Duff Degrees and Social Mobility

Nick Clegg made a speech today in which he identifies "social mobility" as a problem that he and his new Tory friends want to address.

Speaking as someone from a large working class family (father a labourer) and who earned good money for a few years, was self employed, owns his own house and has kids who went to university and are now "professionals", I do not disparage anyone's ambition to better themselves.   

But I just cannot believe that the Conservatives are serious in their strictures about "social mobility", given that, if "social mobility" is to mean anything then, when poor people go "up the ladder", someone from the middle classes has to "go down the ladder". Any policy which leads to the deliberate impoverishment of the "hard working middle class", will not be popular with that particular class. And they are, after all, the Tories natural constituency. "Vote for us and we'll make you poorer" isn't a credible election slogan.

It strikes me that many Tories are also fond of saying that too many people go to university nowadays….it’s too easy, it devalues the worth of a degree, where are all the plumbers and mechanics to come from, eh, can’t get the help nowadays…..

....You have to sympathise.

Well, I’ve got a proposal to address both problems: it goes like this....

First we reduce the number of university places, thus automatically improving the quality of university education (won’t it?).

Then the clever bit…..we make it a rule that if the parents earn in the bottom 30% in terms of wealth and/or income, their children get first dibs at the top universities (assuming they have the intelligence), and then all the other university places until the universities are all full of the children of the lower orders. In this way highly paid professions such as the law, journalism, the media, consultancy, politics, advertising, top civil service jobs and so on, would much more open to young adults from lower earning families

Conversely, if the parents earn in the top 70% or are in the top 70% of wealth holders, then the children get redirected (we can call it “advised" to soften the blow) into apprenticeships or shop-work or bus driving. Tories rejoice, the shortage of plumbers and joiners is solved in a few years.... now we can get the help!

Voila! Two birds with one stone! No more duff university degrees with too many no-hopers clogging up the system, and real social mobility in half a generation!

Genius.

So there is a plan....

Channel 4 has revealed that there is a secret Tory document which shows what they will cut to "save" the extra £6billion to limit the NI tax rise.

Tory adviser Dr Martin Read told Channel 4 News: "Let me assure you this is a very serious piece of work, behind each of those 5 points there are detailed numbers, and I am 100 per cent convinced that with the right political will and managerial motivation those savings can be got in the first year"

He said the party had been provided with detailed numbers, but said "the Tories have the numbers and it's for the Tories to disclose them".

Which makes you wonder: why will George not tell us what he knows..??

Clear Blue Water...? or Policy U-Turn?

Until today, the Conservatives had made a great priority of the need for deep and quick cuts to the deficit, indeed they plan to cut more deeply and more quickly than many economists and the IMF think is wise. Now they have announced that they would only partially implement the proposed 1p NI increase. This is a traditional Tory tax-cutting move if not an open bribe, and the opposite of deficit cutting: it will increase any deficit calculation. So, whither cutting the deficit? Has the Tory strategy changed? Are we back in buying votes mode?

Tories are claiming that this produces "clear blue water" between the main parties. Now, I'm no economist, and  Faisal Islam has a good analysis on his blog, but it seems to me that Osborne has made, if not a U-Turn, at least a right-turn off the previously mapped out Tory highway.
 
The claim is being made that seven out of ten workers would be better off if Osborne's move is implemented, but that seems to ignore a number of factors.

1. The move will cost £5billion, and that money has to be found somewhere. The most likely target will be public sector jobs and wages. So, if you are a doctor or nurse or teacher and you find yourself out of work, or has your contract hours cut, or suffers a wage freeze, would you be "better off"? Probably not.

2. If the real need, as the Conservatives have told us constantly and insistently, is to cut the deficit deeply and quickly, then there will be adverse effects to the recovery. And if the recovery is delayed or goes into a "double dip", will seven out of ten be better off? Seems unlikely.

Another issue that Faisal Islam touches on is credibility: not just with the public, who will see this as a u-turn but still might buy the bribe, but with the markets. A lot of Tory confidence has been in the belief that the markets would welcome, or at least not oppose,  a Tory government. But if the Conservatives are so willing to abandon a long-held strategy for a few headlines and a tax bribe, what then? Will they be willing to give the Tories support, grudging or otherwise, now?

And if not, could Osborne's tax U-Turn be a turning point in the election, even before the campaign is under way?