🚀 go-pugleaf

Paul Carmichael <wibbleypants@gmail.com> wrote in news:pan$3c1b0$4889484
$a510f21c$dada7aa9@gmail.com:

> Looks like you're going to get your very own Trump.
>
> Sad times.
>

they have control of a few councils and new fangled mayoralties

shit gets real for them now as they have to actually attempt to balance the
books and keep people happy, rather than just mouthing off from the
sidelines

4 years to see what they are made of before the next general election

Looking at the results... Conservative vote collapse and went to Reform.

Labour losses split between LibDems and Greens?

At least that's how I want to read it.


I really don't see Reform being electable in much of the 'Home Counties'
and if there's a Conservative-Reform 'alliance' I suspect that will put
a lot of the remaining southern (but not SE) seats into the hands of the
LibDems.

Still think there is a risk of Reform having significant influence
though either through propping up an administration or driving Labour
further to the right in an attempt to keep the red wall intact.

As Wessie said up there, four years of seeing them with some power,
let's see what they do and how that works out.



However... I read, somewhere, a Ukrainian asking 'what part of YOUR
country would you give up for peace?'.  On days like this it isn't too
hard to give an answer.

On 5/2/2025 6:57 PM, wessie wrote:
> Paul Carmichael <wibbleypants@gmail.com> wrote in news:pan$3c1b0$4889484
> $a510f21c$dada7aa9@gmail.com:
>
>> Looks like you're going to get your very own Trump.
>>
>> Sad times.
>>
>
> they have control of a few councils and new fangled mayoralties
>
> shit gets real for them now as they have to actually attempt to balance the
> books and keep people happy, rather than just mouthing off from the
> sidelines
>
> 4 years to see what they are made of before the next general election
>

Multiple Thanet debacles on the horizon, probably.

--
Moto Morini 2C/375
Gilera 175 Sport, Husqvarna 401 Svartpilen
Honda CB250RS (Not Waynetta!)
"Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in the reality"

On 02/05/2025 19:11 furmity penned these words:
> driving Labour
> further to the right in an attempt to keep the red wall intact.

Therein lies the problem. Labour have been trying successfully to out flank
reform ltd on the right and lost whatever they had still on the left. We do need
something better than FPTP.

--
Ian

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of
the last priest"

On 02/05/2025 19:11, furmity wrote:
> Looking at the results... Conservative vote collapse and went to Reform.
> Labour losses split between LibDems and Greens?

> Still think there is a risk of Reform having significant influence
> though either through propping up an administration or driving Labour
> further to the right in an attempt to keep the red wall intact.
>
> As Wessie said up there, four years of seeing them with some power,
> let's see what they do and how that works out.
>
>
>
> However... I read, somewhere, a Ukrainian asking 'what part of YOUR
> country would you give up for peace?'.  On days like this it isn't too
> hard to give an answer.

Dont blame the people who voted for them, blame the other Parties who
are inept at arguing their case, and then putting it into place.
Labour should have won these elections easily, they should still be in
their honeymoon period, being elected with a significant majority only
10 months ago, but they have quickly lost their electoral advantage with
a number of policies that alienate many working class people.
The Tories havent recovered from their 10+ years of rule where they were
the worst Government in living memory (vying with Labour of 77-79?).
Liberals? When do we hear from them? I really cannot remember last
hearing a Liberal Candidate (though I'm an outlier, I mainly listen to
Radio Scotland, and rarely watch TV news).
The Reform policy list seems very populist. And, quite reasonable if you
just read it without going into how it will all be done. That will
appeal to many, which has been proven today. It's unlikely they will be
able to enact their policies, even if in power at Westminster, but just
saying they are going to try to do x, y and z popular policies will get
them votes. The people voting will like what they are saying, and won't
question how it is all going to happen, so we have a version of Trump
here in the UK, and that has happened because the mainstream Parties are
so poor in their presentation, lack of work in getting their message
across, and a poor record when in Office.

On 02/05/2025 20:00, Alan Lee wrote:
> On 02/05/2025 19:11, furmity wrote:
>> Looking at the results... Conservative vote collapse and went to
>> Reform. Labour losses split between LibDems and Greens?
>
>> Still think there is a risk of Reform having significant influence
>> though either through propping up an administration or driving Labour
>> further to the right in an attempt to keep the red wall intact.
>>
>> As Wessie said up there, four years of seeing them with some power,
>> let's see what they do and how that works out.
>>
>>
>>
>> However... I read, somewhere, a Ukrainian asking 'what part of YOUR
>> country would you give up for peace?'.  On days like this it isn't too
>> hard to give an answer.
>
> Dont blame the people who voted for them, blame the other Parties who
<checks turnout>
And blame those that can;t be arsed voting.

> are inept at arguing their case, and then putting it into place.
> Labour should have won these elections easily, they should still be in
> their honeymoon period, being elected with a significant majority only
> 10 months ago, but they have quickly lost their electoral advantage with
> a number of policies that alienate many working class people.

I find it hard to define "working class people" these days, so many want
things Government should do, but don't want to pay.

Who exactly is the "working class" now? Office workers? Shop workers?
Street cleaners? IT staff? Management?




--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/

On 03/05/2025 11:01, YTC#1 wrote:
> I find it hard to define "working class people" these days, so many want
> things Government should do, but don't want to pay.
>
> Who exactly is the "working class" now? Office workers? Shop workers?
> Street cleaners? IT staff? Management?

I would say anyone who earns less than £30k a year is that demographic.
Higher earners are still working, but a little more comfortable with
their higher wages.
When you constantly struggle to pay your bills each month, and you have
little chance to earn any more, yet the bills and outgoings are going up
above inflation, then despair can set in, and the populist parties will
appeal.
This is precisely the people who Labour started out representing, but
Labour have lost their direction, and are happier protecting the mega
corps with their tax breaks than improving the lot of the lower paid.

Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote in
news:vv5443$3i7to$1@dont-email.me:

> On 03/05/2025 11:01, YTC#1 wrote:
>> I find it hard to define "working class people" these days, so many
>> want things Government should do, but don't want to pay.
>>
>> Who exactly is the "working class" now? Office workers? Shop workers?
>> Street cleaners? IT staff? Management?
>
> I would say anyone who earns less than £30k a year is that
> demographic.

I'm not sure I would agree with that. Income is not a good indicator of
class. Are train drivers working class? I think most would consider
themselves to be in that group depsite earning £60k a year. What about
plumbers? Many are quite affluent. Many working class people are quite
wealthy on paper due to property acquisition e.g. someone who bought
their 2 bed council house in Hackeny for £45k in 1985 could be sitting
on a £1.5 million plot now.

Some years ago, the BBC and some sociologists came up with this
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/2013/newsspec_5093/index.stm

I am in the newly affluent category. I suspect you might be.

"This class group is sociable, has lots of cultural interests and sits
in the middle of all the groups in terms of wealth:

This youthful class group is economically secure, without being well off
These people have high scores for emerging culture, such as watching
sport, going to gigs and using social media
They do not tend to participate in highbrow culture, such as classical
music and theatre
People in this group are likely to come from a working class background
Many people in this group live in old manufacturing centres of the UK in
the Midlands and North West"

I like the youthful bit, but bear in mind the categories and average
ages date from 2013.

I certainly started out working class, with a father that worked driving
trucks or milking cows. I was a typesetter then factory worker
assembling Xerox machines. I may have moved into the middle class as my
career progressed to a technical role in electronic failure analysis and
programming automated test equipment.

I certainly moved into the middle class as a Masters Graduate and social
worker, despite earning less than what I did at Xerox!

On 03/05/2025 14:01, Alan Lee wrote:
> On 03/05/2025 11:01, YTC#1 wrote:
>> I find it hard to define "working class people" these days, so many
>> want things Government should do, but don't want to pay.
>>
>> Who exactly is the "working class" now? Office workers? Shop workers?
>> Street cleaners? IT staff? Management?
>
> I would say anyone who earns less than £30k a year is that demographic.

Why 30?
I earned less than 30k[1] during my last couple of years, and I am/was
an IT Consultant.

> Higher earners are still working, but a little more comfortable with
> their higher wages.

I think in practice, people spend what they earn.

> When you constantly struggle to pay your bills each month, and you have
> little chance to earn any more, yet the bills and outgoings are going up
> above inflation, then despair can set in, and the populist parties will
> appeal.

Yep, that is defo the case.

> This is precisely the people who Labour started out representing, but
> Labour have lost their direction, and are happier protecting the mega
> corps with their tax breaks than improving the lot of the lower paid.

Unfortunately the mega corps "hold all the cards", when it was just
manufacturing that could not be shipped off somewhere on a whim it was
easier to leverage tax from larger corporations.


[1] A technicality due to dividends :-)

--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/

On 03/05/2025 15:02 wessie penned these words:

> I am in the newly affluent category. I suspect you might be.

I am elite, bloody hell. I suspect my property empire is the cause.

--
Ian

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of
the last priest"

On 03/05/2025 16:41, YTC#1 wrote:
>> I would say anyone who earns less than £30k a year is that demographic.
>
> Why 30?
> I earned less than 30k[1] during my last couple of years, and I am/was
> an IT Consultant.

Because earning less than £30k is the point where everything starts to
be difficult. Rent/mortgage at £800-1000 a month means nearly half of
your income at £30k is paying for your home (after tax/NI).
With the increases in energy and everything else that has risen above
inflation, it means any single person earning below £30k is living a
life that is just surviving. There are, I'd presume, a few million
people who earn minimum wage now, which gives them an income of well
under £25k after tax.
This is what I would term as typical working class, to note Wessies
point, yes, old working class sterotype workers can now earn a lot more
than they did in the 50's to 90's, of course they still work, but their
earnings make them slightly different politically, they can afford to
pay their mortgages comfortably, and even get the LR Evoque on their
driveway, this would have been a middle class trait from the 50's
onwards, so rather than classes, I'd say it is more income related nowadays.

On 02/05/2025 18:36, Paul Carmichael wrote:
> Looks like you're going to get your very own Trump.
>
> Sad times.
>
just local councils though, and the Tories lost more. The Greens have
more seats.


So a few Reform ppl will be deciding what day the bins will go out, they
will probably ban black bins though,

boots <news@millhouse-communications.co.uk> wrote in news:vv5fkp$3kf3v$1
@bilbo.eternal-september.org:

> On 03/05/2025 15:02 wessie penned these words:
>
>> I am in the newly affluent category. I suspect you might be.
>
> I am elite, bloody hell. I suspect my property empire is the cause.
>

I might have gone up a bit if it had asked if I went to public school[1]


[1] fully funded by the council after passing the 11+ as no grammar school
in Monmouth

On 02/05/2025 18:57, wessie wrote:
> Paul Carmichael <wibbleypants@gmail.com> wrote in news:pan$3c1b0$4889484
> $a510f21c$dada7aa9@gmail.com:
>
>> Looks like you're going to get your very own Trump.
>>
>> Sad times.
>
> they have control of a few councils and new fangled mayoralties
>
> shit gets real for them now as they have to actually attempt to balance the
> books and keep people happy, rather than just mouthing off from the
> sidelines
>
> 4 years to see what they are made of before the next general election

As the Reform mayor is the other halfwit Andrea (Jenkyns as opposed to
Loathsome), I can't see things being great for Greater Lincolnshire.
Looks like her main obsession is the culture wars, and she's going
all-out to try to find DEI officers and sack them.

On 02/05/2025 19:55, boots wrote:
> On 02/05/2025 19:11 furmity penned these words:
>> driving Labour
>> further to the right in an attempt to keep the red wall intact.
>
> Therein lies the problem. Labour have been trying successfully to out flank
> reform ltd on the right and lost whatever they had still on the left. We do need
> something better than FPTP.

The Labour conference wanted PR but the leadership have so far rejected
it, which is yet another of Starmer's stupid choices (see also EU red
lines, disability benefits cuts, refusal to use wealth taxes or windfall
taxes on energy companies). He evidently doesn't realise that if it's
still FPTP at the next election, Labour will be wiped out as thoroughly
as the Tories were at the last one (assuming the stupid shit is still
leader at that point).

On 03/05/2025 17:18, boots wrote:
> On 03/05/2025 15:02 wessie penned these words:
>
>> I am in the newly affluent category. I suspect you might be.
>
> I am elite, bloody hell. I suspect my property empire is the cause.

Ditto, but my property empire consists of one house. Got a bit of
savings from the sale of my parents' home which is probably the cause.

On 02/05/2025 19:11, furmity wrote:
> and if there's a Conservative-Reform 'alliance' I suspect that will put

If merger rather than alliance, then "The Reformatory Party" has a
certain aptness to the name.

--
Bruce Horrocks
FJR1300AS

On 03/05/2025 22:05 Mike Fleming penned these words:
> On 03/05/2025 17:18, boots wrote:
>> On 03/05/2025 15:02 wessie penned these words:
>>
>>> I am in the newly affluent category. I suspect you might be.
>>
>> I am elite, bloody hell. I suspect my property empire is the cause.
>
> Ditto, but my property empire consists of one house. Got a bit of
> savings from the sale of my parents' home which is probably the cause.

It was a tongue in cheek obv, my empire consists of the house in London we've
just bought and the cash leftover from selling two others. While it should see L
& I through to the end it is hardly riches beyond the dreams of avarice.

--
Ian

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of
the last priest"

On 04/05/2025 01:01 Bruce penned these words:
> On 02/05/2025 19:11, furmity wrote:
>> and if there's a Conservative-Reform 'alliance' I suspect that will put
>
> If merger rather than alliance, then "The Reformatory Party" has a
> certain aptness to the name.
>

They'll be going for "National Socialist Workers Party"

--
Ian

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of
the last priest"

PipL <pip@nowhere.nul> wrote in news:m7okuqFdbqjU1@mid.individual.net:

> On 03/05/2025 15:02, wessie wrote:
>> Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote in
>> news:vv5443$3i7to$1@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> On 03/05/2025 11:01, YTC#1 wrote:
>>>> I find it hard to define "working class people" these days, so many
>>>> want things Government should do, but don't want to pay.
>>>>
>>>> Who exactly is the "working class" now? Office workers? Shop
workers?
>>>> Street cleaners? IT staff? Management?
>>>
>>> I would say anyone who earns less than ВЈ30k a year is that
>>> demographic.
>>
>> I'm not sure I would agree with that. Income is not a good indicator
of
>> class. Are train drivers working class? I think most would consider
>> themselves to be in that group depsite earning Ј60k a year. What
about
>> plumbers? Many are quite affluent. Many working class people are
quite
>> wealthy on paper due to property acquisition e.g. someone who bought
>> their 2 bed council house in Hackeny for Ј45k in 1985 could be
sitting
>> on a Ј1.5 million plot now.
>
> Maybe "working class" is more about those whose job comes from
> vocational qualifications.
>

I have vocational qualifications. From 1990 an ONC in electrical
engineering but would be technical middle class if I had remained on
that career path.

More recently a Masters of Social Work as a requirement to use the
protected job title of social worker.This is not considered a working
class occupation.

What about those former working class jobs that now require a degree?
Are nurses still working class? What about when they go up the grade
structure as they specialise and start to write prescriptions or perform
minor surgeries?

I think if we still have a working class, they are more likely to be
people in jobs that have no need of a qualification. Delivery drivers
and warehouse operatives, call centre screen readers, retail workers,
cleaners etc. Not sure we could categorise these on income as some of
these might be earning over the £30k threshold suggested, whilst others
are on minimum wage.


>> Some years ago, the BBC and some sociologists came up with this
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/2013/newsspec_5093/index.stm
>
> "Technical middle class". Seems accurate. I fall outside the
previously
> mentioned 30K limit too, though not by a huge amount.
>

Whilst we still have inequalities across all aspects of life, it is not
so easy to define those under the old ABC1C2DE categories or the
traditional notion of lower, middle and upper classes. These schemata
didn't recognise the nine categories in the Equality Act for example, or
the advantages conferred on those like me who have become modestly
affluent through property (inherited and personal gains).

On 03/05/2025 15:02, wessie wrote:
> Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote in
> news:vv5443$3i7to$1@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 03/05/2025 11:01, YTC#1 wrote:
>>> I find it hard to define "working class people" these days, so many
>>> want things Government should do, but don't want to pay.
>>>
>>> Who exactly is the "working class" now? Office workers? Shop workers?
>>> Street cleaners? IT staff? Management?
>>
>> I would say anyone who earns less than ВЈ30k a year is that
>> demographic.
>
> I'm not sure I would agree with that. Income is not a good indicator of
> class. Are train drivers working class? I think most would consider
> themselves to be in that group depsite earning Ј60k a year. What about
> plumbers? Many are quite affluent. Many working class people are quite
> wealthy on paper due to property acquisition e.g. someone who bought
> their 2 bed council house in Hackeny for Ј45k in 1985 could be sitting
> on a Ј1.5 million plot now.

Maybe "working class" is more about those whose job comes from
vocational qualifications.

> Some years ago, the BBC and some sociologists came up with this
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/2013/newsspec_5093/index.stm

"Technical middle class". Seems accurate. I fall outside the previously
mentioned 30K limit too, though not by a huge amount.




--

CHUMP #1 (CHarge Up Muppet)

Pip

PipL <pip@nowhere.nul> wrote in news:m7oo15FdbqmU1@mid.individual.net:


> also suggests that as it's quite a manual job, it could still count as
> "working class" in some senses at least.
>

an orthopaedic surgeon uses many of the same tools as a carpenter or
builder

is the surgeon working class?

YTC#1 <ytc1@ytc1.co.uk> wrote in news:vv7bc5$1ku9j$3@dont-email.me:

> On 03/05/2025 21:47, Mike Fleming wrote:
>> On 02/05/2025 18:57, wessie wrote:
>>> Paul Carmichael <wibbleypants@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:pan$3c1b0$4889484 $a510f21c$dada7aa9@gmail.com:
>>>
>>>> Looks like you're going to get your very own Trump.
>>>>
>>>> Sad times.
>>>
>>> they have control of a few councils and new fangled mayoralties
>>>
>>> shit gets real for them now as they have to actually attempt to
>>> balance the
>>> books and keep people happy, rather than just mouthing off from the
>>> sidelines
>>>
>>> 4 years to see what they are made of before the next general
>>> election
>>
>> As the Reform mayor is the other halfwit Andrea (Jenkyns as opposed
>> to Loathsome), I can't see things being great for Greater
>> Lincolnshire. Looks like her main obsession is the culture wars, and
>> she's going all- out to try to find DEI officers and sack them.
>
> Do we actually have any "DEI officers/roles"? Is that actually a job
> description or just one of those things hijacked from Trump?
>
>

[an ex council employee speaks]

yes, 4 grades of them at GCC, just in Education

https://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/education-and-learning/graduated-pathway-practice-guidance/practitioners/roles-and-responsibilities-of-gloucestershire-county-council-and-partners/education-inclusion-service-eis/

On 04/05/2025 09:34, wessie wrote:
> PipL <pip@nowhere.nul> wrote in news:m7okuqFdbqjU1@mid.individual.net:
>
>> On 03/05/2025 15:02, wessie wrote:
>>> Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote in
>>> news:vv5443$3i7to$1@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>> On 03/05/2025 11:01, YTC#1 wrote:
>>>>> I find it hard to define "working class people" these days, so many
>>>>> want things Government should do, but don't want to pay.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who exactly is the "working class" now? Office workers? Shop
> workers?
>>>>> Street cleaners? IT staff? Management?
>>>>
>>>> I would say anyone who earns less than ВЈ30k a year is that
>>>> demographic.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I would agree with that. Income is not a good indicator
> of
>>> class. Are train drivers working class? I think most would consider
>>> themselves to be in that group depsite earning Ј60k a year. What
> about
>>> plumbers? Many are quite affluent. Many working class people are
> quite
>>> wealthy on paper due to property acquisition e.g. someone who bought
>>> their 2 bed council house in Hackeny for Ј45k in 1985 could be
> sitting
>>> on a Ј1.5 million plot now.
>>
>> Maybe "working class" is more about those whose job comes from
>> vocational qualifications.
>>
>
> I have vocational qualifications. From 1990 an ONC in electrical
> engineering but would be technical middle class if I had remained on
> that career path.
>
> More recently a Masters of Social Work as a requirement to use the
> protected job title of social worker.This is not considered a working
> class occupation.
>
> What about those former working class jobs that now require a degree?
> Are nurses still working class?

It's much more a vocation, although apparently that is often used as an
excuse to underpay / under-appreciate. Can the fact that it's a degree
course make it less of vocational training? 'Er Ladyship (nurse and
trainer of nurses) says yes, a nursing degree is more academic but also
suggests that as it's quite a manual job, it could still count as
"working class" in some senses at least.


--

CHUMP #1 (CHarge Up Muppet)

Pip

On 03/05/2025 17:27, Alan Lee wrote:
> On 03/05/2025 16:41, YTC#1 wrote:
>>> I would say anyone who earns less than £30k a year is that demographic.
>>
>> Why 30?
>> I earned less than 30k[1] during my last couple of years, and I am/was
>> an IT Consultant.
>
> Because earning less than £30k is the point where everything starts to
> be difficult. Rent/mortgage at £800-1000 a month means nearly half of
> your income at £30k is paying for your home (after tax/NI).

I paid off my mortgage in 2009, did I stop being working class then?

> With the increases in energy and everything else that has risen above
> inflation, it means any single person earning below £30k is living a
> life that is just surviving. There are, I'd presume, a few million

Tere are 2 of us, we are fucked then.

> people who earn minimum wage now, which gives them an income of well
> under £25k after tax.
> This is what I would term as typical working class, to note Wessies
> point, yes, old working class sterotype workers can now earn a lot more
> than they did in the 50's to 90's, of course they still work, but their
> earnings make them slightly different politically, they can afford to
> pay their mortgages comfortably, and even get the LR Evoque on their
> driveway, this would have been a middle class trait from the 50's
> onwards, so rather than classes, I'd say it is more income related
> nowadays.

Needs a new "catch phrase" then.
Affordable class?



--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/

On 03/05/2025 21:47, Mike Fleming wrote:
> On 02/05/2025 18:57, wessie wrote:
>> Paul Carmichael <wibbleypants@gmail.com> wrote in news:pan$3c1b0$4889484
>> $a510f21c$dada7aa9@gmail.com:
>>
>>> Looks like you're going to get your very own Trump.
>>>
>>> Sad times.
>>
>> they have control of a few councils and new fangled mayoralties
>>
>> shit gets real for them now as they have to actually attempt to
>> balance the
>> books and keep people happy, rather than just mouthing off from the
>> sidelines
>>
>> 4 years to see what they are made of before the next general election
>
> As the Reform mayor is the other halfwit Andrea (Jenkyns as opposed to
> Loathsome), I can't see things being great for Greater Lincolnshire.
> Looks like her main obsession is the culture wars, and she's going all-
> out to try to find DEI officers and sack them.

Do we actually have any "DEI officers/roles"? Is that actually a job
description or just one of those things hijacked from Trump?


--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/

On 04/05/2025 07:34, boots wrote:
> On 04/05/2025 01:01 Bruce penned these words:
>> On 02/05/2025 19:11, furmity wrote:
>>> and if there's a Conservative-Reform 'alliance' I suspect that will put
>>
>> If merger rather than alliance, then "The Reformatory Party" has a
>> certain aptness to the name.
>>
>
> They'll be going for "National Socialist Workers Party"

Nigel's Socialist Workers Party

--
Bruce Horrocks
FJR1300AS

PipL <pip@nowhere.nul> wrote in news:m7p3tpFfn91U2@mid.individual.net:

> On 04/05/2025 09:58, wessie wrote:
>> PipL <pip@nowhere.nul> wrote in news:m7oo15FdbqmU1@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>
>>> also suggests that as it's quite a manual job, it could still count as
>>> "working class" in some senses at least.
>>>
>>
>> an orthopaedic surgeon uses many of the same tools as a carpenter or
>> builder
>>
>> is the surgeon working class?
>
> No, because he needs a shed-load more knowledge than a carpenter and I
> would suggest that sometimes "using the same tools" and "having anything
> like the same skill set" are not quite the same thing.
>

with this in mind, are you still edging towards calling 'er Ladyship
working class?

it's more complicated nowadays, and pretty pointless to try to make a
typology along the lines we had until 1979, after which individualism and
globalism became more prominent. Some seem to want to return us to the
1950s but I think they will largely follow in the footsteps of Canute.

On 04/05/2025 09:58, wessie wrote:
> PipL <pip@nowhere.nul> wrote in news:m7oo15FdbqmU1@mid.individual.net:
>
>
>> also suggests that as it's quite a manual job, it could still count as
>> "working class" in some senses at least.
>>
>
> an orthopaedic surgeon uses many of the same tools as a carpenter or
> builder
>
> is the surgeon working class?

No, because he needs a shed-load more knowledge than a carpenter and I
would suggest that sometimes "using the same tools" and "having anything
like the same skill set" are not quite the same thing.

--

CHUMP #1 (CHarge Up Muppet)

Pip

On 04/05/2025 13:26, wessie wrote:
> PipL <pip@nowhere.nul> wrote in news:m7p3tpFfn91U2@mid.individual.net:
>
>> On 04/05/2025 09:58, wessie wrote:
>>> an orthopaedic surgeon uses many of the same tools as a carpenter or
>>> builder
>>>
>>> is the surgeon working class?
>>
>> No, because he needs a shed-load more knowledge than a carpenter and I
>> would suggest that sometimes "using the same tools" and "having anything
>> like the same skill set" are not quite the same thing.
>>
>
> with this in mind, are you still edging towards calling 'er Ladyship
> working class?

She said it, not me, I merely asked the question!  My hands are clean. I
would have placed nurses into a different class off to one side a bit, I
think.

> it's more complicated nowadays, and pretty pointless to try to make a
> typology along the lines we had until 1979, after which individualism and
> globalism became more prominent. Some seem to want to return us to the
> 1950s but I think they will largely follow in the footsteps of Canute.

I think Canute has a little in common with Schrodinger where popular
history is concerned.

--

CHUMP #1 (CHarge Up Muppet)

Pip

PipL <pip@nowhere.nul> wrote:

> It's much more a vocation, although apparently that is often used as an
> excuse to underpay / under-appreciate. Can the fact that it's a degree
> course make it less of vocational training? 'Er Ladyship (nurse and
> trainer of nurses) says yes, a nursing degree is more academic.
>
>


Apropos of not very much, the Hone Office would beg to differ as they
refused to recognise my wife’s   post-graduate diploma as evidence of
proficiency in English for naturalisation, because it was “vocational” [1].
This was during COVID so a note to my local MP, then the Minister for
Universities, asking if she thought it was politic that the government
considered the advance qualifications of key workers as second rate, had it
resolved within a week.

[1] nothing to do with it coming from Strathclyde uni.

Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> wrote in news:m7q0ebF99enU2
@mid.individual.net:

> On 04/05/2025 01:01, Bruce wrote:
>> On 02/05/2025 19:11, furmity wrote:
>>> and if there's a Conservative-Reform 'alliance' I suspect that will put
>>
>> If merger rather than alliance, then "The Reformatory Party" has a
>> certain aptness to the name.
>
> I think Ian Hislop suggested the Refectory Party on HIGNFY.

Refectory HQ where they go to put snouts in the trough

On 04/05/2025 13:45, PipL wrote:
> I think Canute has a little in common with Schrodinger where popular
> history is concerned.

The tide could either be coming in or going out and you don't know which
until your feet get wet?

I suspect that nowadays the best approach is to get people to define
themselves, if there's any great need to. There's a fair bit of inverted
snobbery which means that nobody working-class is going to claim to be
middle-class.

On 04/05/2025 01:01, Bruce wrote:
> On 02/05/2025 19:11, furmity wrote:
>> and if there's a Conservative-Reform 'alliance' I suspect that will put
>
> If merger rather than alliance, then "The Reformatory Party" has a
> certain aptness to the name.

I think Ian Hislop suggested the Refectory Party on HIGNFY.

On 04/05/2025 11:29, Bruce wrote:
> On 04/05/2025 07:34, boots wrote:
>> On 04/05/2025 01:01 Bruce penned these words:
>>> On 02/05/2025 19:11, furmity wrote:
>>>> and if there's a Conservative-Reform 'alliance' I suspect that will put
>>>
>>> If merger rather than alliance, then "The Reformatory Party" has a
>>> certain aptness to the name.
>>>
>>
>> They'll be going for "National Socialist Workers Party"
>
> Nigel's Socialist Workers Party

Tomorrow belongs to him.

YTC#1 <ytc1@ytc1.co.uk> wrote in news:vv9sdq$2d8u$3@dont-email.me:


> A quick glance, and I don;t see the acronym DEI there. It is not a
> phrase we have used here until recently, over the the US it seems to
> be directive and actually called DEI..... Which is what I was getting
> at really.
>
>
>

YTC in semantic pedantry episode, who'd have thought?

do you think the Turquoise Turds will worry about acronyms used in job
descriptions?

On 04/05/2025 10:30, wessie wrote:
> YTC#1 <ytc1@ytc1.co.uk> wrote in news:vv7bc5$1ku9j$3@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 03/05/2025 21:47, Mike Fleming wrote:
>>> On 02/05/2025 18:57, wessie wrote:
>>>> Paul Carmichael <wibbleypants@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:pan$3c1b0$4889484 $a510f21c$dada7aa9@gmail.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Looks like you're going to get your very own Trump.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sad times.
>>>>
>>>> they have control of a few councils and new fangled mayoralties
>>>>
>>>> shit gets real for them now as they have to actually attempt to
>>>> balance the
>>>> books and keep people happy, rather than just mouthing off from the
>>>> sidelines
>>>>
>>>> 4 years to see what they are made of before the next general
>>>> election
>>>
>>> As the Reform mayor is the other halfwit Andrea (Jenkyns as opposed
>>> to Loathsome), I can't see things being great for Greater
>>> Lincolnshire. Looks like her main obsession is the culture wars, and
>>> she's going all- out to try to find DEI officers and sack them.
>>
>> Do we actually have any "DEI officers/roles"? Is that actually a job
>> description or just one of those things hijacked from Trump?
>>
>>
>
> [an ex council employee speaks]
>
> yes, 4 grades of them at GCC, just in Education
>
> https://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/education-and-learning/graduated-pathway-practice-guidance/practitioners/roles-and-responsibilities-of-gloucestershire-county-council-and-partners/education-inclusion-service-eis/

A quick glance, and I don;t see the acronym DEI there. It is not a
phrase we have used here until recently, over the the US it seems to be
directive and actually called DEI..... Which is what I was getting at
really.



--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/

On 05/05/2025 10:02, wessie wrote:
> YTC#1 <ytc1@ytc1.co.uk> wrote in news:vv9sdq$2d8u$3@dont-email.me:
>
>
>> A quick glance, and I don;t see the acronym DEI there. It is not a
>> phrase we have used here until recently, over the the US it seems to
>> be directive and actually called DEI..... Which is what I was getting
>> at really.
>>
>>
>>
>
> YTC in semantic pedantry episode, who'd have thought?
>
> do you think the Turquoise Turds will worry about acronyms used in job
> descriptions?

My inner cynic is telling me that the only reason there are four levels
of in that GCC web page is so that there are four opportunities to
fob-off parents seeking provision for their in-need children.

"Dear parent, thank-you for raising your concerns and we've invited the
Outcome Coordinator to make recommendations"

"Dear parent, we're sorry that you're unhappy with the recommendations
of the Outcome Coordinator and so we've escalated to the Inclusion
Officer..."

and so on, at 6 months delay each time.

--
Bruce Horrocks
Hampshire, England

Bruce <07.013@scorecrow.com> wrote in
news:4f658297-a5eb-407c-9948-d4259031849e@scorecrow.com:

> On 05/05/2025 10:02, wessie wrote:
>> YTC#1 <ytc1@ytc1.co.uk> wrote in news:vv9sdq$2d8u$3@dont-email.me:
>>
>>
>>> A quick glance, and I don;t see the acronym DEI there. It is not a
>>> phrase we have used here until recently, over the the US it seems to
>>> be directive and actually called DEI..... Which is what I was
>>> getting at really.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> YTC in semantic pedantry episode, who'd have thought?
>>
>> do you think the Turquoise Turds will worry about acronyms used in
>> job descriptions?
>
> My inner cynic is telling me that the only reason there are four
> levels of in that GCC web page is so that there are four opportunities
> to fob-off parents seeking provision for their in-need children.
>
> "Dear parent, thank-you for raising your concerns and we've invited
> the Outcome Coordinator to make recommendations"
>
> "Dear parent, we're sorry that you're unhappy with the recommendations
> of the Outcome Coordinator and so we've escalated to the Inclusion
> Officer..."
>
> and so on, at 6 months delay each time.
>

no, they have panels that decide funding and yes, a lot of people get
fobbed off but they don't like taking individual responsibility for a
decision so blame the nasty panel.

the 4 levels are because the senior manager wants to be able to give
their mates promotions as they build a clique in their domain. It runs
on an ecclesiatical model with parishes and bishoprics. This was a
significant factor in me calling it a day, after a reorganisation meant
being transferred into an exisiting clique structure that was not very
pleasant.

On 02/05/2025 19:11, furmity wrote:
> Looking at the results... Conservative vote collapse and went to Reform.
>
> Labour losses split between LibDems and Greens?
>

>
> However... I read, somewhere, a Ukrainian asking 'what part of YOUR
> country would you give up for peace?'.  On days like this it isn't too
> hard to give an answer.

My gut reaction was 'Wales' - afraid I couldn't help but blurt it out.[1]

Chris

[1] Then enlarge Offa's Dyke to ship canal size?
--
The Deuchars  BBB#40 COFF#14
Yamaha XV750SE & Suzuki GS550T
https://www.Deuchars.org.uk

On 05/05/2025 10:02, wessie wrote:
> YTC#1 <ytc1@ytc1.co.uk> wrote in news:vv9sdq$2d8u$3@dont-email.me:
>
>
>> A quick glance, and I don;t see the acronym DEI there. It is not a
>> phrase we have used here until recently, over the the US it seems to
>> be directive and actually called DEI..... Which is what I was getting
>> at really.
>>
>>
>>
>
> YTC in semantic pedantry episode, who'd have thought?

Yeah yeah yeah.
>
> do you think the Turquoise Turds will worry about acronyms used in job
> descriptions?

Obviously not, but everyone else should. They are controlling the
agenda, making up TLAs and just being utter cunts!



--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/

YTC#1 <ytc1@ytc1.co.uk> wrote in news:vvao84$raut$1@dont-email.me:

> On 05/05/2025 10:02, wessie wrote:
>> YTC#1 <ytc1@ytc1.co.uk> wrote in news:vv9sdq$2d8u$3@dont-email.me:
>>
>>
>>> A quick glance, and I don;t see the acronym DEI there. It is not a
>>> phrase we have used here until recently, over the the US it seems to
>>> be directive and actually called DEI..... Which is what I was getting
>>> at really.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> YTC in semantic pedantry episode, who'd have thought?
>
> Yeah yeah yeah.
>>
>> do you think the Turquoise Turds will worry about acronyms used in job
>> descriptions?
>
> Obviously not, but everyone else should. They are controlling the
> agenda, making up TLAs and just being utter cunts!
>
>
>

I started to wonder why you were replying twice then it dawned on me the
other post is from your Horrocks analogue

boots wrote:

>On 02/05/2025 19:11 furmity penned these words:
>> driving Labour
>> further to the right in an attempt to keep the red wall intact.
>
>Therein lies the problem. Labour have been trying successfully to out
>flank reform ltd on the right and lost whatever they had still on the
>left. We do need something better than FPTP.

Well, Reform used to be strongly in favour of PR (clue is in the name)
but now they are raking in the votes I suspect they maybe on course to
drop that.

--
Geoff
NTV 650

wessie wrote:

<SNIP>

>
>I think if we still have a working class, they are more likely to be
>people in jobs that have no need of a qualification. Delivery drivers
>and warehouse operatives, call centre screen readers, retail workers,
>cleaners etc. Not sure we could categorise these on income as some of
>these might be earning over the £30k threshold suggested, whilst
>others are on minimum wage.
>
>

Everybody needs somebody to look down on.


>>> Some years ago, the BBC and some sociologists came up with this
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/2013/newsspec_5093/index.stm
>>
>> "Technical middle class". Seems accurate. I fall outside the
>previously
>> mentioned 30K limit too, though not by a huge amount.
>>
>
>Whilst we still have inequalities across all aspects of life, it is
>not so easy to define those under the old ABC1C2DE categories or the
>traditional notion of lower, middle and upper classes. These schemata
>didn't recognise the nine categories in the Equality Act for example,
>or the advantages conferred on those like me who have become modestly
>affluent through property (inherited and personal gains).

I think class as a definition probably ceased to be useful around the
end of WW1, when women started voting or when they stopped using horses
in agriculture choose your metric but certainly around then.
Here in NL we have the Office of Social and Cultural Planning. Sounds a
bit Stalinist but they do good work IMO. Their mission statement from
the website:

"About the SCP
The SCP contributes to well-informed government policy and a better
society with scientific knowledge about the lives of citizens in the
Netherlands. The SCP does this with the help of a Multi-Year Plan that
elaborates on the type of knowledge and insights that can be expected
from the SCP over the next five years.

Mission
We work on a society in which things go well with and between people.

Vision
We want our knowledge about the quality of society to have an impact.
That is why we ensure that the knowledge needed reaches the right
parties at the right time. We research, interpret, put on the agenda
and advise. We do this proactively and reactively, solicited and
unsolicited, always focusing on the perspective of citizens.

In progress
We primarily focus on three elements: quality of life, social cohesion
and the relationship between citizens and the government. In doing so,
we continuously answer the question: what do we see, what does it mean
and what can you do with it?

We always do this in a coherent, future-oriented way and in connection
with the entire playing field: such as ministries, local governments,
knowledge institutes, civil society and implementing organisations.
From an independent position, scientifically sound and socially
relevant."

The only 'class' metrics I've ever heard them use are income and/or
education level. (low/middle/high).



--
Geoff
NTV 650

On Thu, 8 May 2025 9:08:02 +0000, GeoffC wrote:

<snip>
> I think class as a definition probably ceased to be useful around the
> end of WW1, when women started voting or when they stopped using horses
> in agriculture

The replacement of horses by tractors (in the UK) was probably more
around WW2.  Both of my grandfathers were farmers and both moved from
horses in the 40s.  I believe that it was not common for smaller farms
(say less than 150 acres) to replace their horses with a tractor until
the mid-late 40s.

furmity wrote:

>On Thu, 8 May 2025 9:08:02 +0000, GeoffC wrote:
>
><snip>
>>I think class as a definition probably ceased to be useful around
>>the end of WW1, when women started voting or when they stopped
>>using horses in agriculture
>
>The replacement of horses by tractors (in the UK) was probably more
>around WW2.  Both of my grandfathers were farmers and both moved from
>horses in the 40s.  I believe that it was not common for smaller farms
>(say less than 150 acres) to replace their horses with a tractor until
>the mid-late 40s.

Thanks for that.
Made me think, I suppose class didn't disappear overnight so perhaps I
should widen the period, maybe from the start of ww1 to the end of WW2
then. At least, the classes were still there but became less
significant.


--
Geoff
NTV 650

On Thu, 8 May 2025 13:22:10 +0000, Ace wrote:

> On Thu, 8 May 2025 11:05:08 -0000 (UTC), "GeoffC" <me@home.nl> wrote:
>
>>Made me think, I suppose class didn't disappear overnight so perhaps I
>>should widen the period, maybe from the start of ww1 to the end of WW2
>>then. At least, the classes were still there but became less
>>significant.
>
> I just recently read Orwell's Road to Wigan Peir (1937) which
> contained a fascinating yet fundamentally flawed description of
> various classes. Notably, he defined himself as "lower upper-middle
> class" which could include people with incomes as low as £400 per
> year, with Working Class being around £200, so not really very far
> apart.
>
> It's mostly not relevant to the discussions here, but interesting as a
> socialist's snapshot in time of a certain way of thinking.

I'm always amused at the 'stuff' my phone pushes towards me; I use a
Pixel and if I swipe left from the homepage it gives me a bunch of links
to stuff it thinks I'll be interested in (based on what I've read).

One of the things I've read and see more of is USA 'class' based stuff
and the definition of 'class' in the USA (that I see) is very much about
income levels/how much you have.


Is that really the case for other countries?  I'm not convinced that in
the case of the UK class is (all) about money.

Also love Orwell's class definition 'Lower Upper Middle Class', I wonder
if he'd have been offended to be considered 'Upper Middle Middle Class'
or even worse 'Upper Lower Middle Class'. Feels very antiquated now.

Ace wrote:

>On Thu, 8 May 2025 11:05:08 -0000 (UTC), "GeoffC" <me@home.nl> wrote:
>
>>Made me think, I suppose class didn't disappear overnight so
>>perhaps I should widen the period, maybe from the start of ww1 to
>>the end of WW2 then. At least, the classes were still there but
>>became less significant.
>
>I just recently read Orwell's Road to Wigan Peir (1937) which
>contained a fascinating yet fundamentally flawed description of
>various classes. Notably, he defined himself as "lower upper-middle
>class" which could include people with incomes as low as £400 per
>year, with Working Class being around £200, so not really very far
>apart.

Well, it's double. If the minimum for a reasonable existence was around
300 then the difference could have been huge.
What was the fundamental flaw?

>
>It's mostly not relevant to the discussions here, but interesting as a
>socialist's snapshot in time of a certain way of thinking.

According to my theory, this would have been the period when class was
becoming increasingly irrelevent and less well defined. Sometimes it is
difficult to register historical change when you are going through it
yourself.

I recently re-read 1984, his prediction of the future is surprisingly
accurate as it turns out. Oceania, ministry of truth (Twitter),
ministry of love (facebook), 2 minute hate (Daily Mail), never ending
wars, missile attacks, shifting alliances, surveillance, AI producing
pop-music for the masses, it's all in there.

On another note I think it maybe time for this:

https://youtu.be/9XmB59Ax4cE?siÁ5P8jzD5GVPe_1A





--
Geoff
NTV 650

On Thu, 8 May 2025 11:05:08 -0000 (UTC), "GeoffC" <me@home.nl> wrote:

>Made me think, I suppose class didn't disappear overnight so perhaps I
>should widen the period, maybe from the start of ww1 to the end of WW2
>then. At least, the classes were still there but became less
>significant.

I just recently read Orwell's Road to Wigan Peir (1937) which
contained a fascinating yet fundamentally flawed description of
various classes. Notably, he defined himself as "lower upper-middle
class" which could include people with incomes as low as £400 per
year, with Working Class being around £200, so not really very far
apart.

It's mostly not relevant to the discussions here, but interesting as a
socialist's snapshot in time of a certain way of thinking.

--
Ace
http://www.chaletbeauroc.com/

On Thu, 8 May 2025 11:05:08 -0000 (UTC), "GeoffC" <me@home.nl> wrote:

>>>I think class as a definition probably ceased to be useful around
>>>the end of WW1, when women started voting or when they stopped
>>>using horses in agriculture
>>
>>The replacement of horses by tractors (in the UK) was probably more
>>around WW2.  Both of my grandfathers were farmers and both moved from
>>horses in the 40s.  I believe that it was not common for smaller farms
>>(say less than 150 acres) to replace their horses with a tractor until
>>the mid-late 40s.
>
>Thanks for that.
>Made me think, I suppose class didn't disappear overnight so perhaps I
>should widen the period, maybe from the start of ww1 to the end of WW2
>then. At least, the classes were still there but became less
>significant.

Hmm.

I was a teenager in the 1970s, and class was very obviously a thing
then
--
Champ
neal at champ dot org dot uk

I don't know, but I been told
You never slow down, you never grow old