Unfortunately, right-wing politicians and the media entities that support them have got extremely good at persuading the struggling lower middle classes that their plight is due to the indigence and greed of the people lower down the ladder than themselves - immigrants, 'scroungers', single mums, all the usual suspects - instead of directing their anger upwards at the cunts that are running (and ruining) the whole show. So what's needed is a political movement that can appeal to workers in the most general sense, regardless of whether they sit at a desk or a checkout.
True up to a point, but the middle classes in many countries - certainly this one - have been getting absolutely shat on since 2007-8. Having a degree from a Russell Group university and knowing how to pronounce 'quinoa' are not the ticket to a decent job that they once were.
At this point it's probably worth distinguishing between class as a cultural phenomenon and class in purely economic terms, because really, contra Tony Blair, the great majority of people are economically working class, in that they sell their labour to an employer, regardless of whether they're a teacher, a bus driver, an engineer or whatever. Going by this classification, most people you'd call middle class have far more interests in common with working-class people than they do with the upper middle class, who increasingly are looking like the aristocracy of days gone by, in that they don't actually 'work' at all but generate wealth simply by owning wealth (the investor/speculator/landlord class).
I suspect that it is only really something that affects more socially aware middle class people though.
Perhaps this is something to do with it. Is BSL a liberal/left phenomenon, for the most part? I doubt the sort of middle class people who read The Daily Mail are self-loathing, although they may still deride liberal/left people as 'middle class lefties', I suppose.
As you've not read much of his material you should be able to provide a reference for the bits you have quoted?
But, if you look at most professions, they're still colonised by middle class people - there's a hell of a lot of people still walking into high-flying jobs who aren't anything special but have the right class profile.
Or to put it another way, does it make sense to put a teacher earning 25k and an executive earning ten times that in the 'same' social class?
Sure, but I think the point I was making is that the gap in wealth and opportunity between the top and bottom ends of the middle class is a lot bigger than that between working class and lower-middle. Or to put it another way, does it make sense to put a teacher earning 25k and an executive earning ten times that in the 'same' social class?
I think you're right on wealth, but wrong on opportunity (to make that wealth), which is the more important factor in the whole argument To the question - yes, up to a point, because mostly they came from the same strata of opportunity - the rest depends on their choices. Not to put too fine a point on it, I had all the middle class advantages to be able to go and make a sizeable amount of money in my early 20s if I had wanted to - it was a choice not to, not a direct choice not to make money, but to work in another part of the economy where money is less plentiful. Perhaps more fool me that I didn't...
the attributes of middle classness gain you access to all kinds of opportunities, if you want to take them. I think anyone who denies that is fooling themselves. That said, obvioulsy more middle class people have been squeezed since 2008, no argument with that.