Is Britain a meritocracy?

Britain is a nation in which desire and talent are simply not enough to get ahead

As the most severe cuts to public services in living memory begin to bite it is worth considering the wider impact that these may have.  As a rule these cuts will hit the least advantaged members of society hardest and this raises a crucial question about how meritocratic Britain really is.  Despite the cuts does Britain offer equality of opportunity to all and does everyone in Britain have an equal chance of success?

Simply, a meritocracy is a society in which achievement and reward is based on merit – hard work, skills, drive – rather than privilege.  A meritocratic society is desirable as it is fair and does not lead to those born into privilege achieving more than an equally talented individual born into poverty and deprivation.  A true meritocracy provides equality of opportunity, an individual’s chances of success are not predetermined at birth.  

A recent article by John Harris in the Guardian noted that the growing trend of the privately educated ‘taking over’ popular culture.  It makes interesting reading as did the BBC documentary ‘getting on’, which focussed on the cycle of achievement of those that were privately educated getting the best degrees, then the best jobs and ultimately sending their children to private school, thus continuing the cycle.

What’s illuminating is the response of Dominic West (from The Wire) who responded to a question regarding his private school background by noting that it no longer mattered as we now live in a meritocracy.  This comment inferred that no advantage had been gained by his private education and that anyone else in Britain had the opportunity to rise to his place of success.

 A cursory glance around Britain today would reveal this to be patently not the case.  Private education offers untold benefits in terms of contacts, reputation and knowledge (such as university admissions procedures) and those that attend it are likely to be more successful than an equally talented individual that attends a struggling state school.

From the cabinet, to the judiciary, to the civil service, the BBC, Fleet Street, be it leading universities or the UK pop charts; a clear and self evident pattern emerges.  There is a distinct absence or under representation of ethnic minorities and those from the poorest backgrounds, yet a significant over representation of Oxbridge graduates and those that attended private school.  If Britain were a meritocratic society this may occur in some sectors and industries; that it occurs in all of those where power and wealth are concentrated is damning. 

 In theory a truly meritocratic society would reflect the society of which it is comprised.  Only 7% of the British population attends private education, approximately 15% of the population are of an ethnic background other than ‘white British’.  In a society in which social class and background present no disadvantage and success in life is a result of ability alone, it would be natural to expect that these trends reflected across society.   

The issue is fairness; no child chooses to be born into poverty or attend poor performing schools.  No amount of desire to succeed can overcome obstacles such as a culture of anti-intellectualism, being given little or no advice on how to access the best universities or being unable to take up an internship as your parents are unable to assist with your living costs.  

No child chooses their parents yet research indicates that a parent’s educational experience and level of affluence are the leading factors in shaping their own children’s experience.  That the likes of Alan Sugar et al have risen from modest or challenging backgrounds to become very successful is clear evidence of a lack of social mobility, not evidence of its presence; their success only serves to emphasise that many, many, thousands have been unable to achieve this. 

Equality of opportunity barely stretches to include both genders, even before different ethnicities and social classes are considered.  The problem is a fundamental challenge within society.  If Britain is not a meritocracy, how far is it from achieving this?  More pertinently, how can equality of opportunity be increased?  

The answer is a long way; it may be comforting to tell ourselves that inherited privilege is not a deciding factor in our chances of success, but that would be disingenuous.  

One approach could be to ban the provision of private education thus removing the cycle of advantage and privilege that they propagate.  However parents with the financial ability and knowledge could simply move house into the catchment area of a successful state school.  Tackling poverty would perhaps be the answer, but thirteen years of New Labour and their ostensible commitment to improving social mobility and reducing child poverty has had little or no impact.  Universities have also been targeted; a lack of Black undergraduates was used to illustrate potential bias in the admission process; the University of Oxford simply pointed out that if black students aren’t achieving the entry grades required there is little they can do.

Tackling this issue is unlikely to be achieved by instigating a series of disconnected (though well intentioned) schemes and initiatives, such as the Pupil Premium and national scholarship fund for university.  However if the solution requires a more holistic and radical approach what can be done?  A huge part of the problem is attitudes and beliefs, inherited privilege is still accepted as normal and concepts of class still shape attitudes, beliefs and prejudices.

A greater redistribution of wealth could perhaps prevent poverty blighting the chances of young people before they have even set foot in school, but the 50% tax rate for higher earners is still seen as controversial and ‘anti-aspirational’.  

That this more progressive tax is so hard to sell to the electorate, yet the rise in tuition fees and the axing of the Educational Maintenance Allowance so easy, must lead to the conclusion that there is sadly, no real appetite for meaningful change.

This article appears in the March edition of the Young Political Bloggers e-magazine.

What is the role of government?

Reaction to the leaked US diplomatic cables reveals an uncomfortable truth in the attitude of those elected to represent us

The perceived roles of government are diverse and differ depending on to whom you speak.  For some the role of government is to provide jobs and a stable economy, for others it’s there to support the disadvantaged and vulnerable via the welfare state, for others its simply exists to provide a stable environment in which the economy can grow and private organisations can profit; by producing a growing consumer base, a suitably educated workforce or in extremis defending the realm.  For most, it’s probably a mixture of all of the above.

On a more fundamental level the role of government is much simpler, defined by a basic principle, upon which competing interpretations of its functions and priorities compete.  For those fortunate enough to live in a representative democracy (the overwhelming majority of Europe and the Americas) the primary function of government is to represent and serve those that have elected it.  The clue is in the name and it is ultimately answerable to the electorate.  For those executive functions and personnel that are not directly elected such as civil servants, their role is to serve the elected members who appoint them to assist in the service of the electorate.  This can be viewed as a linear relationship; at the top the electorate, below them the elected members (government ministers et al) that are elected to serve their interests and directly beneath the them at the bottom are the civil service that serve the government.  It’s a simplistic model, having no place for the private sphere, but it serves to illustrate the basic structure on which modern society is built.

The leaking of US diplomatic cables and Afghanistan files by Wikileaks during recent months have called into question the nature of the relationship between citizen and government.  Government officials, media and citizens from across the US, Europe, the Middle East and beyond have sought to criticise the leaks on two fronts; that they put lives in danger and that some information should not be shared with the public.  Diplomats and civil servants should, according to this analysis, be free to operate in secrecy above and beyond the knowledge and concerns of the citizens to whom they are ultimately answerable.  This represents a significant shift from the linear structure of the relationship between citizen, government and civil service described above to something considerably more ambiguous.  This new structure more clearly resembles an inverted pyramid; the electorate at the bottom and elected officials and the civil service above, side by side.  This structure illustrates that the  government and its unelected functions operate on an equal footing and in cooperation, neither directly responsible to each other or the electorate that serve them. 

To claim that this structure exists in reality rather than in the minds of those that have sought to criticise the leaks is actually a moot point.  More importantly the whole affair demonstrates that an attitude pervades both governments and media that free sharing of information is undesirable, that those in power should not have to adhere to principles of transparency nor be answerable to those that appointed them, to whom they are responsible.  This belief that ordinary citizens are incapable of understanding nor have the right to this information betrays an inherent arrogance and more than a whiff of authoritarianism.

This attitude has been further demonstrated in the pressure applied to private organisations that have provided support to Wikileaks.  The image of the internet as independent and beyond the power of governments has been utterly shattered as state pressure has been used to prohibit the actions of citizens, specifically from gaining knowledge of those appointed to serve them.  The United States has blocked access to the Wikileaks website, Mastercard and Visa have denied their customers across the globe the right to choose whether or not to spend their money supporting an independent organisation, knowledge of corrupt practices by Pfizer and Shell, which are undoubtedly in the public interest, are viewed as state secrets that should be hidden from the public.  That much of the information leaked is of little surprise or in many cases much tamer than expected, is inconsequential.  The image rendered is of insecure governments clinging desperately to as much control as possible as it slowly ebbs away.

Sadly the shift from in attitude from the linear to the inverted pyramid model described above may never have occurred.  It is perhaps more evident that the last century represents a shift toward a less authoritarian stance as education and knowledge continued to diffuse throughout societies and across national boundaries.  The post 9/11 authoritarian tendencies were a  reaction – that have since lost momentum - to external threats of a once in a generation magnitude  and the Freedom of Information act highlighted the desire for those in power to illustrate their transparency and good intentions (though Tony Blair’s confession that he now considers it a huge mistake is perhaps a hint of how power can breed arrogance).

That progress has been made toward the synchronization of what we are lead to believe and what actually occurs in reality is simply not enough; these insights into the machinations of power only serve to highlight that much more progress must be made.  If knowledge is power, then it is imperative that these leaked documents continue to pour into the public domain.  

Putting the ‘p’ into politics

Politics with a big ‘P’ is the arena of political decision making and its associated organisations and institutions.  Westminster, your local council, the European Union.  These are all big ‘P’.  The party  politics as reported through broadcast and print media is almost always big ‘P’ and is one reason why many claim a lack of interest in anything political.

politics with a little ‘p’ can be roughly defined as relationship in which a power relation exists.  That is, any situation in which one person, organisation or institution exerts influence over another. The relation between husband and wife, teacher and pupil, advertiser and consumer, these are all little ‘p’.  This carries it way beyond concerns of left vs. right, Labour vs. Tory, concerned as it is with ‘big’ concepts and philosophical positions.

The significance is that, although my ramblings and observations will cross into both the realms of the little and big ‘p’, I make the claim that the world cannot be understood via the big ‘P’ alone, the problems of our world reside in the former whilst the solutions originate in the latter.  Ignorance, deliberate or otherwise, of this fundamental principle may well explain why those who practice big ‘P’ Politics often fail to tackle the underlying problems that vex them.