Since writing my last blog there have been a number of events which have interested, concerned and angered me. One was the publication of the UK’s latest unemployment figures which, apart from an expected rise in the unemployed showed an increase to over one million in the number of young people out of work . There was much hand wringing amongst politicians of every hue, many hollow sounding promises and even worse more “sticking plasters” announced by the government to address this situation – various “schemes” that we are told will help youngsters into work and stop them becoming what has begin to be called “NEETs” – that is youngsters who are Not in Employment, Education or Training. The reality is, of course, that even allowing for the fact that these initiatives are well intentioned they do not and will not solve the problem – in the final analysis the jobs are just not there. To really address the problem a whole new view is needed that would have to encompass issues of globalization, capitalism and the like – and I really don’t see that happening (unfortunately) any time soon.
The second event has been a couple of conversations with friends. Both my friends said the same thing – complaining bitterly about what a waste of time it was for successive governments to want a huge percentage of the youth population to go to university. These youngsters should get out and get a job I was told and then, these comments were quickly followed by the follow up that many of these youngsters who go to university are undertaking "useless" courses. The implication of these comments being that only the very brightest and best should have the chance to go to university and that less “worthwhile” courses and universities should go to the wall.
Well, maybe they have a point – in an ideal world only the truly academically gifted would go to these two or three great seats of learning and the rest of us would indeed go out to earn a perfectly rewarding and satisfying living in a myriad of other ways. In other words, how it used to be. But, of course, we do not live in an ideal world and successive governments have told us that “education, education, education’ is the way forward. Our youngsters, as I said in my last blog, are encouraged to get higher and higher exam results in order that they are viewed as employable or university material. But still, the rate of youth unemployment moves inexorably upwards. As I said above – there simply aren’t the jobs, and the rest is all irrelevant. So, from my perspective it seems to me that the young are in a bit of a sticky situation – very much between a rock and a hard place. Jobs not available, but if they follow government advice to stay on and get more education then they are criticised as doing "useless" courses or not of the right calibre for a “proper” university. I’m pretty sure that if I was leaving school and thinking about my future now I would be pretty cheesed off and rather angry with what our society was offering to me.
Having said all that, however, there is another dimension to all this which impacts on the whole situation in a hidden and more insidious way – and which perhaps makes the whole situation infinitely worse.
A few years ago, Tony Blair claimed to want to create a genuinely meritocratic society in which those who rise to the top do so because of talent and ability rather than a privileged background. As Blair put it, “......the development of human potential, the belief that there is talent and ability and caring in each individual that often lies unnurtured or discouraged.” Blair wasn’t alone in this dream. In the last General Election my own MP, Kenneth Clarke, informed me, in a campaign leaflet - in which he asked for my vote - that he “believed in a meritocracy”. But this made me think! How can one in power say they believe in a meritocracy and still make the loyal oath to the Queen – the ultimate symbol of an aristocratic society. Has our Queen got the top of the aristocratic tree because she worked harder and utilised her talents better than any other aspiring Queen in the UK? Are there lots of failed Queens or second rate Queens sitting out there who didn’t quite work hard enough? Or, is she our Queen and at the very pinnacle of our national tree, because quite simply, she has worked harder, used her talent and ability and care and fulfilled her human potential better than the rest of us – and thus has become Queen. If we had all worked as hard as she, then maybe we too could have been King or Queen! Of course she hasn’t – she is Queen because of an accident of birth! The whole thing is a nonsense! I wrote to Kenneth Clarke and asked him to justify his claims and made much the same points I made here. Now, whenever I have written to Clarke in the past, or since, he usually has the good grace to reply – as an MP he is an OK guy. On this occasion, however, not a peep. Perhaps he didn’t have a meaningful answer or perhaps one is not supposed to ask those questions.
 |
| Our "meritocratic" Queen - is she the best Queen around? Are there lots of less good Queens sitting around somewhere? |
But, you might be asking – where is this going? I will tell you.
It would be hard disagree with the ethical and philosophical basis of a “meritocracy” – it is a goal to strive for. It is the American dream – anyone can be President if they work hard. But it only really works if everyone has the same starting point, that there is common agreement about what constitutes ‘merit’ and that they have an equal chance of achieving that merit, value and ultimate reward. Equally, in striving for a situation where merit is the basis for advancement, it is also implicit that some will be excluded and perhaps disenfranchised if they don’t work quite so hard or don’t fulfil their potential quite so successfully. And, if a meritocracy is to mean anything it must acknowledge diversity and difference. It must value all and the efforts of all. It must promote and value and reward a wide range of skills, abilities, aptitudes, lifestyles and employments. In brutal terms, in a meritocracy, who is the most meritorious - the merchant banker or the carer of some elderly patient? Certainly the best rewarded is the banker, so we assume that he/she is valued more highly and therefore has greater merit. Is this morally justifiable? Who judges the amount of merit?
Although the notion of a meritocracy has been around for many hundreds of years it really became a political and sociological ideology with the publication of Michael Young’s satirical work “The Rise of the Meritocracy” in the mid–sixties. Young was largely responsible for writing the Labour manifesto that swept Atlee's Labour party to power at the end of the war. His books ‘Family and Kinship in East London’ and the satirical ‘The Rise of the Meritocracy’ I can remember inspiring me and being almost obligatory reading for people of my generation. Young’s thesis and subsequent writings over the next fifty years envisaged a meritocratic society but one which, sadly, he also forecast, would be ultimately doomed to failure. Briefly, he argued that laudable though a meritocracy is it will ultimately put ‘its seal of approval on a minority who to shine....and its seal of disapproval on the many who do not..... and as a result general inequality will become more grievous with every year that passes.’ When he wrote this in the late 1950s Young envisaged that this would come to pass during the middle years of the twenty first century. In the event he revised his opinion in 2001 – shortly before his death - when he wrote that the years of the Thatcher government and then, especially, the Blair government had made it come to pass fifty years earlier than he anticipated! Which is, of course, exactly what we have today – just as he forecast. What would he think and say if he were alive today in 2011!
So we have this bizarre, perhaps morally indefensible and almost Kafkaesque situation for young people (and indeed, for many others). Because of “economics”, the need to balance the accountant’s books and society’s ever increasing demand for “value for money”, cheap goods and the like our needs are satisfied by increasing uses of technology and cheap labour often from the far east. This results in people in this country (and others) being thrown out of work because the jobs are no longer available – to employ our own workforce will make goods too expensive, so better use technology or cheap labour abroad. Those lucky enough to be in work are increasingly in non-manufacturing industries since the manufacturing is done elsewhere in the world and they are increasingly dependent upon academic “qualifications” to access this work . Governments of every hue tell their electorate, or in this case the young, that they need more better qualifications so that they can access this economic and employment wonderland. As a society we increasingly “value” these qualifications, they define us as who we are. And at the same time, of course, they put value or merit on those that have them – and by default devalue those that do not. If I am lucky enough to have the skills or the aptitude to be an accountant then the world is my oyster - if, on the other hand, my skills are (say) in caring for others then the rewards that the world will heap upon me are significantly less - and I will be the first out of work in hard times. Those who do not fit the value system inherent in the meritocratic society are marginalised and cast aside. Each year we see thousands of youngsters whooping and crying as they receive their exam results - and those who did not, for whatever reason, creep off into the shadows with few prospects. My dad or the Denaby miner and the like (see previous blog) who possessed no such academic qualifications that would be meaningful today would be of no value, no merit. Had this situation appertained when I was a teenager I would undoubtedly have been one of those to slink off and become a NEET. A non-person.
But the whole issue is compounded. Young’s predictions have become an awful and Pythonsque reality – because there is no work or because those with fewer academic skills are less able to access the job market they “stay on” at school - hoping to gain some of these qualifications, these educational passports to work, dignity, security and happiness. Indeed, the government encourages them to do so – but then society derides them for undertaking “useless courses”. And then the government provides the ultimate kick in the teeth – it says, “Get lots of education, then you will get a job” (except a million don’t - they become NEETs) – “Get the highest qualifications that you can – but ooops, we are sorry, your 5 grades at “A” are not quite high enough now because the standard is always rising and the jobs are getting scarcer – you need 5 at A*. Oh!.....and we nearly forgot to tell you, we will charge you many thousands of pounds for your studies when you go to university – a debt that you will carry around with you perhaps into middle age or older”.
 |
| Michael Young |
If we are not angry then we should be. If the young are not angry then they should be. They, and we, are being taken for a ride – all because of the accountant’s ledgers, all because of globalization and our consumerist society's ever increasing demand for cheap goods and the venture capitalist’s quick buck. For all these reasons we are not only taking away the right to go to work but we are asset stripping and de-skilling a whole generation – and we are taking away any pride, dignity or responsibility that they might have had or may have gained through work.
Of course, it is not all – the lucky few are doing well. Those able to access the academic wonderland, those who enjoy the privilege of birth and all that it brings, those who swapped the quadrangles of Eton for the quadrangles of Oxford and then the quadrangles of the Palace of Westminster have no such worries; those whose skills and abilities and aptitudes match the meritocratic society’s set of values will be winners. But what of the other (to coin the “Occupy” movement’s phrase) ninety nine percent. Successive governments have told us that better and better schools will ensure that the young are able to benefit and get the qualifications they will need. Well, we’d all be in favour of that so let us assume that the government’s dreams come to fruition. That Michael Gove waves his magic educational wand and in a blink every school is like Eton, every child is an academic icon. Every child has qualifications of the highest order. Will there be jobs for all? Will everyone have a dignified role to play on society? Will everyone feel valued? Of course not, it will not alter things one jot – the modern economy is reliant upon a smaller and smaller work force and upon fewer and fewer workers – the hewers of stone and carvers of wood are long dead. Under our present system the jobs are simply not there and unless we, and the government, start from the Keynesian premise that full employment is the goal rather than the globalized economics based on consumerism and the quick buck of the City whizz kid, then there will be those who get life’s glittering prizes and an ever increasing number who do not. This is exactly what is happening today - a few years ago it was only those youngsters with no qualifications who were unemployed NEETs – now we have youngsters who have played the educational game, have ticked all the right boxes and who have perfectly good degrees in the long term unemployed. We should be very, very worried.
This is the contract that we have broken with our young and indeed with much of society and saddens me that we are not more angry. As a society we should be ashamed of ourselves - rather like in the Bible, Esau sold his birthright for a bowl of stew, as a society we have increasingly sold a huge portion of our society's future and our young for cheap imports, mobile phones from the far east or cheap food. We have sacrificed the jobs of Sheffield steel workers or Rhondda miners or Lancashire weavers or Tyneside ship builders and the like for a quick business fix and the bank's profits. And in doing so we have taken away the future and the aspirations for many of our young. As we walk down our High Streets and shopping malls and pass, for example, "Primark" or "BHS" or "Matalan" and we take advantage of the ludicrously cheap imported clothes available in shops such as these and think "what a bargain I have got", perhaps we should remind ourselves that in doing so we are also ensuring that there is no UK clothes manufacturing base to employ people. Had "Primark" and the like been around half a century ago then my mother and many of my relations would have been out of work as weavers and there would have been no factories for honest skilled youngsters to be employed in and learn the skills of factory engineering. But, of course this is what we do - the quest for a bargain has become the sole motivator and justification of society - and in making our purchases we feed the City accountant, banker and capitalist and at the same time take the future away from the rest of society. We ensure that the profits of people like "entrepreneur" Philip Green are maximised but our industrial base, our workforce and our young are cast aside in order to feed the monster that is the City. We should all be ashamed and we are all to blame. I have quoted clothes "chains" - the situation and result is the same in other areas. Next month I will be travelling on a budget airline - I can travel hundreds of miles for a ridiculously low cost - what a bargain! But in order to achieve this, the facilities available have been pared, the staff reduced, checking in is all electronic.......and so the list goes on. Like other budget travellers I will take only hand baggage since to take extra incurs extra charges - so there will be no need for baggage handlers - another few jobs down society's drain. The real cost of my "bargain" - is the casting aside of staff and employment opportunities - but hey, let's not worry about it Michael O'Leary will have a few more coppers in his pot, City economists, accountants and bankers will be a little happier with the bottom line figure and their bonus increase - and I have a bargain! Everyone is a winner - except society! I am not a Luddite fighting change and wanting a return to a mythical and golden past. But as society changes and technology, especially, impinges on our lives it must be the role of government to invest in the futures of the many and not the few. As William Beveridge, the impetus behind our welfare state, said "The object of government in peace and in war is not the glory of rulers or of races, but the happiness of common man". Had he been alive today he might have well slightly rewritten that to include other groups who ensure that the happiness of the common man is limited. And what would the great Joseph Chamberlain have said? Chamberlain, one of the very great British politicians and manufacturers said a hundred years ago "My aim in life is to make it pleasanter for this great majority; I do not care if it becomes less pleasant for the well to do minority". No, we should all hang our heads in shame as we sacrifice our future and the futures of the next generations for a bargain and a cheap deal.
As I noted in my previous blog even in the most primitive of societies, the young are valued - for they guarantee the future - as potential skilled hunters, as midwives,as witch doctors, as arrow makers and the like - and the jungle tribe teaches its young and gives them the chance to take over as hunters and gatherers and cooks and midwives - for they provide tomorrow. We have taken the reverse view - marginalise the young, prevent them from learning the skills that society requires by removing the jobs and at the same time tell an increasing number of them that they don't have the skills to get on the ladder anyway because they haven't got enough "education, education, education". It has all the ingredients of a Gilbert and Sullivan satirical opera - my, what scathing songs W.S. Gilbert would write. It would be laughable if not so sad and serious.
As I noted in my previous blog even in the most primitive of societies, the young are valued - for they guarantee the future - as potential skilled hunters, as midwives,as witch doctors, as arrow makers and the like - and the jungle tribe teaches its young and gives them the chance to take over as hunters and gatherers and cooks and midwives - for they provide tomorrow. We have taken the reverse view - marginalise the young, prevent them from learning the skills that society requires by removing the jobs and at the same time tell an increasing number of them that they don't have the skills to get on the ladder anyway because they haven't got enough "education, education, education". It has all the ingredients of a Gilbert and Sullivan satirical opera - my, what scathing songs W.S. Gilbert would write. It would be laughable if not so sad and serious.
The whole notion of meritocracy sounds appealing – indeed it is – as with Kenneth Clarke's assertion that he believes in it, who wouldn't agree - and what a great sounding political slogan that everyone will vote for! But in only has any credibility or meaning if the playing field is level and if the benefits that it brings through hard work, aptitude, ability and the rest are equally valued. But, of course, in the society we inhabit it is not level and all are not valued equally.
Two football teams begin the season. To all intents and purposes they are exactly even, similar players, same number of spectators, similar ground facilities. At the end of the season Team A wins the Meritocracy Cup – they have worked hard, played well and clearly been the better team. Their hard work, skill and endeavour has been rewarded and they take the trophy and the acclaim – they are valued. They have won the Meritocracy Cup – and rightly so – and in doing so shown the superiority over the other team. It is an admirable lesson to the other team to work hard and then they too will win. The winning supporters can justly claim that their team is the best and deserving of praise and value and merit.
But what if the two teams are different? What if one team is an ordinary team but the other has a rich owner who ensures that their facilities are so much better, that only the greatest athletes are used, that they have the best coaching and medical care that money can buy to ensure that they recover from injuries and are kept in the peak of physical condition. If and when this team wins the Meritocracy Cup are they quite so deserving. The losing side may have given their all throughout the season, worked much harder and been far more committed to their task but have always been handicapped when compared to the other team. What do we or should we value here? It seems to me that issues of fairness and equality come into play – and these are critical considerations if one is talking meritocracy.
A silly example it is true – but not without "merit"! If we want a meritocracy then we must ensure that everyone involved has a completely even and equal chance to fulfil their potential – or in Blair’s words “to rise to the top because of their talent and ability rather than their privileged background”
And, perhaps, most important, is that in a meritocratic society we must all have a common understanding of what to value and what is of value. For in our society, we show how we value something by the rewards we bestow upon it! If a meritocracy is to mean anything it must mean that everyone is valued for their contribution. In our society the major way that we reflect our value is by paying a wage. In the bizarre world of professional football we are happy to accept bizarre payments to twenty two men who chase a leather bag filled with air around a patch of grass for 90 minutes on a Saturday afternoon – and we see that as a useful contribution to society so we reward this merit with many thousands of pounds each week. We reward those who work in the City with huge sums of money. We pay our TV and film stars eye watering amounts. Now these payments might well be justified but for the life of me I can't understand why we do not, in the same way, show our esteem and value of the nurse or the care worker or the teacher or the lorry driver or the policeman or the miner or the .............. After all these people make a contribution – but we pay them much less, or we say hold on your job has gone now, you’re redundant. In short we say to the nurse and the teacher and the care worker and the postman “you and your role is of less value to us, you are of less merit.” In some areas of the country these people have to be offered "affordable housing" because although classed as "essential, key workers" we do not recognise their merit and value to society by a realistic wage. We value some things more than others – some things are seen to have greater merit and are therefore rewarded appropriately. This is the weakness of the notion of "meritocracy".
 |
| Who is most deserving of "merit" and wealth? Wayne Rooney....... |
 |
| Or the care Worker? |
No, meritocracy is a good idea – but for it to work there has to be a fundamental shift on our values and aspirations. As I said at the beginning I don’t see that happening any time soon – and in the mean time those lucky enough to win the meritocracy race and be most highly valued – most full of merit in the eyes of society - will enjoy its benefits. And the rest – especially our young - can go to hell.
Couldn't have put it better!
ReplyDelete