UK's ill-thought 'tech education reboot' for 14-year-olds

Last week, the latest occupant of 10 Downing Street Andy Burnham - the UK's sixth Prime Minister since David Cameron left office in 2016 and the Labour party's second - came up with what he wants British voters to believe is a clever education policy. 

But in truth, it appears to be a pretty stale, ill-thought and repackaged one associated with his predecessor Keir Starmer. 

So, here's the backstory in case you haven't heard - on Monday, July 27 the egregious Burnham - UK PM, media anointed 'King of the North' and former Mayor of Manchester - declared: "From today Britain will value the hard hat as much as the graduation cap."  

Under his "new" instituted "fundamental changes" to the UK education system, Burnham said 14-year-olds will be able to get "early access" to technical education, skills training, work experience and connections with employers. But upon deeper examination, it falls apart as political claptrap. 

For starters, there's a glaring lack of originality as the announcement's own first footnote states: "Most secondary schools already offer some form of technical qualification, but the PM’s new plan will boost quality, availability and status of the offer."

There appears to be no clarification on how or what would be different - just a lukewarm, vague, political rehash of what Starmer said in 2025 and changed nothing! But fanboys and girls from the media to the Labour party were promptly sent out to regurgitate that the move is some sort of a profound change which it isn't, accompanied by cheesy, cringy videos featuring Burnham himself.

The announcement also contains little to no clarity on funding. Even British teaching bodies and unions are flummoxed, to put it mildly, in their pursuit of some differentiators. At least the UK Labour party's members of parliament - many of whom posted same lauding soundbites in 2025 - can copy and paste them with minor edits.

Here's The Oilholic's bit of repurposing of what yours truly said in 2025 from his own observations as an energy and industry analyst and those of widely known industry stakeholders. Of course, it is great to prioritise other educational routes that break the norm! Germany has done so better than most. But they start it at 15 going on to 16 post-secondary school.

At 14 and secondary school, its about firming up the basics in English, mathematics, core sciences (especially chemistry and physics), geography, etc. if technical pathway is one of their liking. The chosen year is NOT ideal at all in The Oilholic's opinion.

Intertwining it with future employment prospects of 16 to 24-year-olds or NEETs ("Not in education, employment or training") matters. Yet, the root cause of alarmingly high UK youth unemployment isn't necessarily that young people don't have the skills - rather the British macroeconomic climate of the past two years that has clobbered the appetite of business and industry to hire, right down to the Labour party's "policy gems" and related factors such as: 

• Dogma-driven national insurance and minimum wage hikes without any thought process on their impact on the ability of businesses to hire. 
• A draconian employment rights act largely drawn up by people who have never run any business or industry but think they can preach and lecture those who do. 
• Businesses and industries up and down the UK face the highest commercial energy prices among major developed nations. Yet, the Net Zero man behind it all - former Energy Secretary Ed Miliband - is now prancing around the world clocking taxpayer supported airmiles as the country's Foreign Secretary.
• There is widespread deindustrialisation in the UK with only four operational refineries (ExxonMobil Fawley, Phillips 66 Humber, Valero Pembroke and Essar Stanlow) down from six in 2024 when the Labour party came to power, and ten in 1997. That alone gives a flavour of opportunity and capacity decimation in the engineering and industrial value chain of the UK. 

Contrary to Labour's claim, such economic losses along with those from over-taxed UK offshore exploration and production, will likely not be replaced by new green industries within and beyond the energy spectrum - and remains a headcount improbability even with subsidy support. So, no amount introduction of technical and industrial subjects taught at 14 will reverse things if there's a diminishing core industrial and commercial base for the youth to turn to for employment.

Burnham's move - if you can call it at that given all that's come with it are waffly and vacuous soundbites - will do nothing to assuage fears of a lost generation because as an economy the UK is staring at lost industries and purpose.

Most Labour PMs from Clement Attlee to Tony Blair, typically began their time in office offering a vision of the future. But Burnham started his in July by offering multiple, garbled, made-for-media, and often contradictory "visions" looking backwards, like a sample meant to test public opinion and focus groups to gauge its shelf-life. This "policy" is / will be no different.

Finally, if it's so groundbreaking - with no plan or extra funding attached - Labour party and Burnham should subject it to proper scrutiny which has been sadly and unsurprisingly lacking. And alongside it remains a lack of understanding that vocational education does not mean giving up on the academic side especially at the age of 14. 

Well that's all for the moment folks! More musings to follow soon. Keep reading, keep it here, keep it 'crude'! 

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

To follow The Oilholic on Forbes click here.

To follow The Oilholic on Energy Connects click here.

To follow The Oilholic on Critical Mass click here.

To email: journalist_gsharma@yahoo.co.uk  

© Gaurav Sharma 2026. Photo: Downing Street, London, UK sign © paulbloch / Pixabay, Aug 2017.

UK election result's impact on British Energy Inc

By all accounts, result of the UK General Election on May 7 was simply stunning. Pollsters got it horribly wrong, Prime Minister David Cameron’s Conservative Party returned with a majority against all expectations, Scottish National Party bagged 56 out of 59 parliamentary seats in the ‘oil hub’ of Scotland - all the ingredients to excite politically minded scribes and the general public alike. The Oilholic began his experience at Ellwood Atfield’s splendid election night bash in Westminster (photo above left) ushering in news of the first exit poll predicting the Conservatives were going to be the largest party with 316 members of parliament.

As events unfolded into early hours of the morning and late afternoon the next day, Cameron’s Conservatives returned with 331 MPs and a slim majority putting to bed all talk of a hung parliament. This blogger was up when Labour heavyweights Ed Balls, Douglas Alexander, Jim Murphy and Liberal Democrats ministers Vince Cable, Ed Davey, Lynne Featherstone and Danny Alexander all lost their seats.

Resignation of the hapless Labour leader Ed Miliband who managed to deliver his party’s worst election result since 1983 followed, along with that of Nick Clegg, now former deputy prime minister and Liberal Democrat leader. Cameron soon walked back into Downing Street after meeting the Queen and telling her he’d now form a majority Conservative government.

Having enjoyed the drama of election night well into sunrise the next day, it’s worth pondering what the result means for the UK’s energy industry in general and the oil and gas business in particular. Afterall, the Oilholic did fret about the direction of the market in his pre-election column for Forbes.

For starters, Ed Miliband’s barmy energy price freeze isn’t going to happen. A daft idea, daftly presented to maximum populist effect just didn’t work and is now in the dustbin of political history. This blogger expects ratings agencies to ease up both on UK-listed energy utilities Centrica, the owner of British Gas, and SSE, another service provider as well as the sector in general. 

Unsurprisingly, both stocks jumped as the entire London market welcomed the result on May 8 morning with the FTSE 100 momentarily returning back above 7,000 points. Nonetheless, Cameron’s government faces a very serious challenge of planning investment towards creaking energy infrastructure – from nuclear to renewables – ensuring the lights are kept on. By some estimates, the required capital expenditure could be as high as £330 billion by 2030.

Switching to the mainstream oil and gas business, both the Conservative victory in the UK and an SNP landslide in Scotland are broadly positive for various reasons. As this blogger has noted before, Chancellor George Osborne’s taxation policies turned positive for the industry towards the end of the last parliament, as the oil price decline began to bite North Sea players. 

Collective measures put into effect back in March imply that the UK’s total tax levy would fall from 60% to 50%, giving a much needed breather to those prospecting in the North Sea. Any further stimulus measures for the better are unlikely to be disrupted by the SNP, even if they do have a broader agenda of roughing up other government programmes both North and South of the Scottish border.

This is broadly good for the industry, as it goes through a challenging period and grapples with the restructuring in Aberdeen triggered by companies as large as BP and as small as independent operations services providers. 

Finally, turning attention to the new energy minister Amber Rudd, a Conservative MP for Hastings, who has been appointed as the successor to Ed Davey; the choice is a great one. Obviously, her credentials are solid or she wouldn’t be here. Gauging the response of the wider industry, most have welcomed the appointment.

Rudd is seen as conscientious and hard working minister. Even Greenpeace sent out a release welcoming her to the job, hoping that she’d bring the same energy to implementing the Climate Change Act, as she did to fight the corner of fisheries in her last government remit.

With a challenging portfolio, Rudd has her work cut out and we wish her well, especially as she sets about the arduous task of attracting investment to the sector. That’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Google+ click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Forbes click here.
To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2015. Photo: Ellwood Atfield election night party, May 7, 2015 © Gaurav Sharma

Greens deserve inclusion in UK leaders’ debates

A political kerfuffle has broken out in British political circles about inclusion (or exclusion) of the UK’s Green Party in televised leaders’ debate ahead of the 2015 General Election on May 7.

It all kicked-off on Monday when the country’s broadcasting regulator Ofcom opined that the Green Party did not have the clout to be considered a big enough player on the national stage.

Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party David Cameron then said he wouldn’t take part in a televised debate that excludes the Green Party, since UKIP a minor right-wing party that’s eating into his political base had been invited to participate but not the Greens. 

As exposure for the Greens is likely to hurt the opposition Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, Cameron’s desire to have the Greens included might well be driven by his own interests. Labour, Liberal Democrats and UKIP all cried foul at Cameron’s announcement, while he in turn accused opponents of running scared. 

Whatever his reasons might be, the Oilholic feels Cameron is right to demand inclusion of the Greens. Those asking why the Greens should be included must actually ask “Why not?” instead. The Oilholic profoundly disagrees with a lot of what the Greens say and the policies they propose. However, that does mean this blogger should frown upon giving them a voice on a national stage at one of the most important general elections in a generation.

The British Green movement should now be considered sufficiently mature and in sync with some of its counterparts in the wider European Union. In fact, at the recent European elections both the Greens and UKIP got more votes than the Liberal Democrats.

The Greens had their first MP in 2010 as Caroline Lucas entered parliament on her own merit and credentials having fought against mainstream parties with deeper pockets. While UKIP might well have two MPs in parliament at the moment; both are defectors from the Conservative Party who re-entered parliament having been elected on their established political reputations while piggybacking on a populist bandwagon provided by a protest party.

Yet UKIP gets a voice, but the Greens don’t despite being level pegging with the Liberal Democrats in many opinion polls? Some say giving the Greens a nationally televised platform would invite legal challenges from Scottish and Welsh nationalists, and other minor parties. If so, then so be it – let them prove the credentials as a national party.

That the Greens are a national force is beyond dispute. They might well be a fringe party, but unlike Scottish and Welsh nationalists, the Greens are fighting UK-wide not just in pockets of the still United Kingdom. Perhaps we should look to Germany and how its multiparty system has incorporated the Green movement. There are other such examples within the EU.

We should give the Greens a wider platform and leave their electoral performance to the court of public opinion. By that argument, allowing them to participate in a national leaders’ debate would be a good starting point. That’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Google+ click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Forbes click here.
To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2015. Photo: Big Ben and the UK parliament, London © Gaurav Sharma