Nick Petrie

THERE are many challenges facing us as a society over the next few years. The major parties are desperately jostling for influence and power, to be the party in control come the next general election. With this jostling comes promises, something the British electorate are more than used to by now. But if we look at the progress we have made as a society across the last ten years, many things are perhaps not quite where we expected.

Technology has been developing and progressing at an ever-increasing rate; consumerisms’ expansion has been exponential, the desire bred into us to upgrade and invest. Yet what about the issues, and the problems that are addressed come election time – poverty, equality, access to education, social mobility and the economy?

It has been found that social mobility in Britain is actually declining, so in the last ten years, what have Labour been up to? Those of us under the age of forty are less mobile now than our parents were at the same age. Surely this isn’t progress? Yet that is what Labour promised to bring to the table all those years ago: progressive politics to take the country forwards and drag the poor and under-privileged out of poverty by reducing unemployment, providing a minimum wage, but most simply by ensuring equality of outcome ñ benefits and welfare.

Unemployment is still at its lowest since 1975 and we have an extensive and fairly functional welfare system in place to help the less fortunate members of society. Yet social mobility is actually in decline – how can this be explained? Well, although the economy has been growing and the country’s wealth has been expanding with this growth, the gap between the rich and the poor has also been expanding. Much of the new wealth that is generated in Britain goes to the rich, meaning that people often find it difficult to break the cycle of poverty and transcend class boundaries.

The impact of education here is undeniable, the neglect of our education system and the inherent problems with the national curriculum are causing widespread problems. In 2006, universities were complaining that school leavers ‘basic grammar and spelling’ was not up to scratch. The fact that our schools are inept at producing students with basic literacy and numeracy skills is testament to the problems rife in the current examination sys- tem, where knowledge is acquired not because it is interesting, or useful, but because it will be on the exam. Of course, once that specific examination has passed, so does the knowledge.

If school leavers can’t perform the tasks that will be required of them in the ‘real’ world, then it is no wonder they can’t transcend class – they haven’t been provided with the tools to do it. Now the Government will often wave the statistics of its increasing numbers of school leavers attending university. However, it is important to note that, although there has been a massive increase in the number of students at university, there has also been an increase in the number of students dropping out.

Crucially, the greatest increase in attendance is from students who have ‘richer’ (I use the term relatively) parents, rather than those from a poorer background. Research discovered that these students are often still put off by the large debt they will potentially face after completing a degree. Gordon Brown and David Cameron have been trading blows over a new phrase of late: ‘social opportunity’. It has long been realised that ‘equality of outcome’ is a utopian socialist dream.

This concept of ‘social opportunity’ is much easier -give everyone the same chances, and then it is up to them where they end up. The government has been looking at a scheme that has been introduced in New York, where families are given financial rewards for engaging in educational, work and health-related activities. This can increase the yearly income for the family and supposedly help develop more rounded children.

The Government is currently investigating the potential to instigate a similar idea here in the UK. So what about the people who do transcend class? What is different about them? Do they have more drive, more natural intelligence, or is it luck? Is it all about innovation or entrepreneurialism?
Along with ‘social opportunity’, Brown has also been lamenting ‘talent’, and most specifically the potential waste of talent in those who die young ñ what might they have contributed to society? Equally, although those who were never given an opportunity to follow their ideas through, to think big and to dream – what has this cost society? So now there will be a focus on ‘unlocking talent’. It shouldn’t just be down to charities, trusts and foundations to try and encourage people to innovate and provide the help, advice, support and expertise required to get ideas off of the ground.

The Government should be helping to bridge the gap, not least because it is vital for the future of the economy. It is estimated that soon there will be less than half a million unskilled jobs in Britain, meaning that more people will need a degree or training to perform specific jobs. This used to present a problem in the past. There wasn’t that much room at the ‘top’. Of course, we had doctors and lawyers and other high earners and skilled professionals, but being based in a capitalist sys- tem, there must always be people on the bottom of the pile.

The growth of the worldwide market and the economy means that this is not necessarily true any more. Britain only accounts for one percent of the world’s population, so why can’t the majority of it perform skilled jobs? Many people also believe that we should be trying to draw back from the consumerist nature of our society and reduce the control and impact of big business (such as the supermarkets like Sainsbury or Tesco) to encourage smaller businesses catering more directly to the need of their customers. With one in four members of the British population wanting to give it a go, providing an environment and a structure where it can happen seems the logical way forward.

Happiness is, of course, another consideration; business, government and society have been so focused on ‘progress’ that we haven’t stopped to wonder whether we are actually improving our lives. A few centuries ago, peas- ants only had to work 15 weeks of the year to have enough to sustain them- selves.
Nowadays, many people need two jobs just to survive. People are becoming increasing bored of the nine to five routine; the spontaneity of life has been removed, and many people have a warped view of what will bring them happiness.
This does not have to present any problems though; with new technologies and the Internet, people can be more flexible and jobs can be approached from new directions. Suiting every- one, people are happier, we will re-adjust the economy, so that it may continue to grow without just furthering the gap between the rich and the poor.

However, if this is going to be attained, then certain issues must be addressed. The poverty and inequality that is rampant throughout British society, which shapes peoples’ access to education and to opportunity, must be challenged and reduced. We must find a way to ensure that all can benefit from the growth the economy has experienced over the past decade.

We may be about to have a poor year financially, and with a credit crunch in progress and a recession looming in America, it is important that we look to tackle the problems head on. Politicians can bandy about terms like social opportunity, progressive politics and unlocking talent, but until we see proper reform within the education system, with value placed on knowledge, we will never install a desire for understanding within our younger generations.

Structure should be introduced to encourage people to strike out on their own, with a tailoring of jobs and industries to accommodate the needs of their workers, rather than the single, profit- driven approach that drives people to collapse from stress; are they any- thing other than empty phrases?

Humans, by nature, are not depressed; of course, people have different approaches to life – some pessimistic, some optimistic – and everyone will find their own equilibrium, but shouldn’t we be more driven as a collective to create an environment where we have more fun, where creativity is actively encouraged and promoted, and where we are healthier, not just because of new medicines but because of less stress?

We may well lament what we have lost, but I think this is a good thing; it means that we can realise when we have made mistakes and act to rectify them. It would be a terrible shame if we for- got how to have fun.