What’s social about social mobility?

The issue of social mobility often acts like a Siren call to politicians - immeasurably tempting, but once approached, usually destructive. It was therefore no surprise that Nick Clegg chose to tackle this theme when he announced this week that the Government would adopt 17 new ‘trackers’ to better measure social mobility. Equally, it was of little surprise that his comments were so widely criticised in the media. Responses ranged from queries over the validity of his arguments to questions on the importance of social mobility itself. But one question that was not asked was, how social is social mobility?

The trackers outlined by Clegg point towards attainments such as educational achievement and employment. Clearly these are important statistical measurements, but they deal in absolutes. Should social mobility mean more this? David Cameron has made much of the need to move away from more traditional, rigid measurements of the nation’s well-being, such as GDP.  He even asked the ONS to look at new measures to gauge national well-being. But Nick Clegg’s new trackers seem to reverse this process, using more classical methods of measuring societal progress. Is this right, or should social mobility also look at happiness and other more imprecise concepts?

The trackers are also very much focused on the individual’s success. This is understandable, but should an individual’s contribution to society also be measured as a sign of social mobility? Politicians talk of long-term inter-generational unemployment and those disconnected from society, but there is no parallel talk of how an active participation in society can point towards greater opportunity and social mobility.

There are two points to be made on this. Firstly, whatever measurements you use to determine success or failure, they must be familiar to those they are presented to. The simple reality is, well-being indexes and happiness gauges are often seen as gimmicky or plain incomprehensible to the general public. On the other hand, employment levels and the number of A-C grades are much easier for people to understand and digest. In this sense, Nick Clegg’s social mobility trackers acknowledge a basic truth of communications – accessibility is vital.

Secondly, however you communicate, and on whatever issue, make sure your messaging is consistent. There is a clear disconnect between Clegg’s cold hard facts and the more subjective concerns of Cameron’s well-being index.

It’s not hard to see why the Liberal Democrats have chosen to campaign on social mobility. A recent ComRes poll found the majority of the voters it has haemorrhaged over the past few months have shifted towards Labour. To win these back, Clegg et al clearly believe that a focus on ‘left-of-centre’ concerns (as social mobility is often viewed) is of paramount importance.  

But social mobility has become a byword for fairness and a ‘just society’, with a strong emotive pull for large swathes of the electorate. If politicians like Nick Clegg tackle this subject, they must consider how their communications can better resonate with the public. Many political careers have ended as a result of a populist topic without a populist message.  

John Hood

Consultant

john@linstockcommunications.com