Tony Sewell, Social Mobility, and Modern Britain
19/10/25
Embedded Files
CHURCHILL'S STATUE STANDS TALL IN PARLIAMENT SQUARE, IMAGE: KRISTINA GADEIKYTE GANCARZ
While delivering an engaging seminar, Lord Sewell of Sanderstead focused heavily on the contested issue of institutional racism in Britain. Sewell argued, as he did during his time as Chair of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, that the UK was not institutionally racist – a view many a social commentator and address-attendee strongly disputed. This article will not weigh in on this debate, but will instead focus on a secondary theme that ran through Lord Sewell’s engaging talk: the endearing power of British social mobility.
Interpretations of modern Britain vary greatly. British pride is at an all-time low, particularly given the supposed ‘broken’ state of the nation, and while ‘doomism’ has long since plagued the UK, it is eerily strong in the current landscape. Prime Minister Starmer has continually referred to the “talking [down] of Britain”, which has spread beyond the walls of Parliament and into the everyday debate.
There are, however, a myriad of reasons that the British state isn’t as ‘broken’ as has been portrayed, and one of the most notable of these is social mobility. A complete meritocracy can project unfair natural advantages, and an emphasis on equality of outcome can suppress industry; few nations on earth balance these shortcomings as well as the United Kingdom.
Deeply politicised and debated initiatives promoting social mobility exist, such as the recently launched working-class civil service internship. However, let’s shift our focus away from the politically debated affirmative action and instead focus on the nation’s social fabric. In a less idealised manner, Britain is blessed with a sort of American Dream, in which the provision of mass tertiary education is realised and acting on prejudices is outlawed. We are even governed by people who came from typical backgrounds. According to The Sutton Trust, 92% of cabinet ministers were educated at state comprehensive schools (pre-reshuffle), making it the most state-school-educated cabinet in history – a powerful example of the prospective success that can be achieved in today’s meritocratic gauntlet.
Sewell discussed at great length the characteristics he has observed amongst the families of minority ethnicities, and the pride he saw in the British schooling system for enabling the success of many Black African and Black Caribbean students. Elaborating on topics he discussed in his book, Black Success: The Surprising Truth, Sewell noted that Britain was a country with a structure that enabled achievement, coinciding with his controversial views on the true depth, breadth, and scope of racism within the country.
LORD TONY SEWELL, IMAGE: UK GOVERNMENT
Sewell’s oratory performance was optimistic in tone, something you don’t realise is atypical until faced with it. It struck me that, in a Britain dominated by relentless pessimism, a focus on achievement is likely to promote ascendancy of the social ladder far more effectively than a pejorative approach. This important semantic point (ironically) speaks volumes to a point that ought to diffuse into broader policy discussion: the power of the carrot is a far greater motivator than that of the stick.
That isn’t to say we should blindly turn our cheek to flaws, far from it. Instead, we should not disregard the predisposition of our social fabric to enable achievement because of an apathetic wave. To illustrate, former political strategist turned podcaster Alastair Campbell has had much to say on the subject. He wrote an article for The Guardian, entitled ‘If you went to state school, do you ever feel British life is rigged against you? Welcome to the 93% Club’, discussing the need for success stories to be understood as trade-offs as much as outright accomplishments. The topic of institutional circles being wired to a particular culture is also heavily discussed, standing as a debate in itself. The significance here lies in how Campbell grounds his argument in the success of British meritocracy, while addressing concerns with reasonable structural amendments for its betterment.
Such an argument, rooted in existing success and demanding of continual improvement, is a far more effective one, delivered not in terms of vague cynicism but empathetic pragmatism. There are related debates on social mobility that offer great value and ought not be negated; instead, their framing and reasonable application should be reevaluated.
The debate with which this piece began also has an impact, raising questions about whether the meritocratic gauntlet applies equally to all persons. This is a far more personable issue, but what was delightfully refreshing about Sewell’s stance was the constructive angle from which the audience's issues were addressed. His approach was not part of a culture war, nor was it for an electoral purpose, but rather as part of an ongoing discussion about how to build on our successful foundations of meritocracy.
What is modern Britain? The rise in anti-establishment politics and its leading zealots suggests it is a ‘broken’ place. But there is also an overarching narrative of positivity often fruitlessly dismissed. A narrative which ought to centre around our social fabric, freedom to achieve, and growing social mobility, and focus not on blindly dismissing the beauty of the canvas because of the odd blemish, but on improving foundational positives which persist despite the ill-guided and disengenious takes of nay-sayers.
Google Sites
Report abuse