Keir Starmer's definition of working class

And to bring it back to Keir Starmer Doodledog, it is very clear that caring for his disabled mother and carrying much of the weight of the family on his shoulders, has shaped his character. The biography is an excellent read.

I think that carers get a poor deal. A friend of mine looked after his mum for years. He gave up a decent job to do it, and was paid attendance allowance (or similar) which was very meagre. He had no free time, as his mum had dementia and couldn't be left. As he wasn't working, he lost out on pension contributions as well as salary, and was working 24 hours a day, doing personal care as well as keeping the house going and keeping his mother clean and safe, going to medical appointments etc.

When his mum died, he had three weeks before having to start applying for work, or his benefits would be cut. Three weeks! After years of saving the state a fortune in care. He had just had the funeral, and was barely back on his feet after that.

It's disgraceful, and he's far from alone in being treated like that. It's not remotely the same as having healthy school aged children and staying at home when they are at school.

Lexisgranny

I am afraid that Starmer senior would beg to differ Dickens. Writing about his son in an article in volume 18 issue 3 of the Barn Theatre news printed in August 2014, he said that prior to going to university Keir took a year off, “the next six months were spent in my factory operating a production machine.”

Whether some prefer to regard it as a workshop, this was obviously not how his father saw it. The article covered the period from when he went to primary school until he was knighted.

You must have missed my post before!
Mamie
Just checked the Tom Baldwin biography, Chapter 2 and it describes Rodney Starmer working alone in his factory, based in an old canteen. Before that he worked in other people's factories in South London and Caterham, but wanted to work nearer to home to care for his wife. Keir's mother was not able to work for much of his childhood, she had Still's Disease and became increasingly disabled. The impact on his childhood is very clear in this and other sources.
I realise people may not find this very interesting or relevant, but I do think facts matter.
Keir did work for his father before going to university.

Anyone else remember in the Women's Movement in the 1970's discussions around "Wages for Housework? Not a lot new under the sun. It wasn't just for housework however, it included all caring roles that meant someone needed to be at home.

I am afraid that Starmer senior would beg to differ Dickens. Writing about his son in an article in volume 18 issue 3 of the Barn Theatre news printed in August 2014, he said that prior to going to university Keir took a year off, “the next six months were spent in my factory operating a production machine.”

Whether some prefer to regard it as a workshop, this was obviously not how his father saw it. The article covered the period from when he went to primary school until he was knighted.

Glorianny

Doodledog perhaps one solution to the problem would be what is usually known as "Wages for Housework" but is actually the idea that anyone engaging in caring for family members should be paid a wage. Thus those with paid partners but with home responsibilities would pay their own tax and insurance. There's actually an organisation campaigning for this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wages_for_housework#Relation_with_Global_Women's_Strike

So long as it recognises the fact that housework is done by those who work, too .

So often this debate becomes unnecessarily polarised as there is a (very strange IMO) assumption that workers (of both sexes) don't run homes and bring up children - of course they do - they just do it as well as going to work. Terms like 'full-time mother' are designed to belittle those who work, as the suggestion is that those who work are somehow 'part-time mothers', and there is never any mention of fathers who work being 'part-time'.

The vast majority of workers don't put their children on boarding school or get a full-time nanny and live entirely separate lives as captains of industry. They drop them off at school, a childminder or breakfast club, go to work, pick them up again after school or after-school club and go home to make dinner, clean the house, help with homework etc. Juggling 'life admin', doing the shopping, visiting elderly relatives and all the other things that make up that stage of life are done in the evenings and at weekends, around getting children to their playdates and hobby groups etc.

If those who have all day to do all of those things and are not contributing tax or producing goods or services should get paid for keeping their own house clean, how much extra should go to those who do all of this on top of going to work? And who would ensure that the standards of housework were up to scratch?

I think that caring for a sick or disabled person is different, however, and there should absolutely be a 'wage' for doing that.

Pammie1

Sago

His father was a toolmaker.

No. He owned the factory.

The factory was a rented workshop on an industrial estate.

He was largely a one-man band. A self-employed tradesman.

How many more times...

I'm not over-enthused about Starmer, but this idea that his father owned a conventional factory full of busy toolmakers is nonsense.

In busy periods he may well have had to employ extra hands, who knows, but he did not "own a factory" in the sense that people normally associate with 'factory owners'.

Oreo

Casdon

We all have different opinions, and as long as everybody understands the trade offs, okay. In my eyes a society where one partner is entitled to stay at home if the other earns a lot of money, but not otherwise, stinks.

That’s a very curious view I must say.
Women who don’t have to work i.e their partner/ husband earns enough to keep them, have that choice.Women who have a partner/ husband who earns enough to keep them both but want to work, that’s their choice too.If earning a lot they pay more taxes.
Women who have to work i.e me, also pay tax, tho a low-ish amount.
You can’t tax women ( or men) who don’t earn anything themselves.

That’s a very curious view I must say.

It is a bit.

If one individual earns a lot of money, he or she will also pay a lot of tax on it.

His or her net income is then 'available' to be spent (after bills are paid) in whatever way the earner chooses.

If he or she decides to spend their income on 'keeping' their spouse or partner, that is their choice.

... unless we are going to start making laws about what an individual is allowed to spend their income on? Which would be unthinkable IMO.

It may not seem very 'fair' - but the answer is not to attempt to somehow 'ban' it, but to make sure that everyone has a decent income for the work they do so they can also have a fair crack at the whip.

Also, a couple may decide to cut their budget, to live frugally, on one income, so that one partner can remain in the home - for whatever reason, which is no one else's business anyway. Is that wrong? Should they not be allowed to do that?

And can I just say that - without reference to any facts or statistics (I don't have the time) - is it not the case that, barring obviously some exceptions, the majority of women do at some point in their lives, work outside the home? During which time they will pay taxes and national insurance. Considering that it is largely women doing the grunt work of raising children and keeping the home ticking over so that the 'breadwinner' functions, the children are properly cared for and can become well-rounded, stable, future workers and tax-payers, all without recourse on the State... is that not enough?

As a single-parent working full-time, I can truthfully say I never begrudged those women who were in a position to stay at home. I occasionally envied them, but not in any malicious way. I was just determined to make the most of any opportunities that came my way, and work my way up the ladder so that life would become more comfortable.

However, I did have a good, well-paying job which was secure (though it was nothing special, just a common or garden secretarial one). I also had reasonably priced rented accommodation with a secure tenancy agreement, and a child-minder whose charges I could afford out of my one wage packet. And transport costs were also relatively reasonable, too.

... and that is what the problem is now. Well paid secure jobs are difficult to find, rented accommodation is hugely expensive, child-care costs are sometimes unaffordable, and travel is enormously expensive. And that is what needs addressing rather than debating whether it's right or wrong for one partner to pay for the upkeep of another.

Sago

His father was a toolmaker.

No. He owned the factory.

Mollygo

Yes, but I thought you actually had plans about how that could be made to work, which is why I asked those questions.

When my children first went to school, I, like many today, couldn’t get a job which didn’t involve paying child care costs, which, in addition to tax and deductions would have made it hardly worth working. On DH’s earnings alone, plus family allowance, we just scraped by, but I stayed at home.
Paying tax on my non earnings at that time would have made life impossible, but we weren’t even poor enough to get milk tokens.
Without the nitty gritty mentioned by Dickens, I didn’t see how you would decide how those not on benefits who didn’t have a job, would be assessed for the contribution they needed to make.

I understand that as a matter of principle everyone should contribute but I don’t see how it would be implemented fairly.
Last time a per adult capita was introduced, it brought the government down.

I understand that as a matter of principle everyone should contribute but I don’t see how it would be implemented fairly.

That's the problem.

The 'wealthy' would (reluctantly) pay-up.

The 'poor', not having that option, would be the ones dragooned into voluntary work. Probably equally reluctantly.

Wealthy and poor being relative terms here.

... and, let's not forget, well-off people who are not obliged to work very often are quite active anyway in the community.

I don't know how it is in other communities but the lady opposite me is very comfortable and her working life ended when she married her husband who has a very well-paid job. Ever since I've lived here I've been aware of how much involved she is in the local community. I won't bore people with a list of what she does, but she does devote quite a fair amount of time to voluntary work both at a local and national level. On a personal level, she's always available for those who are housebound, running errands for them, checking up on them, etc, etc. I don't think she's unique, I'm sure a lot of well off people 'give back' to society.

Sorry but such nonsense, will mothers who stay at home have to fill in a time sheet, or stop cleaning when the allotted time is reached

The suggestion in their documents isn’t just for caring for children, but wages for housework, which is argued against by some in the group.
For parents working outside the home, once the children have started school, they do not require 24/7 care, except when they’re ill or during school holidays where one parent has to take leave, or pay out for childcare. Would there be payments for that under the group’s plan?
It suggests that public funding should be used to pay the parent involved in
wages for housework. It sounds as if the public funding would pay money so that the government could tax that money.
Vast sums would be spent on assessing which people needed to be paid wages for housework which would probably swallow any tax gained by the government.
It’s not quite the same as Robbing Peter to pay Paul, but not much different.

All so demeaning for women who stay home to care for their children.

I did , husband in police force, elder daughter did with their three children, son in law a carpenter so no high salaries, I
helped my daughter and son in law, she wanted to be home with her children and I wanted her to know that joy.

Casdon

We all have different opinions, and as long as everybody understands the trade offs, okay. In my eyes a society where one partner is entitled to stay at home if the other earns a lot of money, but not otherwise, stinks.

That’s a very curious view I must say.
Women who don’t have to work i.e their partner/ husband earns enough to keep them, have that choice.Women who have a partner/ husband who earns enough to keep them both but want to work, that’s their choice too.If earning a lot they pay more taxes.
Women who have to work i.e me, also pay tax, tho a low-ish amount.
You can’t tax women ( or men) who don’t earn anything themselves.

Glorianny

Doodledog perhaps one solution to the problem would be what is usually known as "Wages for Housework" but is actually the idea that anyone engaging in caring for family members should be paid a wage. Thus those with paid partners but with home responsibilities would pay their own tax and insurance. There's actually an organisation campaigning for this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wages_for_housework#Relation_with_Global_Women's_Strike

Sorry I do not agree that anyone should get paid to care for their own children and clean their own house. This is just a benefit by another name.

The only time anyone should be paid to care for a child or parent is if there are mitigating health circumstances.

Doodledog perhaps one solution to the problem would be what is usually known as "Wages for Housework" but is actually the idea that anyone engaging in caring for family members should be paid a wage. Thus those with paid partners but with home responsibilities would pay their own tax and insurance. There's actually an organisation campaigning for this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wages_for_housework#Relation_with_Global_Women's_Strike

I believe everyone should be entitled to receive the benefits of a a civilised society at the point of need, whether they have paid or not. That’s the point, it’s free at the point of need. That includes education, medical care, the use of roads, police, fire services etc and includes access to benefits at times if necessary.
What is wrong is the few people who choose to live on benefits rather than work, and I know this happens because I worked in a school in a city centre where we had some families who absolutely did this. Other than this, and I don’t know how this misuse can be stopped, I don’t believe in attempting to force those people who don’t need to work, out to jobs or some sort of national service, to fulfill some sort of political ideology.

No-one should pay double the tax they owe on their earnings.

This attitude reduces caring for the next generation to a worthless occupation.
Many parents who were forced to return to work would find that childcare costs exceeded their income so it would be a pointless exercise.

As long as anyone is not claiming benefits (pension excluded) they can do as they please within the law.
Of course, and those who are able should be encouraged off benefits via training schemes and back into work.

Yes, but I thought you actually had plans about how that could be made to work, which is why I asked those questions.

When my children first went to school, I, like many today, couldn’t get a job which didn’t involve paying child care costs, which, in addition to tax and deductions would have made it hardly worth working. On DH’s earnings alone, plus family allowance, we just scraped by, but I stayed at home.
Paying tax on my non earnings at that time would have made life impossible, but we weren’t even poor enough to get milk tokens.
Without the nitty gritty mentioned by Dickens, I didn’t see how you would decide how those not on benefits who didn’t have a job, would be assessed for the contribution they needed to make.

I understand that as a matter of principle everyone should contribute but I don’t see how it would be implemented fairly.
Last time a per adult capita was introduced, it brought the government down.

Did you actually read my comments, Molly?

Oh. A principle. I get that. I just couldn’t see how it would be achieved, but evidently that wasn’t an expectation.

Thanks Dickens.

I think mollygo that Doodledog is talking about a principle rather than the detailed nitty-gritty of how that principle could be applied and who might or might not be exempt, etc.

My 'objection' is not to the principle of everyone contributing to the society in which they live, but to the idea that it can be measured in any way other than by the crude method of direct taxation.

When I took my work sabbatical to make life easier for my partner to set up in his own business, I didn't think about it then, but prompted by DD's concept, I'm now looking at my own contribution to society - because my late ex did set up a successful business, which not only provided a service to the wider public but generated a fairly hefty whack of tax to the Treasury, whilst employing people with specific qualifications not usually needed in mainstream business, who were very pleased to have the opportunity of a job for which they had served a long (7 years) apprenticeship, which were becoming very thin on the ground. Though my late ex died some years ago - the business is still running, though scaled down because of Covid, Brexit and the way the economy has bounced around. However, a service is still provided, people are employed, and tax receipts are going into the Treasury.

My small contribution, but a contribution no less - well, how can that be measured? For how long would it be 'valid'. All too complex to work out, but, as I said, I don't think DD is arguing about that, just the principle of it.

Personally, ideal though it might be, I don't think it could possibly work under modern Capitalism, only in a primitive society where it would be essential for survival of that society.

And that's my objection. Not to the principle, but to the practicalities of it. Measuring people's 'contributions' both in monetary and physical terms would be nigh on impossible, it would be an administrative nightmare.

We all have different opinions, and as long as everybody understands the trade offs, okay. In my eyes a society where one partner is entitled to stay at home if the other earns a lot of money, but not otherwise, stinks.

maddyone 👏👏👏