By Dale Bassett
For all the excitement around social mobility this week, the unfortunate reality is that the Government still doesn’t seem to understand the issues. Today’s white paper contains the following astonishing statement:
“We will consider legislating to make clear that tackling socio-economic disadvantage and narrowing gaps in outcomes for people from different backgrounds is a core function of key public services.”
Narrowing gaps in outcomes is a core function of public services. In other words, one of the principal drivers of the activity of public bodies should be to reduce the gap between rich and poor. This little sentence, apparently a pet project of Harriet Harman’s, is described by Polly Toynbee today as “Labour’s biggest idea for 11 years”.
In some ways, this is one of those ideas that, as an abstract principle, seems to have some merit. Firstly because, as Reform’s research has shown, social mobility in the UK is bad and worsening, and at a time of economic hardship we must do what we can to ensure that the poorest have access to the best opportunities. If the next generation are to be burdened by the vast public debt being built up today, the least we should do is give each individual the opportunity to prosper economically tomorrow. Secondly, advocates of a small state should surely be asking themselves: if public spending does not have the aim of increasing social mobility, what is its point? If we’re spending taxpayers’ money on things which don’t contribute towards this goal, perhaps we shouldn’t be spending that money at all.
The Government’s error is in thinking that these two arguments should result in this broad-brush policy. The Government proposes legislating to make it the responsibility of public services to narrow inequality. One important question: how? This kind of objective cannot be achieved by simply decreeing the outcome. If the Government hasn’t yet succeeded in improving social mobility, one piece of legislation saying “but we really should” is not going to do the job. Decreeing that public expenditure must help to reduce inequality is not enough. How will it work in practice?
Education is perhaps the most important element of the social mobility agenda. Moving to a system offering individuals control over their own learning would help. This would incentivise the selection of high-value, worthwhile courses; allow people to select the academic, professional or vocational training that is right for them; and give individuals the flexibility to develop their skills at any point in their career.
Welfare reform is another urgent priority, and following last month’s green paper the Government is now moving in the right direction on this. The tax burden on the poorest should be lowered in a sustainable, long-term way, allowing people to keep more of their own money and encouraging work. These changes will allow a shift in culture, away from dependency and hopelessness and towards personal capability and investment.
Removing barriers is essential, but so is making individuals “feel they have a real stake in society”, as Alan Milburn suggested this week. Instead of a system offering no motivation and welfare that disincentivises work, we need to raise individual capability and do everything possible to allow the young to develop their talents. Focusing on reducing inequality, rather than increasing mobility, is the wrong approach – instead of narrowing the gap, we need to raise the bar. Wealth, prosperity, professional success – these are not zero-sum games.
We need to move to a “can do” economy, with government empowering individuals to realise their potential. Dampening their aspiration is not the way to go about it. Bright, poor kids should want to work hard to get into the best universities and the best professions; to do better than their parents managed; to beat the statistics. The Government’s job is to provide them with the opportunity to do it. Mr Milburn’s prescription – rather than Ms Harman’s – would be a good place to start.
Dale Bassett is New Media Politics Executive at Reform, an independent non-party think tank.
