Missing from the PM's plea for ‘equality of opportunity’ was an acknowledgement of the disadvantage accrued by class
David Cameron told delegates at the Conservative party conference yesterday that he would make social mobility his top priority. In this respect parts of his speech ought to have come as music to the ears of the centre-left.
So Cameron said:
“Opportunity doesn’t mean much to a British Muslim if he walks down the street and is abused for his faith.”
“Opportunity doesn’t mean much to a gay person rejected from a job because of the person they love.”
“It doesn’t mean much to a disabled person prevented from doing what they’re good at because of who they are.”
“I’m a dad of two daughters – opportunity won’t mean anything to them if they grow up in a country where they get paid less because of their gender rather than how good they are at their work.”
All of this is welcome and, until a short time ago, would have been unthinkable from a Tory leader (just 10 years ago then-Tory leader Michael Howard ran an anti-immigration election campaign under the sinister slogan ‘are you thinking what we’re thinking?’)
But missing from Cameron’s new-found enthusiasm for equality was any mention of class – still arguably the biggest factor in terms of the opportunities a person will get in life.
With the appropriate ardour, Cameron told the conference audience that those with ‘ethnic-sounding names get fewer responses to job applications‘.
As the prime minister made clear, this is a shameful state of affairs. But missing from the PM’s passionate plea for ‘equality of opportunity’ was any acknowledgement of the disadvantage accrued by class – despite twenty-first century Britain being a far from classless society.
According to a 2013 study by the London School of Economics, a disproportionately large number of places at Oxford are taken up by people with Norman Conquest surnames – names such as Baskerville, Darcy, Mandeville and Montgomery.
When you consider that just one in 10 children who attend either Oxford or Cambridge are entitled to free school meals – compared with a fifth of children in Britain as a whole – it ought to be clear to all that more is at work in getting a golden ticket to one of Britain’s top institutions than talent alone.
And anyway, the odds of going to university at all are greatly increased for those born to affluent parents. Only around a fifth of the poorest youngsters go to university. This compares to 57 per cent of the richest.
Yet for Cameron, as with so many of today’s liberals (both Conservative and social democratic), class went unmentioned. And yet without acknowledging class disadvantage – alongside the other forms of disadvantage Cameron did mention – the prime minister cannot be serious about social mobility.
James Bloodworth is the editor of Left Foot Forward. Follow him on Twitter
8 Responses to “David Cameron’s equality rhetoric ignored the elephant in the room: class”
Silvia Vousden
You start by making tuition fees for university means tested and provide free housing for those who cannot afford it. Richer students should pay university fees, poorer ones shouldn’t have to. Housing benefit for all students would ensure that they do not have the constant threat of homelessness during their studies, and exemption certificates for Council Tax should be recognised by all councils, and not be subject to their ‘discretion’. University is not the only academic and skills route, there should be opportunities for students to work and study at the same time, either on the job training with incremental increases in pay as the student becomes more qualified in a skill, or takes on more responsibility. There should be NO unpaid intern ships, these exclude poorer students who can’t afford not to earn, it is unreasonable for an intern ship provider to expect someone to work for nothing unless they are providing them with free accommodation and living expenses. REAL apprentice ships (not the excuse to pay less for menial work scams around these days) with proper training and real job prospects at the end of the training should be promoted more widely by employers willing to invest in their workforce. There is plenty that can be done, there is just a lack of political will to do it.
AlwaysIntegrity
1. Nobody actually pays university fees, they notionally borrow the money and pay it back gradually later if they earn enough. There is no evidence whatsoever that poorer students don’t apply to University because of this. In fact in Scotalnd where there are no fees the social mix includes less students from poor families than in England.
2. Similarly for rents which are covered the same way.
3. Neither of these points have anything to do with the question of how we increase the proportion of students at good universities from poorer families or the drivers that I describe.
Internships are also irrelevant, but lets assume they are, imagine that companies then offered no internships, how exactly would that help?
Nothing else you talk about has anything to do with the issue in question.
Dave Stewart
Can I ask when did you go to uni?
When I went, near the beginning of the fees regime (thankfully a mere £2000 or so a year) my student loan covered my fees, my accommodation and that was it. If it weren’t for my parents being able to give me money for food I would not have been able to go to uni. Simple as that. The situation now is much worse.
Also you do pay the loan off. I lose several hundred pounds a month to a student loan that has never gotten any smaller. I earn significantly above the national average but still my loan grows because what I pay back doesn’t even cover the interest and as I mentioned my situation is no where near as bad as those who are graduating now.