Levelling up means laying the ghost of social mobility to rest

The Tory vision of creating a level playing field seems at odds with the reality experienced by many Britons today

When it comes to “building back better”, it’s not about what top down centralised government can do for the regions, it’s more a case of what the regions are allowed to do for themselves. Sir Keir Starmer’s intention to decentralise power away from Westminster and back to the regions recognises that rebuilding community cohesion must start from the grass roots up.

It’s a stark contrast to the government’s preferred industrial policy. “Levelling up” harks back to the quaint one nation Toryism of a country at ease with itself, but now it seems an anachronism that fails to take cognisance of our new reality. We’re not just a divided nation because some parts of the country are richer than others: it’s the rifts within those regions that are tearing the nation apart.

The “left behind” didn’t embrace the disruption of Trump or Brexit because they envy metropolitan infrastructure, but they do miss their former friends and neighbours who have graduated into distant orbits while they struggle to make ends meet.

Any political leader who is really serious about “building back better” should read Michael J Sandel’s The Tyranny of Merit because it contains a blueprint for a brighter future: Sandel is the eminent philosopher and Harvard professor who has nailed the myth of social mobility by exposing the toxic side effects of its enabling sidekick meritocracy.

He sees Brexit, Trump and the rise of populism as symptoms of our unquestioning acceptance of education as a “level playing field” and the only game in town. Sandel argues convincingly that the cult of social mobility released a tide of individualism that swept away working class communities and replaced them with a Darwinian struggle rigged against the poorest and most vulnerable.

Meritocracy’s “rhetoric of rising” message that those who work hard can go as far as their talents will allow beguiled us into ignoring its dark side: If you’re struggling despite having the same chances as everyone else, your lack of effort and ability is implied. But a meritocracy with only one ladder slants sharply in favour of those best placed to take full advantage.

Inequality is built into the UK education system. Economists use the term The Matthew Effect to describe how compound interest makes the rich exponentially richer. It takes its name from the parable of the talents in Matthew’s gospel: those who have plenty will be given more.  

Sociologists argue that the same inegalitarian mechanism dominates the education system. In a form of social distancing that lasts a lifetime, infants  from more literate homes retain an ever accumulating advantage over their disadvantaged peers. If the state education system truly was a meritocratic level playing field, parental socioeconomic status wouldn’t be able to predict their child’s academic outcomes at the ages of five, 11 and 18 with such unerring accuracy.

Education doesn’t solve inequality, it exacerbates it: schools have become  a vast sorting machine for higher education and universities are the new citadels guarding access to professional futures.

The fault lines in our communities are all too familiar. The educated graduate into progressive elites on the left, while the “left behind” are distracted by the scapegoats of the populist right.

But the real culprit is a fake meritocracy that stakes everything on academic attainment as the single currency for success. Sandel is clear about what needs to be done. True meritocracies need multiple ladders and playing fields. Politicians need to stop paying lip service to the value of vocational education and professionalise its standing. Sandel believes that standing ovations for key workers are not enough; everyone needs to be properly paid and feel respected for the work they do in their communities.

If the prime minister is serious about repaying the trust of the Labour supporters who lent him their votes so they could “take back control”, he must devolve real power to their crisis-hit communities. But that will depend on structural reorganisation at a local level and meaningful regional representation. Radical solutions are required.  

If we are ever to become a nation at ease with itself again, communities will  need to experience that control we’re supposed to have taken back or “levelling up” is destined to become just another slogan in an ever expanding lexicon of empty rhetoric.