Howard Flight is not “the Tories” although I don’t deny he probably represents a certain strand of Tory thinking.

Richard

I fear your comment reflects the title not the article. He does point out that Flight is very much of a mentality against the stated aims of the government he will serve.

I’m pretty certain that peers are meant to review, not serve, governments, so having different opinions is no bad thing.

Did the Tories ever believe in social mobility? Assume for a moment that all they cared about were the rich and anything they said about caring about any other social group was mere lip-service designed to get them enough votes to win power; under that assumption, would they have behaved any differently to how they actually have? I think no.

BRAKING NEWS… BREAKING NEWS… BREAKING NEWS…….

Tory brownshirts have not changed one jot.

All that has happened is that Call me Dave has done a green wash to hide the nasty party. Even Call me Dave does not believe his own green wash because while he says one thing , he appoints brownshirts to the Lords.

The real question of interest is why do the Lie Dems continue to prop up these far right goons?

@1. Richard

“Howard Flight is not ‘the Tories’ …”. So who is? The Tories you agree with? How about the Prime Minister – does he represent ‘the Tories’? Cameron was clearly embarassed by Flight’s stream of consciousness, but failed to answer the question why he should continue to support Flight’s nomination to the Upper (Legislative!) House.

Well, I suspect in many Tory minds that they think they have made it because they’re well off, ergo they must have Merit and somehow be deserving. The rest of us have to prove ourselves by fighting our way to the top. They like that kind of thing, because it makes them think they’ve achieved something by being rich.

Friday night rant over.

If we dig a little, we’ll find a sentiment of political apprehension among the governing classes running through the 19th century over the anticipated consequences that could follow franchise reform.

Whig governments had problems enough in getting Parliament to finally approve the (modest) reforms of the 1832 Reform Act. Recall the Duke of Wellington’s remark on seeing the newly elected House of Commons – he had never seen so many bad hats in this life before.

It took another 35 years for Parliament to pass the next franchise reform act and a further five years for Parliament to approve secret ballots.

Curiously perhaps, the Attlee governments of 1945-51 were strong defenders of 11+ selection and grammar schools because that structure was seen as creating opportunites for bright working class youngsters to get a good education in good schools, opportunities which they would otherwise never have had.

The New Labour government did absolutely nothing for social mobility:

“The chances of a child from a poor family enjoying higher wages and better education than their parents is lower in Britain than in other western countries, the OECD says”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/10/oecd-uk-worst-social-mobility

@Left Outside, I admire your spirit but I’m sorry to say you’re being played by tabloid tactics in the media here and as a result risk having your argument discredited.

Look at his actual words not the headlines: he used the word “breeding” to describe the middle class first. Whatever class hatreds this man may harbour he did not manifest them in using language that made the lower classes seem inferior or bestial. That was a trick by editors including many who should know better.

Flight is a straw man: we’re wasting our anger here.

Given that he has embarrassed his party by speaking out against tuition fees, you have to wonder if the Coulson’s team are behind this spin.

“@Left Outside, I admire your spirit but I’m sorry to say you’re being played by tabloid tactics in the media here and as a result risk having your argument discredited.”

Oh I’m not so sure, he may have used it about the middle class too, but he was leading up to the coup de grace on the working classes.

In any case, the class war is secondary to me, what I found interesting is that someone who obviously has some faith in the free market appears to be denying that there is any place for social mobility in society.

Although I’m playing a little dumb, I’m accusing him of only being right wing because it is personally convenient for him as a rich man rather than ideological conviction in meritocracy or the free market. Hence the term “alleged right.”

As sally suggests, I may be being a little naive, but I expect some Tories to actually believe what they stand for.

“The New Labour government did absolutely nothing for social mobility:”

I’m not so sure, although it didn’t improve, I’m sure the Tory counterfactual would have been worse for social mobility. They also made a lack of social mobility less awful by improving somewhat the material lives of the poor.

“I’m pretty certain that peers are meant to review, not serve, governments, so having different opinions is no bad thing.”

I’m sure that is what is meant to happen, whether that is what happens is another question.

IMO several of Gove’s proposed “reforms” – such as “free” schools – amount to no more than silly gimmicks but there are solid reasons for concerns about standards of attainment in many schools. For solid reasons, we cannot be complacent about reports that the numbers of post 16 year-olds classified as NEETs (not in employment, education or training) has reached record levels and we do need to focus on news reports such as these from a few years back:

“Government figures show only 15% of white working class boys in England got five good GCSEs including maths and English last year [2007]. . . Poorer pupils from Indian and Chinese backgrounds fared much better – with 36% and 52% making that grade respectively.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7220683.stm

“White working-class pupils are the lowest-achieving group in English schools because they have low aspirations and do not do their homework, an official study shows.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/white-workingclass-pupils-are-lowest-achievers-801765.html

I never quite know how to respond to articles like this. I can only speak for myself, but I do care about social mobility but I am also a right-winger, in a economic sense.

Of course I want the poor/middle to have all the opportunities currently only available to the rich (private healthcare, private schools etc). I believe that if a poor person shows the will to improve his lot, starts a business and makes a success of it, he should be allowed to keep as much of that success as he wants (I say he, but it could easily also be she, before anyone says).

As far as I see it, the Left has it wrong because they claim to care about social mobility, but what do they do? The criticise the rich, hit them with high taxes, insist they wait in line with everyone else for services like health and education. That’s all well and good, but what incentive is that for someone who is poor to try to become rich? If the poor man above makes a success of himself, in the Left’s eyes he’s now one of the ‘rich, and is there to be drained of cash to give to the still poor. As I see it, it’s Labour that stands in the way of social mobility, not intentionally, but by unintended consequence of their policies.

“Social mobility is a difficult thing to improve even when the economy is booming and families are getting help. With the the next few years offering none of this, Flight may just be reflecting on something inevitable, those born poor are going to stay poor.”

Not actually true. Social mobility is a relative concept. Poverty (in the sense you’re using it here) is an absolute one.

If every aristocrat in the country went bankrupt and if bankruptcy were social anathema, then we would have social mobility there…..we’ve created a new underclass plus those who were once on the bottom have moved up as there are now those below them….then we would have had social mobility without there being one iota of change in the poverty or the poor.

And, just imagine, if hard economic times increase downwards social mobility (which, arguably they do) then we muct, given that it’s a relative concept, have an increase in upwards such too.

The problem I suspect comes from the confusion usually so evident when talking about poverty: absolute or relative? And given that social mobility must be a relative concept, not clarifying which of he poverty definitions one means can lead to confusion.

“Crushed by the burden of taxation which they have not the resources to meet and to provide for children also: crushed by the national cost of the too numerous children of those who do not contribute to the public funds by taxation, yet who recklessly bring forth from an inferior stock individuals who are not self-supporting, the middle and superior artisan classes have, without perceiving it, come almost to take the position of that ancient slave population.” Marie Stopes