Theresa May's entire social mobility team resigned - why?

Last weekend, Theresa May's entire social mobility team resigned. Alan Milburn (Chair of the Social Mobility Commission) claimed to have 'little hope' of the government making the sufficient progress necessary for a fairer future. 'The worst position in politics is to set out a proposition that you’re going to heal social divisions and then do nothing about it', said Milburn in the Guardian. His colleagues: Baroness Gillian Shephard; Paul Gregg (Professor of Economic and Social Policy, University of Bath); and David Johnson also resigned after the publication of their damning annual report ('State of the Nation 2017: Social Mobility in Great Britain') last week. 

The Social Mobility Commission is an advisory non-departmental public body that was established under the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition in 2010. Their core duty is to assess progress in improving social mobility in the UK, and to promote social mobility in England — one of Theresa May's core pledges when she entered Downing Street in July 2016. The new report from the social mobility team describes a clear failure to meet her promise, with Alan Milburn also quoted saying  'I've reached the conclusion that under current Government there is little, if any, hope of progress being made towards the fairer Britain the Prime Minister talks about.' The annual report describes a government lacking 'strategy to tackle the social, economic and geographical divide that the country faces'. Finally, the report further implies the focus on Brexit has left little energy left 'to match words with deeds' in regard to social mobility and a 'zero chance' of improving social divide. 

The UK currently has greater regional disparities than any other EU country and the committee advised the government to put social mobility at the centre of the
ir industrial strategy, with a specific focus on rebalancing economic and work opportunities, as well as the national transport budget. To tackle 'divided Britain', the authors recommend a more redistributive approach to education, employment and housing.

Clearly the report is an unfavourable assessment of Theresa May's management. However, many of the criticisms had been highlighted in previous reports, including the 'low-pay trap', the 60 (of 65) social mobility 'coldspots' that voted for Brexit, and even the exact words ' tinkering with change will not do the trick'. 

In 2012, for example, the comittee published a similarly damning report on David Cameron's government. The 2012 report also describes hollow words from David Cameron as 'profoundly disappointing', and in 2013 in the Independent (and rather similar in tone to his very recent comments on Theresa May), Alan Milburn was quoted saying 'what isn’t acceptable is that they...say they are committed to the target and then not put their money where their mouth is. They should either put their hand in their pocket or stop pretending.' Baroness Gillian Shephard also said in the 2013 article 'the Government must be judged by its actions, not words. Our job is to judge the actions'. 

In the latest report, Social Mobility Team highlighted concerns over the impact of Brexit on social mobility, and it might be expected that an experienced and dedicated committee (who have the ability to hold the government to account on any social mobility failures) is needed now more than ever to 'judge the actions' of the government. Previous reports also noted failures 'to match words with deeds' in regard to social mobility, but the committee did not resign then. Could there be more to the mass resignation than first meets the eye? 

With the current political climate in the UK, the following external influences should also be considered:

1. Theresa May's approval rating has never been so low. Theresa May is under substantial pressure at the moment, and it is possible that a leadership contest could occur sooner rather than later.  Resigning now over failing social mobility (and with an inevitable reshuffle in the near future) would leave the authors (and possibly others) with a more caring reputation than many of their colleagues, therefore more likely to be reinstated, or considered for other roles. 

2. A shrewd operator might already have held conversations with potential candidates or their backers. Earlier in November, 40 (of the 48 necessary) MPs signalled they would be willing to sign a letter of 'no confidence' on Theresa May. Now would be a perfect time for backroom negotiations, rounding up support for potential leadership bids and to form mutually beneficial strategies.  

3. Of course, it is possible that the all/some of the committee are actually disillusioned with their remit, and are genuinely trying to highlight the the widening issues concerning social mobility. The issues highlighted by the report — housing, transport, education & employment opportunities — were essentially ignored by Philip Hammond's November budget (but they were also ignored in previous budgets too). 

So, who are the committee, and could there have been any external influences on their resignations?

Alan Milburn, a former health secretary, took up his role as Chair of the commission in July 2012. A member of the 'New Labour' crew and supporter of Tony Blair, Alan Milburn was the first to initiate  privatisation in the NHS with Private Finance Initiative deals on hospitals in 1997. Milburn also introduced NHS foundation trusts — a 'halfway house between the public and private sectors'. In 2013, he joined a global health privatisation company, PricewaterhouseCoopers, with the responsibilities of 'driving change in the health sector', and assisting a growing presence in the health market. Milburn is also linked to Bridgepoint Capital (a company involved in financing private health care companies providing services to the NHS), is a member of the Healthcare Advisory Panel at Lloyds Pharmacy, and he's also Chair of  AbbVie,  a biopharmaceutical company  designed to 'alleviate strain on the NHS'. 

Baroness Gillian Shephard (ex Deputy Chair) is a  Conservative politician and previously served as Secretary of State for Education in John Major’s government. Virginia Bottomley (Baroness Nettlestone) also served in John Major's cabinet and was interviewed by Gillian Shephard for her book 'The Real Iron Lady'. Perhaps somewhat tenuous (but worthy of mentioning), it is possible the two shared an alliance in the male-dominated cabinet. Virginia Bottomley has well-known ties to privatised healthcare and is a direct cousin of current Secretary of State for Health, Jeremy Hunt (see below). 

In 2009, Professor Gregg completed a review of 'Personalised Support and Conditionality in the Welfare System' for the Department for Work and Pensions, which supported a 'Single Working Age Benefit', and he helped in the design of Employment Support Allowance (ESA). His seminar in 2012 'A positive agenda for disability & employment' (www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLtAu25ot0M) clarifies his views on the disabled where he criticised the past Labour government for not 'helping' the disabled into work. 'Half of the battle is preventing people from leaving work in the first place...if we're really going to be serious about holding people in work with lifetime disabilities' he explains, 'intermediaries are needed to bring employers together with a match...it's not going to happen automatically for obvious reasons.' Who would these 'intermediaries' be though? Is he proposing another outsourced initiative?  

David Johnson was previously Director of 'Future', a charity that sponsors academies. Lord John Nash is cofounder of the charity. He and his wife have donated £300,000 to the Conservatives (including a donation to Michael  Gove to support his leadership bid).

Notably, there are already rumours that Jeremy Hunt might be considering a leadership bid. Like some of the ex-members of the social mobility commission, he is extremely enthusiastic about NHS privatisation. In 2005, Jeremy Hunt co-authored a policy report 'Direct democracy: An agenda for a new model party' that called for the NHS to be replaced by an insurance system and, in-effect, denationalising the provision of health care. Coauthors included Douglas Carswell, Michael Gove, Daniel Hannan, Greg Clark, David Gauke, and Kwasi Kwarteng. The report further called for inclusion of the private sector (a policy also seemingly favoured by the newly resigned authors of the social mobility report). 

The conclusions from the 2017 social mobility report are, perhaps, unusually emotive. The words almost read like a conscious rebranding of a new and more caring conservative party. But growing inequality is something that most of society is already painfully aware of. The 'new approach' the committee recommends would quite possibly (given their enthusiasm for health care privatisation, education privatisation, and holding people in work with lifetime disabilities, for example) involve further privatisation and outsourcing of jobs, leaving many of the poorest even worse off. 

The passionate resignation of the social mobility committee seems in conflict with their external interests.  Furthermore, if the new Conservative leader is strongly supportive of privatised healthcare and DWP outsourcing, would the resigned authors benefit? What seems at first glance to be a heartfelt and meaningful gesture might in fact be the opposite...