I thought the Labour party was meant to be the political party for and of the 'woking class'

I used to live fairly near Dulwich and catch the bus to and from school with DC boys. They weren’t ‘posh’ by any stretch of the of the imagination and most were scholarship boys. Same with St. Dunstans nearby.

nanna8

I used to live fairly near Dulwich and catch the bus to and from school with DC boys. They weren’t ‘posh’ by any stretch of the of the imagination and most were scholarship boys. Same with St. Dunstans nearby.

Maybe the posh ones didn't use buses. It's relative I guess, but the ones I've known have certainly been posh.

I still like the notion from the thread title of the Woking class. It always used to be a bit downmarket, but probably posher now. Very fast trains to Waterloo though.

AR’s mother probably was on benefits as she was living with chronic bipolar disorder. I doubt it was a lifestyle choice.
That must be a working class benefit. No benefits for chronic bipolar in our family. We must be the wrong class.

Allira

growstuff

How should people behave to be eligible to vote Labour?

It would appear that having anything beyond basic education and eating with friends round a table disqualifies people.

Sorry! That was then.

Now you have to have a degree in law or PPE from Oxford, Cambridge or a Russell Group University followed by time spent in a university in the USA or the LSE.

You should not just own your "family home" but also a second home in a desirable location where the hoi polloi undesirable locals have been driven out because property prices have shot up.

Your children will, of course, attend the local State school which is amongst the top of the league tables. It took time to choose the location of that family home with that in mind. There are always private tutors if the school fails them.

Sometimes you shop in Aldi or Lidl but keep quiet about your Ocado deliveries.

You believe in equality.

Why shouldn’t people have this lifestyle and vote Labour. A belief that all should have opportunities in life would be a better concept than believing in ‘equality’. ( smacks of Communism to me. ) We are not born equal and never will be, but having access to opportunities is key.
The concept of Working Class Conservatism has been the subject of Sociological studies for decades. Worth a delve into, there’s too many to quote here.

Mollygo

^AR’s mother probably was on benefits as she was living with chronic bipolar disorder. I doubt it was a lifestyle choice.^
That must be a working class benefit. No benefits for chronic bipolar in our family. We must be the wrong class.

Then perhaps AR’s mother wasn’t on benefits, as others seem to be claiming? I doubt very much that they’re awarded on the basis of class.

The delusions of the Left wre well set out by Peter Bracken in the Guardian some years ago. See share.google/i5FxucOqb4kSO0CUa

Mollygo

^AR’s mother probably was on benefits as she was living with chronic bipolar disorder. I doubt it was a lifestyle choice.^
That must be a working class benefit. No benefits for chronic bipolar in our family. We must be the wrong class.

In 2023, there were53,594 PIP claimants with bipolar disorder listed as their main disabling condition. This makes it the thirteenth most common condition to get an award of PIP for out of over 500 conditions listed by the DWP.

Not so uncommon then.

www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/personal-independence-payment-pip/pip-health-conditions/claim-pip-for-bipolar-disorder

J52 I'll have a further delve. It's a fascinating subject.

Grantanow

The delusions of the Left wre well set out by Peter Bracken in the Guardian some years ago. See share.google/i5FxucOqb4kSO0CUa

Nothing more recent than a 15yr old article?

Don’t issues and stances change over time?

Do we think that the current approach of Blue Labour is perfect in every way?

growstuff

J52 I'll have a further delve. It's a fascinating subject.

Yes, back in the dark ages when I was studying Sociology, Alf Garnett was held up as an example!

J52

growstuff

J52 I'll have a further delve. It's a fascinating subject.

Yes, back in the dark ages when I was studying Sociology, Alf Garnett was held up as an example!

Well, I cited the Essex town I grew up in a number of posts ago. Nothing particularly ‘elite’’ about the population then. It had some thriving heavy to middling heavy industry, a working port and a garrison. Staunch tory voters until quite recently.

Maggiemaybe

Iam64
my experience of families like the one Angela Rayner grew up in that they can’t really be called working class as often we are third generation since anyone went out to work. They’re a benefit claiming class.

Primrose53
She was on benefits though unlike AJ family. I believe his Mother worked 3 jobs to support them.

Coincidentally, AR describes on her website “for the most part, I was raised by my grandma who worked at three jobs to put food on the table and didn't stop until the day she died – three days before her 65th birthday."

AR’s mother probably was on benefits as she was living with chronic bipolar disorder. I doubt it was a lifestyle choice.

All I meant was the Johnson family did not receive benefits as it was years before AR family when benefits were usual.

One of the biggest problems for all parties is that we have become a dependent society. Many people are working but need to claim benefits to survive, and too few people are working to support those who don't (whether those not working are pensioners, the unemployed, people who have chosen not to work, the sick, disabled or whatever).

Rents and house prices are insanely high, and food prices are rising, yet at the mention of an increase in the NMW there is outcry. I do understand that business owners are also workers and need to make a profit, but how have we reached the point where people can work all week but need benefits to pay the rent and eat, never mind start a family?

The only way I can see to sort it out is to do something radical about housing. I'm not sure what can be done without political suicide, though. People are (understandably) very invested in their homes and the value of them, and would take a decrease very badly, yet it is vital that people have some incentive to work - would you want to bother if you were going to have to claim benefits anyway, with all the loss of privacy and autonomy that entails?

If we want to look back, the problem started with the sale of the council houses which used to provide secure housing to working people at a reasonable rent. The sales allowed those who bought them to make a quick profit, but removed the underpinning that enabled people to live a decent life on a moderate wage. This has destabilised the low to middle end of the employment market, as people need to earn so much more than before in order to pay rent or mortgage (often on a house that used to be owned by the local authority). People delay having children, as wages don't stretch to childcare on top of rent, and most families can't survive on one income.

I know Angela Rayner was working on building more houses at the cheaper end of the market, and I sincerely hope that her work is carried on now that she's gone. I really feel that it is vital that people can see the point of working, and can live a decent life on even minimum wage. Further initiatives could stabilise society further, such as free childcare for working parents, and subsidised basic foodstuffs across the board. Anything else is tinkering around the edges, I think.

MaizieD

J52

growstuff

J52 I'll have a further delve. It's a fascinating subject.

Yes, back in the dark ages when I was studying Sociology, Alf Garnett was held up as an example!

Well, I cited the Essex town I grew up in a number of posts ago. Nothing particularly ‘elite’’ about the population then. It had some thriving heavy to middling heavy industry, a working port and a garrison. Staunch tory voters until quite recently.

Yes it’s areas like that which were the focus of the numerous studies. It’s the reasons behind the concept of Working Class Conservatism that are interesting.

I'm pretty sure I know where that area is. I think you'll find there's a significant rural hinterland, which skews the voting profile. It's not that far from Clacton, which also has a significant rural hinterland. Areas of Essex are complicated by a significant ex-London population, some of whom are part of the "white flight" phenomenon.

The powers that be are trying to force us (in North West Essex) into forming a unitary authority with Colchester. We're resisting it because we don't feel that we have much in common.

fancythat

^Why do we have to use a class to define ourselves, I really dislike it?^

Me too.
Hopelessly outdated.

Is a plumber still "working class".
Should Labour be taking a special interest in them?

it is because I consider the term antiquated and irrelevant that I put it in quotation marks.

The problem is that this class discourse plays well with Labour activists, they like it, it fits their world viewpoint, to admit it was irrelevant and that nowadays socio economic divisions go far more with income than occupation, would undermine their basic thinking about moneyed toffs and poor oiks.

Unfortunately, with Lanour in power, so is the 'working class' discourse and at times there is no alternative to using it, as it has been used to so much in the Rayner affair.

I think you'll find there's a significant rural hinterland, which skews the voting profile.

Being a child at the time I wasn't really aware of the constituency boundaries. When posting I thought there might have been a rural hinterland, but even so, agriculture in the 50s/60s was quite a big employer.

The problem is that this class discourse plays well with Labour activists, they like it, it fits their world viewpoint, to admit it was irrelevant and that nowadays socio economic divisions go far more with income than occupation, would undermine their basic thinking about moneyed toffs and poor oiks.

Does this view really apply to contemporary Labour activists?

I'm not a member, not an activist, so I only pick up what is going on in the party from commentators and political journalists.

Do we have any 'activists here on Gnet who can speak to your view, MOnica?

J52

Allira

growstuff

How should people behave to be eligible to vote Labour?

It would appear that having anything beyond basic education and eating with friends round a table disqualifies people.

Sorry! That was then.

Now you have to have a degree in law or PPE from Oxford, Cambridge or a Russell Group University followed by time spent in a university in the USA or the LSE.

You should not just own your "family home" but also a second home in a desirable location where the hoi polloi undesirable locals have been driven out because property prices have shot up.

Your children will, of course, attend the local State school which is amongst the top of the league tables. It took time to choose the location of that family home with that in mind. There are always private tutors if the school fails them.

Sometimes you shop in Aldi or Lidl but keep quiet about your Ocado deliveries.

You believe in equality.

Why shouldn’t people have this lifestyle and vote Labour. A belief that all should have opportunities in life would be a better concept than believing in ‘equality’. ( smacks of Communism to me. ) We are not born equal and never will be, but having access to opportunities is key.
The concept of Working Class Conservatism has been the subject of Sociological studies for decades. Worth a delve into, there’s too many to quote here.

It was tongue-in-cheek J52
🙄
(Shakes head in despair)

Doodledog

One of the biggest problems for all parties is that we have become a dependent society. Many people are working but need to claim benefits to survive, and too few people are working to support those who don't (whether those not working are pensioners, the unemployed, people who have chosen not to work, the sick, disabled or whatever).

Rents and house prices are insanely high, and food prices are rising, yet at the mention of an increase in the NMW there is outcry. I do understand that business owners are also workers and need to make a profit, but how have we reached the point where people can work all week but need benefits to pay the rent and eat, never mind start a family?

The only way I can see to sort it out is to do something radical about housing. I'm not sure what can be done without political suicide, though. People are (understandably) very invested in their homes and the value of them, and would take a decrease very badly, yet it is vital that people have some incentive to work - would you want to bother if you were going to have to claim benefits anyway, with all the loss of privacy and autonomy that entails?

If we want to look back, the problem started with the sale of the council houses which used to provide secure housing to working people at a reasonable rent. The sales allowed those who bought them to make a quick profit, but removed the underpinning that enabled people to live a decent life on a moderate wage. This has destabilised the low to middle end of the employment market, as people need to earn so much more than before in order to pay rent or mortgage (often on a house that used to be owned by the local authority). People delay having children, as wages don't stretch to childcare on top of rent, and most families can't survive on one income.

I know Angela Rayner was working on building more houses at the cheaper end of the market, and I sincerely hope that her work is carried on now that she's gone. I really feel that it is vital that people can see the point of working, and can live a decent life on even minimum wage. Further initiatives could stabilise society further, such as free childcare for working parents, and subsidised basic foodstuffs across the board. Anything else is tinkering around the edges, I think.

Of course Angela Rayner benefitted from being allocated a council house as a single Mum and then again by being allowed to buy it.

According to AI research:

If class distinctions in the UK were solely based on income, they might be categorized as follows:

*Upper Class:*
- Extremely high income, typically from wealth, investments, or high-paying executive roles.
- Example income range: £500,000+ annually.

*Upper Middle Class:*
- High income, often professionals, senior managers, or entrepreneurs with substantial earnings.
- Example income range: £100,000 – £500,000 annually.

*Middle Class:*
- Moderate income, including skilled professionals, teachers, mid-level managers.
- Example income range: £40,000 – £100,000 annually.

*Lower Middle Class:*
- Lower-middle income earners, such as clerical workers or lower-tier professionals.
- Example income range: £20,000 – £40,000 annually.

*Working Class:*
- Income from manual or routine jobs, with less job security or benefits.
- Example income range: £10,000 – £20,000 annually.

*Lower Class / Socioeconomically Disadvantaged:*
- Very low income, often facing financial instability.
- Example income below £10,000 annually.

Note: These categories are simplified and hypothetical; actual social class involves cultural, educational, and social factors beyond income alone.

Of course Angela Rayner benefitted from being allocated a council house as a single Mum and then again by being allowed to buy it.
True, but that neither adds to nor detracts from my point, does it?

MaizieD

^The problem is that this class discourse plays well with Labour activists, they like it, it fits their world viewpoint, to admit it was irrelevant and that nowadays socio economic divisions go far more with income than occupation, would undermine their basic thinking about moneyed toffs and poor oiks.^

Does this view really apply to contemporary Labour activists?

I'm not a member, not an activist, so I only pick up what is going on in the party from commentators and political journalists.

Do we have any 'activists here on Gnet who can speak to your view, MOnica?

i can only go on what I hear Labour party activists and those in government circles say in public and that which is reported.

Much was made of Angela Rayners, poor, working class background by her in-party supporters in recent events.

It only adds to the negative complaining about Angela Rayner’s very existence