Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Here's one group you won't hear from in tonight's debates

The youngest and the poorest are being shut out of the election

This week, the election got underway with much fanfare  about the ‘most closely ever’ contested campaign, and both David Cameron & Ed Miliband warning dramatically from the campaign trail that a ‘stark choice’ and ‘two futures’ lie ahead for the electorate. There’s onegroup of voters, however, for whom this portrait of a vibrant democracy at work could not be further from the truth.

Over the past few months Barnardo’s has been asking the vulnerable young people that it works with how they feel about the forthcoming election.

“Politics is for richer, older people”, is one comment we’ve heard repeatedly, along with ‘they’re all the same’, and followed depressingly by “why should I even vote?”. The sad reality is that for this group of voters, who are young, largely on welfare and facing difficulties finding work, there has been very, very little announced so far in the way of political offering that would be likely to change their minds.

They are, for example, exactly the group who’ll be ignored by Labour’s pledge today of 80,000 ‘youth apprenticeships’ -  but only for those academically privileged enough to have two A Levels. Similarly, they are the voters who’ll be hit hardest by the Conservative Party’s recent proposals to make unemployed 18-21 year olds ‘do community service’ or lose benefits. 

The idea that all school leavers face a stark choice between fecklessness & employment, punishment and reward, is an enduring political theme. It’s a simple moral narrative that’s changed little since the 1982 call to get ‘On Yer Bike’, and has re-surfaced in the run-up to this election in the welter of proposals from across the political spectrum which aim to restrict the young from claiming benefits.

Yet, for most young people, this notion is hopelessly outdated and untrue.

Over the past twenty years the labour market has undergone a fundamental shift. At the bottom end of the market, a proliferation of part time & zero-hours contracts have left job insecurity increasingly the new norm for the lowest paid. At the top end high level positions are also on the increase, whilst jobs are fast disappearing at mid-level.

Young people have been particularly disadvantaged by the new ‘hour glass economy’. Lacking skills and experience, they are twice as likely as older people to be in part-time or zero-hours work. They bore the brunt of the last recession, carrying double the burden of unemployment than their proportion in the labour force. Even now, worklessness remains stubbornly high.

For the disadvantaged people Barnardo’s works with, it's a struggle to even get a foot on the bottom rung of the career ladder. One young woman told us that she had applied for ‘about 100’ jobs in the space of a week without a single call back, because she didn’t have the qualifications or experience.

Whilst youth unemployment hasn’t gone under the radar of the political establishment, the solutions on offer often simply don’t work for the most marginalised.

Apprenticeships, for example, have been offered as a panacea by successive Governments, spurring a 77% rise in placements in just three years (2009 – 2012).  Yet whilst the number of older people on apprenticeships trebled in this time, amongst 16-18 year olds it has fallen.

There's a commonly held idea that apprenticeships offer a leg up for a young person who isn’t academic. The reality is that young people cannot even get on an apprenticeship unless they have achieved good (A-Cgrade)GCSEs. Placements are often offered to people who are already in work.

It’s sadly unsurprising then that young people from our London service only knew one person who’d managed to get on a good apprenticeship.  A young man who’d left school with two GCSEs explained that “we apply for apprentice ships all the time, but just don’t have the qualifications”.

Meanwhile those who try to gain  crucial qualifications through college or university, often tell us that they simply can’t afford it.

One young care leaver told us that she had started a graphic design course, but had to drop it after she was told she couldn’t claim benefits and study. Without parents to fall back on for accommodation, she told us, she had no other choice.

Following the abolition of the old ‘Education Maintenance Allowance’ hardship grants – and its replacement with a ‘Bursary Fund’ a third of the size - many students tell us they struggle even to pay the day-to cost of study such as food and bus fare.

These issues have been well documented by organisations like Barnardo’s. Despite this, neither of the two largest political parties has committed to providing either adequate financial support to allow the most disadvantaged to study, or appropriate routes into work.

I would like to see the next Government introduce a ‘Skills suitcase’, that will help every young person to fulfil their potential. This includes increasing education hardship funding for the poorest, so that lack of money is no longer a barrier to study.

They also need to completely overhaul vocational training in this country to ensure that places go to the people who most need them. They can start by reclaiming apprenticeships as something primarily for the under 25s.

To impose punitive sanctions on young people without taking these measures is to throw them out of a plane without a parachute. A Government that does this, sends young people the life-long message that the political system works against them, giving them no reason to take part.

To borrow a phrase from David Cameron, democracy is a two way street. The political establishment now needs to prove it is willing to get ‘on its bike’ and represent young people. Or, they will walk away from the election booth entirely, and that will punish us all.

Javed Khan is CEO of Barnardo's. He tweets at @JavedKhanCEO.

Getty.
Show Hide image

The Brexit Beartraps, #2: Could dropping out of the open skies agreement cancel your holiday?

Flying to Europe is about to get a lot more difficult.

So what is it this time, eh? Brexit is going to wipe out every banana planet on the entire planet? Brexit will get the Last Night of the Proms cancelled? Brexit will bring about World War Three?

To be honest, I think we’re pretty well covered already on that last score, but no, this week it’s nothing so terrifying. It’s just that Brexit might get your holiday cancelled.

What are you blithering about now?

Well, only if you want to holiday in Europe, I suppose. If you’re going to Blackpool you’ll be fine. Or Pakistan, according to some people...

You’re making this up.

I’m honestly not, though we can’t entirely rule out the possibility somebody is. Last month Michael O’Leary, the Ryanair boss who attracts headlines the way certain other things attract flies, warned that, “There is a real prospect... that there are going to be no flights between the UK and Europe for a period of weeks, months beyond March 2019... We will be cancelling people’s holidays for summer of 2019.”

He’s just trying to block Brexit, the bloody saboteur.

Well, yes, he’s been quite explicit about that, and says we should just ignore the referendum result. Honestly, he’s so Remainiac he makes me look like Dan Hannan.

But he’s not wrong that there are issues: please fasten your seatbelt, and brace yourself for some turbulence.

Not so long ago, aviation was a very national sort of a business: many of the big airports were owned by nation states, and the airline industry was dominated by the state-backed national flag carriers (British Airways, Air France and so on). Since governments set airline regulations too, that meant those airlines were given all sorts of competitive advantages in their own country, and pretty much everyone faced barriers to entry in others. 

The EU changed all that. Since 1994, the European Single Aviation Market (ESAM) has allowed free movement of people and cargo; established common rules over safety, security, the environment and so on; and ensured fair competition between European airlines. It also means that an AOC – an Air Operator Certificate, the bit of paper an airline needs to fly – from any European country would be enough to operate in all of them. 

Do we really need all these acronyms?

No, alas, we need more of them. There’s also ECAA, the European Common Aviation Area – that’s the area ESAM covers; basically, ESAM is the aviation bit of the single market, and ECAA the aviation bit of the European Economic Area, or EEA. Then there’s ESAA, the European Aviation Safety Agency, which regulates, well, you can probably guess what it regulates to be honest.

All this may sound a bit dry-

It is.

-it is a bit dry, yes. But it’s also the thing that made it much easier to travel around Europe. It made the European aviation industry much more competitive, which is where the whole cheap flights thing came from.

In a speech last December, Andrew Haines, the boss of Britain’s Civil Aviation Authority said that, since 2000, the number of destinations served from UK airports has doubled; since 1993, fares have dropped by a third. Which is brilliant.

Brexit, though, means we’re probably going to have to pull out of these arrangements.

Stop talking Britain down.

Don’t tell me, tell Brexit secretary David Davis. To monitor and enforce all these international agreements, you need an international court system. That’s the European Court of Justice, which ministers have repeatedly made clear that we’re leaving.

So: last March, when Davis was asked by a select committee whether the open skies system would persist, he replied: “One would presume that would not apply to us” – although he promised he’d fight for a successor, which is very reassuring. 

We can always holiday elsewhere. 

Perhaps you can – O’Leary also claimed (I’m still not making this up) that a senior Brexit minister had told him that lost European airline traffic could be made up for through a bilateral agreement with Pakistan. Which seems a bit optimistic to me, but what do I know.

Intercontinental flights are still likely to be more difficult, though. Since 2007, flights between Europe and the US have operated under a separate open skies agreement, and leaving the EU means we’re we’re about to fall out of that, too.  

Surely we’ll just revert to whatever rules there were before.

Apparently not. Airlines for America – a trade body for... well, you can probably guess that, too – has pointed out that, if we do, there are no historic rules to fall back on: there’s no aviation equivalent of the WTO.

The claim that flights are going to just stop is definitely a worst case scenario: in practice, we can probably negotiate a bunch of new agreements. But we’re already negotiating a lot of other things, and we’re on a deadline, so we’re tight for time.

In fact, we’re really tight for time. Airlines for America has also argued that – because so many tickets are sold a year or more in advance – airlines really need a new deal in place by March 2018, if they’re to have faith they can keep flying. So it’s asking for aviation to be prioritised in negotiations.

The only problem is, we can’t negotiate anything else until the EU decides we’ve made enough progress on the divorce bill and the rights of EU nationals. And the clock’s ticking.

This is just remoaning. Brexit will set us free.

A little bit, maybe. CAA’s Haines has also said he believes “talk of significant retrenchment is very much over-stated, and Brexit offers potential opportunities in other areas”. Falling out of Europe means falling out of European ownership rules, so itcould bring foreign capital into the UK aviation industry (assuming anyone still wants to invest, of course). It would also mean more flexibility on “slot rules”, by which airports have to hand out landing times, and which are I gather a source of some contention at the moment.

But Haines also pointed out that the UK has been one of the most influential contributors to European aviation regulations: leaving the European system will mean we lose that influence. And let’s not forget that it was European law that gave passengers the right to redress when things go wrong: if you’ve ever had a refund after long delays, you’ve got the EU to thank.

So: the planes may not stop flying. But the UK will have less influence over the future of aviation; passengers might have fewer consumer rights; and while it’s not clear that Brexit will mean vastly fewer flights, it’s hard to see how it will mean more, so between that and the slide in sterling, prices are likely to rise, too.

It’s not that Brexit is inevitably going to mean disaster. It’s just that it’ll take a lot of effort for very little obvious reward. Which is becoming something of a theme.

Still, we’ll be free of those bureaucrats at the ECJ, won’t be?

This’ll be a great comfort when we’re all holidaying in Grimsby.

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Brexit. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.