Educational background of Andy Burnham’s cabinet

Ah, okay - so maybe he’s the only one to have attended both. I guess there probably aren’t enough attending both to make a massive statistical difference either way.

The bar chart you posted earlier is really interesting.

Correction: in my post at 19:27 it says that there was only one school given per person in the Sutton Trust list.
That’s wrong, John Healey is listed at two (Wikipedia says three), as my post at 19:53 mentions.

@Friendlygingercat , The population of Eton is less than 5000. Not many people are from there.

John Healey, Wikipedia.

“Born in Wakefield, Healey was educated first at Lady Lumley's School followed by Reigate Grammar School[1] and St Peter's School, York. ”

Lady Lumley’s is an 11-18 state school. Reigate Grammar and St Peter’s York are private, which might confirm the idea that it’s the 11+ education, or maybe even the 13+ as the normal age of entry to many public schools is 13.
It’s unusual but not unheard of to attend sixth form at two different establishments, and this might be for good practical reasons like his parents moving from Yorkshire to Reigate and then back to Yorkshire.

I am not convinced either by the arguments that politicians need a business background or that ministers should have direct experience in the area they represent. What troubles me (and, dare I say it, Rupert Lowe too) is the virtue made in the Civil Service of generalists, and the slow pace at which most things move. If Civil Service departments recruited specialists, on five+ year contracts and from the private sector, it would help move a sluggish machine to a place where delivering on budget and to an agreed deadline was second nature.

The state failures on Hillsborough, Orgreave, rape gangs, the Post Office and infected blood are characterised by cover-up. The Civil Service is stable, unlike governments, so it must take most of the blame.

What we have now are massive overspend, over-consultation that threatens deadlines, and group decision-making that makes no one person really responsible. The Civil Service employs many capable people, many of whom could be deployed much more constructively. The new Cabinet Secretary Antonia Romeo seems to be on the case and Andy Burnham shows signs of radicalism so things may improve.

As for Oxbridge, winning a place and staying the course are not mean achievements, but more STEM would be good. I don't think anyone should regret politicians having been educated at elite institutions.

I’ve just googled Anneliese Midgley. Her Wikipedia page says she moved to Paris when she was 17 years old and worked in a bookshop.

Excellent.

It says she credits her father’s secure unionised job with enabling them to “eventually purchase a home.”

I was curious about this too - I did a quick google & it looks like it’s where they were educated from ages 11-16.

I have a feeling I read somewhere John Healey, for example, might’ve gone to a state high school, but a private sixth form…

Lots of people do a mix of both - how are they counted? If you had any private education at all are you counted as being privately educated, even if it was just a year?

It says secondary school. I’ve looked at the list of schools, which VisiblyAbove85 also mentions, and there’s only one per person, and none of them says “sixth form college.”
Where I live it’s reasonably common to change from private to go to the excellent local state sixth form college after y12, but also for some students to change to a private school’s sixth form or a tutorial college after being state educated to 16 but perhaps none of the Cabinet moved schools for sixth form. None of their schools is within a 50 mile drive of here.

The missing person from the list is Anneliese Midgley, the Chief Whip. Her school is described as being in the North West but its name and category is “unclear.”

Yes, I agree with @Visiblyabove25 about the first paragraph. For me the confusing bit was that “this” refers to the number in the second sentence rather than the first.

If you look at the extreme right of the bar chart with the Sutton Trust data, “% of cabinet privately educated over time” (screenshot will appear) it shows 8% for Starmer and 21% for Burnham.

For some reason Burnham’s bar is in a different colour from all the others.

Only 8% of Starmer’s first cabinet were privately educated - because 92% went to comprehensives. The figure stuck in my head because for once it was (very nearly) in line with the actual population.

So, it means in this cabinet, the number of private school educated ministers has risen from that 8%.

The asterisks explain they don’t have the school info for one member of the cabinet.

If you look in the actual report it tells you the schools themselves - interesting mix.

Like Trump, he's been an utter disaster for Americans, or perhaps Truss who bankrupted the country in 6 weeks.

can you explain it to me because I'm still struggling!

I assume it's wrong and should be just "up 8%" rather than "up FROM 8%"?

Also does the asterix explain how the missing 4% were educated, as those two amounts only add up to 96%? Did 1 person not go to school at all?

Lots of people do a mix of both - how are they counted? If you had any private education at all are you counted as being privately educated, even if it was just a year?

Also, that uses different stats to the ones in OP's link which say 75% vs 21%, rather than 72/24?

Of course it's generally a good thing but I don't think it's the be-all and end all. Someone who went to a good grammar or high achieving comp in a leafy area of expensive houses and/or had a tutor probably had a more similar educational experience to someone going to a private school (at least one of the non public/boarding ones) than someone who went to one of the comps featured in 'educating x...'

In terms of education and background, there's a really good balance in this cabinet, I think.

It doesn't bother me that a majority went to Oxbridge - especially having got there from state school. That is very different to being privately educated, because it is an achievement you've had to work hard for, rather than something bestowed upon you.

I do agree you want a cabinet that isn't solely career politicians, but lots of this cabinet had careers before politics, didn't they? Angela Raynor was very famously a frontline careworker. Sir Alan Campbell was a teacher. Shabana Mahmood and Jonathan Reynolds were both lawyers. Plus loads of them worked for various charities, I believe. I don't think it's neccessarily surprising that with a Labour government you get more people with experience working in the public than private sector. Kanishka Narayan worked in business though, right?

Factories and businesses can't "look after themselves" when they're hamstrung by policies/rules created by people with no business experience, when they're taxed to the gills due to politics of greed, hate and envy, etc.

Nail on the head. The Tories were the party for BIG business. No party advocates for small businesses nor self employed. Look at how the Tories screwed 3 million workers (self employed, freelancers, casuals etc) by excluding them from covid support schemes because it was "too hard" yet they managed to find time to make tailored support schemes for "BIG" businesses! Small businesses employ the majority of workers in the private sector yet are completely ignored by politicians of all party colours.

I was once on a national training programme with NHS women managers and similar women from the private sector, and to the surprise of some external commentators, the NHS women were far more skilled. Even the private sector women thought so. That business skills and private sector stuff is old bullshit.

More than half of them went to Oxbrige, though.

Raised in a one bedroom flat in Cardiff where he slept on the kitchen floor before winning a fully funded scholarship. Not much wealth or privilege in that background.

I’d like a female PM next, plus the SME point below is a good one.

But that is a big part of what government do. That is the difficult stuff.

Factories and business can mostly look after themselves. And if anyone wants to know what policy an industrialist wants, just ask an industrialist.

I can confidently say that one thing an idusrialist won't say they want is a reduction in homelessness.

@RedTagAlan ”Could I use it to work on homelessness? I don't see the fit.”

It’s hard work because there are some things that are so bleeding obvious, like the sun rises in the morning. It shouldn’t need saying that you can’t work on the homeless thing. And I’ve said it twice now.

<headdesk>

Why is it such hard work? And no it is not obvious. That is why I am not auto agreeing with you.

You said, quote :"And they have almost zero experience of private business. That's the bit that worries me.".

I have masses of experience of private business. And when you have a new PM who says he wants to tackle rough sleeping, I do think it relevant to point out that my experince in business would not equip me in any way to deal with that issue ( Although factories in China do have a good dormitory system for their workers, that might be worth a try).

And when you say my experience seems very specialist, it's just run of the mill manufacturing. Could I use some of that experience to run a corner shop. Of course. Could I use it to work on homelessness? I don't see the fit.

Sure there are somethings I could slot into. But not without a lot of re-training and learning.

they're clearly a bright lot and majority female I think. Mostly they have had fairly ordinary backgounrds (Burnham especially, DH grew up very close to where he did). All of this is good.
I do think it's worrying that it's mostly career politicians with little experience of working in actual businesses or even public sector organisations. Would be really to see more ex teachers, nurses, doctors for example. An actual teacher leading the Department for Education might have real credibility.

That all said it's all worlds away from when I was growing up (80s) and except for Thatcher, it was all middle aged posh men in suits.

@RedTagAlan no one would put you in charge of solving rough sleeping!

But you have experience that is relevant to business so that would be your job

Blimey, this should not be such hard work. Isn’t this obvious?

also, it sounds as if your experience is very specialist. There are plenty of generalists about. Myself included. I’m definitely going to be keeping an eye on this government for work.

I have done that stuff you mention re business. Automation is my thing. Want to look at a line, a product, a component to cut costs, that's my field. You will own at least one of the products I have worked on to cut costs on. In fact, I am working on a new product idea at the moment. I am at the initial design and concept stage on CAD.

I can design you an automated assembly line, cost it, project plan it, risk assess it, near anything on it. I can even wire it and program it.

But ask me how to reduce rough sleeping, how to draft legislation and get it passed, or how to juggle local authority budgets, I have no idea.

I would rather people who know how to do that stuff ,do that stuff.