“Social mobility for the majority” and universalism – but at what cost?
Twitter
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Stumble
RedditBy Preth Rao
Gordon Brown’s opening keynote speech at the Fabian conference today was clearly an attempt to re-capture the centre ground, following weeks of “class war” political debates – also in a week in which John Denham, the Communities Secretary, emphasised the importance of class in talking about race equality.
The Prime Minister coined what may become a flagship campaigning cry: “social mobility for the majority”.
However, the fact that many people do not truly understand what that term means – and also that it seems counter-intuitive that social mobility truly can be for nearly all – makes that prospect unlikely. Perhaps “greater opportunities for all” would have been more appropriate. Even if Britain invests in a clear long term industrial policy as was mentioned, focusing on skilled jobs with more people entering technical and vocational college, there will inevitably remain jobs outside of this cadre and where some people will thus have to be regarded as “socially immobile.”
However, given that there are currently 6 million people who are considered low-skilled, framing a clear industrial strategy and investing in skills is a challenging but worthy aspiration.
In addition, Brown – in what was touted as his speech for the middle classes – highlighted the many universal Labour and New Labour policies that make our welfare state an irrevocable part of our political settlement. Over the last 12 years, greater investment in the NHS, more police on the streets, maintaining child benefit, higher thresholds for child tax credits, SureStart and the Child Trust Fund have been at the core of this strategy. Speaking of the years to come, Goron Brown highlighted the cancer guarantee, pupil-parent guarantees in schools and some level of social care for all in their own home.
This universalism is essential to maintaining support for a Government that is heavily involved in brokering opportunities for people and in protecting them.
However, something that was perhaps missing from the speech was an admission that such things cost and that in some point in the future to tackle our deficit we will need to go beyond higher taxation and holding banks to account. Where will the future public sector cuts be and what sacrifices will be made to retain something for all?
We need this adult conversation in order to truly be proud of all of New Labour’s past – and the new plans for the future.
Comments are closed