The City of London is trying to counter its "male, pale and stale" image. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

How the Square Mile could be an unexpected counter to our “Downton Abbey-style society”

After recent reports that Britain is "deeply elitist", the City of London insists that social mobility is being championed where you would least expect.

Hot the heels of the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission study which concluded that the UK is “deeply elitist”, the TUC’s Frances O’Grady has added that we are becoming a “Downton Abbey-style society”. These headline-grabbing comments make for depressing reading, but only tell part of the story. I firmly believe that momentum for social mobility is gathering pace in places people would least suspect.

The aforementioned study paints the picture that the top professions are occupied by the “male, pale and stale”. The financial Square Mile business district is of course not immune to such criticism, but some of the most exciting initiatives to engage young people from deprived backgrounds are, perhaps unexpectedly, happening in the City. Whether the motivation is altruism or just business sense, the City recognises its important role in developing and sourcing talent from some of London’s poorest communities.

Within the Square Mile, we are surrounded by London boroughs like Tower Hamlets where almost half the young people live below the poverty line. There is not only a social inclusion argument to be made, but our long-term economic sustainability is left vulnerable unless we improve diversity and cast the net wider in the search for talent.

Recent reports suggest we have a huge mountain to climb when it comes to levelling the playing field, but I’m reassured that there is the appetite for real change in the business sector. The most successful impact often occurs from multi-organisational partnerships, tackling the issue on a variety of fronts. More businesses need to work with schools to improve dramatically, the life chances of young people. Social mobility starts with young people actually envisaging themselves in top careers and having their expectations raised by teachers and business leaders.

Unfortunately, there are still too many young people who live in boroughs like Tower Hamlets who see the impressive City skyline from their bedroom windows but fail to realise the opportunities available for them. But I’m happy to say that every day I see and hear examples of this reality shifting. Firms like KPMG, our co-sponsors of the City Academy Hackney, provide one-to-one mentoring for the pupils to enhance their wider learning development. Schemes such as City Careers Open House, give local schools the opportunity to spend a day at a City-based organisation, including Bank of England, Eversheds, PricewaterhouseCooper and UBS. They meet employees and find out more about what a City career entails. Around 64% of participating students said the experience gave them much higher career aspirations.

Other established City firms like ING and Deutsche Bank are offering more paid internships to pupils from London’s poorest areas, drawing in a diverse range of talent not just attracting pupils who can afford to work for free. Lloyd’s of London championed a programme that reached 3,000 young people in Tower Hamlets – supporting students with literacy and numeracy, with the key aim of boosting employability from a young age. It also set up a bursary fund giving bright students from disadvantaged backgrounds access to finance (a common barrier to social mobility) to help with university living costs.

Businesses in the City and elsewhere are naturally concerned with hiring the best person for the job, but they have to get creative if they want the widest talent base. Withers LLP, a global law firm has just piloted an innovative work experience scheme. It targets young unemployed parents in Islington, an area with 15,000 households where no-one works. Opening up its doors to an often over-looked group has proved valuable all-round.

I’m confident that real change is pushing ahead in the City and beyond. If we want to maintain and develop our position as a global economic power, we need all our best players on the pitch. Social mobility is not just nice to have – it is an imperative.

Mark Boleat is the policy chairman of the City of London Corporation

Mark Boleat, Policy and Resources Chairman, City of London Corporation.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Brexiteers want national sovereignty and tighter borders – but they can't have both

The role of the European Court of Justice is a major sticking point in talks.

Why doesn't Theresa May's counter-offer on the rights of European citizens living and working in Britain pass muster among the EU27? It all comes down to one of the biggest sticking points in the Brexit talks: the role of the European Court of Justice.

The European Commission, under direction from the leaders of member states, wants the rights of the three million living here and of the British diaspora in the EU guaranteed by the European Court. Why? Because that way, the status of EU citizens here or that of British nationals in the EU aren't subject to the whims of a simple majority vote in the legislature.

This is where Liam Fox, as crassly he might have put it, has a point about the difference between the UK and the EU27, being that the UK does not "need to bury" its 20th century history. We're one of the few countries in the EU where political elites get away with saying, "Well, what's the worst that could happen?" when it comes to checks on legislative power. For the leaders of member states, a guarantee not backed up by the European Court of Justice is no guarantee at all.

That comes down to the biggest sticking point of the Brexit talks: rules. In terms of the deal that most British voters, Leave or Remain, want – a non-disruptive exit that allows the British government to set immigration policy – UK politicians can get that, provided they concede on money and rules, ie we continue to follow the directions of the European Court while having no power to set them. Britain could even seek its own trade deals and have that arrangement.

But the problem is that deal runs up against the motivations of the Brexit elite, who are in the main unfussed about migration but are concerned about sovereignty – and remaining subject to the rule of the ECJ without being able to set its parameters is, it goes without saying, a significant loss of sovereignty. 

Can a fudge be found? That the Article 50 process goes so heavily in favour of the EU27 and against the leaving member means that the appetite on the EuCo side for a fudge is limited. 

But there is hope, as David Davis has conceded that there will have to be an international guarantor, as of course there will have to be. If you trade across borders, you need a cross-border referee. If a plane goes up in one country and lands in another, then it is, by necessity, regulated across borders. (That arrangement has also been mooted by Sigmar Gabriel, foreign minister in Angela Merkel's government. But that Gabriel's centre-left party looks likely to be expelled from coalition after the next election means that his support isn't as valuable as many Brexiteers seem to think.)

On the Conservative side, a new EU-UK international body would satisfy the words of May's ECJ red line. On the EU27 side, that the body would, inevitably, take its lead from the treaties of the EU sans Britain and the ECJ would mean that in spirit, Britain would be subject to the ECJ by another name.

But it comes back to the Brexit dilemma. You can satisfy the voters' demand for non-disruptive control of British borders. You can satisfy political demand for sovereignty. But you can't have both. May – and whoever replaces her – will face the same question: who do you disappoint?

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.

0800 7318496