I heard some interviews this morning on NPR.

Why can't our politicians sound as cool and cultured as yours? :S

So, surprise,surprise, the result is a hung parliament, as was widely predicted.
Hardly a ringing endorsement for the tories!
Now the dirty deals will be struck between supposedly differing ideologies and a coalition government will ensue.
Not a good result for the working class, as they will soon realise when the campaign blather gives way to the slash and burn of austerity.
Those old enough to remember what it was like under the tories know what to expect, those too young to remember had better be rich enough to avoid the carnage.

Class was touched on in several posts, so here's my definition.
If you depend on somebody else for your livelihood then you are working class.
The so-called " middle class " are wannabe toffs and in denial of their actual standing in capitalist society.

Quote:Why can't our politicians sound as cool and cultured as yours?

Because too many of them are from fucking Texas!

(May 7, 2010 at 11:34 am)bozo Wrote: Class was touched on in several posts, so here's my definition.
If you depend on somebody else for your livelihood then you are working class.
The so-called " middle class " are wannabe toffs and in denial of their actual standing in capitalist society.

So all students are suddenly working class by that definition? I disagree with that. I come from a middle class family (i.e. my father supported my mother fully when they were married). Where do students come in all of this?

Am I working class just because I don't have an income? Or is it based on more than that?

Oh, and I'm not a "wannabe toff", I'm a person who wants to earn a decent wage like everyone ought to. Yes, I want to be rich, I don't think that's too much to ask given the skills I'll leave university with. I've invested a lot in my future...it doesn't make me a wannabe toff.

(May 7, 2010 at 11:41 am)Tiberius Wrote:

(May 7, 2010 at 11:34 am)bozo Wrote: Class was touched on in several posts, so here's my definition.
If you depend on somebody else for your livelihood then you are working class.
The so-called " middle class " are wannabe toffs and in denial of their actual standing in capitalist society.

So all students are suddenly working class by that definition? I disagree with that. I come from a middle class family (i.e. my father supported my mother fully when they were married). Where do students come in all of this?

Am I working class just because I don't have an income? Or is it based on more than that?

You claim your family is middle class. Did your mother/father have jobs?
Students have parents, therefore they start off by inheriting the class of them.
It's not a difficult concept is it?

---

Adrian, missed the last bit of your post 34.
My colourful language in describing the middle class as I do is an attempt at describing their mindset.
You can earn a lot of money working for somebody, you're still working class in my book.

My mother and father both have jobs. I'm afraid I don't agree with your definition of working class though; you seek to put nearly everyone in that category. You do realise that all those investment bankers you hate who earn millions per year are all "working" for someone right? So they are all working class?

Bullshit. Working class is quite possibly one of the most well defined concepts out there. Lower-tier jobs, classified by low-wages, low skill-sets, etc. It usually involves more physical labour (i.e. farmhand, factory worker) as opposed to the more "middle class" kind of office work.

(May 7, 2010 at 12:02 pm)Tiberius Wrote: My mother and father both have jobs. I'm afraid I don't agree with your definition of working class though; you seek to put nearly everyone in that category. You do realise that all those investment bankers you hate who earn millions per year are all "working" for someone right? So they are all working class?

Bullshit. Working class is quite possibly one of the most well defined concepts out there. Lower-tier jobs, classified by low-wages, low skill-sets, etc. It usually involves more physical labour (i.e. farmhand, factory worker) as opposed to the more "middle class" kind of office work.

I don't expect you to agree with me.
The bankers you talk about depend on their employer for their living. They do a job . Take that job away and their livelihood is gone. To them, such a scenario is not as critical as to a lower-paid worker, who may simply end up on the scrapheap, the underclass.

And contrary to what you argue, much debate has taken place around " class " and how it is defined.
I simply offer mine.

Quote:Lower-tier jobs, classified by low-wages, low skill-sets, etc. It usually involves more physical labour

Well it isn't always low pay. My father's best friend earns many thousands and he's a builder. If anyone can survive an economy down turn, it's him. Owns a nice sized house with a strong income. 2 cars and a van.

My uncle who considered himself "middle class" who earned a decent income lost his job. He couldn't get a job that involved physcial labour because he has no experiance. He was a bit of a snob and I was happy to watch him fall from wealth. If my dad's mate lost his job, he could easily move onto another.

I prefure out door physical labour. Earning through sheer labour. I find it enjoying. Can't stand the idea of working in an office. Too boring.

I didn't say all physical labour was in lower-tier jobs. I said a lot of lower-tier jobs involve physical labour (certainly more than middle-tier jobs). Builders can earn a lot of money, but they can also earn hardly anything.

My mother's previous boyfriend was the head of a carpentry company and earned quite a lot. He worked with his hands, and I certainly wouldn't class him as "lower class".

(May 7, 2010 at 5:22 am)leo-rcc Wrote: The fact you even read that statistic means there is some political implication is it not? Why else acquire those statistics?

I didn't seek out the statistic because I didn't even know it existed until I found it. How could I seek it out beforehand? I found it. And yes, it was in the newspaper but I thought you were asking if it was explicitly one of the main issues outside that.

Adrian - did you know that the Lib Dems would be funding more to science than either Tories or Labour?

EvF