Government skirts round deciding how important social mobility is as an end in itself

As Chris Dillow has highlighted, the Coalition Government’s social mobility strategy contains wording that looks like a compromise between different Liberal Democrat and Conservative influences. It’s in this key paragraph (1.43):

Of course, income equality is an important goal in its own right, but the challenge in terms of social mobility is to understand the key components of a more mobile society which do not appear to be related to simple measures of income equality.

If income equality is important and it has an impact on social mobility, why go on then to emphasise and concentrate on only those elements of social mobility which are not related to income equality? The answer of course is that this is a compromise document produced by a coalition. Although Chris Dillow talks of it being a compromise between the Lib Dems and Conservatives, as if the Lib Dems are all of one view, in this case I suspect he’s being a little too generous to the Liberal Democrats as there is plenty of room for disagreement within the Liberal Democrats over the relative importance and connections between income equality and social mobility.

There is much very good in the social mobility strategy – including the very fact that a Conservative Prime Minister has been persuaded to sign-off on a document that says “Of course, income equality is an important goal in its own right” and which, in addition to these words, lays out many policies that have not exactly been loved by the right in British politics. It is indeed, as Matthew D’Ancona put it, “an astonishing achievement”.

But whatever the exact cause of the compromise wording and despite these good parts to it, we are still left none the wiser as to where Nick Clegg really wants to lead the party on the issue of income equality. Aside from the problems of social mobility being a phrase that doesn’t work with the public and which obscures the question of who is moving down if more people are moving up, there is a substantive policy debate to be had here. It’s one in which the words “social mobility” can even get in the way, as Charlie Beckett argues:

I wonder if the words ‘social mobility’ should join @johnrentoul ‘s list of banned phrases? I think it has now reached the point George Orwell’s described where ‘political writing becomes bad writing’.

Social mobility is now a meaningless phrase, or rather, it has a different meaning according to your political position and vision. And this matters because your definition of the language dictates your policy, too.

Real social mobility – all other things being equal – must surely mean that some people will rise over their lives and others will fall. If we all rise then that is simply economic growth. If only a lower social group rise relative to a higher group, then that is egalitarianism, not social mobility. If just a few people rise, then that’s just tokenism. Of course, you might have all of this at the same time. And West Ham might win the Champions League. It’s possible, but extremely unlikely.

The party currently has a Policy Working Group which is looking at many of these issues and, looking at the make-up of the group, it’s not hard to predict that it will come out with recommendations that place a significant emphasis on income equality. That will at least give party conference a chance to take a view on this issue, but in the interim day in, day out ministers are making decisions – and from the public statements from Liberal Democrat ministers there is no clear, consistent view being put forward.

But for all those problems and caveats, there is much that is good in a social mobility strategy the highlights of which include a new Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission being established, not to mention success for Lynne Featherstone’s name-blank employment campaign.

Nick Clegg said at the social mobility strategy’s launch:

Fairness is one of the fundamental values of the Coalition Government. A fair society is an open society where everybody is free to flourish and where birth is never destiny.

In Britain today, life chances are narrowed for too many by the circumstances of their birth: the home they’re born into, the neighbourhood they grow up in or the jobs their parents do. Patterns of inequality are imprinted from one generation to the next.

A recent report by the Sutton Trust estimated that the economic benefits of improving social mobility could be worth £140 billion a year by 2050. This is not only a question of fairness – opening up opportunities is in the interests of the economy and of the country.

There is no particular age when the cycles of disadvantage can be broken. The opportunity gap has to be addressed at every stage of life, from early years to working age. And Government cannot do it alone. Employers, parents, communities and voluntary organisations all have a part to play.

Social Mobility Strategy

Read more by or more about , , , , or .
This entry was posted in News.
Advert

6 Comments

  • Keith Browning 6th Apr '11 - 3:29pm

    There was an interesting graph on Sky News yesterday, shown in conjunction with a professor speaking from Hastings.

    The ‘clever’ and ‘well-off’ people do well and continue to take the best jobs. I dont really have a problem with that.

    The ‘clever’ and ”less well-off’ tend to be on a downward path and dont reach their potential. That is a group that could and should be addressed.

    The ‘less clever’ and ‘less well-off’ tend to flatline along the bottom and it would be a mountain to climb to improve their prospects.

    The really worrying group is the ‘less clever’ and ‘well-off’ , who do extremely well and overtake the ‘clever ‘ but ‘less advantaged’ group.

    Which means of course that many of our managers, leaders and opinion makers are ‘not very bright’, but their ‘stupidity is covered up by their wealthy friends and family. That is also the group that needs to be exposed and addressed and could easily be done so in the university and career entry procedures.

  • @Keith Browning

    “The really worrying group is the ‘less clever’ and ‘well-off’…….”

    Yep, came across lots of those in my working life, and yes, they were always very worrying particularly when they were in the upper echelons of the business.

  • Keith Browning 6th Apr '11 - 8:16pm

    Yes Frank, some of the ‘less clever” even use their influence to become Investment bankers, MPs and reach the top of the tree as government ministers.

    Thats why when anything goes dramatically wrong in an organisation always vote for ‘cock-up’ over ‘conspiracy’ as being the likely cause.

  • “highlights of which include a new Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission being established”

    Hardly a highlight when you considered that there was already a statutory requirement on the Government to establish an independent Commission on Child Poverty in time to consult it during preparation of the Government’s child poverty strategy. They failed to do this, which means the child poverty ‘strategy’ that they did publish on the same day as the social mobility strategy was unlawful. Unsurprisingly it was also full of waffle and short on the evidence base that the Commission was supposed to be there to provide. It also means that action on child poverty will have to play second fiddle to social mobility in the work of the commission.

    “there is plenty of room for disagreement within the Liberal Democrats over the relative importance and connections between income equality and social mobility”

    Indeed there is. Nick Clegg has never been interested in equality and has always favoured a social mobility framing. His first act on becoming party leader was to establish an independent social mobility commission to advise party policy. The Director of the Campaign to End Child Poverty was invited to be a member of the coalition and told Clegg that social mobility was an outcome of reducing income and wealth inequality. But still he didn’t listen.

    Remarkably Cameron has shown a much stronger interest in addressing inequality and relative poverty, right back to 2006 when he spoke at length in the Scarman Lecture about the importance of addressing relative income poverty.

    Clegg has never got it on inequality and he has never listened when anyone with expertise has tried to acquaint him with the evidence base.

  • Oops. End Child Poverty Campaign Director was of course invited to be a member of the commission, not the coalition.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • John Waller
    I only did 3 not 5. Thank you from crazy USA. What sense....
  • Alex Macfie
    This "non-aggression" pact between us and Labour is presumably supposed to apply only to each other's Tory-facing battlegrounds (I don't think we're holding bac...
  • Robert SAYER
    Totally right. Having experienced the same stresses as described it can be lonely and you can believe that the most unwinnable seat can be won. But to those fig...
  • Joseph Bourke
    Liberal values are not easily distinguished on a political scale of right versus left. It is rather the scale of authoritanism versus Liberaiism. The Presidn...
  • William Wallace
    All of us who campaign in the north of England will agree with this article. But we will also have to recognise that a parliamentary party overwhelmingly dra...