Keir Starmer's definition of working class

MaizieD

^ I'll be delighted when this is all over in a few weeks and we have a new government who can just get on with equalising society.^

That's what I am hoping for, Dd. but I'm not confident it will happen.

I think that the basic problem is that an awful lot of people doesn't want society to be equalised in any way. There's a very clear divide here on Gnet. which I think reflects the electorate.

That may be the case, but equally there are a lot of people who do want it, and we have been thwarted for 14 years (for most of my life, actually) and have just had to put up with it. If the tide has turned for a while, I won't lose sleep if Some People don't like it

MaizieD

^ I'll be delighted when this is all over in a few weeks and we have a new government who can just get on with equalising society.^

That's what I am hoping for, Dd. but I'm not confident it will happen.

I think that the basic problem is that an awful lot of people doesn't want society to be equalised in any way. There's a very clear divide here on Gnet. which I think reflects the electorate.

I think that the basic problem is that an awful lot of people doesn't want society to be equalised in any way. There's a very clear divide here on Gnet. which I think reflects the electorate.

I think you are right.

And it's a mistake to believe that all simply want a more equitable society.

If the electorate can be convinced by vested interests that anyone who hasn't saved for that rainy-day is the author of their own misfortune, then they will plug it for all it's worth. And they have, through their interface with the public, and it works. Hence we have the black-and-white picture of the work-shy, scroungers etc, who are the cause of our economic stagnation, and who should either be conscripted or have any benefits they receive cut off, and then we will be Great Britain again.

No mention is made of stagnating wages, high rents, working in the gig-economy, or contract working, which makes budgeting almost impossible, or very difficult.

Perhaps those in these positions should look for a better job? Well, they do - and that's why there's gaps in the service industries which have to be filled by someone - and that someone will then be faced with the same problems, and can be demonised by the rest of us for not working hard enough.

It's all so bloody predictable and depressing, so I'm butting out and going to do something productive and useful in the kitchen and the garden.

Mollygo

^Didn’t the Conservatives sell off a lot of school playing fields?^
I’m sure someone will come up with an answer, but some schools in my experience as a child, a parent, a teacher and a Governor, primary and secondary, were built with no room on the site for fields and the children either play on the playground or troop along to the local park.

One of my inner London Primary School’s in the 60’s had the girls playground on the roof of the building and the boys playground in the quadrant in the middle.

The next and final one had a hard surface playground for all, marked out with hopscotch and various games.

Grammar school had a small green area, four tennis/netball courts along with a hard surface playground.

Not sure schools in towns/inner cities have ever had much green space or playing fields.

Didn’t the Conservatives sell off a lot of school playing fields?
I’m sure someone will come up with an answer, but some schools in my experience as a child, a parent, a teacher and a Governor, primary and secondary, were built with no room on the site for fields and the children either play on the playground or troop along to the local park.

Caleo

Monica, "can write a cheque" simply means "can pay your bills".
Everyone knows that many people who work nevertheless can't pay their bills.

The huge differential between the haves and the have nots must be remedied.
I do not know what sort of school your grandchildren go to but you should know that kids at state schools often have no playing fields or green spaces to play in.

I have two senior schools within walking distance, both have sports halls, theatres, swimming pools, tennis/basketball courts.

These facilities are used by community groups after school and at the weekends.

Three of the primary schools within walking distance have large sports fields all have swimming pools and one has a hard court for tennis/basketball.

The primary next door to me has a wild nature garden, outside gym, climbing frames (eco friendly) along with a very large sports field and hard service playground.

We have two council run leisure centres in our borough, both with swimming pools, gyms, sports courts and are cheap for pensioners, students and those ion benefits .

To say that the U.K. is on its knees is an exaggeration, some areas have less facilities than others, maybe the residents should look to their local and county councils to see where their council tax has been spent.

(We also have two youth clubs run by a local church group along with a Sure Start Centre (yes they are still around and this one is seriously under used, despite it’s being publicised ))

All the above are in a commuter belt village (not big enough to be called a town) Properties are eye watering price wise, fortunately there are some council properties and housing association properties)

Didn’t the Conservatives sell off a lot of school playing fields?

They certainly approved it, MayBee. All that lovely land just ripe for development. Then they cut local council budgets to the bone so they had to close their leisure facilities...

^ I'll be delighted when this is all over in a few weeks and we have a new government who can just get on with equalising society.^

That's what I am hoping for, Dd. but I'm not confident it will happen.

I think that the basic problem is that an awful lot of people doesn't want society to be equalised in any way. There's a very clear divide here on Gnet. which I think reflects the electorate.

Caleo

Monica, "can write a cheque" simply means "can pay your bills".
Everyone knows that many people who work nevertheless can't pay their bills.

The huge differential between the haves and the have nots must be remedied.
I do not know what sort of school your grandchildren go to but you should know that kids at state schools often have no playing fields or green spaces to play in.

Didn’t the Conservatives sell off a lot of school playing fields?

Monica, "can write a cheque" simply means "can pay your bills".
Everyone knows that many people who work nevertheless can't pay their bills.

The huge differential between the haves and the have nots must be remedied.
I do not know what sort of school your grandchildren go to but you should know that kids at state schools often have no playing fields or green spaces to play in.

Well said , Dickens. I do wonder sometimes what is the point of joining in these "debates " as there is such a lot of "bashing".It would be better to look at the records of the parties. Name calling does belong in the playground.

Curtaintwitcher

In Starmer's view, working class people don't wear ties, have their sleeves rolled up, and drink tea out of big white mugs! Haven't you noticed that this is how he behaves when he brings himself down to their level?

Which is no different to Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, or Rishi Sunak donning aprons , hard-hats or high-viz jackets, when they visit various companies and organisations to mingle with the workers.

And all three have done that.

This is just getting so tiresome. Bashing for the sake of it. Let's debate their past record, their promises, their policies, because ultimately this is what will matter to 99% of the electorate - not Johnson / Truss / Sunak sporting a hard-hat or Starmer rolling up his sleeves. It's what they do - all of them, they've always done it whichever party they represent. It's playground-level stuff to make an issue of it.

How is anyone supposed to know how people manage their money when setting tax levels? If 'the working poor' are those with nothing left at the end of the month, it is impossible to say that they won't be hit with tax rises (on top of the numerous ones everyone's had over the past 15 years) if other 'working people' will be taxed. All that can be done is to set levels based on income, as outgoings cannot (and should not) be taken into account. I think what KS was saying is that there will be tax rises for the wealthy, but most of us needn't worry as he's not planning to make life worse for the majority.

Terms like 'working class' are problematic for all sorts of reasons, so I understand why he might have avoided using it. Tories tend to use 'hard-working families' which is equally meaningless. We all know that it means the 'squeezed middle', but it implies that those with less money don't work hard, which is patently untrue. The implicit judgement pleases their supporters and antagonises those who want equality.

It must be a real pain in the proverbial (for politicians on all sides) to have to weigh every word whilst trying to sound natural, knowing that interviewers are doing their best to catch you out, and that if they don't there will be people on social media nit-picking over everything and looking for a detrimental way to take it.

doodledog

👍👍👍

Mollygo

^ This for example should have been phrased as "the working poor" those who have nothing left for emergencies who struggle to make their money last to the end of the month.^
A much better description than working people. It would imply a better understanding of how some working people live.

That’s it.

Good post Doodledog. Page after page just designed to have a go.

No presentation of what conservative policies are on issues that we discuss.

Its the politics of despair - no point in this, no point in that, but no statements of what Sunak can offer or how he's going to cut 17 million.

I think it was a strange thing to say Doodledog and am a Labour voter.I think it may have just been tiredness on KS part as he’s usually careful with what he says, cautious even.

Wha is the term "used in the street", then?

M0nica

If ever I needed proof that class definitions are nonsense and all that matters is how much money you earn/have saved, then Keir Starmer's latest pronouncement on what is working class is the absolute proof.

According to the Times this morning he defined working class as those who cannot afford to write a cheque when they get into trouble

This definition will exclude almost all those traditionally considered 'working class', builders, tradesmen, many factory and assembly line workers, railway men. It will include many of those past retirement age, including many women, probably mostly over 80, who may never have worked since they married.

It will include all the financially inept, but not include many on small salaries who manage a small income with the skill of the Governor of the Bank of England.

I've read and re-read this post, and am no wiser as to what its point might be.

Is it that the OP thinks that KS struggles to identify the working class (even though he referred to 'working people')? He's not alone there - since traditional industry was destroyed by Thatcher it is difficult to define. The old definitions don't apply, unless we go back to Marx's 'non-owners of the means of production who sell their labour', and that definitely includes 'professionals' and office workers, alongside those who work in factories, distribution centres and call centres.

Is the OP genuinely making a point that class definitions are nonsense? In that case what has KS to do with anything? If the definition makes no sense, then how can he be expected to define it?

Is the point that 'background' is less important than 'how much money you earn/have saved'? Again, nothing to do with taxation or KS, surely?

Is the point of the OP that there is something strange about the term 'working people' not including workers who have saved a few quid? One of the defining characteristics of the old 'respectable working class' was that they were careful to save, whether in the form of weekly payments to insurance policies, via a building society book or credit unions. Also, these days 'tradesmen' (rightly) earn good money. Why is it odd that they should be excluded from a definition that includes those who can't afford to 'get out of trouble' when the rainy day strikes?

Or is it just having a go at the Labour Party? If so, this is why KS et al are so very careful not to say anything that can be twisted like this. Whatever they say is pounced on and used against them (ineptly or otherwise), and if they stay bland they are criticised for that, too. I've stayed away from threads like this as they are mud-slinging rather than debate, but this one is baffling. I'll be delighted when this is all over in a few weeks and we have a new government who can just get on with equalising society.

Starmer did not give a definition of working class

M0nica

If ever I needed proof that class definitions are nonsense and all that matters is how much money you earn/have saved, then Keir Starmer's latest pronouncement on what is working class is the absolute proof.

According to the Times this morning he defined working class as those who cannot afford to write a cheque when they get into trouble

This definition will exclude almost all those traditionally considered 'working class', builders, tradesmen, many factory and assembly line workers, railway men. It will include many of those past retirement age, including many women, probably mostly over 80, who may never have worked since they married.

It will include all the financially inept, but not include many on small salaries who manage a small income with the skill of the Governor of the Bank of England.

It was a really strange thing for him to say wasn’t it? Is he becoming a victim of election burn out?😁

Grantanow

I did read the thread GSM but I think getting hung up on definitions - working class or working people - is a real diversion from the failings of the Tory government.

It’s no diversion. It’s a discussion about why what Starmer’s definition of working people is not the definition the man in the street would use, and not even Reeves uses.

ldFrill Thu 20-Jun-24 09:27:57
M0nica
Maybee70 quite frankly I do not want any of them - except possibly Binman, but I am in the wrong constituency. The depth of my cynical disgust for all of our current generation of politicians of all parties is bottomless.

Working class, working people, in the context in which it was used they were more or less synonyms.
To misquote is to mislead. Changing words to suit ones own agenda is deceitful.

Agree , having disgust for should not be an excuse for an untruth

M0nica

Maybee70 quite frankly I do not want any of them - except possibly Binman, but I am in the wrong constituency. The depth of my cynical disgust for all of our current generation of politicians of all parties is bottomless.

Working class, working people, in the context in which it was used they were more or less synonyms.

To misquote is to mislead. Changing words to suit ones own agenda is deceitful.

Starmer did not speak of working class people, O/P was confused perhaps

Curtaintwitcher

In Starmer's view, working class people don't wear ties, have their sleeves rolled up, and drink tea out of big white mugs! Haven't you noticed that this is how he behaves when he brings himself down to their level?

What 'level' would that be, Curtaintwitcher?.

(Evidently one you view with disdain, of course...)