My Marxist theory is pretty rusty but I'm fairly sure someone who owns the means of production doesn't qualify as working class no matter what lens you apply.
Laura's definition of working class has to be framed as it is in order for her to be working class. But that is as close to the Corbynista definition as you will get and it applies to every single person featured in that Leigh piece in the Guardian. The far left is hoisted by its own petard. Again.
For a long time I've considered it thus: If you have to get out of bed in a morning to work to pay your bills, you're working class If other people have to get out of their beds to pay your bills, you're not working class.
The idea that you can't be a business manager or owner or in a profession and be working class is absurd. We work our arses off, and in an SME you're carrying the weight of all your colleagues' jobs as well as your own. I am certainly...
Yes, I think that's a good description, but it is also related to job status. Working and non-working class is different from socioeconomic class.
What about the situation where you have to get out of bed to work to pay your bills, along with the workers you employ?
A lot of small business owners are doing the same work as the "workers" they employ....
Can someone explain how a duffer like Grayling keeps getting high level positions? The man is a disaster. I fully expect for all national secrets to leak to China.
Grayling will not cause Johnson or Cummings problems. That is the sole criteria. See, also, the Cabinet (though they could have miscalculated with Sunak).
My Marxist theory is pretty rusty but I'm fairly sure someone who owns the means of production doesn't qualify as working class no matter what lens you apply.
Laura's definition of working class has to be framed as it is in order for her to be working class. But that is as close to the Corbynista definition as you will get and it applies to every single person featured in that Leigh piece in the Guardian. The far left is hoisted by its own petard. Again.
For a long time I've considered it thus: If you have to get out of bed in a morning to work to pay your bills, you're working class If other people have to get out of their beds to pay your bills, you're not working class.
The idea that you can't be a business manager or owner or in a profession and be working class is absurd. We work our arses off, and in an SME you're carrying the weight of all your colleagues' jobs as well as your own. I am certainly...
Yes, I think that's a good description, but it is also related to job status. Working and non-working class is different from socioeconomic class.
To be truly upper middle class you need to have a high income and be a property owner and be a graduate nowadays.
My Marxist theory is pretty rusty but I'm fairly sure someone who owns the means of production doesn't qualify as working class no matter what lens you apply.
Laura's definition of working class has to be framed as it is in order for her to be working class. But that is as close to the Corbynista definition as you will get and it applies to every single person featured in that Leigh piece in the Guardian. The far left is hoisted by its own petard. Again.
For a long time I've considered it thus: If you have to get out of bed in a morning to work to pay your bills, you're working class If other people have to get out of their beds to pay your bills, you're not working class.
The idea that you can't be a business manager or owner or in a profession and be working class is absurd. We work our arses off, and in an SME you're carrying the weight of all your colleagues' jobs as well as your own. I am certainly...
I'd argue that small business owners are more working class than corporate professionals.
That graph shows how unfair things can be - to the benefit of Brown and detriment of Darling.
As well as the state of the economy on taking over impact, Id imagine there is a reasonable portion of Chancellor popularity tied to PM popularity. Brown benefited from Blair, whereas Darling suffered from Brown. Darling under Blair would have been popular imo.
I think there's some truth in that, but I seem to remember the Tories having to drop the slogan "vote Blair, get Brown" in 2005 because people actually quite liked that!
According to the graph Brown was more popular then than Sunak is now, and every Chancellor in between so of course it wasnt a good slogan at the time. As Sunak may find being a popular Chancellor doesnt automatically make you a popular PM or even one who ever gets there - I suspect his career may be like Ken Clarke's, he is a bit too realistic and honest for the Tory Party leaders role.
Or David Miliband, if the PM stays on and loses the next general election Sunak could find in opposition the party membership prefers someone purer like Priti Patel much as David lost to his more left-wing brother Ed after the 2010 Labour defeat
Is one of the reasons the nations still get caught up in class and havent done enough to resolve class issues that we dont agree on what it even means?
Can someone explain how a duffer like Grayling keeps getting high level positions? The man is a disaster. I fully expect for all national secrets to leak to China.
He can be expected to do his master’s or mistress’s bidding.
That graph shows how unfair things can be - to the benefit of Brown and detriment of Darling.
As well as the state of the economy on taking over impact, Id imagine there is a reasonable portion of Chancellor popularity tied to PM popularity. Brown benefited from Blair, whereas Darling suffered from Brown. Darling under Blair would have been popular imo.
I think there's some truth in that, but I seem to remember the Tories having to drop the slogan "vote Blair, get Brown" in 2005 because people actually quite liked that!
According to the graph Brown was more popular then than Sunak is now, and every Chancellor in between so of course it wasnt a good slogan at the time. As Sunak may find being a popular Chancellor doesnt automatically make you a popular PM or even one who ever gets there - I suspect his career may be like Ken Clarke's, he is a bit too realistic and honest for the Tory Party leaders role.
Or David Miliband, if the PM stays on and loses the next general election he could find in opposition the party membership prefers someone purer like Priti Patel much as David lost to his more left-wing brother Ed after the 2010 Labour defeat
I would concur but read purer as "willing to tell people lies if thats what they want to hear"!
Absolutely, who does he think he is getting above himself? Where's his cap?
Doesn't this come down to whether you view class as predominantly a description of economic interest groups or something cultural and performative? If the former, a working class business owner is a contradiction: you cannot be both capital and labour at the same time. If the latter, then a person could define themselves as working class in cultural terms (eg call their evening meal "tea") and be a billionaire capitalist. To my mind the first usage is more useful, because it is tied to something concrete, but then I am an economist. The culture warriors on here might prefer the more performative use of the phrase.
What we need in this country is far more "working class" business owners, people who are aspirational and hope for better for their children. I find the idea that someone is a traitor to their class because they want to get on or have ambitions deeply offensive and immoral. I therefore prefer the second description but I wonder how useful the economic version of your definition is if membership is that transient. Better to focus on gig workers, the unemployed or specific sectors that tell you more about the issues they are facing.
You don't need to be a business owner to hope for better for your children. The problems come when business owners treat their employees like they're disposable and prevent them from realising their dreams for their children. Aspiration is not binary. I don't think it's at all helpful to view people as traitors to their class simply because they have made some money. But equally one might question whether they are still members of that class in the way that many people understand it. Although I have always been middle class I have certainly moved from one end of that wide envelope to the other in material terms over the course of my life, so I am certainly no stranger to, or enemy of, aspiration.
Can someone explain how a duffer like Grayling keeps getting high level positions? The man is a disaster. I fully expect for all national secrets to leak to China.
Grayling will not cause Johnson or Cummings problems. That is the sole criteria. See, also, the Cabinet (though they could have miscalculated with Sunak).
Oh, he’ll cause problems all right. Huge ones. Just not for any people Johnson and Cummings care about.
My Marxist theory is pretty rusty but I'm fairly sure someone who owns the means of production doesn't qualify as working class no matter what lens you apply.
Laura's definition of working class has to be framed as it is in order for her to be working class. But that is as close to the Corbynista definition as you will get and it applies to every single person featured in that Leigh piece in the Guardian. The far left is hoisted by its own petard. Again.
For a long time I've considered it thus: If you have to get out of bed in a morning to work to pay your bills, you're working class If other people have to get out of their beds to pay your bills, you're not working class.
The idea that you can't be a business manager or owner or in a profession and be working class is absurd. We work our arses off, and in an SME you're carrying the weight of all your colleagues' jobs as well as your own. I am certainly...
And quite a large proportion of those working class business owners might well be earning less than (for example) an experienced teacher.
My Marxist theory is pretty rusty but I'm fairly sure someone who owns the means of production doesn't qualify as working class no matter what lens you apply.
Pb tories like class as cultural construct but don't like class defined as relation to the MoP. They find it unhelpful.
Class no longer defines politics based on wealth and income but based on culture and level of education.
The English obsession with class is.... well.... weird.
Absolutely, who does he think he is getting above himself? Where's his cap?
Doesn't this come down to whether you view class as predominantly a description of economic interest groups or something cultural and performative? If the former, a working class business owner is a contradiction: you cannot be both capital and labour at the same time. If the latter, then a person could define themselves as working class in cultural terms (eg call their evening meal "tea") and be a billionaire capitalist. To my mind the first usage is more useful, because it is tied to something concrete, but then I am an economist. The culture warriors on here might prefer the more performative use of the phrase.
What we need in this country is far more "working class" business owners, people who are aspirational and hope for better for their children. I find the idea that someone is a traitor to their class because they want to get on or have ambitions deeply offensive and immoral. I therefore prefer the second description but I wonder how useful the economic version of your definition is if membership is that transient. Better to focus on gig workers, the unemployed or specific sectors that tell you more about the issues they are facing.
You don't need to be a business owner to hope for better for your children. The problems come when business owners treat their employees like they're disposable and prevent them from realising their dreams for their children. Aspiration is not binary. I don't think it's at all helpful to view people as traitors to their class simply because they have made some money. But equally one might question whether they are still members of that class in the way that many people understand it. Although I have always been middle class I have certainly moved from one end of that wide envelope to the other in material terms over the course of my life, so I am certainly no stranger to, or enemy of, aspiration.
But your argument wasnt against bad business owners exploiting workers, it was that you cant be a working class business owner. Take a previously working class brickie who decides to employ five of his mates, they all work the same duties and hours but he happens to be the owner of the firm. On his first day of ownership does he automatically change class? Is he supposed to be aware of this?
Absolutely, who does he think he is getting above himself? Where's his cap?
Doesn't this come down to whether you view class as predominantly a description of economic interest groups or something cultural and performative? If the former, a working class business owner is a contradiction: you cannot be both capital and labour at the same time. If the latter, then a person could define themselves as working class in cultural terms (eg call their evening meal "tea") and be a billionaire capitalist. To my mind the first usage is more useful, because it is tied to something concrete, but then I am an economist. The culture warriors on here might prefer the more performative use of the phrase.
What we need in this country is far more "working class" business owners, people who are aspirational and hope for better for their children. I find the idea that someone is a traitor to their class because they want to get on or have ambitions deeply offensive and immoral. I therefore prefer the second description but I wonder how useful the economic version of your definition is if membership is that transient. Better to focus on gig workers, the unemployed or specific sectors that tell you more about the issues they are facing.
Until relatively recently, the membership of one economic 'class' or another was rather more fixed in stone, no?
Doesn't this all tie into the 'lost an empire and not yet found a role' argument that has been swirling about the Labour party for, oh, ages. Hence all their ambulance- and trend-chasing since 2010 and probably before then.
They can win a headline.
They can't win an election.
At its worse it is subject statism, by which I mean that the job of you and yours is to accept the largesse that the substantially better paid public sector sees fit to bestow on you and you'd better damn well vote Labour to show your gratitude. Those that aspire to doing better, whether by owning their own house or their own business or just standing on their own feet are spivs, suspect and getting above themselves, not to be trusted.
In fairness there were always many in Labour who wanted equality of opportunity and welcomed those who took those opportunities. In the days of Momentum, however, these seem a somewhat quieter Blairite (spit) minority and Labour are not better for it.
I like that piece from Pidcock. You are working class if you (or earning partner) have to work for a living. There's more to it of course but that imo is a good start point.
The cultural aspect is not irrelevant but it's a soft subjective measure and lends itself to much posturing and affectation in all directions.
So Hyacinth Bucket is working class. Jamie Vardy is not working class.
My Marxist theory is pretty rusty but I'm fairly sure someone who owns the means of production doesn't qualify as working class no matter what lens you apply.
Laura's definition of working class has to be framed as it is in order for her to be working class. But that is as close to the Corbynista definition as you will get and it applies to every single person featured in that Leigh piece in the Guardian. The far left is hoisted by its own petard. Again.
For a long time I've considered it thus: If you have to get out of bed in a morning to work to pay your bills, you're working class If other people have to get out of their beds to pay your bills, you're not working class.
The idea that you can't be a business manager or owner or in a profession and be working class is absurd. We work our arses off, and in an SME you're carrying the weight of all your colleagues' jobs as well as your own. I am certainly...
Yes, I think that's a good description, but it is also related to job status. Working and non-working class is different from socioeconomic class.
To be truly upper middle class you need to have a high income and be a property owner and be a graduate nowadays.
I probably qualify on that criteria. But I don't recognise "middle class" as anything other than deliberately divisive, so "upper middle" is even dafter
On topic. There is no way that Johnson is going anywhere unless the constellations align favourably and the fat fuck has a massive myocardial infarction.
He absolutely loves the trappings of his office and will never relinquish them willingly. He would never have bothered with the million quid paint job on the Brexit Belle if he weren't in it for the literal and figurative long haul.
Strong defence of the union from Mark Drakeford, Wales FM, on Sky just now and while I am not impressed by his government, I give him full marks for being so supportive of the union
I like that piece from Pidcock. You are working class if you (or earning partner) have to work. There's more to it of course but that imo is a good start point.
The cultural aspect is not irrelevant but it's a soft subjective measure and lends itself to much posturing and affectation in all directions.
So Hyacinth Bucket is working class. Jamie Vardy is not working class.
In voting terms whether you have a degree or not is a far higher predictor of voting intention now than your wealth and earnings, that is a big change from even 2015 when the Tories led with both high earners and graduates.
Now Labour leads with graduates and the Tories do better with skilled working class C2s than high earners
My Marxist theory is pretty rusty but I'm fairly sure someone who owns the means of production doesn't qualify as working class no matter what lens you apply.
Laura's definition of working class has to be framed as it is in order for her to be working class. But that is as close to the Corbynista definition as you will get and it applies to every single person featured in that Leigh piece in the Guardian. The far left is hoisted by its own petard. Again.
For a long time I've considered it thus: If you have to get out of bed in a morning to work to pay your bills, you're working class If other people have to get out of their beds to pay your bills, you're not working class.
The idea that you can't be a business manager or owner or in a profession and be working class is absurd. We work our arses off, and in an SME you're carrying the weight of all your colleagues' jobs as well as your own. I am certainly...
Yes, I think that's a good description, but it is also related to job status. Working and non-working class is different from socioeconomic class.
To be truly upper middle class you need to have a high income and be a property owner and be a graduate nowadays.
I probably qualify on that criteria. But I don't recognise "middle class" as anything other than deliberately divisive, so "upper middle" is even dafter
Seeing as everyone is adding their individually made up definitions, Id say part of the criteria to be upper middle class is you have to care what class you are in the first place.
Absolutely, who does he think he is getting above himself? Where's his cap?
Doesn't this come down to whether you view class as predominantly a description of economic interest groups or something cultural and performative? If the former, a working class business owner is a contradiction: you cannot be both capital and labour at the same time. If the latter, then a person could define themselves as working class in cultural terms (eg call their evening meal "tea") and be a billionaire capitalist. To my mind the first usage is more useful, because it is tied to something concrete, but then I am an economist. The culture warriors on here might prefer the more performative use of the phrase.
What we need in this country is far more "working class" business owners, people who are aspirational and hope for better for their children. I find the idea that someone is a traitor to their class because they want to get on or have ambitions deeply offensive and immoral. I therefore prefer the second description but I wonder how useful the economic version of your definition is if membership is that transient. Better to focus on gig workers, the unemployed or specific sectors that tell you more about the issues they are facing.
You don't need to be a business owner to hope for better for your children. The problems come when business owners treat their employees like they're disposable and prevent them from realising their dreams for their children. Aspiration is not binary. I don't think it's at all helpful to view people as traitors to their class simply because they have made some money. But equally one might question whether they are still members of that class in the way that many people understand it. Although I have always been middle class I have certainly moved from one end of that wide envelope to the other in material terms over the course of my life, so I am certainly no stranger to, or enemy of, aspiration.
But your argument wasnt against bad business owners exploiting workers, it was that you cant be a working class business owner. Take a previously working class brickie who decides to employ five of his mates, they all work the same duties and hours but he happens to be the owner of the firm. On his first day of ownership does he automatically change class? Is he supposed to be aware of this?
Per Pidcock, you leave the working class at the point where you can live off your wealth. So with your example that would not be on the 1st day or anything close to it.
Usual caveat. Life is not so precise. But it's a helpful thought imo.
I'd hope we can get an Asian leg of Singapore, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia and Australia in as well. I'm sure F1 can work out a testing regime and bubble that works for these countries to avoid quarantine measures.
My Marxist theory is pretty rusty but I'm fairly sure someone who owns the means of production doesn't qualify as working class no matter what lens you apply.
Laura's definition of working class has to be framed as it is in order for her to be working class. But that is as close to the Corbynista definition as you will get and it applies to every single person featured in that Leigh piece in the Guardian. The far left is hoisted by its own petard. Again.
SFAICS Laura's definition of working class includes almost all the middling sort, and if you include those who used to work and are now retired, and those still in education not born to great inherited wealth, almost everyone. Which is fair enough but doesn't explain why she is so rude about Tory voters most of whom belong to her definition of the working class. If Laura could listen carefully to herself, as well as her hard working constituents who rejected her in droves she has the character to have a future in grown up politics.
Absolutely, who does he think he is getting above himself? Where's his cap?
Doesn't this come down to whether you view class as predominantly a description of economic interest groups or something cultural and performative? If the former, a working class business owner is a contradiction: you cannot be both capital and labour at the same time. If the latter, then a person could define themselves as working class in cultural terms (eg call their evening meal "tea") and be a billionaire capitalist. To my mind the first usage is more useful, because it is tied to something concrete, but then I am an economist. The culture warriors on here might prefer the more performative use of the phrase.
What we need in this country is far more "working class" business owners, people who are aspirational and hope for better for their children. I find the idea that someone is a traitor to their class because they want to get on or have ambitions deeply offensive and immoral. I therefore prefer the second description but I wonder how useful the economic version of your definition is if membership is that transient. Better to focus on gig workers, the unemployed or specific sectors that tell you more about the issues they are facing.
You don't need to be a business owner to hope for better for your children. The problems come when business owners treat their employees like they're disposable and prevent them from realising their dreams for their children. Aspiration is not binary. I don't think it's at all helpful to view people as traitors to their class simply because they have made some money. But equally one might question whether they are still members of that class in the way that many people understand it. Although I have always been middle class I have certainly moved from one end of that wide envelope to the other in material terms over the course of my life, so I am certainly no stranger to, or enemy of, aspiration.
But your argument wasnt against bad business owners exploiting workers, it was that you cant be a working class business owner. Take a previously working class brickie who decides to employ five of his mates, they all work the same duties and hours but he happens to be the owner of the firm. On his first day of ownership does he automatically change class? Is he supposed to be aware of this?
As I said earlier, there are two uses of the phrase working class, one is economic, one is cultural. From a cultural POV of course there will be no immediate change. From an economic POV there is a change: the business owner has a right to the residual income of the firm. If he pays his mates less for the work he has quoted for, he will receive more. If the business loses work, he has to decide who to let go - and it won't be himself. If one of his mates slacks off, he will have to discipline him. So clearly from an economic POV his relationship with his co-workers has changed: he is their boss. Does that mean he is no longer working class? Partially, yes. Not from a cultural POV, at least initially. But over time, probably that too, especially if the business prospers. My grandparents were born working class but were aspirational and worked hard and died middle class (they read the Telegraph). Their daughter, my mum, is certainly middle class.
On topic. There is no way that Johnson is going anywhere unless the constellations align favourably and the fat fuck has a massive myocardial infarction.
He absolutely loves the trappings of his office and will never relinquish them willingly. He would never have bothered with the million quid paint job on the Brexit Belle if he weren't in it for the literal and figurative long haul.
Even if Boris has health problems and is no longer enjoying the job, one imagines he will give it till next year -- summer and Christmas recesses, as well as the (virtual) conference season, give enough time for convalescence. I doubt he understands Brexit but whatever Cummings and Frost can arrange will be flaunted as a Churchillian-scale triumph, even if the fruitcake wing calls it BINO. Anyway, I've backed a 2021 exit to small stakes some months ago and see no reason to change.
Is one of the reasons the nations still get caught up in class and havent done enough to resolve class issues that we dont agree on what it even means?
I like that piece from Pidcock. You are working class if you (or earning partner) have to work. There's more to it of course but that imo is a good start point.
The cultural aspect is not irrelevant but it's a soft subjective measure and lends itself to much posturing and affectation in all directions.
So Hyacinth Bucket is working class. Jamie Vardy is not working class.
In voting terms whether you have a degree or not is a far higher predictor of voting intention now than your wealth and earnings, that is a big change from even 2015 when the Tories led with both high earners and graduates.
Now Labour leads with graduates and the Tories do better with skilled working class C2s than high earners
What are the crosstabs with age? The demographic profile of graduates changed enormously over the past 20 years since Tony Blair effectively raised the school leaving age to 21.
On topic. There is no way that Johnson is going anywhere unless the constellations align favourably and the fat fuck has a massive myocardial infarction.
He absolutely loves the trappings of his office and will never relinquish them willingly. He would never have bothered with the million quid paint job on the Brexit Belle if he weren't in it for the literal and figurative long haul.
So you're left relying on God himself to remove Boris? Probably a wise decision, since otherwise you'd have to put your faith in the Labour Party!
I am starting to be a seller of Sunak for next leader.
The cracks are appearing in his colossal socialist experiment. The prosecutions for furlough fraud are starting, and reported to be the tip of the iceberg.
Lower down the thread we see the mind boggling sums spent on PPE and track and don;t trace for what looking more and more like dubious rewards every day.
His jobs initiatives and green subsides will be the next to come apart at the seams in my book, in the same way as every government initiative on these there ever was has foundered.
At some juncture he will have to go cap in hand to tory middle England to bankroll these and other socialist follies. A tory middle England that is already paying the highest taxes in fifty years. The push back will be enormous and may well cost Johnson his job. It would be no surprise now if Sunak went with him.
On topic. There is no way that Johnson is going anywhere unless the constellations align favourably and the fat fuck has a massive myocardial infarction.
He absolutely loves the trappings of his office and will never relinquish them willingly. He would never have bothered with the million quid paint job on the Brexit Belle if he weren't in it for the literal and figurative long haul.
So we have an immovable object (Johnson's vanity and the moth-to-a-flame attraction of the job) and an increasingly irresistible force (he's not actually very good at key parts of the job, and outsourcing the thinking to Gove and Cummings in the Cabinet Office only gets you so far)
And in that situation, you get stasis for quite a while, followed by sudden catastrophic failure. Good luck, everyone.
Absolutely, who does he think he is getting above himself? Where's his cap?
Doesn't this come down to whether you view class as predominantly a description of economic interest groups or something cultural and performative? If the former, a working class business owner is a contradiction: you cannot be both capital and labour at the same time. If the latter, then a person could define themselves as working class in cultural terms (eg call their evening meal "tea") and be a billionaire capitalist. To my mind the first usage is more useful, because it is tied to something concrete, but then I am an economist. The culture warriors on here might prefer the more performative use of the phrase.
What we need in this country is far more "working class" business owners, people who are aspirational and hope for better for their children. I find the idea that someone is a traitor to their class because they want to get on or have ambitions deeply offensive and immoral. I therefore prefer the second description but I wonder how useful the economic version of your definition is if membership is that transient. Better to focus on gig workers, the unemployed or specific sectors that tell you more about the issues they are facing.
You don't need to be a business owner to hope for better for your children. The problems come when business owners treat their employees like they're disposable and prevent them from realising their dreams for their children. Aspiration is not binary. I don't think it's at all helpful to view people as traitors to their class simply because they have made some money. But equally one might question whether they are still members of that class in the way that many people understand it. Although I have always been middle class I have certainly moved from one end of that wide envelope to the other in material terms over the course of my life, so I am certainly no stranger to, or enemy of, aspiration.
But your argument wasnt against bad business owners exploiting workers, it was that you cant be a working class business owner. Take a previously working class brickie who decides to employ five of his mates, they all work the same duties and hours but he happens to be the owner of the firm. On his first day of ownership does he automatically change class? Is he supposed to be aware of this?
Per Pidcock, you leave the working class at the point where you can live off your wealth. So with your example that would not be on the 1st day or anything close to it.
Usual caveat. Life is not so precise. But it's a helpful thought imo.
But its nonsense! So on retirement everyone stops being working class?
In this country its also perfectly possible to live off state benefits without ever doing a days work. Not fun or recommended, but do-able. So at birth we are all excluded from being working class.
On a personal level I could certainly retire early today and survive, just not at the level I would like to so will probably end up working another 15 years or so. Which level sets my class, my desired income, historic income or average income, or state sustenance?
Absolutely, who does he think he is getting above himself? Where's his cap?
Doesn't this come down to whether you view class as predominantly a description of economic interest groups or something cultural and performative? If the former, a working class business owner is a contradiction: you cannot be both capital and labour at the same time. If the latter, then a person could define themselves as working class in cultural terms (eg call their evening meal "tea") and be a billionaire capitalist. To my mind the first usage is more useful, because it is tied to something concrete, but then I am an economist. The culture warriors on here might prefer the more performative use of the phrase.
What we need in this country is far more "working class" business owners, people who are aspirational and hope for better for their children. I find the idea that someone is a traitor to their class because they want to get on or have ambitions deeply offensive and immoral. I therefore prefer the second description but I wonder how useful the economic version of your definition is if membership is that transient. Better to focus on gig workers, the unemployed or specific sectors that tell you more about the issues they are facing.
You don't need to be a business owner to hope for better for your children. The problems come when business owners treat their employees like they're disposable and prevent them from realising their dreams for their children. Aspiration is not binary. I don't think it's at all helpful to view people as traitors to their class simply because they have made some money. But equally one might question whether they are still members of that class in the way that many people understand it. Although I have always been middle class I have certainly moved from one end of that wide envelope to the other in material terms over the course of my life, so I am certainly no stranger to, or enemy of, aspiration.
But your argument wasnt against bad business owners exploiting workers, it was that you cant be a working class business owner. Take a previously working class brickie who decides to employ five of his mates, they all work the same duties and hours but he happens to be the owner of the firm. On his first day of ownership does he automatically change class? Is he supposed to be aware of this?
Per Pidcock, you leave the working class at the point where you can live off your wealth. So with your example that would not be on the 1st day or anything close to it.
Usual caveat. Life is not so precise. But it's a helpful thought imo.
Under her definition, I'm still working class, then Kinabalu. That doesn't ring true, I own a flat in Hampstead and work for an international bank in investment markets. I'm the very definition of comfortable middle class.
So far as local government is concerned I think things have been horribly patchy. A good friend of my daughter is a social worker. She described a very variable picture. In Angus she and her colleagues have been seeing those children identified as the most vulnerable weekly and have taken them to hotels etc overnight where they were thought to be at risk. The second category have been seen fortnightly with telephone calls in the intervening weeks. The least at risk have only been "seen" virtually by phone.
This is immensely better than Dundee has managed. There, actual visits to children thought to have been at risk pre lockdown have been almost non existent. These kids have lost their social workers, their school, their pals and are stuck in the house with parents with real issues from drug and alcohol abuse to mental health problems of their own. God knows what has happened to them. A recent report in the local press said that drug deaths in Dundee, which already had the worst death rate in Europe, have soared in the lockdown.
The idea that there was some magical local resource that the government has failed to take advantage of when it cannot even provide the services that it is supposed to to protect our most vulnerable is just a bit far fetched.
Doesn't sound good. Has Dundee something else on it's hands, or is it, so far as you can see, straightforward inability to cope, or lack of imagination?
Dundee has a really chronic problem with drugs and this has aggravated mental health issues in the city. It has a lot of poor housing and very poor leadership.
Although there have been successes in the City, such as the Welcome trust expansion of the University, the R&A museum and some games makers they have provided a smallish number of jobs compared with the large number of semi-skilled jobs that have been lost from the likes of NCR and, in the last month, the closure of Michelin which has been coming for 2 years. This has drained money out of the City. You could see the consequences in the shopping centres in Dundee pre lockdown. I dread to think what we are going to see over the next year.
So what you are saying is that if you're a bright and go-getting Dundonian you go and get out? Leaving the various civic positions, among other things, to those with less ambition? Classic cycle of deprivation, isn't it. From those that hath not, it shall be taken away.
Yes, its really troubling. Our local politicians are unfortunately more focused on the nirvana that is independence than doing anything about it.
Hasn't Dundee always been a pretty terrible place to live, with overcrowded housing, poor working conditions and a severe alcohol problem dating right back to the days of the Jute Barrons? (I hope you won't see this as me denigrating the people of Dundee, who have put up with an awful lot over the years with grace and humour). Seems to me that Dundee was a victim of a particularly brutal and exploitative form of capitalism during the nineteenth century, and has never really recovered. Perhaps a lot like towns in the North of England in that regard.
There is no question that the working conditions in the Jute mills were brutal, even by the standard of 19th Century capitalism. I absolutely love this song: https://sangstories.webs.com/ohdearme.htm
I also remember as a kid visiting relatives who lived in tenements with outside "toilets" (no more than a hole really) built into the back staircase of the block. It was grim.
But there was a time in my life when the Timex, NCR, Michelin, DC Thomson, James Keiller and the docks provided a lot of reasonably well paid work in the town bringing money into the shops and creating something of a buzz. Now we seem to have some very well to do, mainly connected with the University and a pretty much unemployable underclass scraping a living from gig work. The middle has been hollowed out.
Absolutely, who does he think he is getting above himself? Where's his cap?
Doesn't this come down to whether you view class as predominantly a description of economic interest groups or something cultural and performative? If the former, a working class business owner is a contradiction: you cannot be both capital and labour at the same time. If the latter, then a person could define themselves as working class in cultural terms (eg call their evening meal "tea") and be a billionaire capitalist. To my mind the first usage is more useful, because it is tied to something concrete, but then I am an economist. The culture warriors on here might prefer the more performative use of the phrase.
What we need in this country is far more "working class" business owners, people who are aspirational and hope for better for their children. I find the idea that someone is a traitor to their class because they want to get on or have ambitions deeply offensive and immoral. I therefore prefer the second description but I wonder how useful the economic version of your definition is if membership is that transient. Better to focus on gig workers, the unemployed or specific sectors that tell you more about the issues they are facing.
You don't need to be a business owner to hope for better for your children. The problems come when business owners treat their employees like they're disposable and prevent them from realising their dreams for their children. Aspiration is not binary. I don't think it's at all helpful to view people as traitors to their class simply because they have made some money. But equally one might question whether they are still members of that class in the way that many people understand it. Although I have always been middle class I have certainly moved from one end of that wide envelope to the other in material terms over the course of my life, so I am certainly no stranger to, or enemy of, aspiration.
But your argument wasnt against bad business owners exploiting workers, it was that you cant be a working class business owner. Take a previously working class brickie who decides to employ five of his mates, they all work the same duties and hours but he happens to be the owner of the firm. On his first day of ownership does he automatically change class? Is he supposed to be aware of this?
Per Pidcock, you leave the working class at the point where you can live off your wealth. So with your example that would not be on the 1st day or anything close to it.
Usual caveat. Life is not so precise. But it's a helpful thought imo.
Under her definition, I'm still working class, then Kinabalu. That doesn't ring true, I own a flat in Hampstead and work for an international bank in investment markets. I'm the very definition of comfortable middle class.
Interestingly ,she is using the oldest definition of the middle class - people who don't need to work, or work in certain rarified professions. Law was one.
The modern revival of this is an attempt to reach out to the "modern middle class". Who are mostly employees, and join them in common cause with the blue collar workers.
The new centre will employee around 400 people and focus on producing optical equipment used in fibre-optic communication systems, Huawei said in a statement.
The development is likely to anger officials in the United States and some British lawmakers who say Huawei's equipment can be used by Beijing for spying and that Britain should reconsider a January decision to allow it a limited role in its 5G networks. The company denies the charges.
British officials are in the process of reviewing how to best mitigate any security risks posed by Huawei in light of new U.S. sanctions announced in May, which aim to cut off the firm's supply of the advanced microchips needed to make its equipment. A decision is expected in the coming weeks.
Huawei Vice President Victor Zhang said the technology developed at the new centre was separate from that targeted by the U.S. restrictions, and it was "simply wrong" to suggest its announcement was timed to influence Britain's decision...
Absolutely, who does he think he is getting above himself? Where's his cap?
Doesn't this come down to whether you view class as predominantly a description of economic interest groups or something cultural and performative? If the former, a working class business owner is a contradiction: you cannot be both capital and labour at the same time. If the latter, then a person could define themselves as working class in cultural terms (eg call their evening meal "tea") and be a billionaire capitalist. To my mind the first usage is more useful, because it is tied to something concrete, but then I am an economist. The culture warriors on here might prefer the more performative use of the phrase.
What we need in this country is far more "working class" business owners, people who are aspirational and hope for better for their children. I find the idea that someone is a traitor to their class because they want to get on or have ambitions deeply offensive and immoral. I therefore prefer the second description but I wonder how useful the economic version of your definition is if membership is that transient. Better to focus on gig workers, the unemployed or specific sectors that tell you more about the issues they are facing.
You don't need to be a business owner to hope for better for your children. The problems come when business owners treat their employees like they're disposable and prevent them from realising their dreams for their children. Aspiration is not binary. I don't think it's at all helpful to view people as traitors to their class simply because they have made some money. But equally one might question whether they are still members of that class in the way that many people understand it. Although I have always been middle class I have certainly moved from one end of that wide envelope to the other in material terms over the course of my life, so I am certainly no stranger to, or enemy of, aspiration.
But your argument wasnt against bad business owners exploiting workers, it was that you cant be a working class business owner. Take a previously working class brickie who decides to employ five of his mates, they all work the same duties and hours but he happens to be the owner of the firm. On his first day of ownership does he automatically change class? Is he supposed to be aware of this?
Per Pidcock, you leave the working class at the point where you can live off your wealth. So with your example that would not be on the 1st day or anything close to it.
Usual caveat. Life is not so precise. But it's a helpful thought imo.
But its nonsense! So on retirement everyone stops being working class?
In this country its also perfectly possible to live off state benefits without ever doing a days work. Not fun or recommended, but do-able. So at birth we are all excluded from being working class.
On a personal level I could certainly retire early today and survive, just not at the level I would like to so will probably end up working another 15 years or so. Which level sets my class, my desired income, historic income or average income, or state sustenance?
That was how pensions were talked of at the very beginning - save up, work hard and retire to a sort-of-middle-class lifestyle. The not working bit, anyway.
I like that piece from Pidcock. You are working class if you (or earning partner) have to work for a living. There's more to it of course but that imo is a good start point.
The cultural aspect is not irrelevant but it's a soft subjective measure and lends itself to much posturing and affectation in all directions.
So Hyacinth Bucket is working class. Jamie Vardy is not working class.
The problem with Pillock is that she she's everything as class based, "the single most important aspect of a person’s life" which is rampant nonsense. She is right that many comfortably off people won't be if their income ceases and they can't replace it, but that isn't class based.
She concludes "For years, it was unfashionable, but in an economy like ours, it makes more and more sense. I am happy that the Labour Party, too, now foregrounds class politics and that we will go into a general election to speak for our class — working-class people, the majority of people."
Tell normals like in Leigh that they are working class and that is "about focusing on the collective power we have, and on solidarity" and they'll tell you to do one. And rightly so. Unless Starmer can bad aside that kind of language Labour are really going to lose their ability to speak to these voters in these places.
I like that piece from Pidcock. You are working class if you (or earning partner) have to work for a living. There's more to it of course but that imo is a good start point.
The cultural aspect is not irrelevant but it's a soft subjective measure and lends itself to much posturing and affectation in all directions.
So Hyacinth Bucket is working class. Jamie Vardy is not working class.
I disagree with that.
For me, class is not defined by wealth. Beckham, for instance, will always be working class regardless of his riches. (I don`t see working class as in any way a derogatory term by the way.)
I don`t believe you can change your class. But I do believe that a child can be a different class to the parents. I`d say I`m working class (lower middle if you like) but my children are middle class (upper middle if you like).
I would not be surprised to see Boris standing down during 2021 and I would be very content to see Rishi take his place. I read a report that the conservative party feel very grateful to Boris for his success in achieving an 80 seat majority and they are reluctant to take action to remove him, but if the party or Boris do become widely unpopular they will not hesitate to remove him.
On a minor point Boris was much stronger at last week's PMQ's and Starmer was made to look wooden and by general acclaim Boris won that exchange
Predictably the media are having a go at HMG over yesterday's job loses trying to make the case that too little has been done to save these jobs. At the same time they continue to object to the pace the lockdown is being lifted when that is the only way to save jobs
The job losses aren't the fault of the government. It is difficult to see that anything they try can mitigate the arriving storm. That is the drawback of incumbency. The incumbent takes the blame!
+1 - all the Government can do is stand up, say we tried to do our best and demonstrate what they did..
And some of these stories are not profitable - up to now John Lewis Birmingham was rent free (they only paid rates) and even that wasn't enough for them to make a profit.
Now is the right time for businesses to make tough decisions on rightsizing.
There is something in that.
"Zombie Businesses" (ie just existing not growing) have been repeatedly pointed out as a problem since the financial crash.
I would not be surprised to see Boris standing down during 2021 and I would be very content to see Rishi take his place. I read a report that the conservative party feel very grateful to Boris for his success in achieving an 80 seat majority and they are reluctant to take action to remove him, but if the party or Boris do become widely unpopular they will not hesitate to remove him.
On a minor point Boris was much stronger at last week's PMQ's and Starmer was made to look wooden and by general acclaim Boris won that exchange
Predictably the media are having a go at HMG over yesterday's job loses trying to make the case that too little has been done to save these jobs. At the same time they continue to object to the pace the lockdown is being lifted when that is the only way to save jobs
The job losses aren't the fault of the government. It is difficult to see that anything they try can mitigate the arriving storm. That is the drawback of incumbency. The incumbent takes the blame!
Quite so. Tough times are coming. They'll try their best and even if they do a good job things will be bad and they'll take a hit.
Sunak's statement yesterday was interesting. He has seen the storm clouds brewing and he knows the rain will be brown as well as wet. Those on PB still confident of another Tory landslide in 2024 don't understand this yet.
Yes indeed. At the moment Sunak has everything going for him. A Tory chancellor who magics money out of nowhere such that most people still have money in their pocket and are grateful for that.
Three years on it's going to be very different. He's going to be vulnerable:
1. The public purse will be empty.
2. Too many businesses will have gone bust and jobs will have been lost because the Covid recovery money wasn't properly targeted.
3 Add to that the charge that too much of the money was true to form wasted rewarding the Tories friends. Second home subsidies, stamp duty cuts etc.
4. There'll be a reaction against wasting money on Johnson's vanity investment projects rather than addressing real needs.
5. An era of low Interest rates may well be coming to an end, hitting highly indebted household budgets.
6. Austerity and public sector retrenchment will be rearing its head yet again. No scope for tax cuts. The economic cycle will be out of synch with the optimal political cycle.
Sunak won't be the new fresh faced kid on the block. He'll be the person held responsible for all that.
There are some real odd prices in the Tory Next Leader market.
Why is Tugendhat so low? Why is Ruth Davidson sub 1000?
Name recognition. Also there is a (maybe mistaken) belief that Boris isn't in it for the long haul which means established MPs will have a better shot as they will become PM as well as leader.
Is one of the reasons the nations still get caught up in class and havent done enough to resolve class issues that we dont agree on what it even means?
The obscurantism, tendentiousness, and lack of agreed definitions that surround the topic seem to suit all sides in society, and so they'll probably continue indefinitely.
I like that piece from Pidcock. You are working class if you (or earning partner) have to work for a living. There's more to it of course but that imo is a good start point.
The cultural aspect is not irrelevant but it's a soft subjective measure and lends itself to much posturing and affectation in all directions.
So Hyacinth Bucket is working class. Jamie Vardy is not working class.
The problem with Pillock is that she she's everything as class based, "the single most important aspect of a person’s life" which is rampant nonsense. She is right that many comfortably off people won't be if their income ceases and they can't replace it, but that isn't class based.
She concludes "For years, it was unfashionable, but in an economy like ours, it makes more and more sense. I am happy that the Labour Party, too, now foregrounds class politics and that we will go into a general election to speak for our class — working-class people, the majority of people."
Tell normals like in Leigh that they are working class and that is "about focusing on the collective power we have, and on solidarity" and they'll tell you to do one. And rightly so. Unless Starmer can bad aside that kind of language Labour are really going to lose their ability to speak to these voters in these places.
Political activists are obsessed by such labels and act as though people care about them way more than they do. It then is a short step from that to infantilising those people of that class who dont agree and assume or even say they only do so as they are stupid or tricked
The new centre will employee around 400 people and focus on producing optical equipment used in fibre-optic communication systems, Huawei said in a statement.
The development is likely to anger officials in the United States and some British lawmakers who say Huawei's equipment can be used by Beijing for spying and that Britain should reconsider a January decision to allow it a limited role in its 5G networks. The company denies the charges.
British officials are in the process of reviewing how to best mitigate any security risks posed by Huawei in light of new U.S. sanctions announced in May, which aim to cut off the firm's supply of the advanced microchips needed to make its equipment. A decision is expected in the coming weeks.
Huawei Vice President Victor Zhang said the technology developed at the new centre was separate from that targeted by the U.S. restrictions, and it was "simply wrong" to suggest its announcement was timed to influence Britain's decision...
That's such an odd decision. I'm amazed (and not) that the government hasn't blocked it on national security grounds.
I would not be surprised to see Boris standing down during 2021 and I would be very content to see Rishi take his place. I read a report that the conservative party feel very grateful to Boris for his success in achieving an 80 seat majority and they are reluctant to take action to remove him, but if the party or Boris do become widely unpopular they will not hesitate to remove him.
On a minor point Boris was much stronger at last week's PMQ's and Starmer was made to look wooden and by general acclaim Boris won that exchange
Predictably the media are having a go at HMG over yesterday's job loses trying to make the case that too little has been done to save these jobs. At the same time they continue to object to the pace the lockdown is being lifted when that is the only way to save jobs
The job losses aren't the fault of the government. It is difficult to see that anything they try can mitigate the arriving storm. That is the drawback of incumbency. The incumbent takes the blame!
Quite so. Tough times are coming. They'll try their best and even if they do a good job things will be bad and they'll take a hit.
Sunak's statement yesterday was interesting. He has seen the storm clouds brewing and he knows the rain will be brown as well as wet. Those on PB still confident of another Tory landslide in 2024 don't understand this yet.
Yes indeed. At the moment Sunak has everything going for him. A Tory chancellor who magics money out of nowhere such that most people still have money in their pocket and are grateful for that.
Three years on it's going to be very different. He's going to be vulnerable:
1. The public purse will be empty.
2. Too many businesses will have gone bust and jobs will have been lost because the Covid recovery money wasn't properly targeted.
3 Add to that the charge that too much of the money was true to form wasted rewarding the Tories friends. Second home subsidies, stamp duty cuts etc.
4. There'll be a reaction against wasting money on Johnson's vanity investment projects rather than addressing real needs.
5. An era of low Interest rates may well be coming to an end, hitting highly indebted household budgets.
6. Austerity and public sector retrenchment will be rearing its head yet again. No scope for tax cuts. The economic cycle will be out of synch with the optimal political cycle.
Sunak won't be the new fresh faced kid on the block. He'll be the person held responsible for all that.
The BBC 2 hour drama on Mrs Thatcher's downfall, Margaret, starring Lindsay Duncan, is good. The BBC sold the DVD in a box set with The Long Walk to Finchley. The version uploaded to Youtube is at such low resolution as to be unwatchable.
In the podcast, Howard blames Peter Morrison but Sir Malcolm Rifkind also ran her campaign. Really, these were extraordinarily poor choices. One was a known boozer (at best) and the other was spending most of his time in Edinburgh trying to save a bank. Perhaps yet another sign Mrs Thatcher's famed intellect was in decline.
I like that piece from Pidcock. You are working class if you (or earning partner) have to work. There's more to it of course but that imo is a good start point.
The cultural aspect is not irrelevant but it's a soft subjective measure and lends itself to much posturing and affectation in all directions.
So Hyacinth Bucket is working class. Jamie Vardy is not working class.
In voting terms whether you have a degree or not is a far higher predictor of voting intention now than your wealth and earnings, that is a big change from even 2015 when the Tories led with both high earners and graduates.
Now Labour leads with graduates and the Tories do better with skilled working class C2s than high earners
Yes. Perhaps this is why the Tories are keen to reduce the numbers going to uni?
I like that piece from Pidcock. You are working class if you (or earning partner) have to work. There's more to it of course but that imo is a good start point.
The cultural aspect is not irrelevant but it's a soft subjective measure and lends itself to much posturing and affectation in all directions.
So Hyacinth Bucket is working class. Jamie Vardy is not working class.
In voting terms whether you have a degree or not is a far higher predictor of voting intention now than your wealth and earnings, that is a big change from even 2015 when the Tories led with both high earners and graduates.
Now Labour leads with graduates and the Tories do better with skilled working class C2s than high earners
I'm not persuaded that the complex history of class relationships can be summarised by voting patterns over a 5-year period.
I like that piece from Pidcock. You are working class if you (or earning partner) have to work for a living. There's more to it of course but that imo is a good start point.
The cultural aspect is not irrelevant but it's a soft subjective measure and lends itself to much posturing and affectation in all directions.
So Hyacinth Bucket is working class. Jamie Vardy is not working class.
I disagree with that.
For me, class is not defined by wealth. Beckham, for instance, will always be working class regardless of his riches. (I don`t see working class as in any way a derogatory term by the way.)
I don`t believe you can change your class. But I do believe that a child can be a different class to the parents. I`d say I`m working class (lower middle if you like) but my children are middle class (upper middle if you like).
If you cannot change your class its defined entirely by your upbringing presumably, but theres just too much variety in that even among those if the same wealth level to make it useful in my view
Reading that Guardian piece, I am interested in the differential impact on very small businesses of the Govt schemes for North vs South.
A small business I am invested in operates out of a decent size premises (7000 sqft) with a rates bill of around 10k a year. That will create about 10 jobs over a few years by direct employment of subletting.
With the 25k grant, and 2 x years off business rates, that is a significant sum (for us) of around 40-50k in total.
If I look at a similar business in say St Albans or Brighton, that amount of money will be less significant.
How much more significant will that be for Leigh vs say Islington North? Is that a built-in relatively greater impact for the Red Wall?
Sunak is never going to be leader. He is a pencil necked geek who has zero appeal to the slope-browed gravy and chips gobblers upon whom the tories now rely. He's never even been sucked off by a pneumatic blonde like Arcuri for fuck's sake.
I'd hope we can get an Asian leg of Singapore, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia and Australia in as well. I'm sure F1 can work out a testing regime and bubble that works for these countries to avoid quarantine measures.
Singapore is already cancelled as it can only be one weekend and that is no longer possible. Japan and China have both ruled out races which really only leaves Vietnam who appear to still want it. Canada and the Americas have equally disappeared (Canada because it's now too late to host it, US, Mexico and Brazil more because F1 won't be allowed to return if they go there).
So after that it's Portugal as it will still have decent weather then Vietnam (possibly) Bahrain and then Abu Dhabi.
I like that piece from Pidcock. You are working class if you (or earning partner) have to work for a living. There's more to it of course but that imo is a good start point.
The cultural aspect is not irrelevant but it's a soft subjective measure and lends itself to much posturing and affectation in all directions.
So Hyacinth Bucket is working class. Jamie Vardy is not working class.
I disagree with that.
For me, class is not defined by wealth. Beckham, for instance, will always be working class regardless of his riches. (I don`t see working class as in any way a derogatory term by the way.)
I don`t believe you can change your class. But I do believe that a child can be a different class to the parents. I`d say I`m working class (lower middle if you like) but my children are middle class (upper middle if you like).
If you cannot change your class its defined entirely by your upbringing presumably, but theres just too much variety in that even among those if the same wealth level to make it useful in my view
I agree. I don`t find class useful.
Pidcock looks through a Marxist lens, of course. If you are merely separating the plebs from the bourgeoisie, those who work and those who own capital, that`s pretty unhelpful. Doesn`t get you far given the proportions of the population which fit each category.
Sunak is never going to be leader. He is a pencil necked geek who has zero appeal to the slope-browed gravy and chips gobblers upon whom the tories now rely. He's never even been sucked off by an pneumatic blonde like Arcuri for fuck's sake.
Reading that Guardian piece, I am interested in the differential impact on very small businesses of the Govt schemes for North vs South.
A small business I am invested in operates out of a decent size premises (7000 sqft) with a rates bill of around 10k a year. That will create about 10 jobs over a few years by direct employment of subletting.
With the 25k grant, and 2 x years off business rates, plus a bit of furlough, that is a significant sum (for us) of around 50k in total.
If I look at a similar business in say St Albans or Brighton, that amount of money will be less significant.
How much more significant will that be for Leigh vs say Islington North?
I'm still trying to sort out my £50k bounce back loan - as soon as I do we are employing (another) sales man and bringing in two apprentices to ramp up our support offerings..
People cannot even consistently agree on what left and right wing mean, theres no hope of agreeing the 3 or 7 or whatever classes we now have.
I would like to see the ONS take a lead on this. Create some new measures with distinct and clearly definited terms, not using the word "class" at all, one based on background and education, another on wealth, another on employment status. Standardise and promote awareness of them so this discussion isnt repeated with chaotic personal definitions of class in 20 years time.
Another £1 million pound job won. We normally turnover £8 million p.a. and we have a £9 million order book, all picked up in the last 2 months. And the tenders are still rolling in.
Sunak is never going to be leader. He is a pencil necked geek who has zero appeal to the slope-browed gravy and chips gobblers upon whom the tories now rely. He's never even been sucked off by a pneumatic blonde like Arcuri for fuck's sake.
I like that piece from Pidcock. You are working class if you (or earning partner) have to work for a living. There's more to it of course but that imo is a good start point.
The cultural aspect is not irrelevant but it's a soft subjective measure and lends itself to much posturing and affectation in all directions.
So Hyacinth Bucket is working class. Jamie Vardy is not working class.
I disagree with that.
For me, class is not defined by wealth. Beckham, for instance, will always be working class regardless of his riches. (I don`t see working class as in any way a derogatory term by the way.)
I don`t believe you can change your class. But I do believe that a child can be a different class to the parents. I`d say I`m working class (lower middle if you like) but my children are middle class (upper middle if you like).
I disagree that you can't change class - I have previously offered the example of my grandparents who I think clearly moved from the class of their birth (respectable working class) to their death (firmly middle class). Personally I think the obsession with cultural class markers is a bit tedious, in both directions (the Hyacinth Bucket and the Prolier than thou versions).
I don't think it matters - Sunak is showing what the Next Generation can do. Locally my new Tory MP is a bit of a mixed bag. As an MP he's night and day better than James "Where's" Wharton his predecessor to 2017. He's backed the ExcludedUK group, he actually corresponds with constituents, he's held street surgeries in my town whereas Wharton utterly ignored any parts of the constituency that weren't solid Tory. Combine tht6with the promise of millions for regeration and I can see him building a solid base.
Expect she would be too left wing for a certain prominent poster who has rejoined recently after being rejected by Labour.
No I'd be fine with Layla. She wouldn't be as good or as successful as Ed but she'd be ok.
As with the Leigh piece in the Grauniad there is a real problem for Labour where so many of their activists cannot comprehend why towns voted Tory, and their only response is disdain and sneering abuse. I am clearly verboten having been a Labour member activist official and councillor for 25 years. Kill the defector - which would be ok except that you have people who voted Labour for ever going Tory, this government so far has more than delivered for them, and the Labour response is abuse.
I get the sense that moat of the stick that Johnson gets - fair as it is - goes over the head of many normals as just politics. What delivers for them is what motivates them, and providing Johnson and Sunak don't screw up when switching the money hose off im not sure it matters if Johnson stays on or not. These places are perfectly capable of staying blue, especially with BJO type activists knocking on doors
I did initially sympathise with you over you being prevented from rejoining. However, upon the news that your response was to rejoin the LDs having coincidentally experienced an immediate Damascene conversion such that never again would you buy anything coloured even the pinkest shade of red, I'm afraid that that sympathy disappeared.
I too left Labour in 2019 having had longer period of membership than you (35 years), but unlike you I didn't spend my time openly and visibly campaigning for another party against them at a local level before I rejoined immediately after the GE. Not only did you do that, but you also then had no qualms about immediately joining the LDs (again?) on being rejected by your local CLP. Had you waited a bit and then reapplied after a decent interval in a year or so I suspect you would have been accepted. So it's hard not to reach a conclusion that your local CLP were vindicated by your subsequent actions, and even the members who encouraged you to come back will surely be feeling the same.
It's worth bearing in mind that your case is also wholly exceptional. I'm not aware of any membership applications having been rejected here and there have been well over 100 joiners into the CLP since December. There have been over 100,000 new members joining nationally, and according to YouGov only 11% of those were intending to vote for Long-Bailey.
A few points: 1. I do keep pointing out that I am irrelevant. I do not make any claim to others being as mad as me to end up in a similar place, but as I keep being the topic of conversation... 2. The party were right to reject my lunatic attempt to rejoin for the wrong reasons. But that wasn't the CLP - I had the EC on board with voting in my favour. One of the "lets shout at Labour voters on the doorstep, vote Labour" types nobbled me at national level - the GC has absolute power to reject anyone they see fit for any reason. And she did, which is (was) entirely her right. My friends in the CLP were appalled 3. I had a mental crisis. I'd been part of something my entire adult life. I walked away and was comfortable having joined the LDs. Then a combination of being caged up at home, dealing with a pain in the bum Electoral Commission return and an increasingly acute need to Stop the absolute Hell that my existence has turned into pushed me over the edge. Starmer got elected, didn't impress me that much but was Not Corbyn, and my friends in Labour implored me to "come home". So a quick call to the CLP chair and I pulled the trigger. Madness. 4. I am not a socialist. Not any more. When you're in something, or you're trying to justify something to yourself you can find yourself saying stuff because you're supposed to rather than because you wisely should do. I'm not sure what that Damascean conversion you mention is. I want Starmer to succeed - we need to purge lunatics of all colours from politics. The LibDems couldn't work with Corbyn, but could work with Starmer.
Again, I'm irrelevant to what is going on out there. You good people have been a safe space for me to express myself during this rather interesting period in my political life, and I thank you all for it. But less about me would probably be a Good Thing!
Hats off for eloquent frankness. And to stress a positive, it should be an esteem boost to be considered of sufficient note as to be the subject of those sort of machinations. I'm a Labour member but am considered of no great import whatsoever. Last meeting I went to I tried to give them all a rundown of the betting angle on next Labour leader and it went down like a lead balloon.
I like that piece from Pidcock. You are working class if you (or earning partner) have to work for a living. There's more to it of course but that imo is a good start point.
The cultural aspect is not irrelevant but it's a soft subjective measure and lends itself to much posturing and affectation in all directions.
So Hyacinth Bucket is working class. Jamie Vardy is not working class.
I disagree with that.
For me, class is not defined by wealth. Beckham, for instance, will always be working class regardless of his riches. (I don`t see working class as in any way a derogatory term by the way.)
I don`t believe you can change your class. But I do believe that a child can be a different class to the parents. I`d say I`m working class (lower middle if you like) but my children are middle class (upper middle if you like).
If you cannot change your class its defined entirely by your upbringing presumably, but theres just too much variety in that even among those if the same wealth level to make it useful in my view
I agree. I don`t find class useful.
Pidcock looks through a Marxist lens, of course. If you are merely separating the plebs from the bourgeoisie, those who work and those who own capital, that`s pretty unhelpful. Doesn`t get you far given the proportions of the population which fit each category.
I think it's substantially more useful, because those different groups have different material interests. Whereas you'd group together Beckham and the people he pays to clean his house.
I am starting to be a seller of Sunak for next leader.
The cracks are appearing in his colossal socialist experiment. The prosecutions for furlough fraud are starting, and reported to be the tip of the iceberg.
Lower down the thread we see the mind boggling sums spent on PPE and track and don;t trace for what looking more and more like dubious rewards every day.
His jobs initiatives and green subsides will be the next to come apart at the seams in my book, in the same way as every government initiative on these there ever was has foundered.
At some juncture he will have to go cap in hand to tory middle England to bankroll these and other socialist follies. A tory middle England that is already paying the highest taxes in fifty years. The push back will be enormous and may well cost Johnson his job. It would be no surprise now if Sunak went with him.
Sunak's position is worsening by the day.
Boris will not increase taxes he will borrow to fund increased spending, Starmer however would raise taxes on middle England
People cannot even consistently agree on what left and right wing mean, theres no hope of agreeing the 3 or 7 or whatever classes we now have.
I would like to see the ONS take a lead on this. Create some new measures with distinct and clearly definited terms, not using the word "class" at all, one based on background and education, another on wealth, another on employment status. Standardise and promote awareness of them so this discussion isnt repeated with chaotic personal definitions of class in 20 years time.
I believe there are now seven social classes. You can even find out which one you are part of here:
I like that piece from Pidcock. You are working class if you (or earning partner) have to work for a living. There's more to it of course but that imo is a good start point.
The cultural aspect is not irrelevant but it's a soft subjective measure and lends itself to much posturing and affectation in all directions.
So Hyacinth Bucket is working class. Jamie Vardy is not working class.
I disagree with that.
For me, class is not defined by wealth. Beckham, for instance, will always be working class regardless of his riches. (I don`t see working class as in any way a derogatory term by the way.)
I don`t believe you can change your class. But I do believe that a child can be a different class to the parents. I`d say I`m working class (lower middle if you like) but my children are middle class (upper middle if you like).
If you cannot change your class its defined entirely by your upbringing presumably, but theres just too much variety in that even among those if the same wealth level to make it useful in my view
I agree. I don`t find class useful.
Pidcock looks through a Marxist lens, of course. If you are merely separating the plebs from the bourgeoisie, those who work and those who own capital, that`s pretty unhelpful. Doesn`t get you far given the proportions of the population which fit each category.
I think it's substantially more useful, because those different groups have different material interests. Whereas you'd group together Beckham and the people he pays to clean his house.
Cleaners are amongst the most common business owners!
I am starting to be a seller of Sunak for next leader.
The cracks are appearing in his colossal socialist experiment. The prosecutions for furlough fraud are starting, and reported to be the tip of the iceberg.
Lower down the thread we see the mind boggling sums spent on PPE and track and don;t trace for what looking more and more like dubious rewards every day.
His jobs initiatives and green subsides will be the next to come apart at the seams in my book, in the same way as every government initiative on these there ever was has foundered.
At some juncture he will have to go cap in hand to tory middle England to bankroll these and other socialist follies. A tory middle England that is already paying the highest taxes in fifty years. The push back will be enormous and may well cost Johnson his job. It would be no surprise now if Sunak went with him.
Sunak's position is worsening by the day.
Boris will not increase taxes he will borrow to fund increased spending, Starmer however would raise taxes on middle England
There are some real odd prices in the Tory Next Leader market.
Why is Tugendhat so low? Why is Ruth Davidson sub 1000?
Though I rate Sunak, I think he`s a lay at current prices. As are Gove and Raab.
Hunt`s odds are attractive in my view. And I wouldn`t count Patel out of it.
I have laid Sunak, I was conidering a back for Gove, I can see a scenario where they give-Cummings decide Boris is a liability and feel they have to step in directly
People cannot even consistently agree on what left and right wing mean, theres no hope of agreeing the 3 or 7 or whatever classes we now have.
I would like to see the ONS take a lead on this. Create some new measures with distinct and clearly definited terms, not using the word "class" at all, one based on background and education, another on wealth, another on employment status. Standardise and promote awareness of them so this discussion isnt repeated with chaotic personal definitions of class in 20 years time.
I believe there are now seven social classes. You can even find out which one you are part of here:
I am a member of the Elite group, much to my dismay...
I am established middle class which is probably about right. But that is just yet another definition - it is not backed by the govt or ONS nor is it widely used.
My argument is that because we are all wedded to our own preferred and as this thread shows completely different definitions of class, its time to create alternative measures that are clear, specific and dont use the word class at all. It then needs to be promoted over a number of years by govt and ONS.
I like that piece from Pidcock. You are working class if you (or earning partner) have to work for a living. There's more to it of course but that imo is a good start point.
The cultural aspect is not irrelevant but it's a soft subjective measure and lends itself to much posturing and affectation in all directions.
So Hyacinth Bucket is working class. Jamie Vardy is not working class.
I disagree with that.
For me, class is not defined by wealth. Beckham, for instance, will always be working class regardless of his riches. (I don`t see working class as in any way a derogatory term by the way.)
I don`t believe you can change your class. But I do believe that a child can be a different class to the parents. I`d say I`m working class (lower middle if you like) but my children are middle class (upper middle if you like).
If you cannot change your class its defined entirely by your upbringing presumably, but theres just too much variety in that even among those if the same wealth level to make it useful in my view
I agree. I don`t find class useful.
Pidcock looks through a Marxist lens, of course. If you are merely separating the plebs from the bourgeoisie, those who work and those who own capital, that`s pretty unhelpful. Doesn`t get you far given the proportions of the population which fit each category.
I think it's substantially more useful, because those different groups have different material interests. Whereas you'd group together Beckham and the people he pays to clean his house.
Cleaners are amongst the most common business owners!
Because they wish to be self employed or because their employer prefers it that way?
I am starting to be a seller of Sunak for next leader.
The cracks are appearing in his colossal socialist experiment. The prosecutions for furlough fraud are starting, and reported to be the tip of the iceberg.
Lower down the thread we see the mind boggling sums spent on PPE and track and don;t trace for what looking more and more like dubious rewards every day.
His jobs initiatives and green subsides will be the next to come apart at the seams in my book, in the same way as every government initiative on these there ever was has foundered.
At some juncture he will have to go cap in hand to tory middle England to bankroll these and other socialist follies. A tory middle England that is already paying the highest taxes in fifty years. The push back will be enormous and may well cost Johnson his job. It would be no surprise now if Sunak went with him.
Sunak's position is worsening by the day.
Boris will not increase taxes he will borrow to fund increased spending, Starmer however would raise taxes on middle England
It is not Sunak's fault that people defrauded the system./
Another £1 million pound job won. We normally turnover £8 million p.a. and we have a £9 million order book, all picked up in the last 2 months. And the tenders are still rolling in.
Are you a liquidator specialising in retail and hospitality?
There are some real odd prices in the Tory Next Leader market.
Why is Tugendhat so low? Why is Ruth Davidson sub 1000?
Though I rate Sunak, I think he`s a lay at current prices. As are Gove and Raab.
Hunt`s odds are attractive in my view. And I wouldn`t count Patel out of it.
I have laid Sunak, I was conidering a back for Gove, I can see a scenario where they give-Cummings decide Boris is a liability and feel they have to step in directly
That only works without MPs, Gove and Dom have too many enemies within the party to get anywhere near the final two.
There are some real odd prices in the Tory Next Leader market.
Why is Tugendhat so low? Why is Ruth Davidson sub 1000?
Though I rate Sunak, I think he`s a lay at current prices. As are Gove and Raab.
Hunt`s odds are attractive in my view. And I wouldn`t count Patel out of it.
I have laid Sunak, I was conidering a back for Gove, I can see a scenario where they give-Cummings decide Boris is a liability and feel they have to step in directly
Emergent service worker. Avg age 34 which is near dead on.
I like that piece from Pidcock. You are working class if you (or earning partner) have to work for a living. There's more to it of course but that imo is a good start point.
The cultural aspect is not irrelevant but it's a soft subjective measure and lends itself to much posturing and affectation in all directions.
So Hyacinth Bucket is working class. Jamie Vardy is not working class.
I disagree with that.
For me, class is not defined by wealth. Beckham, for instance, will always be working class regardless of his riches. (I don`t see working class as in any way a derogatory term by the way.)
I don`t believe you can change your class. But I do believe that a child can be a different class to the parents. I`d say I`m working class (lower middle if you like) but my children are middle class (upper middle if you like).
If you cannot change your class its defined entirely by your upbringing presumably, but theres just too much variety in that even among those if the same wealth level to make it useful in my view
I agree. I don`t find class useful.
Pidcock looks through a Marxist lens, of course. If you are merely separating the plebs from the bourgeoisie, those who work and those who own capital, that`s pretty unhelpful. Doesn`t get you far given the proportions of the population which fit each category.
I think it's substantially more useful, because those different groups have different material interests. Whereas you'd group together Beckham and the people he pays to clean his house.
Cleaners are amongst the most common business owners!
Because they wish to be self employed or because their employer prefers it that way?
Id imagine its mostly because many buyers of cleaning services dont have enough cleaning to justify a full time cleaner, and its a business you can set up without significant capital and build up your clients quickly through quality service and word of mouth.
Absolutely, who does he think he is getting above himself? Where's his cap?
Doesn't this come down to whether you view class as predominantly a description of economic interest groups or something cultural and performative? If the former, a working class business owner is a contradiction: you cannot be both capital and labour at the same time. If the latter, then a person could define themselves as working class in cultural terms (eg call their evening meal "tea") and be a billionaire capitalist. To my mind the first usage is more useful, because it is tied to something concrete, but then I am an economist. The culture warriors on here might prefer the more performative use of the phrase.
What we need in this country is far more "working class" business owners, people who are aspirational and hope for better for their children. I find the idea that someone is a traitor to their class because they want to get on or have ambitions deeply offensive and immoral. I therefore prefer the second description but I wonder how useful the economic version of your definition is if membership is that transient. Better to focus on gig workers, the unemployed or specific sectors that tell you more about the issues they are facing.
You don't need to be a business owner to hope for better for your children. The problems come when business owners treat their employees like they're disposable and prevent them from realising their dreams for their children. Aspiration is not binary. I don't think it's at all helpful to view people as traitors to their class simply because they have made some money. But equally one might question whether they are still members of that class in the way that many people understand it. Although I have always been middle class I have certainly moved from one end of that wide envelope to the other in material terms over the course of my life, so I am certainly no stranger to, or enemy of, aspiration.
But your argument wasnt against bad business owners exploiting workers, it was that you cant be a working class business owner. Take a previously working class brickie who decides to employ five of his mates, they all work the same duties and hours but he happens to be the owner of the firm. On his first day of ownership does he automatically change class? Is he supposed to be aware of this?
Per Pidcock, you leave the working class at the point where you can live off your wealth. So with your example that would not be on the 1st day or anything close to it.
Usual caveat. Life is not so precise. But it's a helpful thought imo.
But its nonsense! So on retirement everyone stops being working class?
In this country its also perfectly possible to live off state benefits without ever doing a days work. Not fun or recommended, but do-able. So at birth we are all excluded from being working class.
On a personal level I could certainly retire early today and survive, just not at the level I would like to so will probably end up working another 15 years or so. Which level sets my class, my desired income, historic income or average income, or state sustenance?
I can answer these questions on Laura's behalf. On retirement you carry on being what you were before you retired. Being jobless on benefits does not count as living off your wealth because it is not living comfortably. Which means - let's put this out there - that your capital needs to be sufficient to generate an income of at least the average wage without any labour input from you. If you're in that boat you can only be "cultural" working class - which is the softer, subjective and imo less useful concept (albeit not irrelevant).
I am starting to be a seller of Sunak for next leader.
The cracks are appearing in his colossal socialist experiment. The prosecutions for furlough fraud are starting, and reported to be the tip of the iceberg.
Lower down the thread we see the mind boggling sums spent on PPE and track and don;t trace for what looking more and more like dubious rewards every day.
His jobs initiatives and green subsides will be the next to come apart at the seams in my book, in the same way as every government initiative on these there ever was has foundered.
At some juncture he will have to go cap in hand to tory middle England to bankroll these and other socialist follies. A tory middle England that is already paying the highest taxes in fifty years. The push back will be enormous and may well cost Johnson his job. It would be no surprise now if Sunak went with him.
Sunak's position is worsening by the day.
Boris will not increase taxes he will borrow to fund increased spending, Starmer however would raise taxes on middle England
How will Boris pay for that increased borrowing?
Easy. Boris won't, because he won't be round when the bills come in.
But he's got to do things that make him feel good, and that's the main thing.
Another £1 million pound job won. We normally turnover £8 million p.a. and we have a £9 million order book, all picked up in the last 2 months. And the tenders are still rolling in.
Are you a liquidator specialising in retail and hospitality?
Another £1 million pound job won. We normally turnover £8 million p.a. and we have a £9 million order book, all picked up in the last 2 months. And the tenders are still rolling in.
Are you a liquidator specialising in retail and hospitality?
I am starting to be a seller of Sunak for next leader.
The cracks are appearing in his colossal socialist experiment. The prosecutions for furlough fraud are starting, and reported to be the tip of the iceberg.
Lower down the thread we see the mind boggling sums spent on PPE and track and don;t trace for what looking more and more like dubious rewards every day.
His jobs initiatives and green subsides will be the next to come apart at the seams in my book, in the same way as every government initiative on these there ever was has foundered.
At some juncture he will have to go cap in hand to tory middle England to bankroll these and other socialist follies. A tory middle England that is already paying the highest taxes in fifty years. The push back will be enormous and may well cost Johnson his job. It would be no surprise now if Sunak went with him.
Sunak's position is worsening by the day.
Boris will not increase taxes he will borrow to fund increased spending, Starmer however would raise taxes on middle England
It is not Sunak's fault that people defrauded the system./
I think furlough has been quite widely abused. My spouse employing colleagues in the private sector are raking it in. Presumably true of a lot of small businesses. Not criminally, but not really its intention. I wonder if any MPs have done this.
Absolutely, who does he think he is getting above himself? Where's his cap?
Doesn't this come down to whether you view class as predominantly a description of economic interest groups or something cultural and performative? If the former, a working class business owner is a contradiction: you cannot be both capital and labour at the same time. If the latter, then a person could define themselves as working class in cultural terms (eg call their evening meal "tea") and be a billionaire capitalist. To my mind the first usage is more useful, because it is tied to something concrete, but then I am an economist. The culture warriors on here might prefer the more performative use of the phrase.
What we need in this country is far more "working class" business owners, people who are aspirational and hope for better for their children. I find the idea that someone is a traitor to their class because they want to get on or have ambitions deeply offensive and immoral. I therefore prefer the second description but I wonder how useful the economic version of your definition is if membership is that transient. Better to focus on gig workers, the unemployed or specific sectors that tell you more about the issues they are facing.
You don't need to be a business owner to hope for better for your children. The problems come when business owners treat their employees like they're disposable and prevent them from realising their dreams for their children. Aspiration is not binary. I don't think it's at all helpful to view people as traitors to their class simply because they have made some money. But equally one might question whether they are still members of that class in the way that many people understand it. Although I have always been middle class I have certainly moved from one end of that wide envelope to the other in material terms over the course of my life, so I am certainly no stranger to, or enemy of, aspiration.
But your argument wasnt against bad business owners exploiting workers, it was that you cant be a working class business owner. Take a previously working class brickie who decides to employ five of his mates, they all work the same duties and hours but he happens to be the owner of the firm. On his first day of ownership does he automatically change class? Is he supposed to be aware of this?
Per Pidcock, you leave the working class at the point where you can live off your wealth. So with your example that would not be on the 1st day or anything close to it.
Usual caveat. Life is not so precise. But it's a helpful thought imo.
But its nonsense! So on retirement everyone stops being working class?
In this country its also perfectly possible to live off state benefits without ever doing a days work. Not fun or recommended, but do-able. So at birth we are all excluded from being working class.
On a personal level I could certainly retire early today and survive, just not at the level I would like to so will probably end up working another 15 years or so. Which level sets my class, my desired income, historic income or average income, or state sustenance?
I can answer these questions on Laura's behalf. On retirement you carry on being what you were before you retired. Being jobless on benefits does not count as living off your wealth because it is not living comfortably. Which means - let's put this out there - that your capital needs to be sufficient to generate an income of at least the average wage without any labour input from you. If you're in that boat you can only be "cultural" working class - which is the softer, subjective and imo less useful concept (albeit not irrelevant).
How do I know how long Im going to live? If its 75 Im excluded from working class on your definition, if l lived to 95 I would be eligible. This is silly.
I am starting to be a seller of Sunak for next leader.
The cracks are appearing in his colossal socialist experiment. The prosecutions for furlough fraud are starting, and reported to be the tip of the iceberg.
Lower down the thread we see the mind boggling sums spent on PPE and track and don;t trace for what looking more and more like dubious rewards every day.
His jobs initiatives and green subsides will be the next to come apart at the seams in my book, in the same way as every government initiative on these there ever was has foundered.
At some juncture he will have to go cap in hand to tory middle England to bankroll these and other socialist follies. A tory middle England that is already paying the highest taxes in fifty years. The push back will be enormous and may well cost Johnson his job. It would be no surprise now if Sunak went with him.
Sunak's position is worsening by the day.
Boris will not increase taxes he will borrow to fund increased spending, Starmer however would raise taxes on middle England
I liked that poll you posted on defunding the police in New York State. Paints a different picture to some of the US polling we have seen.
can Trump hang defund around Biden's neck? that has to be his strategy.
I like that piece from Pidcock. You are working class if you (or earning partner) have to work for a living. There's more to it of course but that imo is a good start point.
The cultural aspect is not irrelevant but it's a soft subjective measure and lends itself to much posturing and affectation in all directions.
So Hyacinth Bucket is working class. Jamie Vardy is not working class.
I disagree with that.
For me, class is not defined by wealth. Beckham, for instance, will always be working class regardless of his riches. (I don`t see working class as in any way a derogatory term by the way.)
I don`t believe you can change your class. But I do believe that a child can be a different class to the parents. I`d say I`m working class (lower middle if you like) but my children are middle class (upper middle if you like).
That's too divorced from the hard realities of power and money and "capital vs labour" for me. But question for you -
When you say a child can be a different class to their parents you picture that one way only - child moving up - am I right?
Sunak is never going to be leader. He is a pencil necked geek who has zero appeal to the slope-browed gravy and chips gobblers upon whom the tories now rely. He's never even been sucked off by a pneumatic blonde like Arcuri for fuck's sake.
True but now he has enormous power the queue of pneumatic blondes must be lengthening. They are very pragmatic bunch.
Absolutely, who does he think he is getting above himself? Where's his cap?
Doesn't this come down to whether you view class as predominantly a description of economic interest groups or something cultural and performative? If the former, a working class business owner is a contradiction: you cannot be both capital and labour at the same time. If the latter, then a person could define themselves as working class in cultural terms (eg call their evening meal "tea") and be a billionaire capitalist. To my mind the first usage is more useful, because it is tied to something concrete, but then I am an economist. The culture warriors on here might prefer the more performative use of the phrase.
What we need in this country is far more "working class" business owners, people who are aspirational and hope for better for their children. I find the idea that someone is a traitor to their class because they want to get on or have ambitions deeply offensive and immoral. I therefore prefer the second description but I wonder how useful the economic version of your definition is if membership is that transient. Better to focus on gig workers, the unemployed or specific sectors that tell you more about the issues they are facing.
You don't need to be a business owner to hope for better for your children. The problems come when business owners treat their employees like they're disposable and prevent them from realising their dreams for their children. Aspiration is not binary. I don't think it's at all helpful to view people as traitors to their class simply because they have made some money. But equally one might question whether they are still members of that class in the way that many people understand it. Although I have always been middle class I have certainly moved from one end of that wide envelope to the other in material terms over the course of my life, so I am certainly no stranger to, or enemy of, aspiration.
But your argument wasnt against bad business owners exploiting workers, it was that you cant be a working class business owner. Take a previously working class brickie who decides to employ five of his mates, they all work the same duties and hours but he happens to be the owner of the firm. On his first day of ownership does he automatically change class? Is he supposed to be aware of this?
Per Pidcock, you leave the working class at the point where you can live off your wealth. So with your example that would not be on the 1st day or anything close to it.
Usual caveat. Life is not so precise. But it's a helpful thought imo.
But its nonsense! So on retirement everyone stops being working class?
In this country its also perfectly possible to live off state benefits without ever doing a days work. Not fun or recommended, but do-able. So at birth we are all excluded from being working class.
On a personal level I could certainly retire early today and survive, just not at the level I would like to so will probably end up working another 15 years or so. Which level sets my class, my desired income, historic income or average income, or state sustenance?
I can answer these questions on Laura's behalf. On retirement you carry on being what you were before you retired. Being jobless on benefits does not count as living off your wealth because it is not living comfortably. Which means - let's put this out there - that your capital needs to be sufficient to generate an income of at least the average wage without any labour input from you. If you're in that boat you can only be "cultural" working class - which is the softer, subjective and imo less useful concept (albeit not irrelevant).
How do I know how long Im going to live? If its 75 Im excluded from working class on your definition, if l lived to 95 I would be eligible. This is silly.
I would also point out that only a very small percentage of people understand enough about personal finance to be able to determine their class on this definition. What use is a definition of class that has an arbitrary tipping point that ordinary people will reach at some point later in working life but not realise they have done so? None.
I like that piece from Pidcock. You are working class if you (or earning partner) have to work for a living. There's more to it of course but that imo is a good start point.
The cultural aspect is not irrelevant but it's a soft subjective measure and lends itself to much posturing and affectation in all directions.
So Hyacinth Bucket is working class. Jamie Vardy is not working class.
I disagree with that.
For me, class is not defined by wealth. Beckham, for instance, will always be working class regardless of his riches. (I don`t see working class as in any way a derogatory term by the way.)
I don`t believe you can change your class. But I do believe that a child can be a different class to the parents. I`d say I`m working class (lower middle if you like) but my children are middle class (upper middle if you like).
If you cannot change your class its defined entirely by your upbringing presumably, but theres just too much variety in that even among those if the same wealth level to make it useful in my view
I agree. I don`t find class useful.
Pidcock looks through a Marxist lens, of course. If you are merely separating the plebs from the bourgeoisie, those who work and those who own capital, that`s pretty unhelpful. Doesn`t get you far given the proportions of the population which fit each category.
I think it's substantially more useful, because those different groups have different material interests. Whereas you'd group together Beckham and the people he pays to clean his house.
Yes I would. And Hyacinth Bucket.
It may be useful to group people in terms of wealth, I agree, but then (I`d argue) we are not talking about class.
People cannot even consistently agree on what left and right wing mean, theres no hope of agreeing the 3 or 7 or whatever classes we now have.
I would like to see the ONS take a lead on this. Create some new measures with distinct and clearly definited terms, not using the word "class" at all, one based on background and education, another on wealth, another on employment status. Standardise and promote awareness of them so this discussion isnt repeated with chaotic personal definitions of class in 20 years time.
I believe there are now seven social classes. You can even find out which one you are part of here:
I am a member of the Elite group, much to my dismay...
I am established middle class which is probably about right. But that is just yet another definition - it is not backed by the govt or ONS nor is it widely used.
My argument is that because we are all wedded to our own preferred and as this thread shows completely different definitions of class, its time to create alternative measures that are clear, specific and dont use the word class at all. It then needs to be promoted over a number of years by govt and ONS.
Is that the one from a few years ago, where some Professor from the established middle class created a new system with an idea to ease class stigma - then gave such a horrendously snobbish write up for the Technical Middle Classes (not cultured, don't do anything I'm interested in etc.) that he basically destroyed his ideals at a stroke.
Absolutely, who does he think he is getting above himself? Where's his cap?
Doesn't this come down to whether you view class as predominantly a description of economic interest groups or something cultural and performative? If the former, a working class business owner is a contradiction: you cannot be both capital and labour at the same time. If the latter, then a person could define themselves as working class in cultural terms (eg call their evening meal "tea") and be a billionaire capitalist. To my mind the first usage is more useful, because it is tied to something concrete, but then I am an economist. The culture warriors on here might prefer the more performative use of the phrase.
What we need in this country is far more "working class" business owners, people who are aspirational and hope for better for their children. I find the idea that someone is a traitor to their class because they want to get on or have ambitions deeply offensive and immoral. I therefore prefer the second description but I wonder how useful the economic version of your definition is if membership is that transient. Better to focus on gig workers, the unemployed or specific sectors that tell you more about the issues they are facing.
You don't need to be a business owner to hope for better for your children. The problems come when business owners treat their employees like they're disposable and prevent them from realising their dreams for their children. Aspiration is not binary. I don't think it's at all helpful to view people as traitors to their class simply because they have made some money. But equally one might question whether they are still members of that class in the way that many people understand it. Although I have always been middle class I have certainly moved from one end of that wide envelope to the other in material terms over the course of my life, so I am certainly no stranger to, or enemy of, aspiration.
But your argument wasnt against bad business owners exploiting workers, it was that you cant be a working class business owner. Take a previously working class brickie who decides to employ five of his mates, they all work the same duties and hours but he happens to be the owner of the firm. On his first day of ownership does he automatically change class? Is he supposed to be aware of this?
Per Pidcock, you leave the working class at the point where you can live off your wealth. So with your example that would not be on the 1st day or anything close to it.
Usual caveat. Life is not so precise. But it's a helpful thought imo.
But its nonsense! So on retirement everyone stops being working class?
In this country its also perfectly possible to live off state benefits without ever doing a days work. Not fun or recommended, but do-able. So at birth we are all excluded from being working class.
On a personal level I could certainly retire early today and survive, just not at the level I would like to so will probably end up working another 15 years or so. Which level sets my class, my desired income, historic income or average income, or state sustenance?
I can answer these questions on Laura's behalf. On retirement you carry on being what you were before you retired. Being jobless on benefits does not count as living off your wealth because it is not living comfortably. Which means - let's put this out there - that your capital needs to be sufficient to generate an income of at least the average wage without any labour input from you. If you're in that boat you can only be "cultural" working class - which is the softer, subjective and imo less useful concept (albeit not irrelevant).
Perhaps it is my youth in the less class obsessed USA, but I find these odd distinctions. It is perfectly possible to be both blue collar and middle class there.
I like that piece from Pidcock. You are working class if you (or earning partner) have to work for a living. There's more to it of course but that imo is a good start point.
The cultural aspect is not irrelevant but it's a soft subjective measure and lends itself to much posturing and affectation in all directions.
So Hyacinth Bucket is working class. Jamie Vardy is not working class.
I disagree with that.
For me, class is not defined by wealth. Beckham, for instance, will always be working class regardless of his riches. (I don`t see working class as in any way a derogatory term by the way.)
I don`t believe you can change your class. But I do believe that a child can be a different class to the parents. I`d say I`m working class (lower middle if you like) but my children are middle class (upper middle if you like).
That's too divorced from the hard realities of power and money and "capital vs labour" for me. But question for you -
When you say a child can be a different class to their parents you picture that one way only - child moving up - am I right?
Comments
A lot of small business owners are doing the same work as the "workers" they employ....
Also this - https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/06/16/rewards-for-failure/
I don't think it's at all helpful to view people as traitors to their class simply because they have made some money. But equally one might question whether they are still members of that class in the way that many people understand it.
Although I have always been middle class I have certainly moved from one end of that wide envelope to the other in material terms over the course of my life, so I am certainly no stranger to, or enemy of, aspiration.
In fairness there were always many in Labour who wanted equality of opportunity and welcomed those who took those opportunities. In the days of Momentum, however, these seem a somewhat quieter Blairite (spit) minority and Labour are not better for it.
The cultural aspect is not irrelevant but it's a soft subjective measure and lends itself to much posturing and affectation in all directions.
So Hyacinth Bucket is working class. Jamie Vardy is not working class.
He absolutely loves the trappings of his office and will never relinquish them willingly. He would never have bothered with the million quid paint job on the Brexit Belle if he weren't in it for the literal and figurative long haul.
Now Labour leads with graduates and the Tories do better with skilled working class C2s than high earners
https://twitter.com/LukeSmithF1/status/1281514286804799488
Usual caveat. Life is not so precise. But it's a helpful thought imo.
They couldn't call it that so it's at their track instead (mind you Red Bull got 2 races at their track so it's fair).
The cracks are appearing in his colossal socialist experiment. The prosecutions for furlough fraud are starting, and reported to be the tip of the iceberg.
Lower down the thread we see the mind boggling sums spent on PPE and track and don;t trace for what looking more and more like dubious rewards every day.
His jobs initiatives and green subsides will be the next to come apart at the seams in my book, in the same way as every government initiative on these there ever was has foundered.
At some juncture he will have to go cap in hand to tory middle England to bankroll these and other socialist follies. A tory middle England that is already paying the highest taxes in fifty years. The push back will be enormous and may well cost Johnson his job. It would be no surprise now if Sunak went with him.
Sunak's position is worsening by the day.
And in that situation, you get stasis for quite a while, followed by sudden catastrophic failure. Good luck, everyone.
In this country its also perfectly possible to live off state benefits without ever doing a days work. Not fun or recommended, but do-able. So at birth we are all excluded from being working class.
On a personal level I could certainly retire early today and survive, just not at the level I would like to so will probably end up working another 15 years or so. Which level sets my class, my desired income, historic income or average income, or state sustenance?
https://sangstories.webs.com/ohdearme.htm
I also remember as a kid visiting relatives who lived in tenements with outside "toilets" (no more than a hole really) built into the back staircase of the block. It was grim.
But there was a time in my life when the Timex, NCR, Michelin, DC Thomson, James Keiller and the docks provided a lot of reasonably well paid work in the town bringing money into the shops and creating something of a buzz. Now we seem to have some very well to do, mainly connected with the University and a pretty much unemployable underclass scraping a living from gig work. The middle has been hollowed out.
The modern revival of this is an attempt to reach out to the "modern middle class". Who are mostly employees, and join them in common cause with the blue collar workers.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Huawei-crackdown/Huawei-receives-go-ahead-for-1.2bn-UK-research-center
LONDON (Reuters) -- China's Huawei Technologies said on Thursday it had received planning permission for a 1 billion pound ($1.2 billion) research and development facility in England.
The new centre will employee around 400 people and focus on producing optical equipment used in fibre-optic communication systems, Huawei said in a statement.
The development is likely to anger officials in the United States and some British lawmakers who say Huawei's equipment can be used by Beijing for spying and that Britain should reconsider a January decision to allow it a limited role in its 5G networks. The company denies the charges.
British officials are in the process of reviewing how to best mitigate any security risks posed by Huawei in light of new U.S. sanctions announced in May, which aim to cut off the firm's supply of the advanced microchips needed to make its equipment. A decision is expected in the coming weeks.
Huawei Vice President Victor Zhang said the technology developed at the new centre was separate from that targeted by the U.S. restrictions, and it was "simply wrong" to suggest its announcement was timed to influence Britain's decision...
Why is Tugendhat so low? Why is Ruth Davidson sub 1000?
Mr. Eek, ah, that's a nice anniversary for them.
She concludes "For years, it was unfashionable, but in an economy like ours, it makes more and more sense. I am happy that the Labour Party, too, now foregrounds class politics and that we will go into a general election to speak for our class — working-class people, the majority of people."
Tell normals like in Leigh that they are working class and that is "about focusing on the collective power we have, and on solidarity" and they'll tell you to do one. And rightly so. Unless Starmer can bad aside that kind of language Labour are really going to lose their ability to speak to these voters in these places.
For me, class is not defined by wealth. Beckham, for instance, will always be working class regardless of his riches. (I don`t see working class as in any way a derogatory term by the way.)
I don`t believe you can change your class. But I do believe that a child can be a different class to the parents. I`d say I`m working class (lower middle if you like) but my children are middle class (upper middle if you like).
"Zombie Businesses" (ie just existing not growing) have been repeatedly pointed out as a problem since the financial crash.
This will shake out a lot of zombies.
Three years on it's going to be very different. He's going to be vulnerable:
1. The public purse will be empty.
2. Too many businesses will have gone bust and jobs will have been lost because the Covid recovery money wasn't properly targeted.
3 Add to that the charge that too much of the money was true to form wasted rewarding the Tories friends. Second home subsidies, stamp duty cuts etc.
4. There'll be a reaction against wasting money on Johnson's vanity investment projects rather than addressing real needs.
5. An era of low Interest rates may well be coming to an end, hitting highly indebted household budgets.
6. Austerity and public sector retrenchment will be rearing its head yet again. No scope for tax cuts. The economic cycle will be out of synch with the optimal political cycle.
Sunak won't be the new fresh faced kid on the block. He'll be the person held responsible for all that.
Hunt`s odds are attractive in my view. And I wouldn`t count Patel out of it.
In the podcast, Howard blames Peter Morrison but Sir Malcolm Rifkind also ran her campaign. Really, these were extraordinarily poor choices. One was a known boozer (at best) and the other was spending most of his time in Edinburgh trying to save a bank. Perhaps yet another sign Mrs Thatcher's famed intellect was in decline.
A small business I am invested in operates out of a decent size premises (7000 sqft) with a rates bill of around 10k a year. That will create about 10 jobs over a few years by direct employment of subletting.
With the 25k grant, and 2 x years off business rates, that is a significant sum (for us) of around 40-50k in total.
If I look at a similar business in say St Albans or Brighton, that amount of money will be less significant.
How much more significant will that be for Leigh vs say Islington North? Is that a built-in relatively greater impact for the Red Wall?
So after that it's Portugal as it will still have decent weather then Vietnam (possibly) Bahrain and then Abu Dhabi.
Pidcock looks through a Marxist lens, of course. If you are merely separating the plebs from the bourgeoisie, those who work and those who own capital, that`s pretty unhelpful. Doesn`t get you far given the proportions of the population which fit each category.
We know only that he hasn't tried to get her a bung from work. Yet.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22000973
I am a member of the Elite group, much to my dismay...
My argument is that because we are all wedded to our own preferred and as this thread shows completely different definitions of class, its time to create alternative measures that are clear, specific and dont use the word class at all. It then needs to be promoted over a number of years by govt and ONS.
But he's got to do things that make him feel good, and that's the main thing.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8508029/Middle-class-mother-living-Cotswolds-idyll-seduced-fraud-claimed-Rothschild.html
can Trump hang defund around Biden's neck? that has to be his strategy.
When you say a child can be a different class to their parents you picture that one way only - child moving up - am I right?
It may be useful to group people in terms of wealth, I agree, but then (I`d argue) we are not talking about class.