the ship of state.

An apprentice blows glass in Germany. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.