So Nick Clegg has got a 'bee in his bonnet' about social mobility. The current opinion is that social mobility is at it's lowest level for years. 7% of children are privately educated and 70 % of High Court Judges went to Private Schools. Is this the kind of privilege that we want to enshrine or do we want a more meritocratic society, where the brightest reach the top, but the down side is that those that are not talented occupy the lower reaches of society. Another factor to include is that earnings are too widely spread. If a 'meritocracy' was in place, those with wealth would work to make sure that their children do not fall too far, which is where private educations comes in. After all would you pay for something that was the same as what was freely available? If you asked people I am guessing that most of them would consider a meritocracy a good idea. However, if you question them, most would not realise the down sides to a meritocracy.
The real question is "What type of society do we want to live in?" Many people, who earn more than average, have made statements that they would be prepared to pay more tax if we all lived in a fairer society. Where were those voices when the 50% tax rate was abolished? Instead the richest got the same percentage tax cut as the poorest, except to the poorest that meant £200 per year, to the richest that meant £40,000 per year. There is no doubt that we do not live in a fair society, and that the policies that are being passed do nothing to make our unequal society more equal. In years to come the rich will still be rich, the poor will still be poor, and the rich and middle classes will be providing us with our politicians, judges, oxford graduates, etc. for a very long time to come
No comments:
Post a Comment