education | ukwatch.net

Newcastle University Pushes Clean Coal

Ellie Keen — Mon, 19 May 2008 23:28:57 +0000

Simon Cunich
10 May 2008

“[It] would be imprudent to tip the winners in the race for low emission technologies”, wrote Barney Glover, University of Newcastle deputy vice-chancellor, in an April 10 letter defending the university’s research in so-called clean coal technologies.

“In the race to find a solution to the problem of climate change, clean coal may have a future role”, he wrote.

His letter was in response to a statement presented to the university by students at the Fossil Fools’ Day protest on April 1. The statement criticised the university’s role as a partner of the Cooperative Research Centre for Coal in Sustainable Development, an Australia-wide research partnership which aims to “optimise the contribution of coal to a sustainable future”.

Glover is on the board of the CCSD.

The students’ statement argued that the university “cannot provide independent research into climate change solutions while it is a CCSD partner alongside some of the world’s largest mining corporations (Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton, Xstrata Coal)”.

According to the statement, between 2001 and 2007 the university spent more than $3.6 million in cash and in-kind contributions to the CCSD. Meanwhile, Newcastle University joins many of the same corporations as a partner of the Cooperative Research Centre for Mining.

As well as mining companies, the CCSD also brings together the University of Queensland, the University of NSW, Macquarie University, and Curtin University of Technology. The statement argued that the CCSD “is being driven by the coal industry’s interests rather than a genuine response to climate change”.

According to the vast majority of climate scientists, drastic changes have to be made within the next 10 years to keep global warming under 2°C (above pre-industrial levels). According to Friends of the Earth, warming above 2-2.4° C would lead to further unavoidable rises, taking temperatures beyond the range of the last million years.

The change necessary to avoid this, the statement argued, would involve a reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions of 50-80% by 2050. This would require “a rapid shift away from the use of coal and other dirty fossil fuels for energy production”.

Clean coal research is based on the idea that we can continue to extract and burn coal but bury the carbon emissions underground through an as yet unproven technology known as carbon capture and storage (CCS).

Even if the technology is successful the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has assessed that “the majority of CCS deployment will occur in the second half of this century”, which is too late to make the necessary reductions to keep global warming below two degrees.

“The expectation that CCS technology will be successful in the future cannot be used to justify the expansion of the coal industry today … Rather, as long as clean coal remains unviable, the mining, burning and exporting of coal must be drastically reduced”, the statement said.

If the university is serious about developing solutions to climate change it should call for coal to be phased out until clean coal is proven viable, if it ever is. A transition away from coal is possible because, in contrast to CCS, renewable energy technologies already exist.

The statement called on the university to prioritise research and development of renewable energy technologies. “[These technologies] could be further developed and implemented on a far greater scale with the support of the government and institutions like our University.”

The university conducts renewable energy and clean coal research at its Priority Research Centre for Energy. However, the centre is unlikely to “win the race” to solve climate change with its current inadequate aim to “develop technologies that can reduce greenhouse gases internationally by 2% and nationally by 20% by 2030”.

Universities must play a central role in developing responses to climate change. This requires more public funding and independence from coal corporations that are doing their best to preserve business-as-usual.

UK teachers set for first national strike in 21 years

tim — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 10:27:18 +0000

Members of the National Union of Teachers are set to take part in the first national teachers strike in 21 years in response to the government’s failure to keep pay-rises in-line with the rate of inflation.

After four years of below-inflation pay increases, up to 200,000 members of one of the biggest UK teaching unions, the National Union of Teachers (NUT), are set to strike on April 24th. The membership voted for a one-day walkout. 75% of those voting were in favour of a one-day walkout, with 25% against. Turnout for the vote was 32%.

NUT’s last national strike was under Margaret Thatcher’s goverment in 1987. This latest call for industrial action is in response to the proposed 2.45% pay-rise, which, while above the 2% cap prime minister Gordon Brown called-for on public sector pay increases, falls below the current 4.1% rate of inflation. Teachers says the propsed 2.45% increase reflects a siginificant cut in the standard of living for both primary and secondary level teachers.

“NUT members have voted overwhelmingly in favour of the campaign to stop cuts in the real pay of teachers.
The government is wrong to determine a pay increase for teachers below the rate of inflation. The rate of inflation is presently 4.1% and teachers will receive for 2008 2.45%.
The consequences of real term pay cuts are familiar to us. They were a feature of the ‘boom and bust’ years before 1997. In that period schools suffered from recruitment and retention problems – there were teacher shortages and morale was low. The NUT wants no return to those bad old days.
I call on the government to think again and ensure that salaries at least keep pay in line with inflation and that there is a recognition of the continuing workload pressures on teachers.” – Steve Sinnott (NUT general secretary)

The 2% cap urged by Gordon Brown is based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI, 2.1%), while teachers wanted the pay-rises to be matched to the Retail Price Index (RPI, 4.1%), which takes into account prices of housing, mortgage rates and is a more accurate reflection of actual costs of living. Many new teachers are facing student loan repayments, the interest-rates of which were matched to RPI – this has further angered teachers.

Other teaching unions, such as the NASUWT had previously accepted the proposed 2.45% rise, having perceived it as favourable in comparison with other public-sector workers who received a 1.9% rise. NASUWT “leader” Chris Keates suggests a priority for their members is excessive workload, not pay.

NUS governance review would cement Labour’s power

tim — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 23:03:44 +0000

That student politics can become polarised is no grand revelation; but visible to those of us who have been involved in the internal politics of the National Union of Students over the past 10 years is a fundamental rift within the political student community, of greater significance than much seen previously. In response to alleged “student apathy” within the governing bodies of Student Unions across the country, a proposed Governance Review aims (amongst many other things) to centralise authority towards the elected officers in regional SUs and towards the elected officials of the national organisation. This would be achieved most notably in the removal of compulsory elections for conference delegates (delegates would thence be selected by the SU officers) and the reduction of the conference’s powers, which would be transferred to other unelected bodies.

The proposals come from the National Executive Council and are backed by all the major members. From the NEC the concerns appear to be management related – in response to declining rates of participation in local SUs and elections. But mounting opposition to the Review has united the independent and left-of-Labour student organisations, who claim that the moves will serve to undermine their ability to significantly influence official NUS politics. With the majority of SUs around the country dominated by the monolithic Labour Students organisation, independently elected conference delegates are in many areas the only opportunity for alternative voices to make themselves heard at the conference. The planned reduction in size of the national conference, alongside an attack on its authority, would effectively shut independent and left groups out of the official decision-making process entirely, cementing the authority of Labour over NUS as a politically campaigning organisation.

The cause of non-Labour students is still far from lost. To pass constitutionally amending documents, the conference needs the support of two thirds of delegates. Due in part to marginally increased delegations from left-of-Labour organisations in recent years and the partial alliance founded by independents and student Islamic societies, non-Labour organisations have been able to carry the support of roughly a third of delegates in conferences past. The margin will be tight. But whatever the outcome, this year’s conference will mark a watershed in NUS history. Whether the NUS is to become the self-selecting and politically neutral organisation envisaged in the Governance Review, or whether non-Labour student organisations will be able to get their acts together to inflict one of the most significant defeats to the NEC in recent NUS history, is yet to be seen.

Student Debt: Selling Out the Next Generation

eddie — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:35:49 +0000

With student debt spiralling and higher education being reduced to a commodity, Laurie Penny calls for a change of course

University used to be about getting yourself educated. Now, if you’re lucky, it’s about getting in, grabbing the biggest, most career-oriented degree you can lay hands on, and getting out again – hopefully with your sanity intact and a few weeks’ holiday before you don a suit and start paying back your loan. Macro-capitalism has sold us out, turning education into a consumable – a privilege to be bought rather than a right to be aspired to.

Discussion of macro-capitalist policy making has to involve a considered look at where the money is and where it’s going, so let’s start there. Gordon Brown’s cabinet has recently, amid much public fanfare, pledged an extra £14 billion to be spent on primary and secondary education over the next three years, bringing the total education budget to £74 billion by 2010. This represents an annual increase of 2.5 per cent in real terms, compared with 4.4 per cent in recent years. Yes, that’s right – despite all the fuss, the rate of increased spending on education is actually slowing.

Moreover, it must be understood that £14 billion over three years, while it might sound like incredible riches, is in fact a paltry sum. Compare it to, say, the arbitrary figure of £28 billion conjured out of thin air to float Northern Rock last November. Next to this, or to the £128 billion (US$255 billion) made annually in legal tax evasion by the world’s super-rich, £14 billion is peanuts. And yet, how is this paltry sum being afforded?

It’s being afforded at the expense of a higher education system that is now almost entirely funded by its students, via top-up fees and, most recently, by Brown’s auction of the student loans book. That’s right, £6 billion – one third of the total owed by students and graduates – is to be sold to private investors. The NUS has been assured that the sale of the loans ’should not affect’ the low interest rate currently set on graduate repayments; however, the government has provided no details of what subsidies it has planned to counter commercial rates of interest. Students have every reason to worry.

As such, not only do all but the very poorest have to personally finance their higher education but the ’effectively interest-free’ loans that brought this about are now in jeopardy. All so that Brown can move some money around the already under-funded education budget rather than actually implementing any radical changes in public spending. And let’s not forget: students starting university this year are set to graduate with an average of over £15,000 worth of debt, and in some cases much more – not all of which is borrowed from the Student Loans company. To finance the increasing costs of higher education, students are becoming beholden to parents, banks and private loan providers, and working themselves into the ground outside of university hours merely to stay afloat. The net effect of this is that education has now become a commodity, and students have been transformed into consumers, entrenching social division and negating aspiration.

Recent efforts to redress the balance have been too little, too late.

’Stagnation, stagnation, stagnation’

Blair’s much-hyped goal of ‘50 per cent in higher education’ is now near to realisation. It has consistently been mistaken for a step towards higher aspirations for all; in fact, the way it has been managed makes it precisely the opposite, entrenching the stagnation of social mobility since 1970, as was recently reported by the Sutton Tust. Quite simply, the socio-economic goalposts have been moved for a generation of young people entering the workplace.

Over the past 15 years, a higher degree has become more than just a useful qualification. In the words of that noted socio-political analyst, Joe Strummer, one can no longer expect even to make tea at the BBC without a BA. A degree is increasingly a necessary entrance ticket to a certain level of employment and fiscal stability, effectively extending the mandatory education period for a large and specifically privileged social demographic: the middle classes.

After 10 years of Labour government, there is still only a 20 per cent likelihood of bright children from the poorest quarter of families going to university, a figure that rises to 80 per cent among the middle and upper-middle classes. Recent efforts to redress the balance have fallen pitifully short. According to the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS), the new initiative to provide limited grants of up to £2,800 per year to the very poorest students will benefit very few of those actually in need. Only the very poorest are eligible, and for those that do make it to university from households with an income under £17,500, the money is usually insufficient.

In what was billed as an effort to increase social mobility, New Labour has in fact managed to entrench the social stagnation of the Thatcher years by creating a system of mandatory, effectively self-funded higher education as an entry requirement for the middle classes. Well-meant fob-off politics – such as this year’s limited grant-scheme – have been too little, too late.

Education as a consumable

Perhaps the most damaging aspect of the escalating loans system of financing higher education is the fact that university education is seen as something that should, first and foremost, provide ’value for money’. As Albert Einstein noted in his 1949 treatise ‘On Education’, an erosion of personhood and negation of rounded education occurs when ‘an exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career. There is only one way to eliminate these grave evils … namely, a socially-funded educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.’

Students are now aware, from the moment they enter university, that they will have to earn money to pay back their borrowings for the very education that will finance those borrowings. As such, education becomes judged purely in terms of the monetary rewards it will eventually deliver. Even official press releases and loans company documents refer to a student’s degree as little more than an exciting form of ISA – an investment purely in one’s financial future, rather than in one’s personal or social future.

This, in fact, is the root of the problem. Education is not a product. It’s a process. You can pay people to teach you, yes, but you cannot pop down to your local high street and buy yourself an education. Fifty years ago, Einstein recognised that an acquisitional, fiscally-minded higher education system was a contributing factor to ‘the crippling of individuals, [which] I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil’. Students in the 21st century are increasingly treated as consumers, buying on credit their ticket into a system that will, if they’re lucky, squeeze them out the other end as products themselves, boxed up with identical gleaming CVs and desperate smiles: tagged, bagged and shipped out from the warehouse onto the screeching shop-floor of life.

Sold out by student politicians?

What’s worrying is that our own official representatives are more interested in playing the system than in challenging it. The NUS, a deeply divided but influential union, has allowed the government cumulatively to chip away at the rights of students for one reason only – namely, that the union has, for the past decade, been run by Labour-affiliated students with one eye constantly on their own futures in government. As such, the main NUS delegates have been reluctant to make waves to secure the educational rights of the next generation of British citizens. The 2006 NUS conference, for example, responding to the controversial introduction of top-up-fees, concluded that a small increase in means-tested grants would solve the problem – but this has already proven to be vastly insufficient.

There remains, however, a dedicated radical faction amongst student representatives who have continued to contest the increasing shift of higher education towards the status of an unequal service industry. One such sub-group is the student organisation Education Not for Sale (ENS).
ENS, like many on the student left, has come to the conclusion that a fully subsidised higher education system, with living grants available to all, is the only way to turn around the social stagnation brought about by the financial and schematic management of the UK university system. Sophie Buckland, ENS women’s officer and a spokesperson for the organisation, tells us: ’[Our organisation] fights for a grant high enough to live on for all students in post-16 education as part of a fully free education system – at least £120 a week. Even a minimal increase in taxation of the rich and of business would create enough funds to make this possible.’

Radical change is needed

Brown’s government has an opportunity to make university a plane of true social levelling and real educational and personal endeavour. But only if the prime minister has the courage to radically re-think his policy on education spending right across the board. Robbing University Peter to pay Primary Paul is a pitiful attempt at instigating the sort of systemic change needed.

Brown could provide the kind of higher education every young person has a right to quite easily, but only by rolling back the tax windfalls Labour has given the rich will enough public funds be generated to do so. He must invest not only in the country’s financial future, but in the social and educational legacies his government will leave to the next generation. Only radical, systemic change of the UK’s attitude towards education spending will give my young sisters’ generation the choices, in learning and in life, that every youth facing an uncertain 21st-century future deserves.

Study War No More: Military Involvement in UK Universities

JamieSW — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:17:56 +0000

Imperial College London sounds like the kind of place where you’d expect to find attitudes sympathetic to the military. London was, after all, once the capital of an empire of such size and scale – encompassing about a quarter of the world – that it required immense military might to enforce its rule. Looking at the level of military research that is being conducted by academics at Imperial and many other UK universities today, you could be excused for thinking that the empire never really went away – at least in the minds of those who seek to defend it.

In December last year, letters were sent to students, academics, staff and alumni at 26 UK universities drawing their attention to a recently published report entitled ‘Study War No More – Military Involvement in UK universities.’ The report, written by Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) and the Fellowship of Reconciliation (FoR) details the hundreds of military projects that UK universities conduct on behalf of arms companies and public bodies such as the Ministry of Defence. As one of the 26 UK universities covered by the report, letters were sent to representatives of Imperial highlighting how, between 2001 and 2006, the college conducted a minimum of 95 military projects – the 7th largest number in the UK – which netted the university at least £24 million.

The following response to this letter was received from Stephen Brown, Imperial College’s Union President:

“I am delighted that Imperial College has performed so well in yet another league table although given that we only finished 7th there is clearly still a lot of room for improvement. Several of our students are very proud of the excellent work that the College does with our industrial partners and the government to make sure that our armed forces have every possible technological advantage in what is unfortunately a dangerous world. The recent concerns raised in Parliament about the under funding of the UK Armed Forces reinforces the need for this important work to continue to make our service personnel less vulnerable as they bravely go about their jobs protecting UK subjects from those who would do us harm.”

Mr Brown needn’t worry about Imperial’s position in the league table, for the college is working hard to improve its ranking all the time. For example, in 2006, the Ministry of Defence and the US Department of Defence joined forces with Imperial to form the International Technology Alliance (ITA). According to Imperial’s website, the ITA will “undertake a research programme exploring advanced technology for secure wireless and sensor networks to support future coalition operations, over a potential 10 year period, with a value of up to $135.8 million”[1]. Other members of the consortium include Boeing and Honeywell – two of the largest arms companies in the world. Imperial’s department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering received a government grant of £1.4 million for its work on this project and there may well be more to come.

It is important to consider the actual practices of Imperial’s ‘industrial partners’ in order to appreciate the likely applications of the military projects conducted at Imperial. As noted above, Imperial works with some of the largest arms companies in the world. As well as Boeing and Honeywell, Imperial is involved in numerous projects with BAE Systems, Rolls Royce, QinetiQ and General Dynamics. As Stephen Brown points out, these companies produce equipment for the UK military, which will have been used in, amongst other places, Iraq and Afghanistan. Notably absent from Mr Brown’s account however, is a reference to the foreign markets that these companies supply through arms exports. For example, BAE Systems, the company that was British Aerospace before it became too ‘global’ for ‘British’, is the world’s fourth largest arms producer. It makes fighter aircraft, warships, tanks, armoured vehicles, artillery systems, missiles, munitions and much more.

These arms are sold indiscriminately around the world and the company thrives on insecurity. Its 2005 Annual Report candidly states that “New threats and conflict arenas are placing unprecedented demands on military forces and presenting BAE Systems with new challenges and opportunities…”. The company claims to have military customers in “some 130 countries”, with its foremost markets being the repressive Saudi Arabian regime and the US, to which BAE Systems has steadily been moving its business. Other export deals to areas of conflict and widespread human rights abuse include sub-systems for Israeli F-16 fighter aircraft and Hawk light combat aircraft to Indonesia during its repression of East Timor.

One of the larger military projects involving Imperial and BAE Systems is FLAVIIR. This is a £6.2 million, public-private funded project, running between 2004 and 2009 and involving ten universities, predominantly in their Engineering departments. According to its website, FLAVIIR will “look at technologies for future unmanned air vehicles (UAV) funded jointly by BAE Systems and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.” A recent report in The Guardian outlined just how deadly the FLAVIIR research could one day be. It describes how the FLAVIIR research is intended to develop existing UAV technology used by UK and US forces. The RAF initially plans to use the unmanned drones for reconnaissance before arming them with Hellfire missiles for ground attacks. The CIA already used similar drones last year to “target a Pakistani village where it was thought Ayman al-Zawahiri, the deputy leader of al-Qaida, was in hiding. Instead, more than 20 villagers, including five women and five children, were killed.” Unshaken by such tragedies, “British ministers and military chiefs think the drone will be the frontline attack plane in years to come.”

The military sector – both governmental and industrial – has been able to push its way into Imperial and other UK universities through funding a variety of projects, mainly involving research. By sub-contracting research to universities, which have world-class, publicly-funded staff and facilities, the military sector can keep overheads down and, in the case of military companies, profits up. The ease with which military organisations can influence university departments, through purchasing research and services and providing sponsorship, is indicative of the general trend towards commercialisation in higher education. Moreover, the hundreds of projects conducted at UK universities between 2001 and 2006 for the military sector indicate that the military has, in particular, built up strong levels of influence over science, engineering and technology departments.

Public money, mainly from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council’s collaborative research grants scheme, heavily subsidises many of these military projects, in particular those conducted by military companies, which contribute relatively small amounts of money. The public financing of military research makes these projects more attractive to universities, especially those suffering from funding shortfalls. Academics thus accept and actively seek out military money because they are under pressure to attract research funding to their department. Furthermore, because the university funding system has been used by the government to introduce policies which promote research with economic benefits to industry, science, engineering and technology departments’ funding options have narrowed. Academics may also be more willing to accept military funding if they do not perceive the work to be military. This may be because they don’t associate the research they are being paid to conduct with a direct military application. This is despite the fact that it is often possible to identify work which has been paid for by the military that either have very high military revenues or spend millions of pounds on military production and/ or procurement.

In spite of the Freedom of Information Act, accessing data regarding the funding of universities by the military sector (for example from university and research council websites in addition to FoI requests) is time consuming and only presents a partial picture of the actual economic relationships. Two reasons for this- apart from the fact that institutions are often not compelled to provide such information- are the need for commercial confidentiality between competing organisations (including universities) and the cloak of secrecy surrounding the military sector. Without full transparency in the future, including clear and easily accessible information concerning how public money is used to support projects conducted by the military sector, it will not be possible to accurately assess the extent of military involvement in UK universities or monitor developments and trends.

The first step towards challenging the dependence of UK universities on funding from military organisations is to ensure that information regarding this relationship is publicly available so that it may be freely discussed. Transparency can only be achieved through the use of the media, public debates, meetings and campaign groups to press for change within universities and government. Ultimately, the decision-making structures of universities and government must change if the military sector’s research agenda is to stop being pushed onto university departments and there is to be a reduction in the amount of military projects conducted at UK universities. Thankfully, there are encouraging signs that students and staff will not stand for their universities’ being turned over to the military. Campaigners have already taken part in meetings at several UK universities, including Warwick, Nottingham, UCL, LSE, Sheffield and Southampton and there are plans for many more events at other universities in the future. One would hope that Imperial College and its Union President will continue to take part in this debate, for it is clear that students and staff want to discuss current levels of university participation in military projects given the urgent challenges of climate change, resource conflict, nuclear proliferation and economic inequalities that the UK and the world are currently facing.

1. http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummar…

"Dog Eat Dog" Society Damns Children

JamieSW — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:03:38 +0000

Yet another ‘new plan’ by New Labour was unveiled on December 11. The function of this particular review is to try and square the circle between the supposed devotion of the New Labour to ‘education, education, education’ and the ranking of the UK in world league tables: 18th for reading, and one from bottom at 24th for maths.

What cannot be disguised is that a perilous slippage in standards, down from 3rd in reading for instance has occurred over the ten years of New Labour management. So how will the proposals such as ‘texting a parent if a child dosen’t turn up at lessons’, or ‘bringing foreign language lessons’, (when one in five currently leave primary school semi-literate) or more information for ‘parents using the internet’ help when the elephant in the sitting room is invariably ignored.

An utterly damning Unicef report nine months ago found that Britain was failing its children and youth. The Unicef study put the UK at the bottom of a league table for child well-being amongst 21 industrialised countries. NHS records show that there were for instance 4,241 attempted suicides by children under 14 in the 12 months up to March 2007. Take into account the rise in gang culture and the murders of a further 26 teenagers this year and its easy to see what Unicef is getting at.

The UN children’s organisation examined 40 indicators including poverty, family life, education, health, smoking, drinking, drug-taking, and unsafe sex and teenage pregnancies. Britain was bottom overall below Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Austria, and the United States. It propped up the table for family relationships and risky behaviour and came 18th out of 21 for poverty, 17th for education and 12 for health. Predictably Ministers sought to play down the findings, saying much of the data used was several years old.

But this is a line devoid of a shred of credibility unless standards could be shown to have climbed dramatically in the interim. If anything, with 200,000 children joining those living in poverty last year the situation is arguably getting worse.

Professor Jonathan Bradshaw, from York University, one of the reports author’s pinned the blame on the UK’s dismal ratings on long-term under-investment, that has resulted in a “dog eat dog society”. He said: “In a society which is very unequal, with high levels of poverty it leads to what children think about themselves and their lives. That’s really what’s at the heart of this.”

Class divisions in the UK are just as wide as they were 30 years ago, according to new research.

They are so stark, according to the report, that a three-year-old child from a poor home who shines in tests is likely to be overtaken by a low-performing child from a rich background by the age of seven.

The report by the Sutton Trust, the education charity set up by Sir Peter Lampl, says social mobility in the UK remains at the low level set in 1970 – when the country was bottom of an international league table. Only the United States amongst Western democracies is on a par with the UK.

It adds that children born today face “stark inequalities”, with 44 per cent of young people from the richest fifth of the population going on to university, compared with only 10 per cent of those from the fifth of the population living in the poorest households.

It also says that the expansion of higher education has – almost exclusively – been achieved by increasing the number of well-off students from middle-class or rich families going to university.

Indeed, the proportion of children from the poorest-income homes dropped from 11 per cent to 10 per cent between the early 1990s and 2002 – while those from the richest groups rose by four percentage points.

Sir Peter described the report’s findings as “shameful” and called for an independent inquiry into how to break down class barriers. “It is appalling that young people’s life chances are still so tied to the fortunes of their parents and that this situation has not improved over the past three decades.”

Or putting it another way; inequality of income, leads to inequality in opportunity resulting in inequality in outcome. Social mobility in the UK fell sharply between 1958 and 1970, according to the report, and has stagnated ever since.