I was going off the link you provided.

Was there a big drop following "Partygate" ? No, but as you pointed out, it didn't have that far to fall


IMO he doesn't have a "type" when it comes to policy because he has absolutely no convictions whatsoever. He's demonstrated this time and again when he's said that he'd rather die in a ditch (or similar) than allow something to happen only to forget this pledge when the something happens.

IMO he is driven solely by his belief that he is destined to lead the country. He will implement announce (actually doing stuff is for mugs when 90% of the benefit comes from the initial annoucement) any policy which will gain him sufficient positive headlines even if it's the complete opposite of the policy he announced the day before.

I suppose in one way it's quite refreshing. Too many people paint themselves into a corner because of some deeply held beliefs - that can never happen to Boris Johnson because he doesn't care for anything other than his own personal power, comfort and welfare. If any policy affects any of those things, it'll be dropped immediately without regret. On the other hand it means that there's no underlying backbone.

Hahahhahahahahhahahhahahahhahahhahahahahahahahahah !

No, but seriously, the rich in the US wield even more political influence.

I think I've made this point in one of the US politics threads.

The presumption these days is that positions 100-67 in the pecking order (whether that's income or wealth or a combination) is working class, 66-33 is middle class and 33-1 is upper class.

IMO it's more like 100-15 is working class, 15-2 is middle class and the top 1 or 2 percent are upper class.

Again IMO...

If you rely on your next salary or pension payment to pay the bills and/or have little in the way of wealth beyond equity in your primary residence then you're working class. AIUI a frightening proportion of people in the UK don't have enough financial resources to withstand even a few months without income.

OTOH if you have a comfortable income from your employment (or pension), considerable assets and substantial long-term savings then you're middle-class.

If you live from the income generated from your assets - and as a consequence you choose whether to work, then you're upper class.

My parents were both teachers. At the start of their married life, they were definitely in the working class. By the time they retired, thanks to living well within their means, good occupational pensions and diligent saving, I reckon they just about snuck into the middle class.

Mrs Don and I are both the children of teachers, we went to university and got great-paying jobs with the same large American Management Consultancy. Apart from the first 5 years out of University when we were finding our feet financially, I'd say we've been comfortably middle class due to our decent income, modest spending, not having children and a big, big slice of dumb luck. :o

I know. That's the thing. I'm not at all sure that being a republic would really fix anything if your goal is to take the interests of generational wealth and influence out of politics. I always liked the famous Alan Clark line about Heseltine - "The trouble with Michael is that he had to buy his own furniture".

Agree with everything.

As for the "would you want president Johnson/Blair as head of state. It's only an accident of birth that we're not looking at the prospect of King Andrew. And Charles isn't exactly brilliant anyway. I'd rather have a President Mary Robinson than either

Are you not changing the definition of what those classes mean here?

I think traditionally one meant something other than your income, or how much you had in the bank, by what class you were. There are plenty of examples of aristocrats losing everything, George Orwell was frequently on the point of starving through lack of funds, but can you ever really be working class if you went to Eton? Thatcher was the daughter of a grocer, could she ever have been upper class? Churchill had to work. I think his brother had to go into banking to earn his keep. Were the Churchills middle class?

Your model would have lots of people starting their lives as working class, becoming middle class and then later in life becoming upper class purely on the basis of money. I'm really not sure that that is what class used to mean. My mother would have started in a middle class family, become working class when she started work before becoming middle class and then upper class.

Say what now?

Not really, if you recall, I said that I though I had initially posted my thoughts in a US Politics thread. The US traditionally has a different view of class than the UK being more about wealth and less about breeding - though the prevalence of inter-generational wealth (or poverty) means that there's a significant overlap.

In the past it was the vast majority of people grafting, a small mercantile/professional middle class and a tiny, largely inherited, upper class.

That's still pretty much the situation now in the UK IMO with the vast majority of people managing, barely managing or not managing at all, a much smaller number of people doing fairly nicely and the 1%ers doing very well indeed.

...and at that point in time they, and certainly their descendants, were no longer upper class.

If not, it entirely removes the possibility of social mobility.

In her own right ? Probably not.

Then again she married a multi-millionaire businessman and so whilst she may have been considered "arriviste" at a minimum she could be considered upper-middle class. IIRC Denis still had to work for a living

Depends on how far you get from the "main" line, but yes some of the Churchills might properly have been upper-middle class.

You're right, there's an ugly transition period between being a dependant - in which case someone else is footing the bill and standing on your own two feet.

Then again, many of the people I went to university with and started working with came from upper-middle class families and though they may have briefly dipped to middle-class living standards their parents were often on hand to provide a financial safety net. Looking at my middle class friends' children who are in their 20s and early 30s, their parents have provided deposits for houses and flats or a new second hand car.

Regarding the idea of working through the classes over the course of a career, I'd argue that the likes of Alan Sugar have shown that it can be done but he's the exception rather than the rule. The idea that there are lots of people who started off as working class and have managed to get to the position that they and their families are living off the income generated by their wealth is IMO fanciful.

Levels of social and economic mobility are comparatively low in the UK (and are falling), and falling. Many of of our neighbours are our age or older and are what I would term middle class. Most are now retired and (usually he) had a professional or upper management job. They seem to have three typical back-stories

• Child of middle class parent lives middle-class life
• Second or third child of upper middle-class parents had to make more of their own way in life but was given a jolly good head start
• Child of working class parents made the most of the educational opportunities in the 60s, 70s and 80s to do well for themselves - a.k.a. grammar school boy makes good, regardless of whether they went to grammar school

OTOH most of the people we know and meet on a day-to-day basis through sport, music or just in the surrounding area are working class folk from a long line of working class folk. They work hard to provide for their families but haven't quite managed to have that slice of luck required to propel them into the middle class.

I don't think I've read that thread.

Sure.

Sure, but an awful lot of that has to do with how old people are. The amount of money I have now compared to when I was 20 is crazy, and it really isn't anything to do with anything other than the slow increase in capital and experience. Many of that top 1% will have been in the middle and the bottom thirds of the population.

Their descendents, perhaps not. I don't know the purpose of the word class though if you just mean how much wealth somebody has. All you are meaning is poor, comfortable, and wealthy. Even in the US, there is something very much like class going on. Let's suppose Joe Exotic and Chelsea Clinton somehow ended up with the same net wealth. Are we honestly saying that there is no sense in which Chelsea Clinton is of a different class to Joe Exotic regardless of his wealth?

Racial mobility doesn't really exist either. What is fixed by changing the definition of class to be something that is changeable while leaving the thing class previously referred to unchanged?

We agree on that, at least. He kids probably were. Scratcher etc.

Upper middle, sure. She still had to buy her own furniture though. Can you imagine?

Indeed, but Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, DL, FRS, RA, son of Lord Randolph Churchill educated at Harrow and Sandhurst was most certainly not middle class, yet he struggled for money in periods of his life and had to work.

Alan Sugar is only upper class if the only thing you mean by class is money. That seems to me a very middle class perspective.

Sure, the end of grammar schools and the expansion of universities has done a lot of harm. Other things too, I'm sure.

I think I agree with you. Interesting that we both see grammar schools as so important. Their end seems to be one of the great tragedies of postwar Britain.

Is it purely a question of luck though. I agree it is harder now than it was, say 60 years ago, but is there anything stopping a smart working class boy really knuckling down, going to Oxford and making something of himself? It's not the only path, of course. What are those people you meet doing that makes it surprising that they don't remain working class?

You've completely misunderstood me. I don't think grammar schools are important, which is why I was very careful to say "grammar school boy makes good, regardless of whether they went to grammar school".

"Grammar school boy" in this context is shorthand for "clever person from the working classes with adequate access to good quality education who takes advantage of the opportunities".

I'm very much against the idea of grammar schools for a variety of reasons including:

• The selection process at a specific age discriminates against "late bloomers"
• A disproportionate proportion of meagre educational resources are directed at a small number of pupils to the detriment of the rest
• Unless they have to spend an inordinate amount of time travelling, children from poor and/or rural areas don't have access to (typically urban) grammar schools
• The selection process mitigates against pupils who are left to their own devices and towards those pupils whose parents can afford tutoring to help them through the selection process

It's not purely luck but if life is a 100m race, those people whose parents can afford to send them to a good public school start on the 70m line, the working class kid starts on the 30m line (and there are those who start on the 0m line). Sure the working class kid can get to the finish line first, but their task is much much more difficult, and getting more difficult every year.

Better late than never I suppose, but Speaker Hoyle has mildly rebuked Johnson's falsehoods about Starmer and the Labour front bench.

He also pointed out, that while it's within his powers to sanction MP's for accusing another MP of lying, he's powerless to stop an MP from lying in the first place.

The upper middle classes send their children to Harrow and Sandhurst.

Churchill's father was the third son of a Marquess, and as such was considered a commoner. He had to work for a living (as a politician) and scrounge money where he could. If he'd been part of the family who lived in, and lived off the proceeds of, the family estates then he'd have been upper class.

Churchill's path was not unexceptional for someone born into the upper middle-classes. major public school --> army --> politics with some writing and journalism to make ends meet.

An upper class person on the other hand wouldn't have had to work because they'd have had ample income from their assets.

Has it changed the way you live your life ?

If you grew up living from salary packet to salary packet with little or nothing in the bank for a rainy day, then started working in much the same way and at some point in time found yourself in the comfortable position that you've got a house bought and paid for, a nice nest egg in the bank (or in the market), comfortable pension prospects (either because of an occupational pension or a substantial pension fund) then you can reasonably consider yourself to have moved from working class to middle class.

If not, you've stayed in your current "class".

I can go with that. You are meaning upper class to be the same as aristocrat. Sure. I would say though that the fact that he thought it was shaming to have to work indicates he was operating under an aristocratic / upper class set of rules rather than middle class ones.

Maybe that autistic reddit admin who went on Fox News to talk about the anti-work movement was actually an aristocrat?

Yes, and no. Getting money from the bank is a more pleasant experience, as is paying bills. I'd say that a relative of mine going to Oxford had had a far greater impact on him classwise than any money I have made through middle class work.

Perhaps, I think to be properly middle class you have to pick up a middle class world view.

This is where it all gets muddled. You can have a working class outlook, have a working class job - bin man, but if you managed to buy your own house, you are middle class.

Definition arguments are ultimately unsolvable once one has understood each others definitions and disagreed with them. I'm happy to let this drop if you are. I'll go on if you have more to say.

Sure. It's nightmarish what one would have to do to make it otherwise. The big attempts that I mentioned earlier to end this - dismantling the grammar school system and expanding university entrance has had entirely the opposite effect.

Yes it is - if you consider "lucky" to mean who your parents are/were. It is still the best predictor of your financial circumstances throughout your life.

I think we have to be careful how we use the word "class". The UKs class system is a twisted, perverse system and money in many ways doesn't really come into it, you can be upper class and penniless, as rich as a Russian oligarch and still be working class. So I do think redefining class to mean "income percentile" allows us to have a better understanding of how our society is structured and a way to measure social mobility.

It is a sad fact that simply putting Eton on your CV will pretty much guarantee you an interview, put Leigh CofE secondary school on your CV and it won't even be noticed.

You're only picking one criterion here, property ownership, there are more IMO.

If you are a person who has had a traditionally working class job, who owns their house outright, has substantial savings (say a few hundred thousand pounds) and is either drawing from, or has the prospect of, a generous private pension then IMO you're middle class.

You're also almost vanishingly rare. Working class jobs tend not to have had generous occupational pensions (though there are exceptions) and working class pay packets tend not to be able to fund substantial savings and pay for houses. That's not to say it's impossible, just rare.

But you aren't by any meaningful definition that is used, as I said that is the great success of Thatcherism. It's like the perception that because you work in an office and wear casual business you are middle class, but if that is a call centre and you are one of the poor sods on the frontline you are as much working class as your father who worked down t'pit.

I absolutely disagree with you about both dismantling the grammar schools and expanding university entrance. I think both are good ideas. What is bad is that there is insufficient funding of the educational system with still a disproportionate amount of resources being directed at those who don't really need them as much.

Either by the old definition of upper class - aristocratic, or the one that I prefer which is someone with sufficient assets that they can afford to live comfortably from the income generated by those assets so that any work is either directed at managing those assets and/or is for personal amusement - Churchill wasn't upper class, he was upper-middle class.

That describes me, and I still consider myself working class. As, I suspect, would anyone who really is middle class who heard me speak (Gloucestershire accent).

Plus, it used to be routine to take a parents profession and membership of things like Golf Clubs in to account when deciding who got in if there were more students passing the exams than there were local places.

Johnson’s Jimmy Savile swipe, Speaker says “Procedurally, nothing disorderly occurred”.

We disagree, I'm not sure there is any point in continuing. For my money the grandson of a Duke, the son of a Lord, and a member of the order of the garter is upper class. I wish you well, but I'm not sure I have any more to say on this topic.

Hoyle really is a useless wanker, isn't he?

Repeating an old, debunked lie isn't unparliamentary language? Or whatever the phrasing is...

Mebbe all the opposition MPs should start everything at PMQ with, "Many people are saying that the PM is an utter lying bastard, but I tell them this isn't so. Would the PM like to comment?"

But someone having previously told the truth and been thrown out is against "convention". How about ignoring "convention" for the better functioning of Parliament? And clamping down on lying liars who lie, especially as we all (except Nadine Dorries, clearly) know they are actually lying.

Another one which pisses me off is MPs claiming that their constiuents aren't interested in Topic Of The Day Which Embarrasses Their Party.

The MP for Kidderminster tried it yesterday in the Commons; Tory Girl up here tried it with our local press back during the Owen Paterson bollocks, so I've taken to sending her regular e-mails informing her of what this household is interested in. I don't think she's amused, but then neither am I by some Tory apparatchick telling the press what I think.

Winston Churchill's father's title an honorific one and he was considered a commoner being the third son of the Duke. In other words, he was well down the pecking order. Sooner or later non-inheriting members of a noble family have to be considered no longer upper class otherwise we're all upper class (because statistically we're all descended from Charlemagne). IMO Winston Churchill fits the bill.

Churchill was a member of the Order of the Garter but that was for services rendered at the end of a long career rather like John Major, Baroness Amos or Mary Peters who are current members. It doesn't indicate high birth or necessarily that the person is upper class.

I see Johnson is threatening "instant UK sanctions" against Russia at the first sign of a Russian boot on Ukranian soil.

UK exports to Russia in 2021 amounted to £14.6B, or about double the amount the UK Govt. cheerfully spaffed on fraudulent covid claims and wasted PPE. I suspect that Russia is unimpressed. Meanwhile, several European countries are heavily dependent on Russian gas supplies.

Boris Johnson is very good at announcing things, but rubbish at actually following through. Vladimir Putin knows this and knows the threats are completely empty.

Boris should threaten the Russians with confiscating their London property.

Ah, but think of the lost donations to the Tory party. Think of the dirty secrets they could reveal. I wonder if they have the equivalent of the "golden shower" on him and/or other top Tories?

Well, there is a reason he won't release the Russia Report.

Or about £1.6Bn more than the waste/fraud that has been announced/discovered since Thursday. Which my working makes £13Bn

The UK Government has relaunched its "levelling up" plan for England.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60216307

Very little of it is new, and there's hardly any extra funding for these regions.

One area getting funding is keeping the UK's obsession with home-ownership going.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60216307

As Darat pointed out upthread, convincing working class people that they were middle class by saddling them with huge debt so they could buy a house was the greatest trick the Thatcher government pulled.

The timescales on this are sufficiently long that by the time that it's clear that levelling up isn't working, it'll be too late to do anything about it. Of course the government doesn't really want to do any "levelling up" it just wants to be seen to be doing it - you don't actually want those Northern oiks catching up - not least because the chronic, and worsening, inequalities in the UK can only properly be addressed by large scale wealth distribution like in Germany post-unification:

That absolutely will never happen under a Conservative government, and IMO is highly unlikely under a Labour government (because that kind wealth redistribution wouldn't get them elected).

Yeah, but a fair chunk of that £13bn has gone to friends of the Conservative Party so it hasn't really been wasted, it's just a transfer of wealth from the less well off to the very wealthiest in society - as is right and proper. :mad:

As the Tories keep saying, we need to wait for the conclusion of the police investigation.

Given that Cromwell was dead, probably not a difficult choice.

:D :D