Taking on middle class privilege poses tough choices for politicians; The social mobility issue has struck a nerve in Westminster

November 15, 2013 7:09 pm

Taking on middle class privilege poses tough choices for politicians

By Sarah Neville, Public Policy Editor

The social mobility issue has struck a nerve in Westminster

When Sir John Major this week railed against the domination of power by a privately educated elite, he was simultaneously delivering a political critique and articulating a deeply felt human desire for economic progress. From a “chicken in every pot” to “homes fit for heroes”, for decades politicians have found different ways of making the same promise to a hopeful electorate: vote for us and you will live a happier, richer life than your parents – and your children will do even better.The 2015 general election will challenge this Pollyanna prescription. A nation that has seen its spending power fall, while its children and grandchildren struggle to find work or climb on the housing ladder will take some convincing that such advances are still possible.

A different narrative is needed, and UK politicians of all parties have found it in the idea that class should not determine chances of a fulfilling and financially comfortable life.

The evidence that it does so is incontrovertible. Alan Milburn, the coalition’s social mobility “tsar”, recently reported that the privately educated account for more than half of senior medical consultants, FTSE chief executives and top journalists, one-third of MPs, nearly a quarter of university vice-chancellors, and 70 per cent of High Court judges.

David Cameron, the UK prime minister, has rushed to endorse his predecessor Sir John’s view that the professions must be opened up. But i n a world where the supply of “middle-class” jobs is finite, if some rise, others must fall.

Some argue the availability of a large, well-educated pool of labour will trigger an expansion of higher level jobs, but the rising numbers of graduates forced to take work that does not require a degree challenges this comforting thesis.

Nor is education a panacea to overcome the disadvantages of background.

Oxford university’s director of undergraduate admissions this week insisted its entry procedure was calibrated to weed out the “thick and rich”. But more pernicious inequalities persist for the prospects of the large numbers of children who are neither struggling nor soaring.

It is doubtless the case that poshness will never be a sufficient mask for actual stupidity.

John Goldthorpe, a sociologist who has been tracking social mobility for more than four decades, likes to talk about Hatty Sweet but Scatty, sister to Tim Nice but Dim.

Both, he argues, will use the soft skills conferred by their comfortable upbringing to secure jobs in the expanding sales and personal services industries. Charm can be commoditised and deployed in the top-end estate agencies, health clubs and boutique hotels that have thrived, even as industries associated with the working class have contracted and closed.

Parents or grandparents who can write off £9,000 a year tuition fees, allowing children to emerge from university debt-free, or who can provide a deposit on a first home, can ease the path in to adult life, highlighting the gulf that exists not only between but within generations.

The government’s Help to Buy scheme aims to help would-be homeowners who lack a family financial cushion by offering state-backed mortgage guarantees. But it could also entrench the advantage of those already on the housing ladder by increasing the value of their assets.

Widening supply by relaxing planning laws would help the house-less but damage existing owners.

And therein lies the problem. A clarion call to increase social mobility may be particularly powerful when delivered by a former PM from Rutlish Grammar School.

But achieving this will require facing up to far tougher truths than most politicians will be prepared to contemplate.