Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If you have to work to live, then I'm sorry to say, you're working class


Lovely right-on view, but obviously and palpably untrue since at least the end of the first world war. What you are hypothesising is that the only qualification for being middle class is to be a rentier, living entirely on unearned income. That might, possibly, be a qualification for being upper class, and could have included some 'middle class' pre 1914, but the middle classes (actually since at least the 16th century, if not before) have included merchants, professionals, clerks and civil servants, all certainly not working class (if rising from working class roots), but all certainly working for a (pretty good in many instances) living.


The rentier class has itself almost died out - where people do live on dividends and rents now, they do so having worked to buy those capital assets - as a pensioner would you argue that now I do not have to work to live I have miraculously become middle class, having, all my (professional) working life, been working class until my retirement? It may be politically fashionable to seek to pretend to a working class persona, but it is clearly arrant nonsense for many and ignores what is really a quite interesting issue of classification. It also seeks to remove personal validity from those who really are, have been and are proud of being, truly working class by sidling in amongst them, stealing their clothes and, in fact, their credibility, and pride in their being.


I am middle class, have come from a middle class family, and have middle class children. I make no right-on pretence to anything else.

I stopped being guilty about being middle class when I was about 21 (over 40 years ago). However, I quite like the Marxist definition because it makes people like Penguin68 get on their high horse and give us a nice little lecture about the history of the middle classes.


BTW I take the piss out of "right on" people as much as anyone else.

by the Marxists (I think) who defined the "working class" as people who had to work for a living as opposed to the idle rich who were able to live off their unearned income


...but then, as Bolsheviks, managed to organise the slaughter of the 'rich peasant' Kulacks - who certainly worked, if they also employed and did make some income from renting. This is the propoganda of envy - most people see themselves as working (rents don't collect themsleves, nor do landed estates not need management, nor does day-trading now equal 'doing nothing') so saying 'if you work you are good, if you don't you're a parasite' is a way of rousing a rabble. The numbers who truly don't work to live (outside our children or pensioners, or all those on benefits) are very small nowadays, and often include those who have worked to earn enough not to have to continue to work.

get on their high horse


Yup, I do, when I see people using warm right-on statements to make themselves feel good. The issues of class and class envy and class anger and class hatred isn't helped by wooly statements. Granted it's not covered by legislation, but try substituting the words 'black' or 'Jewish' or 'Christian' or 'Moslem' or 'female' or 'disabled' or 'young' or 'old' for some of the comments made about the desirability or not for a particular class to be, or not to be, in ED. To treat people (any people) as an 'unworthy' group because you prefer your group is an unhealthy attitude.

I earn a six figure salary. And so does my partner. We both own more than 50% of our properties at current mark-to-market (the rest being mortgaged). We are both in our 30's.


I am working class, although most people would call me middle class.


I have a friend who owns and grew up in a manor house just outside of London. He considers himself middle class, but most people would call him upper class. He doesn't NEED to work, but he does. We know the Marquess of a large city - he would be considered Upper Class. He doesn't work.


But does any of this really matter!?


I like a greasy spoon and I also like a Michelin stared restaurant. I like a cheap boozer, but also enjoy a good cocktail at a good hotel bar for example. But I'll never buy the Range Sport or any other wannabe Chelsea Tractor.


I can't stand people trying to fit themselves and others into boxes. Just enjoy life!

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> get on their high horse

>

> Yup, I do, when I see people using warm right-on

> statements to make themselves feel good. The

> issues of class and class envy and class anger and

> class hatred isn't helped by wooly statements.

> Granted it's not covered by legislation, but try

> substituting the words 'black' or 'Jewish' or

> 'Christian' or 'Moslem' or 'female' or 'disabled'

> or 'young' or 'old' for some of the comments made

> about the desirability or not for a particular

> class to be, or not to be, in ED. To treat people

> (any people) as an 'unworthy' group because you

> prefer your group is an unhealthy attitude.


False equivalence

I'll eat any kind of fish, whatever class it is!


When did we become a polarised society? We still rely on people from all walks of life for all sorts of things.


I always think wealth is relative anyway. The very wealthy aside, most people (whatever they earn) are living just within their means.

Oddly on topic, fish do tend to fall into class categories too. How often do you find halibut on the menu at a fish and chip shop? (Well maybe the seacow I wouldn't know?). It's the ultimate posh fish, upper class in fact. Salmon is a funny one, once the staple middle class fish, it has somewhat gone downmarket since the 70s and alongside king prawns is kind of a aspirational working class fish these days. A true middle class fish would of course be skate or Dover sole, never available to buy from a standard supermarket- other than maybe M&S I know they sell lemon sole that's for sure.


Louisa.

The price of fish is linked to availability and cost to gather and distribute Louisa, and not much else. Salmon has dropped in price because it can be easily farm produced. Fish that can only be caught at sea will always cost more. If you live in a coastal fishing town, you'll find all kinds of fish within easy reach. Transportation to large cities for sale on supermarket shelves is something entirely different. Supermarkets will always go with a range they know they can buy and sell in bulk. I've often bought lemon sole from supermarkets btw. But the fact is that the supply of some types of fish can not be guaranteed on a daily basis in the numbers that supermarkets need. Small fishmongers have always been a better place for variety.

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I have no issue with the blow in bit, i aimlessly

> wandered in to a chunk of london I'd never really

> heard of (i thought I was still in brixton), 14

> years later I left.

>

> It's the aspirational ersatz clapham that riles.



Didn't you come to ED from Balham? ;-)





Penguin 68, please calm down, as the late Michael Winner would have said. For the avoidance of doubt, as the lawyers would put it, I wish to make the following points:


1. I am middle class and always have been, because my father was a doctor, I was a solicitor and I went to public school- what's more I talk proper.


2. I take the piss out of right-on people and I don't class myself as one, although I do vote Labour (heaven forfend), which may make me a bit too left wing for your taste.


3. I do not regard middle class people as "unworthy", since I am middle class and if I DID regard middle class people as unworthy, that would clearly be an example of self hatred on my part.


4. Similarly I do not regard working class people as "unworthy".


5. Frankly I find the obsession with class on EDF a bit of a joke. Once again I would repeat my version of Godwin's Law, which I call the EDF Class Law, namely "As an online discussion on EDF grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving the middle classes and the working classes approaches 1"

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think that Woodwarde road, although lovely,

> is a bit borderline and it still retains the se22

> postcode. It's sort of almost the village but not

> quite, so it's not offensive to describe the road

> as a haven for the 'nearly but not quite' brigade.


Ah. Betwixt the Dulwiches. The no mans land of Beauval, Woodwarde,Dovercourt and Eynella. The ?1M+ houses on these streets are lovely. Big 90 ft gardens, solid Edwardian build quality, side entrances and leafy front gardens. It's a weird place. Lots of left-leaning middle class moved here in the 70's or 80's when it was cheap and stayed and they're now 60+, asset rich, cash poor. The peaceful tranquility is a blue rinsers dream. Lots of pastels, golf jumpers and one of the highest violin/clematis ownership rates in the country. It's discrete... hence Micky Flanners, Jo Brand and one Hollywood B lister. I think the houses are undervalued. They should all be at least ?1.8M.

I fear it would be a breach of their birch and cello buffeted privacy to share Miss King. Does it matter? They are never here as they spend most of their time in Los Angeles at their main home in Beverly Hills "doing the circuit". The terrace they own in the streets off the park is just the London bolt hole. To the best of my knowledge they've never been in Sainsbury's.


I like Dulwich Park and see all types in there most weeks Phil Daniels style. That's how it should be.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...