As the existentially challenged Tories gathers in its conference city for its yearly gathering, it has plenty to consider regarding its path forward. It’s not even clear if a clear direction is available. These are tough times for a governing group that now has almost nothing, if anything, fresh or distinctive to say to voters.
The situation might have been markedly improved if tangible progress had been made on an agenda that matters to people nationwide: Social mobility. Yet Boris Johnson’s government lacked the basic understanding on how to turn the popular slogan on levelling up into actual implementation. For the two years after the 2019 election, it debated what the phrase truly represented.
I found it bizarre, because I’d already told Johnson what social mobility entailed when we first spoke about it during his leadership campaign. This terminology was language I created and used at the DfE to talk about social mobility. It was our guiding principle, and its definition is straightforward: social mobility is the means by which we attain equal access – without removing opportunity away from those who already have it, but rather by extending chances to those that don’t.
Another crucial ministry expression we used, “potential is equally shared across our country, however access isn’t”, represented another a deliberate expression, representing the two parts of a fairness agenda. First, potential shared equally but not nurtured uniformly through our learning institutions. Additionally, access not provided uniformly by employers or our economic system. As a result, schools and companies were crucial to achieving better life chances. This was an mission about the societal structure of our country – investing in individual capabilities and connecting them to chances.
How did levelling up turn into under the Tory administration? A towns fund administered out of the DLUHC. Street beautification and redeveloped traffic systems. A white paper was launched almost thirty-six months after Johnson became leader, which saw ongoing initiatives relabelled under the fresh social mobility slogan.
Therefore, a wider fairness strategy went undeveloped, as well as all the reform that it may have generated – in capital, business, economic policy, tax and in local regeneration. Moreover, in learning, including a higher education sector that has become a target for elected officials – despite the fact that it remains the strongest driver of life improvement for young working-class people, personally, this country has had over the past 30 years. Maybe the only engine of fair chances, operating at scale.
Hope is essential for our country to succeed. To foster ambition, there needs to be a believable feeling that hard work and results are connected; that if people aim high, they can attain. For political leadership, being able to create a feeling of hope about the future is crucial. Studies by the research body at Bath University and others, recently released, showed that the DfE’s 12 “opportunity areas” I introduced as education secretary – community-focused methods to boosting academic achievement – led to youth in those communities being up to a significant margin more positive about their future than those in similar areas without these schemes in place. The research confirms: just making an genuine beginning on pro-social mobility policy can quickly and positively change how people feel about their prospects.
Ignoring this evidence, and in the midst of its successor selection process, in that period, the ruling party closed opportunity areas down. Why should any person in those regions vote for a organization that took that action? The targeted programme is one example of what could have been a revolutionary Conservative government agenda on social mobility, but that chance was hopelessly squandered. Approaches such as this can inspire hope and aspiration. In contrast, as the Tories found out, failing to deliver of equal opportunity is the biggest blunder any leadership can make. The public penalized the administration for its ineffectiveness but, perhaps most of all, for its broken promises on levelling up.
Now the responsibility on life chances and equal chances has been transferred to a Labour government. The old slogan has been cast off. Labour has its own political rhetoric of “removing obstacles to success”. The political group that is steadily supplanting the failing incumbents, the alternative party, also has its own language – “reindustrialisation”. It’s a phrase to talk about new opportunities in communities like the one I come from, in the region. It promises that an historical manufacturing base can reincarnate into an industrial future.
For the public, it must appear as a Groundhog Day-style loop. Similar challenge, different language. Yet, currently, little improvement.
Should the current and alternative parties want to avoid the similar destiny, each group should understand the previous government’s errors on levelling up; that social mobility rhetoric is simple terminology, but successful delivery of more equal results is far more challenging. Britain’s chronically poor equal opportunity remains the key issue for our country, with the next generation unable to get a good job beginning, those working hard in occupations with few results after the housing costs are covered, and people across the country without any genuine belief their next generation will be able to do improve in life than they have.
Politicians can discuss equal chances however much they like. Yet where is the party that has the comprehensive policy agenda on life chances? I observe no such party. The first to achieve this, wins. Not only for their organization, but, more importantly, for a whole country that has desperately requires fair chances so desperately.
A seasoned financial analyst with over a decade of experience in global markets and trading strategies.
