So, now the election is over, what will a majority Conservative government mean for skills? There was little detail in the Conservative manifesto other than promising 3M apprenticeships, funded by lowering the benefits cap from £26K to £23K. But there is much else that is reasonably clear.

Funding will be reduced. The adult skills budget (other than apprentices) is not ring-fenced so must be vulnerable. Already down from £4.5Bn in 2010/11 to £2.7Bn in 2015/16, it is likely to be reduced further, much further. Any government will want to make the hard choices early in their 5-year term, so we can expect worse to come soon.

That is likely to mean higher fees and charges, partly offset by the chance of a loan. Tuition fees could rise in both higher education (HE) and further education (FE). Loans could be extended to Level 2 and/or those under 24.

There will be a continued push to create a stronger market in FE, with more funding for skills routed via employers, allied to more loans for learners. Markets need information and transparency so some money may be found to improve Information, Advice and Guidance; especially careers guidance.

There will be a further push to promote digital learning, partly driven by cost pressures, partly driven by perceptions that it can improve choice, flexibility and quality. Perhaps the FELTAG Coalition goal of one in ten lessons being digital will be dusted off.

Localism will spread. Already Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield have devolved skills budgets; soon this devolution could be the norm, allowing some local control of both capital and recurrent FE spending.

As HE becomes more expensive, particularly if fees are allowed to rise in high cost subjects, there will be more HE in FE – already signalled by the BIS "dual mandate" consultation paper issued just before the election.

The dire need to raise productivity will take centre stage in the economic debate and focus attention on reversing the drastic decline in employer training. The number of annual hours training per worker has dropped by 50% to 80% (depending on how measured) since the nineties.

The quality of UK skills training is often poor and the level pretty low compared to other OECD countries. With highly regarded commentators like Alison Wolf arguing for a levy and much higher quality apprenticeships, it is quite possible that there will be much stronger government pressure on employers to do more, and do it better.

Paradoxically, a Conservative government can put more pressure on employers than a Labour Government could. A levy works because every employer pays, so it avoids the free rider problem. There would be support from good employers (and of course from unions) that train, so the debate might quickly move to how, not whether, a levy could work.

The Employer Ownership (EO) programme will be critically reviewed. With funding very tight, Ministers may feel the time has come for less funding to employers and more payment from employers. But all the research (levies are the norm in most other countries) shows that any levy will only work with employer (and union) support. The EO programme was beginning to build that experience of collective partnership, which will continue to be needed.

There is a strong consensus that the economy needs more technicians and higher level vocational training. All parties were talking about creating a cadre of higher level colleges. The Dual Mandate paper opened the possibility of them awarding some vocational degrees. What funding remains could be switched to level 3 and above.

As that mandate rises, the other mandate, remedial training at level 2 and below, will probably fall. Loans are not likely to work for these learners, many of whom are unemployed or churning into and out of low paid precarious work.

Youth unemployment will be targeted with a continued push for Traineeships, hopefully addressing some of the concerns about quality and progression. For the adult unemployed, European Social Funding and DWP match funding will be strongly linked to conditionality: no training will mean no benefit.

The public sector will fall, a funding cut of 20% would mean 1M fewer jobs. There will be a drive to cut costs and staffing by more use of digital public services. More websites and fewer offices. But that will need much increased digital skills, both in the public services and in their public users.

Overall, there is little doubt that the number of adult learners will fall further. The college sector will shrink. Life will be much harder for the poorly skilled. Gaining higher skills will become more expensive. Non-vocational community learning (if there is such a thing) will become a postcode lottery.

For working people, much will depend on whether their employer steps up to the challenge of replacing reduced state funding for skills. For unions, we will continue to advise and support members, guiding them through this new landscape as well as challenging poor employers to match the best. It will be a busy time. Union support for skills – supported by unionlearn – will be more essential than ever.