The left want dependency not social mobility

I've listened to the reports on Alan Milburn's social mobility report, including the breathless party political broadcast issued by Mark Easton on the Today programme ( today it was trying to help Labour out in Norwich North by talking about Fox hunting - to fit in with Labour's current leaflet in the by-election ).

Like many of you no doubt I shouted at the radio - that's what happens when you destroy education, debase exams and close the good schools ( the grammar schools) [ And lets be far - past Conservative administrations have significantly contributed to this also ! ]. But its not what the left say they think. They think state action is needed - discrimination - but using a formula of words that won't scare the middle classes.

Milburn et al talk about social mobility - and as is Labour's tendency to murder the truth these days they forget the 1980's (the decade that cannot be credited with anything as "She" was there). But since they ignore the blinding obvious way of achieving this - a fair, rigorous and objective education system we must assume they really want something else.

Let me suggest what it is.

They want dependency. They want the people who get jobs to think they owe them to a set of anti discrimination laws and positive actions by the state - not their own merits. Once they achieve this they will be too scared to change the system, in case the talented people come and take their place.

There could be no better example of this than the current parliamentary Labour party. Blair babes ( the results of positive discrimination ) bombed. Those like Jacqui Smith who were promoted had no idea what to do - just had to be loyal or they would lose the job they had.

Brown now has to make people Lords over night to compensate for the startling lack of talent in Labour.

They would like your hospital consultant, surgeon, judge, lawyer etc not to be chosen by an efficient system of spotting talent, but by one that will ensure a new establishment owes its position of power to the state.

They want dependency with people as clients of the state, rather than social mobility and freedom.

Hence only the right can deliver the potential for social mobility.

PS A while ago I blogged on another problem with this objective of high social mobility in "The Social mobility myth" part 1 and then part 2 ( when David Willetts made his inadvisable comments on Grammar schools ).