What a load of Balls

Salute to you all. Once again, I have a quiet cup of tea over the morning Telegraph ruined by splurting out the aforementioned beverage at the sight of yet another piece of bilge penned by that most unscrupulous of Labour-types (my, and aren't there plenty to choose from?), Ed Balls. Well, good readers, you hold him down whilst I call for a nurse, because it is clear that this man needs professional help. His thoughts are rarely classifiable as wholly sane, but this last proclamation from Gordon McBroon's bosom buddy is wholly certifiable.

True to form, the Labour Government is committed to reform in areas by vast changes in the structure of the country, rather than correcting the inherent flaws that exist within the current structure. If something's going wrong, then "legislate" is the cry. More laws have been created since 1997 than you can shake several proverbial sticks at, but the difference to the country is small, apart from the increase in red-tape and difficulty that now now surrounds every decision in the allegedly free lives of Her Majesty's subjects.

Labour have failed the children of this country. This much is without doubt. I ranted only yesterday on the wholesale lie that is the 'graduate' culture now in the UK, and Brown-Balls (we need another name to make a tripartite soliciting partnership) are now out to create the same lie in secondary education.

It is too easy at first sight to agree with the notion that a longer time spent in education or training is a good thing. The truth is, if that education is (1) good quality, (2) good value and (3) ultimately serving a purpose, then yes, it is a good thing. If, however, the education is (1) so focused on short-term league tables, exam results and encouraging general muppetry through "deferred success", (2) indebting the students so that life post-university is poverty stricken with still no real increase in employability and (3) geared purely to help teachers earn more through teaching less to a lower standard, then it is not a good thing. Giving pupils two more years of a failing education system is hardly going to improve their or this country's future.

But wait, I hear you cry. The additional two years are not necessarily in school: they may also go into an apprenticeship or a job which offers at least one day per week in training. But why? What if they have the opportunity to go into work which doesn't offer training? What if they want to go into trades? What is wrong with someone of 16 simply working? For those who do leave school at 16 and head straight into the world of work, they are more likely to emerge five years later as a well trained, disciplined and employable member of society, due to experience, and are more likely to be able to afford to purchase their own home. Compare this to those who emerge from some of the country's second-rate universities with a pointless degree in media and beer-making studies with £15,000 in debt and no useful work experience to offer. As a past employer, I know who I would take on without a doubt.

I have no difficulty with lots of our young people heading to university to study extreme minority subjects. As a conservative, I'm happy for people to take their own decisions, but let them take them with all the facts. A degree is not a direct ticket into employment. It does not make you a perfect employee. And it costs a lot of money to (a) study, (b) pay tuition fees and (c) support yourself for three years without working. The truth is, if you want to work, you may be better heading out there straight from school.

So my final call is this: don't disrupt the lives of those who wish to study at school by making those whom the education system fails stay within the system. If a child has the drive to work at 16, then let them. In fact, to make a positive step forward in the education and life chances of our children, not only let them leave to work at 16, why not at 14? Apart from the highest within the highest professions, five or even seven years work experience will trump any three years at university.

Less, as is so often true, can be more.