According to Angela Rayner 'Working class people do not want "handouts" but support to find jobs.'

People don’t ask your antecedents M0nica, they don’t need to, because if you are of that group they already know them, or know somebody who does - and they can tell. Maybe it is more diluted in the south east because it’s much more populous than most parts of the UK? I’m really surprised at you denying the existence of a class system still operating though, because it’s so obvious to me, and I suspect to others. Certainly that was what the YouGov survey showed.

Casdon

It’s just not true to say that though Monica. Some families carry weight, they are on committees, they run charities, they dominate their local social scenes, they organise events - and they work as a pack, getting each other jobs, supporting each others children. They are the desired presence on other peoples invite lists. The old saying ‘It’s not what you know, it’s who you know’ is as prevalent as it ever was. You must live in a very close knit group if you don’t see these influences around you.

I agree.

If people don't see this, they are either outside of the group, or so embedded within it that they see it as the norm.

M0nica, I'm sorry, but you are doing it again. You are using the very things that enable a class-based society to explain that it doesn't exist. If we didn't have 'class' the fact that someone's ancestor was a cleaner would be about as relevant as the fact that he had fair hair or wore glasses. Just as in your previous post the fact that the doctor dressed 'like a road worker' would matter no more nor less than if she kept koi carp or read Dickens.

GG My 'indeed' comment above cross posted with yours so was actually meant for Anniebach, with whose comment about people seeing themselves as 'better' than others I agreed. I also agree with you that 'made good' can be used about overcoming adversity, but again, that suggests that the adversity, and by extension those who suffer from it, are 'bad'.

In either case, 'good' = those who 'get out' of a class (as in M0nica's earlier example) or a situation (as in yours), which leaves those left behind as 'not good', which = bad.

I hold by my thesis that it is money that counts. The society you mix in and your acceptability is decided by how well off you are, what house you can afford, the car you drive.

I have seen different members of families of my acquaintance move up and down the social scale, sometimes with siblings going diametrically different directions, based on where their income takes them. In one case, a woman went into the finance industry, reached a senior level, lives in a smart part of London, and mixes with the great and good - her income, job status, house etc place her there. Her brother, dyslexic before it was recognised, drove a lorry all his working life, his children would be living in housing association homes, were it not for their wealthy aunt, who helped them buy a house. Their lifestyles and interests reflect their income, yet my friend's brother was privately educated. She passed her 11 plus and went to a state grammar school.

If you have the money, you will be absorbed into the society of your monetary equals, regardless of their 'breeding', education. If you have no money the same will happen. People move up and down the social order based on their income.

In either case, 'good' = those who 'get out' of a class (as in M0nica's earlier example) or a situation (as in yours), which leaves those left behind as 'not good', which = bad.

'good' has many meanings. In a case like above 'making good' generally means having more money so that you have some protection from all the choices forced on you by extreme poverty. The 'good' refers to the circumstances, not the person.

It is good to be financially comfortable. That does not make you a good person. It is bad to be poor. That does not mean you are a bad person.

The meaning of the word you have chosen Doodledog is very American and Trumpian. It is not how it has been defined in Britain. Indeed, our literature and folklore lauds the person who is poor and is good. Poverty, in artistic circles, is sign of virtue and purity, I am not talking sexually.

Doodledog In either case good = those who get out of a class (as in Monica’s earlier example) or a situation (as in yours) which ,eaves those left behind as not good which = bad

I think we all know that there are people here in the U.K. living in bad situations, this doesn’t mean they are bad

A single parent living in temporary accommodation with their children, a women living in a home for abused women, a young person having left care reduced to sofa surfing, etc.

There are many more examples I could give you, it’s the situations that are bad, and anyone would want to better themselves by way of education, employment and then promotion to get out of them.

The meaning of the word you have chosen Doodledog is very American and Trumpian. It is not how it has been defined in Britain. Indeed, our literature and folklore lauds the person who is poor and is good. Poverty, in artistic circles, is sign of virtue and purity, I am not talking sexually.
Nobody would object to being called 'good' in that sense, but that is not the point, which is that when 'good' means getting a 'middle class' job, the suggestion is that 'working class' jobs are 'bad', or at least 'lesser'.

As I've said, there is a huge contradiction in talking about people moving up and down the social scale whilst at the same time suggesting that no such scale exists. We are going round in circles though .

M0nica

I hold by my thesis that it is money that counts. The society you mix in and your acceptability is decided by how well off you are, what house you can afford, the car you drive.

I have seen different members of families of my acquaintance move up and down the social scale, sometimes with siblings going diametrically different directions, based on where their income takes them. In one case, a woman went into the finance industry, reached a senior level, lives in a smart part of London, and mixes with the great and good - her income, job status, house etc place her there. Her brother, dyslexic before it was recognised, drove a lorry all his working life, his children would be living in housing association homes, were it not for their wealthy aunt, who helped them buy a house. Their lifestyles and interests reflect their income, yet my friend's brother was privately educated. She passed her 11 plus and went to a state grammar school.

If you have the money, you will be absorbed into the society of your monetary equals, regardless of their 'breeding', education. If you have no money the same will happen. People move up and down the social order based on their income.

We will have to agree to disagree M0nica. We haven’t moved on from the Bingleys and the Bennets (and the DeBurghs) in my opinion - money will still not include you in the inner circle of a different class to your own -acceptance is at many levels.

Support in jobs often isn't there ask all the nervous working class people or people who are quiet how many have been bullied Then there are working class and prob middle class who didn't reach a good level in reading or maths

I wouldn't recognise a 'different class to my own' if it crept into bed with me smoking a pipe.

Anyway, I do not have a class. I have a mark on an income graph.

I didn't like Rayner's use of the word 'handouts'. It's pejorative. They are benefits provided by all of us to those in need.

Grantanow

I didn't like Rayner's use of the word 'handouts'. It's pejorative. They are benefits provided by all of us to those in need.

Quite.

We're a working class family. We need no help, others may.

RR would support working class in getting jobs. 'Our policies are about lifting people out of poverty', Rachel Reeves says.

I can't imagine what could be wrong with support.