Is Burnham’s Oxbridge-heavy cabinet a sign of social mobility or lack of progress on class? | Andy Burnham

Like 20 British prime ministers before him, Andy Burnham’s new cabinet minister for artificial intelligence, Kanishka Narayan, went to Eton. After graduating from the country’s most elite private school, Narayan went to Balliol College, Oxford, where he studied at – what else? – PPE (politics, philosophy and economics), David Cameron, Rishi Sunak, Ed Miliband and many other senior politicians. This was followed by an MBA at Stanford and a career with the City.

But Narayan’s past Not very typical of the British ruling class. Born in Behar in eastern India, he moved to Cardiff with his family when he was 12. He and his younger brother were sleeping on the floor of their one-bedroom house when a teacher at the local high school suggested the bright young boy apply to some private schools. His parents, who joined the Labor Party as soon as they arrived in Wales, ran a petrol station. Eton was only possible thanks to a full scholarship.

Class and representation in 21st century Britain can be complex. By some measures, for example, the makeup of Burnham’s ministerial team announced after she became prime minister on Monday could be seen as a step backwards. More than a fifth of his cabinet completed most of their education in private schools; At one time or another under Keir Starmer, every senior minister went to a state school. And a notable proportion of ministers now steering government policy went to Oxford or Cambridge, up from 29% under Starmer. (Nationally, this figure is 1%.)

But in other respects Burnham’s senior team is more diverse than before; Half of those in the cabinet (including the Prime Minister, of course) represent northern constituencies. And for the first time in history, the cabinet includes an equal number of men and women. One of them, Energy Minister Miatta Fahnbulleh, is among those who received private education after he and his family came to Britain as refugees from Liberia in 1986.

How much does all this matter? The Prime Minister’s senior ministers need to be competent; Do they need to be representative too?

CEO Nick Harrison Sutton TrustSeeking to promote social mobility, the answer to this question is a definite yes. “Of course the background of the cabinet matters. If they have to represent the country, they have to represent the country. We can certainly say that if you have a broad range of views, perspectives and backgrounds around the table, you will make better decisions.”

The sample size of 28 cabinet participants may be small, but Sam FriedmanDr. is a professor of sociology at the London School of Economics whose work focuses on class and inequality. Examining those in senior positions “opens a window into a broader discussion about how people’s backgrounds shape their ability to achieve top positions in our society,” he says.

According to Friedman’s research, power in Britain is largely concentrated in the hands of a very narrow group. he points Today, students from the nine most selective private schools are 52 times more likely to achieve elite positions than students who attend other types of schools. Oxbridge graduates born in the 1960s and early 1970s (Burham was born in 1970 and went to Cambridge) were 250 times more likely to reach the British elite than their non-university peers.

The cabinet – whatever its composition – is just the tip of a huge iceberg of power brokers. from elite background Friedman argues that it may be key to the way government decisions are made. His own research investigating attitudes among elites suggests that “those from more privileged backgrounds tend to gravitate to the right” and that “people in positions of power in the cabinet often interact with civil servants and business leaders who mediate their decision-making abilities.”

With Lee Elliot MajorWendy, professor of social mobility at the University of Exeter, says it is legitimate to examine the backgrounds of those who lead the country, but “counting private schools and Oxbridge degrees only tells part of the story. The challenge is whether ministers understand how Britain’s contemporary opportunity system currently works.”

“Traditional markers such as school attended or parents’ occupations no longer signal direct advantage as they once did. Today’s distinctions are increasingly shaped by wealth, location, networks, and secret cultural codes that govern entry into and advancement into the elite class.”

Major argues that the problem goes far beyond expanding access to traditional routes to power, however important. Instead, politicians of whatever origin have to struggle What he calls “a profound revelation of the promise of modern capitalism” is that for people in their 40s and younger, there are now more people experiencing downward mobility rather than upward mobility, which means they are less well-off than their parents.

“The test of this government is not whether ministers are socially mobile, but whether they can create a society where many more people have real opportunities to thrive,” says Major.

Doctor Daniel EvansA lecturer at Swansea University who focuses on politics and social class agrees. “Origin story [of politicians] “The bigger story is the complete collapse of graduate premiums, the debt students take on at university and how brutal the job market is for graduates.

“We keep talking about social mobility as if anyone can do it, but college is financially out of reach for a lot of people, the job market is terrible. Nobody can buy a house. The discourse hasn’t continued.”