| CPF Group: | British Conservatives in Paris (CPF Group) | ||||||
| CPF Coordinator: | Paul Thomson | ||||||
| Email address: | |||||||
| Number of attendees | Student <25s | Other <25s | 25-40 | >40 | |||
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 8 | ||||
| Date of meeting | 22nd February 2018 | ||||||
| If you have a Conservative MP, please tick this box to confirm that you have sent a copy of this response to your MP: | | ||||||
| Data Sharing Information: We occasionally like to share CPF comments in a public domain. Please indicate whether you would like any such comments quoted from your Group’s responses to be attributed to your Group, to be anonymous or to remain private: | |||||||
| Attributed ☒ | Anonymous ☐ | Private ☐ | |||||
| 1. Whose responsibility should training be: the citizen, schools and universities, the employer, the state, or all of them? – ALL OF THEM
In the Armed Forces when you sign-up all training is paid for in return to several years’ service, but this is not the case in the rest of the public sector. Is this fair? What new contract might we offer our citizens? – NOT DISCUSSED
|
| 2. How might a Conservative Government seek to boost productivity across the UK? – PLEASE REFER TO OTHER ANSWERS
|
| 3. In what ways could the UK build on its world-class reputation for training and expand opportunities for lifelong vocational education and training? Do we need a top-down national skills programme or a bottom-up sectoral or geographical approach? – (i) There is too much emphasis on university studies at the expense of technical studies/training. The Swiss sytem should be noted: 20% go to university; yet the country has one of the most competitive economies in the world (as well as a vibrant democracy). (ii) Public awareness should be raised as to the export of British engineering services – asserted by a participant to be the largest source of GB exports. (iii) The disinclination to pursue “STEM” might be countered by different evaluation methods at the secondary level. Some secondary students may be put off following a STEM area of specialisation on the grounds that it would make it more difficult to obtain a place in a better university. (iv) More innovative schools like the Paris region one now quite famous called “L’Ecole 42” (founded by Xavier Niel) which uses innovative pedagogical methods to encourage young people (from a variety of backgrounds) to be inventive and development an entrepreneurial bent would be desirable. (v) More drawing on the successful apprenticeship systems used in Germany, Switzerland & Austria – which ensure a trained young work force corresponding more to employer/market needs and thereby also reducing youth unemployment. (In France there is also a university level version of the same idea, involving alternating between formal studies and work in for an employer.) (vi) The quality of the teaching of science in the UK leaves something to be desired: that likely discourages some young people from embarking on further studies in science.
|
| 4. In what ways does training need to catch up with the changing skill requirements of modern technology? Are there any new and innovative models of training in your area that could be used elsewhere? – SEE RESPONSE TO Q3
|
| 5. How should a Conservative Government deal with possible widening income gaps arising from increased automation? – (i) One younger participant: hands off (ie redistribution not welcomed)! (ii) An older participant: moving to ensure minimum income levels possibly including redistribution mechanisms may have justification in certain circumstances. The government has a responsibility to take care that society does not unravel. (iii) Cf the “gig economy”. Some considered this to be a promising avenue for individuals to be active in the economy (though the real-life relative impact on personal financial outcomes – income & wealth levels for example – were not explored).
|
| 6. What policies should a Conservative Government adopt to balance the need for improved training and productivity in the UK with any desire to reduce our reliance on skilled technical expertise from abroad? How might these be paid for? – (i) GB should “copy” the US in leveraging defence spending to stimulate both research (in companies & at universities/research institutes etc) as well as business development for the GB economy not just in the defence sector but in other sectors where applications of technological advances first achieved in the defence sector could be discovered/developed. (ii) At the same time cooperation agreements (allowing for sharing of IP, marketing rights etc) with suitable non-GB partners should be encouraged especially where GB is not in a position to “go it alone”. Defence cooperation arrangements and the broader relationship in this regard with France is a positive example. (iii) Separate from (i) above: increases in levels of defence spending could have a positive effect by ratcheting up the leverage benefit stimulus impact to a higher level.
|
| Other Comments (if any)
A. On positioning of the Party and certain of its leading figures: (i) One young participant: the party is not considered “cool” by young people: a handicap. (ii) A different young participant: the party needs to stand up for itself – its values as well as its policies – more generally and with more assurance: this would enhance credibility & appeal including to younger people. (iii) Re J Rees-Mogg: the young participants: JRM has a “serious following” among young people. He has authenticity; & does not hesitate to stand up for monarchy & British values & culture. Support for him among young people is not tinged with the irony (or professed irony?) signaled by some young people with respect to Boris Johnson – which did not appear to indicated that BJ was not also genuinely appreciated by younger people. B. On CPF Brief 17-4 re Youth (as to which we regrettably missed the 31.12.18 deadline and which, to catch up, was discussed at the same 22.2.18 meeting): (i) Young Participants: the Party needs to be more aggressive in going out to find young supporters. (ii) Idem: … and to welcoming those who do express interest (some offputting experiences of bad management of the same were described). (iii) Idem: … and to be more modern in its modes of communication – using more & better such instruments as SnapChat, Instagram, Twitter etc – more friendly and more efficient. (iv) More marketing savvy was needed: cf Corbyn’s “coup” by appearing at Glastonbury – deemed effective politically by the the young participants. (v) Should the glorious history of the Party be played up? Views varied. (vi) Re the economic deck of cards stacked against them (for the young): (a) The young participants did not seem too fussed by this (perhaps not in the line of fire). (b) Some of the older ones though thought there were real issues to be addressed; and that if they were not addressed in a substantial way the Party would risk substantial political damage among the younger generation because their “plight” is entirely real (not imagined) & is characterized by a simultaneous accumulation of structural disadvantages that can jeopardise their individual economic development & well-being for their entire lives. If not all older people deign to take cognizance of this, the vast majority of young people are painfully aware of it and it can colour their view of society & politics in a not insignificant way. (vii) Selling Brexit to young people? (a) A young participant: difficult because ski holidays may become more bothersome to organize – ie if a visa might now be needed. (b) An older participant: Brexit is inherently unsellable given the current state of uncertainty. (viii) Tuition fees etc: (a) It was pointed out that on the Continent such fees in most universities are nominal – how therefore could one say there is no alternative thereto? (b) The rate of interest charged on student loans (semble 6.1%) was considered apparently by all to be outrageously – and mind-bogglingly – high (in view of current low market interest rate levels). (c) On the question of lower tuition fees there was no consensus – with there being apparently support for the status quo, for some drawing back from the same (some fee reductions), & for a return to the pre-Blair levels. (ix) Cheaper Housing for Young People: (a) Expansion of housing supply was diversely appreciated as a concept: (I) some did not want new housing “in their backyard” eg on greenbelt or otherwise vacant land nearby; (II) others though it was indispensable to increase supply by significantly increasing building activity – given the ongoing disequilibrium between supply & demand overall. (b) Disincentives to absent owner-“occupants”: several agreed that the market was suffering significantly from the distortions caused by wealthy investors taking up housing to invest/park wealth not otherwise engaged. The marginal benefit to these people, not necessarily all British citizens, should be compared to the marginal detriment to those completely frozen out of the housing market and/or forced to live at huge distances from their place of work, to spend inordinate amounts of time in public transit etc (and many in this latter group may be British citizens – therefore having a certain call to having their needs taken into account by the political decision-makers). Several considered that higher taxes on empty housing units would be justified; though all did not necessarily support this idea. The idea of limiting/strictly regulating purchases by foreigners/non-residents of housing was not discussed, however, due to lack of time.
|
| FEEDBACK ON PAPERS |
| What do you find useful? – The two briefs covered above were considered to be of very good quality by the participants – well organised, presented & articulated.
|
| What you do not find helpful?
|
| Do you have any suggestions for how we might improve future briefings?
|
Thank You. Please return to: CPF.Papers@conservatives.com
Tags: British politics, Conservative Party, Training & Skills