Hugh Muir writes:
Of the attributes Britons hold dear, the most
potent is stability. Our traditions endure, institutions survive. We seem loth
to countenance revolution.
And yet we have experienced a coup d'etat of sorts
and the question must be asked: just when did the middle classes take
untrammelled control of the levers? It always was a force; but now there is
hegemony. Today, a glimpse of what has happened to the vanquished.
According to the conservative thinktank Policy Exchange, the under-representation of people from
working-class backgrounds in public spheres such as parliament and magistrates
courts can be reasonably described as shameful. It suggests an inquiry is
necessary, perhaps run by the government equalities office and the equality and
human rights commission.
One can disagree with its diagnosis of the problem.
Policy Exchange, true to its leaning, says the diversity policies of the last
Labour government were too narrow – too much focus on race and gender – but
that feels like scratching at the surface. Still, who can dispute that the
problem exists?
One can look to the figures. According to the Sutton Trust thinktank – which focuses on social
mobility – 68% of "leading public servants" went to private schools.
It says 63% of leading lawyers were privately educated, as were 60% of the
upper ranks of the armed forces.
Independent schools produce more than half of
the nation's leading journalists, diplomats, financiers and business people.
Policy Exchange says just 4% of MPs previously worked in manual trades.
A few weeks ago, I spoke to a would-be Labour
councillor: a busy man; a professional. So busy that he thought the task of
actually campaigning to get himself elected might be too time-consuming. So he
placed an advert online seeking someone to do his campaigning for him.
The
powers that be took a dim view and the ad was promptly withdrawn, but I took to
wondering what the councillors I knew in Newham in London, where I grew up and
was a cub reporter, would have thought of him.
These were people who had graduated to the
council having been shop stewards and tenants' association leaders.
Charlie,
the taxi driver; Lew, the tube driver; Jim, the car plant worker. I think of
activists such as Sue, the diffident single mother who galvanised the residents
in one tower block and then another and then built a campaign that
culminated in a clutch of dangerous tower blocks being demolished.
There
were working-class people in representative positions, voicing the concerns of
people from their communities. Fewer now. What happened?
Thatcherism happened. The social geographer Danny
Dorling details how the grocer's daughter from Grantham fractured the post-war
reality of the poor becoming less poor and the narrowing of the gap between the
very poor and very rich.
"By the time Thatcher left office in 1990, the
annual incomes of the richest 0.01% of society had climbed to 70 times the
national mean." For them to win, as they did under Thatcher and New
Labour, others had to lose. Those who lost most were working-class communities.
With their institutions unravelled and a daily
battle for subsistence, how are they to seek office in meaningful numbers? With
what support? There are excellent groups building capacity, such as Citizens UK, but still the
fundamental problem remains.
Dorling recently estimated that of the bottom 50%
of people in Britain by income "all
are financially insecure". How is that a springboard?
The total capture of the professions by the
middle classes happened. Take journalism. I entered national journalism 27
years ago with no degree – just a year's college training, funded by a council
grant, and after an apprenticeship on the Newham Recorder.
That was when
journalism was a trade, not a profession, and there were routes of entry for
other than the middle classes. People took those routes to senior positions in
our industry. With the middle class self-selecting, we wouldn't stand a chance
today.
The country ticks along, stable and first-world
prosperous. So why does the absence of working-class representation matter?
Because it conflicts with everything we say we want for Britain: inclusion,
fairness, equality of opportunity. Because without the broadest input, our
institutions become myopic; our democracy atrophies.
Isn't that the story of
the last 30 years?
Good to see that 2,000 viewers have now complained to the Left-wing BBC over its fawning Mandela coverage.
ReplyDeleteIt has dedicated 100 programmes to him.
How fascinating.
Yes. He is.
ReplyDelete