Who are the Working Class these days?

52bright, remember that your husband married you, too . There is no reason why you should be defined by his occupation when you have one of your own, any more than he should (or shouldn't) be defined by yours.

I don't think that occupation is a reliable indicator of social class anyway. It was always the case that people with very different levels of intellectual ability have worked side by side - but in the past this was justified because clever people from poorer backgrounds were usually denied the opportunity to get qualifications, and they were not recognised as having potential. Consequently, it was easy to suggest that those with managerial roles were better suited to them because of their education and ability (class, if you like), but now that there are numerous graduates working in call centres alongside people with GCSEs, it is harder to maintain that fiction.

The notion that this is the first generation to 'do less well' than the previous one only applies to the lower end of the middle classes. The poor were never likely to do better, the rich will be fine anyway, and the comfortable/wealthy will be cushioned. It is the people in the middle, who, having benefitted from the first round of educational expansion, now see their position as a right.

Now that their gains are reducing as subsequent generations are also taking advantage of an expanding education sector, they belittle the achievements of the 'newcomers' and point to the fact that graduates now have to compete for the best jobs as evidence that expansion has gone too far. The genie is out of the bottle, though, and I doubt that the new generation of graduates will be happy to let their children just accept that they should take up low status employment, any more than the grammar school educated graduates of the first expansion did.

Covid will result in a shake-up of the labour market, and we will face even more job losses as a result of Brexit, particularly if there is no deal. Traditional class divisions may end up as secondary to the division between those with jobs and those without.

Up to a point, this happened in the 80s, when the loss of whole sectors resulted in job losses for everyone involved, whether they were managers or workers, and people who bought council houses at massive discounts had more disposable income than those who bought on the open market and had higher mortgages.

Again, the poor were hit hardest, as the better off got redundancy packages and had more opportunities, but the traditional fault lines shifted, and 'Loadsamoney' types did very well out of the demolition of the old structures. Who knows what we are facing now, and whether a party based on collective representation will be successful - it could fill a much-needed gap in the political market, or it could sink into oblivion. I think it is far too early to make predictions.

Well being as we've ALL worked for what we now have I'd say that we're ALL working class, wouldn't you ?
Unless of course you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth and didn't have to work----such as landed gentry.

It has been, and still is, the Labour Party, which allows the Tories to hang on to power, because they still cling on to FPTP although they know it is undemocratic in the vain hope that eventually they will again gain a majority of MPS on the basis of a minority vote.

That ship has sailed thanks to the SNP. When I was growing up Scotland was Labour Party country where Labour votes were weighed, not counted.

The Labour Party .must now campaign for electoral reform or accept that, no matter how corrupt or incompetent they prove to be, the Tories will just remain in power.

Good post 52bright.
So much has changed in politics since WW2 except that the Tories still manage to hold onto the power they've had for hundreds of years.

How do we define working class these days? My mother was born in 1931 and at that time the division between the middle and working class was very definite and in essence was defined by education. Unless you passed 'the scholarship' you were destined to leave school at 14 and work in shop/factory/shipyards/mine ext thus perpetuating a continuation of class from one generation to the next. The few attained a better education and through that were able to put one foot on the upwardly mobile ladder towards middle class occupations. My mother always made distinctions between those who worked in overalls and those who worked in suits. She saw social class as something you could judge by type of work, which was facilitated through education.

These days? Far more difficult to define. Born of aspirational working class parents whose 3 children are me, a teacher and two executives ...do our roles in life define us ...or our backgrounds? Maybe we can be defined by who we married. Does that change our social class in that it has a bearing on our children? I married a lovely working class man who is my rock. But is he working class? His job says yes, his interests ...lay preacher, which he studied for in his spare time, local landscape painter, avid reader may say something different. Does it matter? We and our very diverse friends don't think so.
When it comes to politics I think it's a mistake to define all labour voters as 'working class'. You don't have to, in your own life, need a better provided social state to know that it is right to provide for the weakest in our society. I vote labour, but so far, thank God, me and mine don't need social state provision. There are very few of us though who don't need a well provided National Health Service though and that costs money. I. for one, am willing for my taxes to rise substantially to pay for this and other benefits. Does that make me working class? I haven't a clue and I don't care that much.

My own family is diverse. My mother's grandchildren? 2 teachers, one solicitor, one chartered accountant and an executive. With all three of her children brought up in a council flat in the North East of England. However things don't look so great for her great grandchildren. I would like to think that they will have the same opportunities. Sadly though, I think politics have changed and too many people are prepared to vote in an 'I'm all right Jack way' which pulls up the draw bridge on those who come after us.

As DH always says 'there may be no party you want to vote for, there is usually one you can vote against.

I agree Hefty. Many votes are cast against the worst choice rather than for the best choice. If we lived in a democracy with a fair voting system people would be free to vote positively rather than negatively, whjch would surely encourage far better participation in the democratic process.

Varian, people vote tactically, though. A Labour vote is often an anti-Tory vote, so we wouldn't 'waste' a vote on the smaller Lib Dems.

The concept of class and the the division between classes has been damaging to the progress of this country for a long time.

We should direct our support to non-classed based politics and work for the good of all, irrespective of the out dated labels still bandied about.

The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.

By posting here Fennel I think this question is being asked of a microcosm of the British voting public, some admit to being working class, but are not on the whole now working. The facts demonstrate that there is an increasing propensity for people to vote Tory as they age - self preservation and a loss of the altruistic thinking that so many of the younger generation have. It makes me sad. I hope that Labour can find their way, and it does give me some hope that will happen with Keir Starmer in charge of the party, it’s already obvious that he runs rings round our esteemed PM because he has a sharp mind and does his homework.

AbeLincoln I quote from my post of yesterday 20.41
Strictly speaking practically all of us are workibg class because we all need to work for our living and the majority will have financial problems if there is no money coming in for more than a month or two.

The Prince of Wales et al can manage to live very well without the day job. He will not be signing on after a month or two.

I know that the concept of 'Working Class' is now almost meaningless.
But how otherwise can a new political party identify itself in the minds of the electoret? sp?
As well as having acceptable socialist principles, our priority should be to present an effective opposition to the Tories.
How to combine the two?

I was speaking to a friend on the phone this morning and she too is sick to the back teeth of us NWesters being left in the cold.
There's proof enough with our figures for Covid.

I would welcome a party who recognises the North West of the country !

Hetty58 says "The Working Class, by definition, includes all those who work for a living". With respect that is a not very satisfactory explanation. Examples of people who work for a living are HRH The Prince of Wales, the Governor of the Bank of England, the CEO of Dyson right the way through to a train driver, a school teacher, a shop assistant down to a refuse collector or street sweeper. They all work for a living but I would not describe HRH Prince Charles or Andrew Bailey as "Working Class"

Exactly, the concept that unless you, your parents and grand-parents, and great-grandparents, etc- worked down a pit or heavy industrial work- you cannot consider yourself to be 'working-class' is nonsense. And to consider all white colour workers and public services employees, be they nurses or teachers, etc- are all 'Champagne socialists' is also nonsense and so limiting (and insulting tbh).

Nanfer5g

growstuff

A political party started by trade unions and dominated by Unite might as well consign itself to the history books now.

The present Labour Party was formed out of the trades unions over one hundred and twenty years ago. It also has been financed throughout that time by those same trades unions. Many of its MPs until recent years have held positions in the trades union prior to moving into a political role. In that the Labour Party has existed as one of the two major political organisations in the United Kingdom throughout that long history.

Why then should any new party emerging into British politics from the same background not achieve the same success????

Society has moved on in a hundred years. For a start, in the late nineteenth century, the country didn't have universal suffrage. Secondly, the jobs people do have changed. Thirdly, the unions weren't the only forces behind the Labour Party.

A Unite-dominated political party would not be sustainable, especially as most of its current membership is male.

He who pays the piper calls the tune.

In the UK politics has been dominated by two well funded parties- one funded predominantly by trades unions and the other by big business and wealthy donors.

It is absurd to believe that these two parties do anything other than promote what they see to be the best interests of their funders.

The one thing they have long agreed on is the preservation of the undemocratic FPTP voting system which they know will allow them to impose their policies on the whole population although most of those who voted voted against them.

This has resulted in damaging lurches to the left or right, a colossal waste of time and taxpayers money, a rejection of consensus and an increasingly divided society

As the song says 'the working class can kiss my a**e, I've got the foreman's job at last'.

Government statistics do not talk in terms of class, that is so yesterday and we are talking about today. They talk about Soci-economic groups.

I think these are grossly out of date as well. The days when working class meant horny-handed sons of toil, middle class meant collar, tie and mortgage and upper class meant professions or private income are long gone.

Nowadays, solicitors, teachers and University academics live in Housing Association rented properties because they cannot afford to buy and good tradesmen live in their own houses and probably earn more as well, these divisions are outdated. Graduates can, for decades, earn no more than their parents in manual jobs.

I would cut out all socio demographic dividions and just class people by income only, expressed as percentages of the average age.

Is there some sort of script?

growstuff

A political party started by trade unions and dominated by Unite might as well consign itself to the history books now.

The present Labour Party was formed out of the trades unions over one hundred and twenty years ago. It also has been financed throughout that time by those same trades unions. Many of its MPs until recent years have held positions in the trades union prior to moving into a political role. In that the Labour Party has existed as one of the two major political organisations in the United Kingdom throughout that long history.

Why then should any new party emerging into British politics from the same background not achieve the same success????

A political party started by trade unions and dominated by Unite might as well consign itself to the history books now.

Should be Starmer at his best in my above post.

AbeLincoln regarding your post at 20:59 today, I believe I have read that Starmer has announced the ending of the Labour Party community based branch and support plan. The Party is facing a financial crisis despite receiving more that seven million in funding from the trades unions since last December. Nearly five million of that amount came from Unite members alone.

The Labour Party is the most well funded political organisation in Europe but its huge bureaucracy and total inefficiency has led it to its present financial position. So, the first thing it cuts is support for communities that are most in need of backing.

Starter at his best. ?

Good post AbeLincoln.