Does the class system still exist in the UK?

[ABB125]

Following on from this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...on-not-traditional-labour-strongholds.241949/

Does the traditional 3-tier class system still exist in the UK? My understanding is that (based on the mid-20th century) this consists of:

• "Working class" - the "poor" people doing physical, unskilled (in certain people's opinion) work, such as dock workers, miners, builders etc
• "Middle class" - better paid, more skilled and not such physically-demanding work, such as teachers, local bank managers, corporate middle management etc
• "Upper class" - the wealthiest in society, who often don't actually do anything because they don't need to, such as "the landed gentry", company owners etc

Bear in mind that this differs from perhaps 50-100 years prior, when teachers would probably have been working class, whilst factory owners would only be middle class (unless they were from one of the few families who would consider themselves to be upper class). Middle class households could probably afford one or two servants, whilst upper class households had between several dozen and several hundred depending on how large their estates were.

Personally, I don't think this system exists any more. Essentially, there are "people who work" and "people who don't"; the former includes everyone from the fruit picker to the city banker (ie: most of the population); the latter is rather smaller and covers two extremes: those who don't work (for whatever reason, be it ill health, disability etc) and live on benefits, and those who don't need to work because they have other income sources (back to the traditional landed gentry etc).
However, I'm not sure this is a particularly good model either. (Possibly because, no matter how hard you try, it's not possible to neatly divide society into sections!)

Case point: Farmer Giles spends every day working hard on his farm, growing crops and raising livestock. He employs several workers, and his family help out as well. The farm, which is wholly owned by Farmer Giles (and his father before him, and his father etc) is 850 acres, which could fairly easily have a market value of £10 million as farmland (and considerably more as "development land"). Which traditional category does Farmer Giles fall into? What is he in modern terms?

An interesting topic, which I definitely have more to say about, but I'll leave it there for the moment! Any thoughts welcome.

 

[Gloster]

I think it has moved to being more a case of those who have influence and those who don’t. Influence generally means money, but still includes a few of the old upper class who have managed to retain some influence even if they don’t have money and a few others who don’t have money but know how to play things to their advantage. However, those who don’t have any of those advantages are the also-rans of life and even some with money who are unable to convert into influence will be also-rans. Farmer Giles would be an also-ran as he is unlikely to be able to turn his assets into influence.

 

[D6130]

I think the three class system is still very much alive and kicking. You need look no further than the present 'government'....J Rees-Mogg for example!

 

[yorkie]

Following on from this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...on-not-traditional-labour-strongholds.241949/

Does the traditional 3-tier class system still exist in the UK? My understanding is that (based on the mid-20th century) this consists of:

• "Working class" - the "poor" people doing physical, unskilled (in certain people's opinion) work, such as dock workers, miners, builders etc
• "Middle class" - better paid, more skilled and not such physically-demanding work, such as teachers, local bank managers, corporate middle management etc
• "Upper class" - the wealthiest in society, who often don't actually do anything because they don't need to, such as "the landed gentry", company owners etc

Bear in mind that this differs from perhaps 50-100 years prior, when teachers would probably have been working class, whilst factory owners would only be middle class (unless they were from one of the few families who would consider themselves to be upper class). Middle class households could probably afford one or two servants, whilst upper class households had between several dozen and several hundred depending on how large their estates were.

Personally, I don't think this system exists any more. Essentially, there are "people who work" and "people who don't"; the former includes everyone from the fruit picker to the city banker (ie: most of the population); the latter is rather smaller and covers two extremes: those who don't work (for whatever reason, be it ill health, disability etc) and live on benefits, and those who don't need to work because they have other income sources (back to the traditional landed gentry etc).
However, I'm not sure this is a particularly good model either. (Possibly because, no matter how hard you try, it's not possible to neatly divide society into sections!)

Case point: Farmer Giles spends every day working hard on his farm, growing crops and raising livestock. He employs several workers, and his family help out as well. The farm, which is wholly owned by Farmer Giles (and his father before him, and his father etc) is 850 acres, which could fairly easily have a market value of £10 million as farmland (and considerably more as "development land"). Which traditional category does Farmer Giles fall into? What is he in modern terms?

An interesting topic, which I definitely have more to say about, but I'll leave it there for the moment! Any thoughts welcome.

I think not too.

Some people try to argue that the salary doesn't determine the status and instead it's the type/category of work. Others argue it is based on salary (it's not clear if this would be based on overall actual money owed or the hourly rate). Even among those who claim such as system does exist (which is highly debatable) there is no unanimous agreement on what the criteria are.

I wonder how someone would be categorised if they had multiple jobs, some of which were classed as "working class" jobs and some as "middle class" jobs?

As a general rule people under the age of about 50 don't seem to talk about this class system.

 

[ABB125]

I think it has moved to being more a case of those who have influence and those who don’t. Influence generally means money, but still includes a few of the old upper class who have managed to retain some influence even if they don’t have money and a few others who don’t have money but know how to play things to their advantage. However, those who don’t have any of those advantages are the also-rans of life and even some with money who are unable to convert into influence will be also-rans. Farmer Giles would be an also-ran as he is unlikely to be able to turn his assets into influence.

Interesting, I hadn't thought of that angle.

I think the three class system is still very much alive and kicking. You need look no further than the present 'government'....J Rees-Mogg for example!

I'd have thought that, traditionally, your average MP would have been middle class? Clearly many would have come from wealthy, influential families ("my father was MP for Nowheretown for 20 years, you know"), but not all. And MPs aren't very well paid in the grand scheme of things.

I wonder how someone would be categorised if they had multiple jobs, some of which were classed as "working class" jobs and some as "middle class" jobs?

Do you perhaps fall into this category?

 

[urbophile]

Many working-class people these days are on zero-hours contracts or otherwise precariously employed, but work in offices or the home-based equivalent. It doesn't make them middle class. Until recently you could assume that anyone with a university degree was middle class, but the reality is that many graduates find themselves in such jobs. Though increasingly if you start off poor and working class you are less likely to get the chance of a university education in the first place.

The 'ruling class' has always ensured that the rest of the population remain in the working (or unemployed) class, and part of their strategy is to persuade the majority that they are 'middle class' and so don't need to soil their hands by associating with the workers, their unions, and strike action. And to vote (since they reluctantly conceded us the vote) consistently for the Tory party or their New Labour imitators.

 

[D6130]

I'd have thought that, traditionally, your average MP would have been middle class? Clearly many would have come from wealthy, influential families ("my father was MP for Nowheretown for 20 years, you know"), but not all. And MPs aren't very well paid in the grand scheme of things.

True to an extent....but there are still quite a few MPs whose origins are very definitely working class, e.g. Angela Rayner and Lisa Nandy.

Though increasingly if you start off poor and working class you are less likely to get the chance of a university education in the first place.

In England maybe....but not in Scotland!

 

[yorkie]

True to an extent....but there are still quite a few MPs whose origins are very definitely working class, e.g. Angela Rayner and Lisa Nandy.

Is class status (for those who believe in it ) assigned at birth and never changed, or does it change depending on the job you get? Would all MPs be deemed to be within the same class by virtue of being MPs, or would it vary depending on their overall salary and/or wealth or by their assigned class at roots?

... if you start off poor and working class you are less likely to get the chance of a university education in the first place...

In England maybe....but not in Scotland!

Out of interest, on what basis is this deemed to be the case? Presumably it is because people from poorer backgrounds are less likely to attain the grades required to go to University (and are also less likely to want to go to University, but that is presumably outside the scope of the original point which related to the "chance" of a place) and if so, what it is about Scotland that means students from poorer backgrounds gain higher grades?

 

[D6130]

Is class status (for those who believe in it ) assigned at birth and never changed,

No, not at all. There are countless examples of people from 'humble' origins who have risen to great heights in politics, business, sport, etc. (especially the latter).

Would all MPs be deemed to be within the same class by virtue of being MPs, or would it vary depending on their overall salary and/or wealth or by their assigned class at roots?

Very difficult to say for certain. I think that would depend very much on their own perception of themselves and the image that they create for themselves....as well as the perception of the media and the public at large. (Does that sound like a script for Sir Humphrey in 'Yes Minister'?).

However, after spending some months in Italy, which has for many years been a much more 'classless' society, the class differences here in the UK are much more noticeable in everyday life, in the media and in general conversation when out and about.

Out of interest, on what basis is this deemed to be the case? Presumably it is because people from poorer backgrounds are less likely to attain the grades required to go to University (and are also less likely to want to go to University, but that is presumably outside the scope of the original point which related to the "chance" of a place) and if so, what it is about Scotland that means students from poorer backgrounds gain higher grades?

I was referring to the fact that a university education in Scotland is free to candidates residing North of the border, therefore students from less well-off backgrounds who have the brains, the minds, the drive and the ambition to get to university are better-placed financially to be able to do so.

Incidentally, all young Italians who attain any pass in their equivalent of 'A' levels are entitled to go to university with minimal fees. This, unfortunately results in massively-overcrowded universities and great difficulties in attending lectures in view of the large numbers involved.

 

[NorthOxonian]

I was referring to the fact that a university education in Scotland is free to candidates residing North of the border, therefore students from less well-off backgrounds who have the brains, the minds, the drive and the ambition to get to university are better-placed financially to be able to do so.

At the risk of veering slightly off topic, this isn't true. As a student, I don't think I thought about tuition fees or my tuition loan once. My maintainance loan was constantly on my mind - and meant that I skipped meals and made do without essentials practically every day of my degree. Without rich parents (or very poor parents, because then there's generally financial aid schemes that do help), most students both north and south of the border will have gone through at least a degree of hardship - so I don't blame kids who are considering whether or not to go for thinking about financial concerns!

And to veer back onto topic, university was probably where I realised most clearly that a class system does still exist in this country. I grew up relatively comfortably - my parents owned our modest terraced house and had office jobs, but it wasn't a life of luxury by any means. Until I went to uni, I thought that most people were like us - some a little poorer, some a little richer - but all making ends meet one way or another.

Pretty much from day one, Oxford was a huge culture shock. The media does sometimes exaggerate what the university is like - it wasn't as if my upper middle class peers were unwelcoming - but they were totally different and there were huge cultural and values divides between us. Everything from the kinds of foods we tended to eat to what we considered a significant amount of money (or reasonable income to target post graduating) were completely different. I never really found I fit in at uni - particularly at my own college which I always felt was even more upper crust than most.

The thing about the class system is it's very pervasive, but equally difficult to define. I think it's one of those things where "I'll know it when I see it" is probably the best definition - it's a combination of what your parents did for a living, how you grew up, what you do now, and many others besides. The traditional conception is clearly too simple, hut just because class is an amorphous and difficult to define concept, definitely doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[yorkie]

At the risk of veering slightly off topic, this isn't true....

I agree.

@D6130 see my response to @Doppelganger here:

Why are Birmingham and working class London not traditional Labour strongholds

Class, for what it is worth which is not much these days, is no longer much of a determinant of who someone will vote for. Age and level of education are more important. Most graduates and, as stated above, most people under 50 will vote for Labour, both by some margin. On the other hand, the...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[JamesT]

I was referring to the fact that a university education in Scotland is free to candidates residing North of the border, therefore students from less well-off backgrounds who have the brains, the minds, the drive and the ambition to get to university are better-placed financially to be able to do so.

This may be the intention of the no tuition fees policy, unfortunately it doesn’t appear to work. Fewer students from disadvantaged backgrounds go on to university in Scotland compared to the rest of the UK.

 

[yorksrob]

At the risk of veering slightly off topic, this isn't true. As a student, I don't think I thought about tuition fees or my tuition loan once. My maintainance loan was constantly on my mind - and meant that I skipped meals and made do without essentials practically every day of my degree. Without rich parents (or very poor parents, because then there's generally financial aid schemes that do help), most students both north and south of the border will have gone through at least a degree of hardship - so I don't blame kids who are considering whether or not to go for thinking about financial concerns!

And to veer back onto topic, university was probably where I realised most clearly that a class system does still exist in this country. I grew up relatively comfortably - my parents owned our modest terraced house and had office jobs, but it wasn't a life of luxury by any means. Until I went to uni, I thought that most people were like us - some a little poorer, some a little richer - but all making ends meet one way or another.

Pretty much from day one, Oxford was a huge culture shock. The media does sometimes exaggerate what the university is like - it wasn't as if my upper middle class peers were unwelcoming - but they were totally different and there were huge cultural and values divides between us. Everything from the kinds of foods we tended to eat to what we considered a significant amount of money (or reasonable income to target post graduating) were completely different. I never really found I fit in at uni - particularly at my own college which I always felt was even more upper crust than most.

The thing about the class system is it's very pervasive, but equally difficult to define. I think it's one of those things where "I'll know it when I see it" is probably the best definition - it's a combination of what your parents did for a living, how you grew up, what you do now, and many others besides. The traditional conception is clearly too simple, hut just because class is an amorphous and difficult to define concept, definitely doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I went to University in the late 1990's, and for the most part, I found fellow working class people mainly. A couple of friends went to Oxford and Cambridge.

I will forever be grateful for the wonderful student grant system that meant that anyone who met the mark in school/college could go to University. That was true egalitarianism.

 

[JamesT]

I went to University in the late 1990's, and for the most part, I found fellow working class people mainly. A couple of friends went to Oxford and Cambridge.

I will forever be grateful for the wonderful student grant system that meant that anyone who met the mark in school/college could go to University. That was true egalitarianism.

Is that true? In 1980 only 15% of students stayed on to higher education, whereas recently it hit the 50% level. If everyone who could meet the mark were in that 15%, where has the other 35% come from?

 

[yorkie]

I will forever be grateful for the wonderful student grant system that meant that anyone who met the mark in school/college could go to University. That was true egalitarianism.

Surely they can now; what's stopping them?

Are fewer people who meet the mark attending university now?

 

[Philip]

Some students seem to like to think of themselves as 'working class' or poor when in reality many of them are neither.

 

[PaulMc7]

From experience, the class system isn't referred to as frequently as it used to be. Instead, it's been replaced by a new 3 tier system:

Billionaires
Politicians
The rest of us

 

[Magdalia]

Does the traditional 3-tier class system still exist in the UK? My understanding is that (based on the mid-20th century) this consists of:

• "Working class" - the "poor" people doing physical, unskilled (in certain people's opinion) work, such as dock workers, miners, builders etc
• "Middle class" - better paid, more skilled and not such physically-demanding work, such as teachers, local bank managers, corporate middle management etc
• "Upper class" - the wealthiest in society, who often don't actually do anything because they don't need to, such as "the landed gentry", company owners etc

Yes, but employment and wealth are not good indicators of class.

Pretty much from day one, Oxford was a huge culture shock. The media does sometimes exaggerate what the university is like - it wasn't as if my upper middle class peers were unwelcoming - but they were totally different and there were huge cultural and values divides between us. Everything from the kinds of foods we tended to eat to what we considered a significant amount of money (or reasonable income to target post graduating) were completely different. I never really found I fit in at uni - particularly at my own college which I always felt was even more upper crust than most.

The thing about the class system is it's very pervasive, but equally difficult to define. I think it's one of those things where "I'll know it when I see it" is probably the best definition - it's a combination of what your parents did for a living, how you grew up, what you do now, and many others besides. The traditional conception is clearly too simple, hut just because class is an amorphous and difficult to define concept, definitely doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

This is a good example of how class operates in real life, it is a tribal thing. For me, good "I'll know it when I see it" indicators of class are:

• vocabulary: things like lavatory v toilet and sofa v settee;
• appearance: clothes and accessories, though this is much easier with women than men; it is true that women mostly dress for each other, not for men, and how they dress are predominantly class signals;
• houses: especially furniture and other interior decoration;
• celebrations: how people celebrate Christmas but more importantly events like weddings and funerals;
• newspapers used to be good, but less helpful now that most people are looking at their smartphones instead; Sir Humphrey Appleby's analysis of who reads which newspaper is a classic.

In my lifetime the biggest change has been the growth of the middle class and shrinking of the working class. That's partly the decline of traditional manufacturing and extractive industries but more about the expansion of home ownership and university education.

The biggest threat to class and class cohesion is migration, and especially the dilution of it that comes with couples with one or both partners from outside the English class system, and the children they have. It will take a few generations but eventually nearly everyone will be middle class. However I don't underestimate the class system's ability to survive by further accentuating differences that already exist between upper middle, middle middle and lower middle.

 

[yorksrob]

Is that true? In 1980 only 15% of students stayed on to higher education, whereas recently it hit the 50% level. If everyone who could meet the mark were in that 15%, where has the other 35% come from?

My experience was in the late 1990's, so there would have been considerably more than 15% attending University at that time.

Surely they can now; what's stopping them?

Are fewer people who meet the mark attending university now?

They can, but it seems to involve a lot of debt.

To be fair, I had a student loan and took work over the summer, so I did contribute to my education (and am not against the idea of students contributing to their education in principle). I just think that expecting them to cough up for the whole lot seems too much.

 

[nw1]

What annoys me a bit is when you get millionaires with three nationalities currently living in a nice part of the world, let's say the better parts of California, who will never need to worry about money again (hello, Mr J. Lydon) claim to be some kind of champion of the working-class.

Whereas someone from a so-called "middle class" background who encountered mental health problems aged 18, and maybe messed around with drugs, and as a result has struggled financially and personally throughout their adult life, is apparently part of the "privileged elite".

To me, your financial and personal situation right now is more important than what it was when you were born and during your childhood. And society needs to support those who are encountering hardship right now, whether they're "working class", "middle class", or anything else.

The other thing that, to my mind, is quite insulting is the stereotypical depiction, often by right-wing politicians and commentators, of the "working class" as socially conservative and xenophobic. Some right-wing commentators then use virtue-signalling when supporting such socially-conservative leglisation, essentially saying "the working class are for it, therefore it must be good". I'm not a fan of the class system at all but to my mind this seems like a hopeless generalisation, given I know people who self-identify as "working class" who do not hold these views.

 

[yorkie]

My experience was in the late 1990's, so there would have been considerably more than 15% attending University at that time.

Do fewer people attend today due to lack of opportunities?

They, but it seems to involve a lot of debt.

This is not classed as debt. I refer you to: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...labour-strongholds.241949/page-2#post-6021969

To be fair, I had a student loan and took work over the summer, so I did contribute to my education (and am not against the idea of students contributing to their education in principle). I just think that expecting them to cough up for the whole lot seems too much.

You do realise that not everyone will actually be required to pay 'the whole lot' as it not actually classed as debt in the same way as any other debt, don't you? Did you read the other thread?

 

[yorksrob]

Do fewer people attend today due to lack of opportunities?

This is not classed as debt. I refer you to: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...labour-strongholds.241949/page-2#post-6021969


You do realise that not everyone will actually be required to pay 'the whole lot' as it not actually classed as debt in the same way as any other debt, don't you? Did you read the other thread?

It was said about my student loan "don't worry it's a low interest rate and you don't have to pay it off unless you earn over a certain amount... etc"

I personally didn't find the interest rate that low, and paid the thing off as soon as I could.

 

[geoffk]

I think class is still very much present in England but it's changed in nature as we have become a very divided society, thanks to our current crop of politicians and the media (both printed and "social"). Terms like "liberal Metropolitan elite" are thrown around to divide us further. It's not meant as a compliment and probably came from the USA. The dictionary definition is “a group of people with education, money and other advantages, often living in cities, who have liberal political views and are seen as not understanding the problems and views of ordinary people”. I sometimes find people on Facebook who say they went to the "University of Life" and, when I ask if this came after the School of Hard Knocks, they get angry!

 

[nw1]

I think class is still very much present in England but it's changed in nature as we have become a very divided society, thanks to our current crop of politicians and the media (both printed and "social"). Terms like "liberal Metropolitan elite" are thrown around to divide us further. It's not meant as a compliment and probably came from the USA. The dictionary definition is “a group of people with education, money and other advantages, often living in cities, who have liberal political views and are seen as not understanding the problems and views of ordinary people”. I sometimes find people on Facebook who say they went to the "University of Life" and, when I ask if this came after the School of Hard Knocks, they get angry!

As I said above, I see this as a form of virtue-signalling, albeit with a right-wing flavour.

And all this "not understanding the problems and views of ordinary people" nonsense, which is often directed at people who would like to see more support for people who are struggling, not less!

I remember some years ago there was a strike by the refuse collectors, caused by an actual pay cut. The online comments section on the local paper was full of rants by people with these kind of views, ranting on about "privileged public-sector bin men with cushy jobs" and the like, while not attacking the Tory councillors who implemented the cuts leading to the strike!

 

[Doppelganger]

This is not classed as debt. I refer you to: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...labour-strongholds.241949/page-2#post-6021969

It's debt, it doesn't matter how it's "classed". You owe a hell of a lot of money even before you properly start your working life.

It doesn't matter about the nonsense about not having to pay it back until you earn over X amount, as that isn't difficult once you graduate and get a proper job, most graduates will easily be earning the amount required.

 

[JamesT]

It's debt, it doesn't matter how it's "classed". You owe a hell of a lot of money even before you properly start your working life.

It doesn't matter about the nonsense about not having to pay it back until you earn over X amount, as that isn't difficult once you graduate and get a proper job, most graduates will easily be earning the amount required.

The threshold for students who have graduated recently is £27,295. Median graduate salary is apparently £25k according to https://www.hesa.ac.uk/news/16-06-2022/graduate-outcomes-data-statistics-201920
So half of graduates won’t be earning enough to start repaying immediately.

The next aspect is that repayments are means tested, you’re only paying 9% of salary above the threshold. So it’s not like paying off a normal loan where you have to find £X every month regardless of salary. It comes off automatically so you don’t have an issue where you‘ve already spent it before it’s due.

The student loan doesn’t appear on your credit file, so it’s not a debt like others. The only aspect that will matter if applying for a mortgage etc. is when they ask about monthly outgoings to check affordability it will be there.

 

[westv]

I don't know why it isn't just called "student tax"

 

[JamesT]

I don't know why it isn't just called "student tax"

I think when the tuition fees first came in and had to be paid upfront, paying off the loan was much more likely. So a fixed amount you could pay off seemed more palatable than the effectively unlimited liability of a graduate tax, even though for many graduates the current system acts like a tax.
The other aspect is loan repayments are due from graduates who move abroad, whereas a tax would only apply to UK residents.

 

[Yew]

The Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat?

 

[Bevan Price]

In some quarters, there seems to be an attitude that you can be of "the wrong class" to marry a member of the Royal Family.