The prime minister’s attempt to discredit the opposition front bench based on the school they went to was a crass, petty and thoroughly unimaginative resort to the political battlegrounds of an era long since gone. That it had Tory spinsters rushing to their phones only serves to demonstrate the weakness of Mr Brown’s leadership, for no one about to lead their party into a general election could be thought wise to offer such a gift to his opponents.
Pointing out that his rivals are ‘toffs’ no doubt appeals to core Labour supporters, but any party hoping to form government also needs the votes of those in the centre. Mr Blair always recognised the importance of Middle England. Never would he have set himself against aspiration. Never would he have implicitly criticised 57% of British parents in seeking to mock his political rival. Mr Brown would do well to remember that the middle classes determine the result of elections, and that they aspire to escape the traps of modern Britain: Traps such as the decline in social mobility and the devaluing of higher education.
Just what makes Mr Brown think it sensible to insult the very people he needs to stay in office is a mystery, and no doubt senior Labour strategists will want that question answered, but there is a more pertinent point: What makes the current prime minister think the link between socio-economic class and life chances is an issue on which he has the high ground?
Under the present Labour government the gulf between rich and poor has increased dramatically, while social mobility has plummeted. After 13 years of Labour a fifth of Scots kids leave primary school unable to read or write. It is under this government that the working and lower middle classes have been forced to acquire massive debts to get an education; That insisted 50% of the population go to university, meaning a degree no longer offers good employment and a path to prosperity.
When everyone has a degree the only way employers can distinguish between candidates is by experience. The only way to get such experience is through an internship, to work for free. Only the wealthy can afford to work for free.
That David Cameron, George Osborne and Boris Johnson are of privileged backgrounds is undeniable. What is not yet known is if their privileged position has engendered in them a desire to help those not so fortunate. As chancellor and premier, Mr Brown has been a key player in the creation of a modern Britain where merit too rarely provides opportunities to advance yourself and your family. Previous governments (Liberal, Labour and Conservative) abolished the link between background and rights. The measure of a Cameron Government will be whether it gives the masses the ability to work hard and define their own worth.
Thatcher enabled the working class to get on the property ladder. Will Cameron see education as this generation’s path to wealth?
By Mark McGeever
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think you'll find Blair seen education as the poorer classes path to wealth and, as you've mentioned above, its caused some horrendous unintentional results.
ReplyDeleteWe're in a good position to judge: Blair took power when we were in our first year of high school. We where brought up in area classified as disadvantaged, and we all went to university. As you said, the proliferation of degrees has lessened the whole experience. Kev is in London spending a fortune for a masters now, as he believes it will greatly improve his chance of employment.
Education has brought up its own problems, and can no longer be seen as the single path to prosperity - there's a big road after that!
I wonder if Cameron's brand of individualism will offer a better solution than Blair's?
Cameron's brand of individualism...? You really think all Tories believe purely in looking out for number one eh? :-)
ReplyDeleteNice spin on the facts.
ReplyDeleteYou imply 57% of British iith private education. Yet what parent knowing that privately educated candidates account for 7 per cent of the population, but occupy more than half of the top professional jobs. 75 per cent of judges, 45 per cent of senior civil servants, and a third of MPs are privately educated. More than 4 in 10 places and Oxford and Cambridge go to privately educated candidates.
Nice try but at no point do you question the legitimacy of the inequality and it also includes a wealth of average costing private schools. Schools that cost less than £30,000 a year. Thanks for the link!
Heard back from the job yet?