The Return of the private socialist

Milburn's return to the Labour fold should have a positive effect on their flawed education policies

News from Westminster last week was dominated by the return of Ken Clarke. The ex-chancellor's renaissance, coupled with Hague's re-appearance, has brought a much needed injection of skill and experience to the Tory's otherwise fragile frontbench.

Yet it is a mistake to ignore the significance of Brown's decision to bring back yet another of his well-known opponents, Alan Milburn; not least in the week that Harriet Harman, swelling with her own leadership ambitions, proposed that the government should legislate to force the private sector to narrow the rich-poor divide.

Harman, exhibiting all of her usual blind antipathy towards the private sector, risks further alienating those who already feel aggrieved by the profound inequality of opportunity, which her relentless drive towards equality has produced. The return of Milburn, known for his commitment to a more competitive and accountable public sector, has taken on greater significance, appealing as he can to those centre-ground voters who are perhaps a little tired of being caricatured as just another uncompassionate face within the apparently self-serving monolith of the middle class.

What is so intensely frustrating about Harman's line of thought is its refusal to acknowledge that low levels of social mobility owe much to the pathetic effects that Labour's extraordinary spending has had on the state education system.

Milburn will hopefully provide a refreshingly rigorous criticism of his own party's abrogation of responsibility: not only is he a firm supporter of the relatively successful Academies - brought about by co-operation between the public sector and the world of business - but he also supports the partial introduction of a voucher system, giving parent's choice within the state sector, and bringing a long overdue element of competition to state education.

It is hard to see why there is such widespread discomfort at the prospect of a voucher-style system. By giving parents a voucher for their child's education the government is in effect handing back power and choice to the citizen; the tax-payer can quite literally decide where their money is spent (it is perhaps this threat of actual localization of government which frightens both centrist parties).

Schools would be selective in their admissions policy, and moulded, like Scandinavian schools are, to provide their children with the appropriate skill set according to their level of selection. Those schools which continued to fail students would quickly find themselves struggling for survival, and would either have to improve or close.

The main criticism of the policy is that it will polarise society, but it is hard to see how critics can draw this conclusion: if schools select on academic aptitude, they will draw from an eclectic mix of different backgrounds, which is far favourable to the current system where your geographical location, or your level of economic privilege, usually determines which school you attend. The issue of selection is, of course, a contentious one, but it seems fairer to all that the highest numbers of children are given the greatest amount of opportunity to fulfil their potential; vouchers may provide such a system.

It is regrettable that on the startling problem of social immobility, the government continues to blame whomever it believes its slingshots of mud will stick to, rather than confronting and changing their clearly inadequate policies; policies which are tragically failing those that Labour claims to fight for.

When the left-wing invokes the old rhetoric of class-warfare they would do well to examine the many barriers which they have put in front of many talented, but underprivileged children. The glass ceiling may still be supported by the self-serving prejudices of the middle-classes, but no doubt it also enjoys much of its support from the rigidity and inertia of the comprehensive system.

Simon Glasson is a 2rd year English student.

Simon Glasson Caius