Tag Archives: Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission

Social Mobility stagnates, with those from poorer backgrounds having life-long disadvantage

The report out yesterday from the Social Mobility Commission deserves a closer look. It says that inequality is entrenched from birth.

Lib Dems have argued for years about equality of opportunity – that some are born into families which provide many more opportunities and better life outcomes, a great many others are born into families stuck in a cycle of poverty, low pay and diminished life chances.

When I read Sir Anthony Atkinson’s book several years ago, Inequality, these points were made and the revered economist gave ideas as to how he thought they could be tackled.

But year in, year out, the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. The State of the Nation Report 2019 says that “urgent action needs to be taken to help close the privilege gap.”

Being born privileged means you are likely to remain priviledged, whilst being born disavantaged means you may have to overcome barriers to improve you and your children’s social mobility.

Their report says social mobility has stagnated over the last four years and something needs to be done about it. As this is a Government commission, I hope the Government is listening and does take immediate action. Austerity has gone on long enough and the effect is not only immediate but long-term.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , , , and | 19 Comments

We Are More Unequal Than Ever

My dismay over inequality was one of the two main issues (the other poor mental health care provision) which drove me into politics in 2014. I jumped in with both feet, determined to be a voice for the voiceless and make the world a more equal place.

But here we are in 2017 and the IPPR report just out shows we are more unequal than ever. The report was commissioned by Channel 5 to mark the launch of the second series of Rich House, Poor House, which sees two families from opposite ends of the wealth divide switch places. The …

Posted in News | Also tagged , , and | 17 Comments

Nick Clegg’s position on benefits for wealthy pensioners is confused and needs clarifying

Poverty LaneIn its first annual report, the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission has proposed cuts in welfare for well-off pensioners, including currently universal benefits such as the winter fuel allowance, free bus pass and free TV license, proposing the money should be used to help children in poor families.

Proposing a fundamental shift in welfare support from pensioners to the young the report says:

We do not believe that favouring pensioners over their children and grandchildren will be a sustainable position over the long term if a meaningful dent is to be made in the UK’s high levels of child poverty and low levels of social mobility.

Writing in the Telegraph yesterday Nick Clegg welcomed the majority of this report but has rejected one particular aspect.

Posted in Op-eds | 27 Comments

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

Posted in News | Also tagged , , , and | 6 Comments
Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarDavid Evans 22nd Sep - 1:03pm
    What Frankie says is pretty well spot on. The Cons always wanted a Conservative Brexit and Labour a Labour Brexit. May's Con Brexit wasn't supported...
  • User AvatarSandra Hammett 22nd Sep - 12:30pm
    Two people who agree with each other, trying to push the same cause does not make for a hard hitting interview.
  • User AvatarMick Taylor 22nd Sep - 12:11pm
    Jayne As you say yourself the last election (and indeed 2015) are no guide to what will happen this time, nor indeed polls. Yes, I...
  • User Avatarnigel hunter 22nd Sep - 12:06pm
    Does Eton and Oxford (plus others)have they got 'charitable status)? If so it should be withdrawn.
  • User Avatarnigel hunter 22nd Sep - 11:56am
    Camerons starts this mess off. Right wing monetarist Tories (and others) stage a coup helped by the right wing press. Corbyn ,in his own way...
  • User Avatarfrankie 22nd Sep - 11:13am
    Jayne, You might be right if Jeremey wasn't a committed Brexiteer ( sorry Lexiteer ) but he is. So you are faced with the devil...
Thu 10th Oct 2019