What exactly is social mobility? The generally accepted definition is something along the lines of “where you end up in life relative to your starting point.” If your finishing point is better than your starting point, then you can claim to be socially mobile. By that definition, Sadiq Khan, the London mayor, can be characterised as socially mobile. He is the son of a bus driver and became a lawyer before going into politics. Lawyers tend to earn considerably more than bus drivers, and the office of London mayor attracts a six-figure salary. So, he’s ended up in a considerably better place than his father. “Nice work if you can get it,” I hear many of you saying.
But what’s often forgotten is that social mobility can work both ways. Patricia Kirwan, a former Westminster City councillor, once quoted a phrase common in her native Lancashire; “Clogs to clogs in three generations.”[1] Since most of us don’t wear clogs these days, it’s clearly an age-old expression. But it dates from an age in which the second generation of a family could better its circumstances relative to the first, but in which equally, the third generation’s circumstances were brought back down to the level of the first. Clearly that used to happen in days long past. It still happens now. Regrettably, it is likely to happen increasingly in the future, for reasons that will be explained in a moment.
What are the prerequisites for social mobility? Well, I’ll save for a later blog the tiresome, over-egged, nostalgic and increasingly outdated arguments about grammar schools and the “guarantees” of economic betterment that they claimed to give their students and look instead at the real determinants of this desirable phenomenon. At the top of the list stands balanced wealth distribution, followed by economic stability. These were much in abundance in the “never had it so good” post-war years, thanks to the population having been decimated by the war and technology not sufficiently advanced to destroy the many jobs that it has destroyed in more recent times. The end result was an abundance of relatively lucrative work and an economy that was not prone to the booms and busts that we have seen in the 21st century. In short, ideal conditions to better your circumstances, at least if you were white, Anglo-Saxon, able-bodied and male, which a much greater proportion of the then much smaller working population were. Any other groups were almost totally excluded.
But as we move through the 2020s, a new threat to wealth distribution, and thus to social mobility, emerges in the shape of the “green” agenda. There have already been rumours of a “green tax” on internet deliveries, which save countless number of individual car journeys and the pollution that they cause. The ultra-low emission zones and congestion charge zones which London, Bath and other cities are creating will be a tax on those who can’t afford to buy a new “green” car every few years, leaving less to spend on buying a bigger house in a more expensive area, for instance. Many skilled tradespeople are applying a “London surcharge” of £100 to households in areas blighted by low traffic neighbourhoods, to cover the cost of time lost sitting in the traffic jams that these create, and fines that they increasingly incur when trying to reach their customers. The plumber or electrician can’t win in these circumstances. Either he/she bears the cost of these expensive “green” moves, and is eventually ruined, or he/she passes them onto customers, who will eventually end up being unable to afford to pay them and thus to take advantage of his/her services, thus putting him/her out of business. A collapsed business usually means a substantial deterioration in the economic well-being of the individual(s) affected.
But this is only the tip of an enormous iceberg. We haven’t yet seen the plans for road pricing which will undoubtedly be introduced by any government once electric vehicles are mainstream. The government has to replace the lost fuel duty, after all.
To a very great extent, the green agenda is an example of taxation acting as legalised theft. Every pound taken by government to fund green projects is money that the individual does not have available to better himself/herself. The government claims that its “Build Back Greener” agenda will create 60,000 jobs directly and indirectly[2]. Perhaps I suffer from an excess of cynicism, but initiatives such as this tend to be capital-intensive rather than human-labour-intensive and therefore put money into the hands of the already super-rich. It is quite plausible that many of these jobs will be done by robots, and the few that are done by human beings won’t pay a good enough wage to allow the son or daughter of a call centre worker living in a Lambeth council flat to purchase a family size home in Highgate or Virginia Water.
Another argument used by the “green” fanatics to justify ever more punitive taxation is that ordinary working people will get back their green taxes in the form of reduced costs to the NHS as a result of fewer patients needing treatment for pollution-related illnesses once all our vehicles are electric. Again, this needs to be treated with some caution. Many electricity generating stations are fossil fuel powered and are likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. And that’s aside from the brake dust emissions from electric vehicles. The future doesn’t seem quite so “green” after all.
The bottom line is that the main prerequisite for individual social mobility is the thing that, according to an old Simply Red hit, is too tight to mention. We’re talkin’ ‘bout money, money, after all. No individual can plan his/her upward ascent if the firm hand of government is forever coming up with ways to take that scarce commodity out of his/her pocket on the vague promise of a utopia years down the line.
The lyrics of MONEY’S TOO TIGHT TO MENTION[3] were clearly framed for a 1980s US audience as they lament “Reaganomics” and the fact that “down in the Congress, they’re passing all kinds of bills.” Perhaps it’s time for a 2020s rewrite with “Reaganomics” replaced by “Johnsonomics” and “the Congress” replaced by “the Houses” (of Parliament), which will be passing lots of green-coloured bills in years to come. Like the 1980s original it would be a sad, but accurate, commentary on the economic well-being of the nation.
Have a good and (hopefully) prosperous summer break, whatever you may be doing.
[1] See NOTHING LIKE A DAME; THE SCANDALS OF SHIRLEY PORTER. Granata Books, 2006. ISBN 978-1-86207-922-9 for the full quote and the context in which it was uttered. Another definition of this saying is at Clogs to clogs in three generations – Idioms by The Free Dictionary
[2] New plans to make UK world leader in green energy – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
[3] (31) Simply Red – Money’s too tight to mention (Lyrics) – YouTube
DAVID LAWES 
One thought on “SOCIAL MOBILITY; A SAD CASUALTY OF THE “GREEN” AGENDA?”