Andrew is a sub-editor of Tory Hoose, with a keen interest in policy discussion and development. Andrew was previously No.3 candidate on the Glasgow Regional List, and candidate in Glasgow Pollok. Andrew has been selected to contest the Glasgow Linn ward for May 2012's Local Authority elections. Read more from this author

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg used his main set piece at the Lib Dem conference to major on the themes of social mobility and equal opportunities. When critics feared the Liberal identity would over time be tainted us Conservatives in the Coalition, I had no idea the process would be so quick.

However, as the wider public know, just because a Liberal says something it doesn’t mean it is true. Conservatives have always been on the side of advancement, and especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. A good barometer is the more forceful our arguments and indeed actions for social mobility are, the louder the howls from the Left become. Think back to the 1980′s.

Take the Right-to-Buy policy as a strong example: the single biggest and most successful transfer of wealth from the State to the masses, which took us from being in a position where dark corners of the country had home ownership levels on a par with the former USSR, to the position now where it is impossible to walk down a street in Scotland without there being an owner-occupier living within a mixed community. Far better than the ghettos of social housing versus pockets of privately-owned housing which existed before. Far more progressive, and far more socially mobile.

Where were the Liberal Democrats then?

When we took many state-owned industries and utility companies, and put them up for purchase by the wider public, creating a true property-owning democracy in the process and making many ordinary people shareholders for the first time, I again ask the question of you – Where were the Liberal Democrats then?

When one considers Grammar Schools – the deliverer of the best means of social mobility – what is the Lib Dem stance? No more – totally against. When parents wish to choose a decent school for their children so they can get a good start in life, irrespective of wealth, where are the Liberal Democrats? Nowhere to be seen.

Yes I agree, social mobility has ground to a halt during Labour’s term in office. The disparity between the income of the parents of people entering the professions now, compared to the average household, has increased. Increased beyond the disparity for people born in 1955 actually. This is a step backward, not forward.

Take our banks and finance houses as a prime example. We need the best talent possible at the helm of our major financial institutions – those with the technical expertise and numerical discipline to do a good job… not just he or she that can navigate the ‘Old Boys Network’ best. Not just because that is the fairer thing to do, but because it delivers the best outcome for the country at large.

In terms of policy, what does this mean we should do? Nick Clegg, to give him some credit, did make reference to unpaid internships, around which future prospects for many professionals are based. To a young man or woman looking to join a profession immediately after school, or after college / graduation, it just isn’t feasible to work for free. Living off Mum and Dad whilst working for free is though, and this is where social mobility hits a brick wall.

There are practical things we in the Conservatives could easily espouse to ensure it is potential and ability that determine success in life, not how successful one’s parents were. We can quite easily re-iterate the fundamental principles that made us successful in the past and assisted us in attracting support from all social backgrounds.

We did offer a useful policy at the May 2011 elections. We suggested introducing a graduate contribution, and setting aside tens of millions of pounds a year from that income to offer more bursaries to young people from financially-deprived environments so they could sustain themselves though University. After all, that is the main stumbling block for the poorer in society when considering Higher Education – it isn’t how to pay off the fees when one is earning a good wage – it is how to subsist themselves during studies.

Nevertheless, the opposition made a good job of tearing our policy apart, we never really espoused the virtues of what the additional revenue would let us achieve in terms of social mobility. The wider public thought because it was a Tory policy, there had to be a catch: in multiple polls, before the sample knew it was a Tory policy, the majority of the public supported it after all (figures quoted ranged from 63% to 67%). Yet when it came to the ballot box, they didn’t support us. Our message was lost in translation.

There are many professions one can enter now without a University education. Accountancy is a good example. The ACCA allows students entry after A-levels (or Highers). Between sitting the Association’s own exams, combined with work experience, one can become a Chartered Certified Accountant – without having to go to University. Because the end qualification is at a higher level than a bachelor’s degree, it is possible to obtain the degree easily afterward. The main barrier then is subsistence because trainees’ salaries are very low.

In that case, I propose in our next manifesto we should provide grants and bursaries to vocational trainees entering the professions in this manner – grants, bursaries and student loans on a par with those undergraduates at University would receive. If the end attainments are fundamentally the same, and we’re cutting out barriers for financially deprived young people – without a single ounce of dumbing down, as the professions regulate themselves in this regard – then where is the problem?

And where has Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats, Labour or the SNP proposed a practical policy such as this?