My parents were upper middle class. My great grandad was knighted, my dad was MD of a multinational, I went to university, was a civil service faststreamer and I’m now a senior manager and shareholder in a consultancy serving the construction industry. So I’m solidly upper middle class you might think. Well yes and no, I’m married to a lorry driver who left school at 16 and trained as a plumber. His family are solid Derbyshire working class “somewheres” Our son is a skilled manual worker like his dad and paternal grandfather. We live in an ex-pit village. Yes we have a better standard of living then my husbands colleagues but my allegiances are solidly working class. After decades I fit into both classes. And anyone who considers my trajectory “downward mobility” will get very short shrift. I consider myself very lucky as my husband, like most people around me, are incredibly good people and our community is extraordinary. The lanyard class has belittle us and mocked our concerns at their peril for long enough.
Lovely to read about your family and community, Sue. I write that as the son of a working class family, who went to Cambridge, has an upper middle class wife, and who worked in Derbyshire with many patients from a whole variety of backgrounds. It is people's moral and other qualities which matter, not what class they are in.
Exactly Ian. I find the conflation of paper qualifications with moral superiority absolutely infuriating. My husband has more common sense and ability to weigh facts and solve problems in his little finger than most modern graduates. Plus he’s kind, slow to anger and helps people without making a great hoo-hah about how virtuous he is.
Sadly, paper qualifications these days all too often signify that someone has learned the patterns of intellectual twaddle to which they have been subjected. And manual and engineering skills are undervalued even more than they used to be. I think there ought to be a test for anyone entering parliament that they can do something like make a good piece of furniture, repair a car engine, or show another example of their manual skills and intelligence.
There are new categories that have emerged that are diluting the impact of the simple class structure. The anywhere and somewhere split. The rights obsessed and self responsible groups. These transcend the class and dominate most of our personal philosophies. They often tend to coincide loosely. But not always the way people would expect. Odd alliances exist. Upper class and lower class being linked to somewhere people. Has the breakdown in the class system boundaries (which most people think is good) caused more uncertainties more anxiety and a greater fear of failure because for all those that go up some are pushed down.
People use the term 'class' a lot, but it's never properly defined and personally, I don't like class-stratification and would hope for an end to it altogether - we're all people and we all have to work for a living.
It is funny how politicians are often keen to stress their 'humble' beginnings though. I think particularly of Keir Starmer (although many others do this too.)
The way Starmer used to bang on about his father having been 'only a toolmaker' as if this was some kind of lowly servile job simply illustrated that Starmer knew absolutely nothing about the engineering industry at all.
In every engineering company, the toolmakers were the elite group of highly skilled (and, rightly, the highest paid) precision engineers, making machine parts, press tools, sub-assembly fixtures etc out of the hardest metals and to extremely tight tolerances. The notion that a toolmaker would ever humbly introduce himself at a social gathering with an embarrassed: 'I work in a factory' (as Starmer claimed) is as nonsensical as a surgeon introducing himself with 'I work in a hospital'.
I'd happily vote for a politician who came from any social background as long as he/she had the right policies for my family and the country.
This *really* interested me because my upbringing was 'middle class' insomuch as I had a father who studied hard, started his own building business and made good money (his father was a Headteacher, great grand dad, a shipwright, Mum's Father ran a clock/watch shop so not exactly landed gentry) and a mother who liked ballet and theatre, so that I went to a private school and had a very 'easy' childhood financially (emotionally screwed but that's another story). However, I joined a 'working class' job, Firefighting (which I loved), made 'working class' friends, married a 'working class' man, lived on a 'working class' wage and got involved, because of some appalling behaviour by a few towards women, in a 'working class' Union and while I agreed with the majority of Union associates about certain things I was just hunky dory, one of the crowd, however, as soon as I didn't agree (the removal of Union help for those accused of harassment was the start, followed by supporting Matt Wrack) I was insulted and bullied for being 'middle class' (I was even told by Mary Davis that my shoes were 'middle class'!!). It was really nasty and absolutely fell into the 'bullying' category (although they were too arrogant to admit it) Everything I felt about anything to do with my Union and its direction was then dismissed. I called it 'reverse snobbery'...and yet I will lay odds that most of these 'professional' working class people (ie those who used their upbringing as a weapon) are now very much part of the oat milk latte, 'lanyard class' completely disregarding the working class base of the Labour Party and calling them 'gammon' for voting Reform out of desperation. It is a fascinating subject.
NB I would like to add that the bullying was predominantly from Union women, the ones who I had fought side by side with for years to stop bullying. Irony overload eh.....
Thought provoking Paul. I think Starmer has made a nonsense of the term working class. He appeals to the designer denim wearing North London open borders ‘anywheres’. Working class was relevant when gentlemen didn’t work and earned wealth from the land on which others toiled. The first world war shattered the old classes as talented working class soldiers demonstrated their leadership abilities and women from all classes kept the farms and the factories going at home. Later, the grammar school system allowed academically able children from all classes to further their education and build careers and often a more prosperous life - meritocracy in practice! Whether someone is a banker or a builder - all credit to those who work hard, make money and build a good life.
As Maurice Glassman (Blue Labour) pointed out on the Camilla Tominy show, the old class system is essentially dead. the terms left (Red) and right (Blue) have little relevance except in media and X spats, the truth is that there are now Globalists and Localists.
As the name suggests Globalists are interested in supranational organisations such as the EU where the individual is claimed to be the focus but has processes which make it almost impossible for the individual to make their views known
Localists are individuals that believe in the nation state, local representation and the ability to of the individual to hold power to account
Some would argue this is a leave or remain argument, to your point, working class and "elites" but here is the thing, the recent Streeting/Burnham comments (which will derail Burnham) regarding re-joining the EU will make many avid remainers (globalist tendencies) to hold their nose and vote labour further fracturing the cosy media driven simplistic left and right
One could argue with the damascene journey the conservative have been on driven by reform that we now have the bizarre situation where labour ( working class?) are effectively the globalists and the conservatives/reform are let localists
Surely there are just two classes now? The Private Sector where people work and the Public Sector where people pretend to work, if they're not 'off sick' or 'working from home'.
Interesting but since post WWII we've seen the emergence of an adaptation of the class system.
Funny thing about class is those who identify with it but tend to manipulate class stratification, an obsession, is the middle classes yet by default are notoriously the most unstable of all the classes.
From the late 1960 to mid 1970's, through the swinging 60's into the mid 70's it mostly gained momentum at uni level then hitting local authority level mid 1980's to its current status where it dominates under the veil of GPM modelling & old school class structures.
I call this process the impressionist class, giving the impression of connectivity & societal cohesion disguised as control.
The irony of it all is instead of a brush like its 1860-1880 counterpart in art, Monet etc, the gate keeper impressionist classes need only the craft of indipertism to manipulate indirect conformity, in a professional capacity, to give the impression of connectivity and at the same time keep the common man at arms length.
Giving the impression of connectivity is yet touch nothing directly as by default the non-touch branding is notoriouslt detached establishment wise.
This is why the common man has mutual distrust of institutions as we are essentially a presentational style society & where most of the money goes regardless of red or blue versions of rosette. So when eventually reaching the toe end there's only tokenistic crumbs left.
The impressionist movement is part of the non-touch branding consortiums that is controlled by higher education, not the ballot, box that provides the source of frontline agencies, man power to sustain the landlord status of governance, stage 2, not the tenancy bit, stage 1.
This mechanism, the impressionist classes, are groomed to get into character using representative style dispensaries masquerading due process as democracy.
Remember throughout history stretching back to antiquity it's the middle management overseeing mechanisms that are the most unstable of all the classes & where the toxic polarised incendiary tendencies are mostly driven by it.
The non-touch branding style of engagement is not a good model for fixing & getting hands-on but is immensely lucrative pretending we are.
My parents were upper middle class. My great grandad was knighted, my dad was MD of a multinational, I went to university, was a civil service faststreamer and I’m now a senior manager and shareholder in a consultancy serving the construction industry. So I’m solidly upper middle class you might think. Well yes and no, I’m married to a lorry driver who left school at 16 and trained as a plumber. His family are solid Derbyshire working class “somewheres” Our son is a skilled manual worker like his dad and paternal grandfather. We live in an ex-pit village. Yes we have a better standard of living then my husbands colleagues but my allegiances are solidly working class. After decades I fit into both classes. And anyone who considers my trajectory “downward mobility” will get very short shrift. I consider myself very lucky as my husband, like most people around me, are incredibly good people and our community is extraordinary. The lanyard class has belittle us and mocked our concerns at their peril for long enough.
Lovely to read about your family and community, Sue. I write that as the son of a working class family, who went to Cambridge, has an upper middle class wife, and who worked in Derbyshire with many patients from a whole variety of backgrounds. It is people's moral and other qualities which matter, not what class they are in.
Exactly Ian. I find the conflation of paper qualifications with moral superiority absolutely infuriating. My husband has more common sense and ability to weigh facts and solve problems in his little finger than most modern graduates. Plus he’s kind, slow to anger and helps people without making a great hoo-hah about how virtuous he is.
Sadly, paper qualifications these days all too often signify that someone has learned the patterns of intellectual twaddle to which they have been subjected. And manual and engineering skills are undervalued even more than they used to be. I think there ought to be a test for anyone entering parliament that they can do something like make a good piece of furniture, repair a car engine, or show another example of their manual skills and intelligence.
There are new categories that have emerged that are diluting the impact of the simple class structure. The anywhere and somewhere split. The rights obsessed and self responsible groups. These transcend the class and dominate most of our personal philosophies. They often tend to coincide loosely. But not always the way people would expect. Odd alliances exist. Upper class and lower class being linked to somewhere people. Has the breakdown in the class system boundaries (which most people think is good) caused more uncertainties more anxiety and a greater fear of failure because for all those that go up some are pushed down.
People use the term 'class' a lot, but it's never properly defined and personally, I don't like class-stratification and would hope for an end to it altogether - we're all people and we all have to work for a living.
It is funny how politicians are often keen to stress their 'humble' beginnings though. I think particularly of Keir Starmer (although many others do this too.)
The way Starmer used to bang on about his father having been 'only a toolmaker' as if this was some kind of lowly servile job simply illustrated that Starmer knew absolutely nothing about the engineering industry at all.
In every engineering company, the toolmakers were the elite group of highly skilled (and, rightly, the highest paid) precision engineers, making machine parts, press tools, sub-assembly fixtures etc out of the hardest metals and to extremely tight tolerances. The notion that a toolmaker would ever humbly introduce himself at a social gathering with an embarrassed: 'I work in a factory' (as Starmer claimed) is as nonsensical as a surgeon introducing himself with 'I work in a hospital'.
I'd happily vote for a politician who came from any social background as long as he/she had the right policies for my family and the country.
This *really* interested me because my upbringing was 'middle class' insomuch as I had a father who studied hard, started his own building business and made good money (his father was a Headteacher, great grand dad, a shipwright, Mum's Father ran a clock/watch shop so not exactly landed gentry) and a mother who liked ballet and theatre, so that I went to a private school and had a very 'easy' childhood financially (emotionally screwed but that's another story). However, I joined a 'working class' job, Firefighting (which I loved), made 'working class' friends, married a 'working class' man, lived on a 'working class' wage and got involved, because of some appalling behaviour by a few towards women, in a 'working class' Union and while I agreed with the majority of Union associates about certain things I was just hunky dory, one of the crowd, however, as soon as I didn't agree (the removal of Union help for those accused of harassment was the start, followed by supporting Matt Wrack) I was insulted and bullied for being 'middle class' (I was even told by Mary Davis that my shoes were 'middle class'!!). It was really nasty and absolutely fell into the 'bullying' category (although they were too arrogant to admit it) Everything I felt about anything to do with my Union and its direction was then dismissed. I called it 'reverse snobbery'...and yet I will lay odds that most of these 'professional' working class people (ie those who used their upbringing as a weapon) are now very much part of the oat milk latte, 'lanyard class' completely disregarding the working class base of the Labour Party and calling them 'gammon' for voting Reform out of desperation. It is a fascinating subject.
NB I would like to add that the bullying was predominantly from Union women, the ones who I had fought side by side with for years to stop bullying. Irony overload eh.....
Thoughtful post, as ever, Katy. Needless to say, I know exactly where you are coming from.
Thought provoking Paul. I think Starmer has made a nonsense of the term working class. He appeals to the designer denim wearing North London open borders ‘anywheres’. Working class was relevant when gentlemen didn’t work and earned wealth from the land on which others toiled. The first world war shattered the old classes as talented working class soldiers demonstrated their leadership abilities and women from all classes kept the farms and the factories going at home. Later, the grammar school system allowed academically able children from all classes to further their education and build careers and often a more prosperous life - meritocracy in practice! Whether someone is a banker or a builder - all credit to those who work hard, make money and build a good life.
As Maurice Glassman (Blue Labour) pointed out on the Camilla Tominy show, the old class system is essentially dead. the terms left (Red) and right (Blue) have little relevance except in media and X spats, the truth is that there are now Globalists and Localists.
As the name suggests Globalists are interested in supranational organisations such as the EU where the individual is claimed to be the focus but has processes which make it almost impossible for the individual to make their views known
Localists are individuals that believe in the nation state, local representation and the ability to of the individual to hold power to account
Some would argue this is a leave or remain argument, to your point, working class and "elites" but here is the thing, the recent Streeting/Burnham comments (which will derail Burnham) regarding re-joining the EU will make many avid remainers (globalist tendencies) to hold their nose and vote labour further fracturing the cosy media driven simplistic left and right
One could argue with the damascene journey the conservative have been on driven by reform that we now have the bizarre situation where labour ( working class?) are effectively the globalists and the conservatives/reform are let localists
Surely there are just two classes now? The Private Sector where people work and the Public Sector where people pretend to work, if they're not 'off sick' or 'working from home'.
Interesting but since post WWII we've seen the emergence of an adaptation of the class system.
Funny thing about class is those who identify with it but tend to manipulate class stratification, an obsession, is the middle classes yet by default are notoriously the most unstable of all the classes.
From the late 1960 to mid 1970's, through the swinging 60's into the mid 70's it mostly gained momentum at uni level then hitting local authority level mid 1980's to its current status where it dominates under the veil of GPM modelling & old school class structures.
I call this process the impressionist class, giving the impression of connectivity & societal cohesion disguised as control.
The irony of it all is instead of a brush like its 1860-1880 counterpart in art, Monet etc, the gate keeper impressionist classes need only the craft of indipertism to manipulate indirect conformity, in a professional capacity, to give the impression of connectivity and at the same time keep the common man at arms length.
Giving the impression of connectivity is yet touch nothing directly as by default the non-touch branding is notoriouslt detached establishment wise.
This is why the common man has mutual distrust of institutions as we are essentially a presentational style society & where most of the money goes regardless of red or blue versions of rosette. So when eventually reaching the toe end there's only tokenistic crumbs left.
The impressionist movement is part of the non-touch branding consortiums that is controlled by higher education, not the ballot, box that provides the source of frontline agencies, man power to sustain the landlord status of governance, stage 2, not the tenancy bit, stage 1.
This mechanism, the impressionist classes, are groomed to get into character using representative style dispensaries masquerading due process as democracy.
Remember throughout history stretching back to antiquity it's the middle management overseeing mechanisms that are the most unstable of all the classes & where the toxic polarised incendiary tendencies are mostly driven by it.
The non-touch branding style of engagement is not a good model for fixing & getting hands-on but is immensely lucrative pretending we are.
Dr Dougzy KC.