Banks and law firms in London today backed Nick Clegg’s campaign to open up recruitment to all social backgrounds.
The Deputy Prime Minister announced that Barclays, HSBC, Credit Suisse, RBS and a string of other City institutions have signed up to his “business compact” on internships, work experience and recruitment…
“This is an important step towards a society where it’s what you know, not who you know, that counts,” Mr Clegg said.
“Working with the Coalition, the biggest hitters in the City of London are helping lead the way to a fairer, more open society.
“By opening their doors to young people from all walks of life, this marks the start of a culture shift at the heart of British business, driven by the belief that ability and drive should trump connections and privilege.”
This follows initiatives with both the fashion and public relations sectors and fits well with Nick Clegg’s end of year message about creating an open society rather than one dominated by self-perpetuating elites.
* Mark Pack is Party President and is the editor of Liberal Democrat Newswire.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Professor Joad sees his play at the Theatre Royal, Northampton
The DVLA's problem with number plates
Is Kier Starmer the new John Major?
Roland
David Raw
Chloe
Tom Bailey
7 Comments
Any chance of the party signing up to it?
“Nick Clegg’s social mobility drive wins backing from banks and law firms”
So what does that tell you about “social mobility” and Nick Clegg’s drive, then?
Don’t we often hear from Cable and the left of the party that banks are evil and are responsible for lending money (but not enough), for unemployment, for starvation and for paying too much.
Is that suddenly all ok if they have a fairer recruitment system?
David: How about that to be successful in changing the job market an initiative needs to involve a good number of the country’s largest employers and that this is just what is happening?
Richard: Aside from you raising the point to question it, I don’t think I’ve seen anyone suggest that? And why would that be the case – it would be a remarkably narrow-minded and simplistic view of the world to think a company can’t have both good and bad aspects about it?
@Mark, I don’t know who posting on here is a member and who isn’t of course, but the post right above mine from Dave Allen is typical of a lot of stuff I read.
The starvation one is acceptance of the criticism of Barclays for speculating in food futures https://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-why-competition-is-the-key-issue-26522.html – (but presumably on that analysis when they short commodities they save lives???)
Reducing wages in banking for the working generation (and thereby increasing dividends for bank-owners from the wealthy generation) seems to be accepted as a legitimate political aim by Vince Cable and all too many others who are not even considered to be on the left of the party.
When posters such as Simon B (admittedly he says he has now left the party) say it is the bankers that are responsible for unemployment, what do they mean exactly? – I have never got an answer from them exactly but isn’t the idea that they are not creating enough debt?
Ok, I may have been exagerating, but I feel uncomfortable with this tendency to join in with the search for scapegoats for problems.
Of course this is a good initiative, and it is unhelpful to suggest otherwise.
Social mobility is great. But in our deeply dynastic capitalist country, the phrase “social mobility” always makes me wish that the starting positions were not so unequal in asset backing for young adults – including that which pays for private education and health care.
Bring on liberal universal inheritance capitalism! And more social mobility from a more equal starting position.