Nick Clegg today spoke of his aim to boost social mobility at a conference organised by the Sutton Trust, arguing Britain must create an open society “where what matters most is the person you become, not the person you were born.”
“These are challenging times but that doesn’t mean we can give up on making society fairer and helping people get on in life. In the past year, since we published the Government’s first social mobility strategy, we’ve made great progress – school children are benefiting from a cash injection through the Pupil Premium, young people are getting into jobs and training through the Youth Contract, and we’re expanding the number of families who get free childcare.
“We must create a more dynamic society. One where what matters most is the person you become, not the person you were born. Government cannot do this alone, but we must take the lead. So we’re exposing the stark gaps in life chances by publishing a wide range of tracking data to show how well society is doing here and now. No government has done this. The data shows we’ve got a long way to go, but that’s why it’s there – to hold a flame to our feet until the gaps close. It’s not an overnight fix, but it is a long term ambition that is achievable.”
(Available on the BBC website here.)
In his speech Nick announced government plans to publish a “snapshot” of social mobility in the UK using 17 “trackers”, including birth weight, social background and eligibility for free school meals. His office says this is ‘the first time that any government in the world has published such data.’
* Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from 2007 to 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Labour giving Farage credibility by copycat adverts
Sinderins #dundeewestend
The Joy of Six 1322
In defence of free trade
Reform voters back PR and banning foreign donations
Andy Daer
Mark Frankel
Luisa Porritt
10 Comments
I think I remember people saying this at least 50 years ago, and look what we have, an Eton clique running the country. So maybe it’s time to get serious about it, yes.
The Guardian’s headline today is “Clegg adopts communist tactics, claims head of Headmasters Conference”.
The Telegraph’s headline today is “Cable is a socialist who is unfit for office, claims author of Beecroft Report”.
So vested interests – in the form of a private school headmaster and a venture capitalist who made a fortune from his stake in a predatory lender – are resorting to attempted character assassination against leading Liberal Democrats who threaten their privilege! Excellent!
If we can use the coalition to promote progressive Liberalism, to stop the agenda of the Tory right-wing and to show that our “partners” in the Conservative Party remain (as ever) a repository for vested interest and privilege, then maybe there is some value in the coalition after all.
Why not do for Univesity admissions what Clegg wants on interns – make them school /name blind so that the Universities can treat each aplicant on their own merits?
@Simon McGrath
“Why not do for Univesity admissions what Clegg wants on interns – make them school /name blind so that the Universities can treat each aplicant on their own merits?”
Because they won’t be able to select the best candidate. Those that paid for the children’s privilege will have an unfair advantage. Entrance should be based on a meritocratic system, not the wealth of someone’s parents.
@Paul Murray
The right-wing have completely lost the plot – it’s like the 70s in reverse. That’s what happens when you get your own way for 30 odd years.
Some of this could be interpreted as an attack on the middle classes, those who would like to better themselves and aspiration in general. Blair and Thatcher owed their many years in office to supporting this large group. We are intent on pressing the electoral self distruct button IMHO. Further thoughts on uni access in particular here: http://greenwichlib.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/breaking-the-grip-of-the-middle-classes-hmmm/
If anyone’s interested in how we deal with the issues of Oxbridge access please do get in touch. I have been working on it relentlessly for a long time now and I do know what I’m talking about.
http://mathseducationandallthat.blogspot.co.uk/2012_02_01_archive.html
I’m sick of the top level soundbites which lead to nothing from people who don’t know how to change things.
The need stop talking and start listening.
Clegg is quite right that often people who come from wealthy well-connected backgrounds tend to give the impression of being very able, people tend to assume they are much more intelligent than they really are because of the confidence and demeanour their background brings, it often means they can get pushed up very quickly into positions that those from less privileged backgrounds find it much harder to get considered for. Often then they initially sparkle and look good, but it’s only when they get down to doing the work and make a mess of it that it becomes realised they aren’t nearly as competent as was assumed. They often turn out to be very shallow, too easily led, lacking in real depth of insight, evidently out of their depth when working on things which require deep real world experience of life as most people live it, …
Er, doesn’t Clegg feel a bit embarrassed when saying such things? Oh, but let’s add – a big problem with those over-promoted people from privileged backgrounds is that they tend to remain so over-confident that they are just unable to see their own failings and tend to carry on thinking they got where they got just by their own merits. So they carry on making their mistakes. The fact that our country is mainly run by people like this is a big part of its current problems.
Matthew, I’m sure we all recognise the type of person, and the phenomenon, you describe. What matters is that if they are over-promoted in their careers or in certain industries and make a hash of things, there exists a corrective mechanism to replace them with more suitable people. This is the value of competition. If you are arguing that this should be sharpened, I whole-heartedly agree.
But equally there are many people (from private schools or grammar schools, say) who don’t fit that stereotype. To me, liberalism rejects making public policy for everyone based on crude generalisations; it demands that we treat people, and allow them to flourish, as individuals. Anything else is a concession to the awful Hegelian view that collective entities (groups, socio-economic cohorts) have a superior value over and above the individuals who compose them.
Faced with a given pool of applicants, by and large I trust universities acting in their own self-interest to select the most qualified candidates irrespective of background. The key is to widen the pool of applicants by (a) tackling low aspiration and attainment that is a feature of some, but not all, state schools, focusing particularly on why some do so much better than others faced with similar challenges; and (b) ensuring that those with the ambition and potential to go to university are given every encouragement and support to apply.
You’re right Matthew – a phrase even exists ” talks a good game”. Of course, Paul, any liberal should look at individuals, not stereotyped groups. However, could we excise this appalling word “aspiration” from our vocabulary? We all come across the notion of over pushy parents, or the fact of bullying etc at work, both of which are “aspirational” qualities. It is not a positive characteristic in many cases, and should often be discouraged. Likewise, we should properly look at GDP growth, with a view to working out what might be worth encouraging and what might not, or at least thinking about the topic.
Sorry, Alex – not Paul!