Equalities Minister Reopens Class War

[nuisance]

Eleven years after John Prescott made the ludacris statement "we are all middle class now" and Tony Blair, in 1999, claiming that "the class war is over", the New Labour Equalities Minister Harriet Harman "reopens the class war".
While addressing a TUC conference in Brighton, Harman announced "we have made great progress on tackling inequality but we know that inequality doesn't just come from your gender, race, sexual orientation or disability. What overarches all of these is where you live, your family background, your wealth and social class."
Harmans' assertions have been slammed by the Conservatives, seen as New Labour trying to get close to the Unions, however they have been appauled by the left wing of New Labour. After this sudden realisation, speculation is that Harman is preparing to make a bid for party leader as Gordon Brown continues to lose faith from the public and the party alike.

Here's some links on the issue:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2712372/Harriet-Harman-Social-class-is-still-most-important-divide-in-Britain.html

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23553473-details/Harman+'reopens+wounds+of+class+war'/article.do

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1054160/Harriet-Harman-accused-pandering-unions-declares-new-war-class-system.html

[Reuben]

If only.
I have just been watching clips Harriet Harman's speech to the delegates at the TUC. Those of us on the left might have reason to be a little it bit encouraged by some of the noises being made by the new labour leadership.There seems to be a new interest in talking about equality.

However the word that seems to get mentioned most is 'life chances'. What is being talked about is not equality in and of itself, but equality of life chances, or put in more farmiliar terms - equality of opportunity.

From this perspective, the real problem in society is not the huge disparities in material well being between doctors and dustmen, between investment bankers and the people who clean their offices. Rather it is the way these roles are allocated. If only these roles were allocated on the basis of ability alone then suddenly all would be just.

In my experience the ideology of 'equal opportunities' gets an overly uncritical reception on the left. Certainly it contains progressive elements. Certainly it provides a means by which some of the most oppressed groups in society can seek to improve their situation. Yet the idea of equal opportunities - at least when it is articulated by liberals or brownites - presupposes that inequality is not a bad thing in and of itself. It supposes that ability - as opposed to social background - is a legitimate basis for some people to monopolise the world's wealth. In this sense it seeks to legitimise some of the very real and very damaging inequalities which characterise society. To say the least, 'equal opportunities' or 'equality of life chances' are ideas which socialists should engage with very critically.