Keir Starmer's definition of working class

Isn't it the same as teachers talking about 'my classroom', or anyone talking about 'my office'? It is theirs for the time they use it, but nobody assumes that they are pretending to own it.

It's a lot of fuss about nothing. Keir Starmer didn't even say it - it was his father.

"So why did his father refer to it as ‘my factory’ ?"

Pride? I would guess, or absence of a term for "trained skilled toolmaker working from small rented unit"

Probably because it was his factory in the sense that that was where he worked.
Please see Doodledog's spot on post. When I was teaching I went to my school, worked in my classroom, did departmental work in my office.. I did not own them and later when my role changed I would tell pupils to come to my office., a different office. My previous office was used by another teacher.
Why does it matter ?

Would one say in conversation ‘my rented house’ ?

Yes, I think people would, especially these days.

Really? ‘Fancy coming to my landlord’s house for coffee?’ I’ve never heard anyone say that ever.

If only Mr Starmer Snr used the space it seems perfectly reasonable that he would call it his.

Why these days ?

No, neither have I heard that phrase, But I ahve heard people say. 'Oh we live at........ We rent it'

Yes, that can be said in a conversation but not that often, why would Mr Starmer senior say ‘my son works in my rented factory’ ? He wouldn’t

My OH constructed a very nice wooden structure at the bottom of the garden when we first moved into our house.

He refers to it as his workshop because he's put tools in it.

It's a shed.

How much any of this matters when it comes down to us being (probably?) governed by Starmer's Labour Party, I've no idea.

When Sadiq Khan was elected Mayor of London, much was made of the fact that his father was a bus-driver and he, Khan, made capital out of it to emphasise how he felt this made him a "born-and-bred Londoner".

The unfortunate Rishi Sunak is in some quarters castigated because of his privileged and now wealthy background - the accusation is that it means he's out-of-touch with 'ordinary' people. Although I personally don't think that being wealthy automatically excludes anyone from being connected to the people they represent. I believe that Sunak's misfortune is that he's just not very good at politics. Boris Johnson, in spite of his privileged upbringing managed to convince some of the electorate that he was a man-of-the-people.

I don't care what their fathers or mothers did or didn't do for a living, I only care what they are going to do. I know we are all a product of our upbringing to a large extent, but that's not always evident in the way we behave ultimately.

Dickens

My OH constructed a very nice wooden structure at the bottom of the garden when we first moved into our house.

He refers to it as his workshop because he's put tools in it.

It's a shed.

Yes, you only have to read estate agent details of perfectly ordinary houses to see how houses become ‘properties’ or ‘villas’, back yards become ‘patios’, and so on. There are such things as ‘link detached properties’ too, apparently.

It would never have occurred to me to talk about my ‘mortgaged’ house, or change how I referred to it after the last payment was made. I’d think someone who did that was very odd.

What Starmer didn’t say was that his father owned the toolmaking factory! People do not have cheque books anymore but they do have credit cards and they use them even when they can’t afford to. Years ago I preached to my children, learn the difference between wanting and needing and live with in your means. Some of those ‘poorer’ working people still have the latest iPhones and pay for view TV, even some of those that don’t work but claim benefits have the same. We have neither although we could probably afford to but these are not a necessity.

WelwynWitch3

What Starmer didn’t say was that his father owned the toolmaking factory! People do not have cheque books anymore but they do have credit cards and they use them even when they can’t afford to. Years ago I preached to my children, learn the difference between wanting and needing and live with in your means. Some of those ‘poorer’ working people still have the latest iPhones and pay for view TV, even some of those that don’t work but claim benefits have the same. We have neither although we could probably afford to but these are not a necessity.

Oh for heavens sake. Might I suggest you read the whole thread before making such accusation? Including the explanation as to why he used the terms that he did.

Indeed, Maybee. We go round and round in circles when people refuse to read the thread before posting.

Discussing something Starmer didn’t say and complaining about something he didn’t say but should have,

Just had a visit from a local candidate.
Very interesting, but when I asked why all the candidates (themselves included) seem to want to tell us about what their parents did in the run up to this election, they said it’s not relevant. It’s what you’ve done, not what your parents did or who they were that’s important.

Anniebach

Discussing something Starmer didn’t say and complaining about something he didn’t say but should have,

Quite Anniebach.

But I think Starmer - and the leaders of the other parties - will be well aware that in the climate of the run-up to an election, the media and the electorate will be setting little trip wires left, right and centre, at any given opportunity.

Meanwhile of course people are worried about taxation, both direct and indirect, the current problems with an overwhelmed health service, energy bills, the cost of renting, etc, etc.

Unless it's slipped my memory, I don't remember such an emphasis on prospective candidates' parents' occupations during previous elections. Apart from the usual accusations that the leaders of the Right-are-wealthy-and-out-of-touch, and the Left - becoming ever more 'sophisticated' - are champagne socialists... that's pretty standard stuff.

But it's all getting tedious. I can't wait for it all to be over.

Agree Dickens , I have campaigned in Elections for nearly 60
years, not this time, I have not known such personal attacks ,
there was Thatcher and her father being a shopkeeper but not
like the attacks on Starmer

Sorry, meant to add to post at 17.19, that one page of the candidate’s 4page pick me leaflet was taken up with where they were brought up and what their parents did. They didn’t see the weirdness of their comment, when I showed them the evidence.

eazybee

He is quoted in the DT as referring to 'working people' which in my definition is everyone who works and earns money for it.

But not his apparently. All this is yet another attempt by politicians to divide us into categories. That is the only way they can rule. If any of them started talking about all the poeple of this country and how they were going to ensure everyone benefited from their policies they would be worth listening to.

Oh, come on, GrannyRose' . How could any politician satisfy *all the people in the country when people have such a huge range of differing views on what they want from a government?

It was usual for the Conservatives to refer to ‘the British people’. I thought I knew what ‘working people’ meant until Starmer came up with a very different definition.

I think it's pretty obvious that he means that the LP will tax things other than income derived from work. Working people, whatever their occupation, will be protected from tax rises on their earned income.

About time, IMO - those who work have been expected to support those who don't for far too long. If 'those who don't' means the young, the old, the sick or disabled, or those who want to work but are temporarily unemployed then fine. But if it means those who choose not to work then I really hope that imbalance is addressed.

As it stands, people without the means to opt out of working are all but compelled to support people who can afford to live on rents, income from stocks and shares, inheritances or other sources that do not involve producing goods or providing services. It's no wonder the UK has become uncompetitive.

As it stands, people without the means to opt out of working are all but compelled to support people who can afford to live on rents, income from stocks and shares, inheritances or other sources that do not involve producing goods or providing services. It's no wonder the UK has become uncompetitive.

Aah. Now you're talking, Dd. I'm completely in agreement with you on this.