What's the point of social mobility? It still leaves some in the gutter | Zoe Williams

Nick Clegg wants

the rapid flow of intelligent children, leaving the rest of deprivation in the prospects of poor face is not communism

one week is interesting to see Vince Cable accused of being a socialist (by Adrian Beecroft Tory donor) and Nick Clegg accused of "tactical" (communists by the director of a school Private, Tim hands). What Marx? (Incidentally, I wrote it in my cup.) Pyromaniac trottery cable Leaving aside for a second Clegg, Stalinism is derived from his speech on social mobility, according to a report by the Sutton Foundation.

The figures presented in this report speak for themselves, but not surprising - one in five children on free school meals, but only one in 100 participants Oxbridge, which is probably the most striking statistic in terms how poverty stifles prospects. Just as outrageous is the fact that only 7% of children attending private schools, but these schools provide 70% of the judges of the Superior Court.

Nick "communist", Clegg concludes that the government needs some goals, but because this word is so last century, now speaks of "followers" each year - 17 measures, including a number C in GCSE results between children on free school meals, and participation in higher education for those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

hands of Tim's objection is that if factors such as history are taken into account by universities, will be more difficult for children of great privilege to enter Oxford or Cambridge. He calls it "cover the results of pupils in independent schools."

I think this is a very good example of my new theory, privatized medicine and leads to over-treatment of rich and poor treatment of poor schools, private education rich. This leads many of them studies beyond his intelligence.

is a precarious position, unenviable, especially for those who have sense enough dog to be aware of it. When the proposal is made that universities expand their criteria, and look beyond the stressors of a student and the number of times they have read the Iliad, which can hardly blame the creatures privilege insecurity crazy.

social mobility seems indisputable, but like many other ideas that seem obvious: the primacy of the "working family", the pervasiveness of "generations of lack of work" - its apparent simplicity is a lid. Clegg is not their fault, by the way: social mobility was a political buzzword Wonka as long as the child poverty targets have been set up - the objectives, of course, will be missed

This brings me to my first point: you can call it a goal or a follower, but this government school - imagine your ideal outcome, drawing the signs that your results are obtained, encode signals in an "objective", but never really change anything - does not work. The objectives of child poverty have not been met because no serious attack was made on income inequality.

• Proponents of "social mobility", will most likely be the fault of schools in poor areas, in their attempt to achieve the five A to C for disadvantaged children, schools learn to outsmart the system, resulting in grade inflation, there will be an annual ding-dong with the rectors of Oxford and Cambridge as seems to have succeeded in one year do not find a single black person smart enough to study history. And that's all. No change bad will happen because there is a serious policy behind the call for change.

Furthermore, although social mobility has been achieved, what is so great about a society in which the extreme values ??of each category can move relatively freely up and down the hierarchy? What's great to be able to escape from the sewer, when most people are still in it?

Part of the reason why the class has become so stagnant is that in this time of great inequality, the consequences of the fall of some kind as that below which are serious - that stir sky and ground to prevent their children will look at the use of workers when wages at the bottom are no longer enough to live. No wonder people try to lock in their privilege of paying for education. The only rational solution is to work at a time when there is less difference between the classes.

This fresh new alternative to the left, fixing the rapid flow of intelligent children on deprivation, leaving the rest to blame themselves for their prospects in poor condition because it was not smart enough .. . Well, obviously not what any sensible person would call communism. Not what might be called socialism either. No liberal egalitarianism, or one of these theories can be refined to take a left and even own a home. Not left, essentially, that has nothing better.
Even if the waters of social power, were constantly in motion (and you can bet that Clegg does not mean that the "social mobility" - you talk about other people's children are free to increase, and not sound that has the potential to fall), have yet to accept, accept the idea of ??some people who live and die in the mud. Who could get behind this vision ridiculously poor quality of the future, a world where everything is more or less the same, but each had a very minor remodeling on staff?

Find best price for : --Cambridge----Oxford----social----Clegg----Nick----Tory----Cable----Vince--