Apprenticeships touted as solutions to the grave crisis of youth unemployment are not remotely up to the job

Apprenticeship ? the word warms the cockles of politicians' hearts. David Cameron and Nick Clegg boast frequently of increasing apprenticeships by a remarkable 60%.

It's National Apprenticeship Week ? but the coalition should perhaps have quietly dropped it, along with so much support for the young. The new apprenticeships they claim are almost a lie, at least nowhere near the truth. As youth unemployment climbs ? now at 22.3% ? the number of apprenticeships for 16  to 18 year-olds fell in the last three months.

Cameron and Clegg certainly know the truth about their "60% increase". They may get lost in thickets of vocational initials ? BTecs, HNDs, GNVQs ? while knowing every detail about whether an A* will help Oxbridge select the very best. But they love the word "apprenticeship", with its sepia image of a young man at a lathe under the watchful eye of a master craftsman, the sealing wax on his seven-year articles ensuring lifelong, worthwhile work. 

However, most "modern apprenticeships", as in secondary modern, are a world away from medieval guilds. The last government devalued the word, but this government trashed it when it took Labour's Train to Gain scheme for older employees, cut the funds and rebadged it as "apprenticeships". That created an instant 257% increase in "apprenticeships" as short courses for over-25s, most already working at Asda, Morrisons or McDonald's. Worthwhile maybe, but not "apprenticeships", wasting scarce state funds on company training.

Here's an enjoyable statistic: in the last year "apprenticeships" for the over- 60s rose by 878%. Cuts in the training/apprenticeship budget are disguised by plentiful announcements of little pots of money for small new schemes: Cameron did it again this week with £6m for high-quality apprenticeships. The worst scandal is that so many "apprenticeships" are 12-week courses from private training companies, with no jobs at the end. That revelation forced the government to promise all future apprenticeships for 16 to 18 year-olds must last a year ? but not for 19 to 24 year-olds.

Britain is the only country that outsources apprenticeships: elsewhere they are a bond between employers and trainees. Take the retail apprenticeship, a weak, lowly esteemed course in generic basics. Professor Lorna Unwin of the Institute for Education says German retail apprentices learn the detail of, say, delicatessen, or electrical sales. "They learn all about the products they sell, along with maths and literacy. It's a regulated occupation, where you can only be apprenticed under a meister for at least two and often four years. No wonder Comet goes to the wall when staff have no idea what they're selling." That applies to low-grade social care courses: in Nordic countries nursery nursing is mostly graduate level. That goes to the heart of the matter, a reflection on a whole society's deep values.

It's been a week of bad news for the young. David Miliband's commission on youth unemployment, for the charities' organisation Acevo, laid out the frightening future. In temperate language ? Acevo is non-political, and charities want grants ? it shows how the damage done to the lost generation who never found work in the 80s will be dwarfed by what is happening now.

One in five has no job, with 600 hotspots where twice as many chase nonexistent work. Keeping them out of work costs £4.8bn a year, £28bn over the next decade, "a timebomb under the nation's finances". Quarter of a million have been out of work for a year. Training schemes and exploitative, unpaid work barely scratch the surface. The problem is deep and structural: there is too little demand for underqualified young employees, with too many out of work even in the good times.

The state intervenes too little too late: the vaunted Work Programme takes only one in 10 of the young, with under-19s left out. There are just 50,000 subsidised jobs, spending half the OECD average. The Association of Colleges reports alarmingly that the number of 16  to 19 year-olds with fewest qualifications enrolling for basic courses (level 1) has fallen, in some areas by up to 15%. Why? The abolition of the education maintenance allowance (EMA) and transport price rises. Barnardo's reports this week on harm done by the loss of EMAs, its chief executive abandoning politically cautious language: "It's an absolute disgrace that some students are forced to skip meals in order to afford the bus to college. Our most vulnerable young people may lose the opportunity to improve their life chances." Axing Connexions, which reached out to young people adrift, means no one guides them towards college. The replacement careers service will offer limited online or phone advice.

The Acevo-Miliband report shows how unemployment scars the young for life. Britain's education was always excellent at the top ? the problem is the bottom 30%. Their low political status means further education colleges offering second chances get one-third less funding than schools teaching A-levels ? and no free school meals.

Class cuts like a knife through everything as the government blames "low aspiration", chivvying the young into weak schemes with no jobs at the end. Chicken and egg: why should a society bother with expensive training for low-paid, undervalued workers in retail, social care or nurseries? A culture that pays so many people so little for essential work will never improve opportunities for those it undervalues from birth.

? Follow Comment is free on Twitter @commentisfree

Redknapp's was the latest in a series of show trials ? even if he had been guilty it could have been settled with a handshake

Now for 'Arry the Movie, a tale of fear and loathing in darkest Poole. It boasts a rags-to-riches hero ? Harry Redknapp ? along with Rosie his dog, a kindly Slav, Milan Mandaric, a villainous taxman and a Monte Carlo bank. Cheering from the terraces is a jury of 12 Londoners, good and true, who may know nothing of fiscal clawback but can tell a likely lad from an offside trap. With an uppity Italian leaving as head of the national soccer team, Redknapp's hour had come. Never did England's manifest destiny so beckon since Gordon left for Khartoum.

The taxpayer should be spitting with anger. Premier league soccer is awash in money, not just pay but bonuses, bungs, kickbacks and abuse of tax shelters. In the past 10 years I can find no one prosecuted or disciplined for them. The City of London police, undaunted and eager to retain their strange independence, decided to make a thing of a supposed fraud, at least of one they could understand. The force ignored the credit crunch and lifted not a finger against their financers, the banks ? but they have been fearless against horse-racing and soccer. It is like the Medellín police force suddenly clamping down on food hygiene.

After failing to nail the jockey Kieren Fallon for race-fixing, the City police investigated football proprietors, managers, agents and players, including Redknapp's benefactor and co-defendant, the millionaire former Portsmouth chairman Mandaric. None of this had anything to do with the City, and all the trials failed at vast expense. Soccer, like racing, is wild west country, where witnesses do not talk. It is blessed and cursed by its public appeal and glamour, thanks to which heroes are judged by different standards to ordinary mortals and discipline poses a constant challenge to authority. So the police tried to get a couple of big fish for tax evasion.

Redknapp is a charismatic and successful coach. He has brought a dash of Cockney pride to a world dominated by foreigners with egos as big as their bank accounts. His talents have been rewarded by one club after another, culminating in the phenomenal revival of Tottenham Hotspur, now near the top of the league. But even Redknapp's fans gulped to learn of remuneration that has reached £4m, and even "commission" for selling his own club's star players to rival teams.

They gulped too at the prosecution claim that, on declaring himself unhappy at being paid only 5%, taxable, on selling Peter Crouch from what was then his own club, Portsmouth, Redknapp's chairman, Mandaric, put £186,000 in a secret Monaco bank account codenamed after his dog. Redknapp had himself described it as a bonus to a News of the World journalist, but the jury accepted his explanation at trial that he had been lying to the hack, and the money was in fact "seed money for investment", and therefore untaxable. In view of what he told the Sunday paper, it is easy to see why the revenue thought the case worth a punt.

The prosecution was characterised by ridiculously crude police methods. Dawn raids, ransacked offices, five-year investigations, expensive QCs and theatrical show trials seem aimed more at film rights than at common dignity. These methods yielded sympathy in court for Redknapp, and aided his ingenious defence that he was hopeless at money and "writes like a two-year-old". The process of prosecution eventually cost money out of all proportion to the sums at stake, reportedly £8m. The law is the last realm of public service where concepts of cost-benefit are wholly unknown.

British justice has turned show trials into a blood sport, as most recently with the August riots, the petty charge for which Chris Huhne has been humiliated and now the Redknapp case. I am sure this is why Britain sends to jail more people than anywhere else in Europe. Had Redknapp been found guilty, he could have gone to jail for an offence that in most countries would have merited a quiet visit from the revenue and a cheque. Even in Britain, huge institutions reportedly get off their tax problems with a handshake over lunch. Yet working-class rioters went to prison for failing to pay for a pair of shoes.

I have served on three juries. For most members they are a baffling waste of time and money. Even for the under-employed middle-classes they are good for little more than a dinner party anecdote. None of mine was worth the expense, and in one case a gross injustice was done because the judge said, in effect, that one barrister made a rotten case. Highly paid professionals indulged themselves in archaic rituals at public expense, protected by "contempt of court" and "perverting the course of justice," offences against which incurred prison sentences.

Chief among these practices is that juries may not decide the relevance of the background history of witnesses. They are expected to grasp technical DNA evidence and the bias of paid "expert witnesses". They must disentangle complex financial law. Yet they must not know, or must disregard if they do know, anything that a barrister or judge has not told them.

This charade of ignorance is enforced even when surveys show that less than half of jurors have a clue what is going on. If hospitals were guided by such restrictive practices, surgeons would have us dead in droves. Some 90% of trials in Britain do not use juries. In most of Europe even big trials take place before judges and professional assessors, while sentencing is out of the public gaze in private. Britain's job-creation scheme for legal drama queens survives only because Lord Devlin declared it to be "the lamp that shows that freedom lives", and because so many MPs are barristers. They regard professional reform as something applicable only to doctors, academics and journalists. They launch constant inquiries into them, but curiously none into lawyers.

There may be cases where justice should be brought before the bar of public opinion, where it may turn on taste or proportionality in matters such as libel or national security. But modern trials either concern matters properly within the domain of local magistrates, or are so complex in their evidence as to require judges ? and assessors ? expert in law and science. Law, like war, is no longer for conscripts.

? Follow Comment is free on Twitter @commentisfree

China's veto of the UN security council resolution reflects our conviction that we must calm, not inflame, the situation in Syria

Rather a lot of megaphone diplomacy followed the recent UN vote on Syria. Confusion and anger flowed from British and western media. So why did Russia and China veto the UN security council draft resolution on Syria? As Chinese ambassador in the UK, I feel it is timely to give a more measured explanation of why China voted no. Also, I want to explain how together we can, must and should give peace a chance in Syria.

Since day one of this crisis, China has been watching the situation very closely. We have consistently urged all sides to stop violence, avoid civilian casualties and restore order in the country. Central to any lasting solution must be a clear principle: the Syrian people's call for change should be heard, and their interests need to be protected. This is the best possible result for the Syrian people.

For this to happen, China has backed the Arab League's efforts to find a political solution and maintain stability in the region. In addition, we encouraged all sides in Syria to respond positively to these efforts to mediate. The goal must be an immediate end to all violence; once that is achieved, we must encourage an inclusive political process led by the Syrian people. Peaceful dialogue is the best way to tackle differences and grievances and restore stability to Syria.

The international community should act in a way that constructively helps this goal, not the opposite. It is fundamental that Syria's sovereignty, independence and territory must be respected. The security council should adopt a calm and measured response to the crisis; above all it must stand by the purposes and principles of the UN charter.

Any decision the council makes must reduce rather than inflame tension, encourage reconciliation and contribute to regional peace and stability in the Middle East. Entrusted with a responsibility for world peace and security, the last thing the UN should do is to further complicate the crisis. What we need from the UN security council is a sustainable solution, not a rash decision. It was following the above principles that led China to vote no.

China has been an active negotiator at the security council to try to produce a draft resolution on Syria. We continue to work hard to win a consensus. But imposing hasty deadlines on these debates will most likely lead to failure; this was particularly so at a time of sharp divide on the text and some members' insistence on further consultations. Furthermore, the Russian foreign minister had announced a visit to Damascus to begin a new round of mediation. This means it was, and is, not a good time for forcing a vote on Syria. The end result was anticipated by those members who pressed for the vote; the solidarity and authority of the security council is undermined as a result, and we are further away from a sustainable and lasting solution.

Chinese people abhor the violence and bloodshed in Syria as much as those in Britain and other countries. China voted against the resolution for a simple reason: the resolution as drafted will not help cool down the situation. It does not facilitate political dialogue. It does not address distrust, or bring peace and stability to the region. Quite the contrary, China believes that forcing the vote only aggravates these tension and makes the situation more unmanageable.

So what about the track record of no votes in the UN security council? In the 41 years since the People's Republic's return to the council, China has only cast a no vote eight times. This is a frequency far lower than any of the other four permanent members. China always strives for consensus and harmony; this attitude is embedded in our culture. So the low pattern of no votes by China shows my government thinks very hard before voting. It means that China's veto on Syria this time around was a very tough decision.

China in this process has shown a consistent and clear commitment to work with the international community to seek a responsible and lasting solution to the Syrian issue. But the vote itself is a powerful reminder of the international responsibility to choose a constructive path forward.

The hysterical campaign to stigmatise US Muslims poses a far greater threat than radicalisation to America's civic union

A report released this week has at last confirmed what we Muslim Americans have long known to be true: the threat posed to US national security by the radicalisation of its Muslim community is minuscule.

The study, by the Triangle Centre on Terrorism and Homeland Security, found that only 20 Muslim Americans were charged with violent crimes related to terrorism in 2011, and of the 14,000 homicides recorded in the United States in that year, not one was committed by a Muslim extremist.

We are thrilled that an objective, comprehensive investigation has revealed that only a tiny percentage of American Muslims support violent acts. However, we remain concerned that the greater danger to America's civic union comes from an increasingly organised campaign that portrays all Muslims as potential terrorists and traitors.

Yes, there may be some Muslims who resort to violence; but it's clear that these individuals signify nothing more than a statistical aberration, and are no more representative of the Muslim community as a whole than Timothy McVeigh, Jared Lee Loughner, or Anders Behring Breivik represent Christianity.

In recent years a network of politically motivated special interests has emerged that is determined to stigmatise and marginalise Muslims in all areas of American public life. After the Cordoba Initiative's proposal to build an Islamic community centre near Ground Zero were distorted into a manufactured controversy by one such group, we were called "stealth jihadists" and "wolves in sheep's clothing". One person even claimed: "They seem like nice people now, but they will probably turn into extremists in 10, 15, or 20 years."

What began as the work of fringe groups with racist ideologies has moved into the mainstream. The Islamophobic film The Third Jihad was played continuously between training sessions for new recruits to New York's police. The film-makers were linked to an organised movement with a budget of more than $40m and sophisticated lobbying efforts in all 50 states.

Republican congressman Peter King ? even as opponents questioned his own ties to IRA and Catholic terrorism in Ireland ? convened a series of congressional hearings on the radicalisation of American Muslims that can only be described as a witch hunt. And on the campaign trail, Republican presidential candidates from Herman Cain to Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have used their platform to demonise American Muslims and question our loyalty to our country.

It was not always this way. Following the 9/11 attacks President Bush, at the Islamic Centre of Washington, said: "The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam ? When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world ? America counts millions of Muslims amongst our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country."

Our allies in the interfaith and civil rights communities are working to counteract the fabricated opposition to Islam that is gaining strength in America today. In response to King's hearings, a coalition of 150 interfaith organisations sponsored a rally proclaiming "Today I am a Muslim too". It is the Brennan Centre for Justice at New York University that took a lead in exposing the New York City Police Department's missteps with regards to the Muslim community.

We know that the bulk of the American public recognises the truth of Islamic moderation and tolerance. The hysterical invective may be well-funded, but it does not capture the heart of the nation. By standing tall together we will overcome those who spread hate and suspicion and return respect and trust to their rightful place at the centre of American political and civic life.

? Follow Comment is free on Twitter @commentisfree

Largely stalled since Ralph Nader's controversial run in 2000, the Greens must find a way through America's two-party system

Roseanne Barr, actor and comedian, aspires to grander things. She's a candidate for the Green party of the United States' presidential nomination.

Barr's announcement highlights the state of American politics these days. The major parties seem owned and operated by the 1% ? the wealthy and powerful interests that have all but taken control of Congress and state governments in the past decade. Minor parties like the Greens are hobbled by laws, written by major parties, that make serious challenges at high levels next to impossible; and their candidates tend either to be unknown or implausible in other ways. This conundrum is less the case in some other countries, where the Greens, enabled in part by laws friendlier to greater political diversity, have won seats in national legislatures.

America's Greens are best-known for their presidential candidates in recent years, most notably Ralph Nader in 2000. He had a long record of activism on behalf of ordinary people and took earnest positions, but refused to give way when it became clear that his candidacy was helping George W Bush into the White House. His and his supporters' insistence that there was no serious difference between Bush and Al Gore, absurd on its face (Exhibit A: the US supreme court), did the Greens no favors. Later, the 2008 Green presidential candidate, Cynthia McKinney, had credentials as a former member of Congress, but her positions ? including both 9/11 and Tupac "truther" overtones ? were considered extreme. But no one paying attention could doubt the real differences, at least in their campaign promises, between Barack Obama and John McCain.

Obama, of course, broke many of his promises. After mostly doing Wall Street's bidding for three years and putting climate change on the backburner, he has in recent weeks paid more liberal-leaning attention to the issues that motivate protesters and environmentalists; in the latter case, his administration blocked, for the time being, the Keystone XL pipeline that was to bring tar sands oil from Canada to the US Gulf coast. On most issues, however, Obama has governed from the political right, including assertions of executive power ? including a penchant for secrecy and antipathy to civil liberties ? that are even more extreme than Bush's. The Republicans, meanwhile, have moved much further to the right. They flaunt their love for the 1% and contempt for the environment (when it gets in the way of commerce, at any rate).

In such circumstances, one might imagine an opening for a third party that, among other things, believed in civil liberties; advocated genuine reform of the corporatism that now rules the economy and government; and pushed for an energy policy that sharply reduced America's carbon footprint. The Greens' platform endorses all three. But are their candidates plausible?

Certainly Barr, while by no means a dummy, is not. Even she agrees: if we are to believe this tweet, she expects Jill Stein to win the nomination at the party's July convention in Baltimore. In other words, her campaign is a statement and not much more.

Stein is plainly a serious person with well-considered positions. A doctor who graduated with honors from Harvard and Harvard medical school, she has run several times for statewide office there, and won a significant number of votes in a 2006 campaign for Massachusetts secretary of state. But she hasn't won any elections outside of her home town of Lexington, and few people could plausibly suggest that she has anything remotely near the experience needed to be president.

If she is nominated, Stein will perform a useful service: reminding the public ? provided the political press bothers to pay any attention (not a given) ? that Obama has broken many promises that the Republicans would never make in the first place. But the Greens would have more influence if they could recruit someone with more obvious gravitas.

More important, though, the Greens and other minor parties have not done enough of the hard work it takes to become power players in America's political system. The deck is stacked against them, yes, but they could all be doing more to find and push candidates at the local level. They have won some races, to be sure. But only when they start to gain orders-of-magnitude more seats on school boards, town and county governments and state legislatures, will they be a real force.

? Follow Dan Gillmor on Twitter @dangillmor