You are here: Home » News »

Ed (re)defines the squeezed middle

February 10, 2012 10:45 am

Tags:

Share this Article

In a wide-ranging speech last night in Sheffield, Ed Miliband sought to explain what he means by the squeezed middle – and what he should have said when he was questioned about it months ago:

“When John Humphrys asked me what I meant by the squeezed middle, I should have said this:

The squeezed middle are working people. People bound together, now as in the past, by a set of values. The value of working hard. Whether it is in a factory, a mine, on a shopfloor, or a barracks. Whether it is on the railways, at a supermarket checkout, or at a call centre.

The value of making an effort, of taking responsibility for yourself and your community. A hope that work should earn you the chance to give your kids a better start in life than you had.

And the simple belief that you should not have to battle vested interests which use their power to rig the system, that everyone deserves a fair shot.”

http://twitter.com/bendyleopard Lex
A mine?

Anonymous
Mines , perhaps he has problems knowing that many parts of the country still has mines or of course it’s a typing error

Anonymous
I think Ed Miliband has been reading Franklin D. Roosevelt’s speech in which he outlined his plan for a Second Bill of Rights for the American people, e.g., “The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation” etc.
Second Bill of Rights
Sadly Ed Miliband is no FDR.

Anonymous
The sad part is he believes it all.

Anonymous
Tragic really. Shakespearean.
Anonymous
Is he a party donor…..
Anonymous
Probably he’d be more use as an organ donor…

Anonymous
Variation on the “hard-working” family cliche’
I wish him well, but I do wish EM would stop coming out with vacuous populist nonsense, even the obligatory “kids” rather than children.

Anonymous
Embarrassing isn’t it? Kind of sad too. All bravery spent is this all that’s left?

Anonymous
Eh?

Anonymous
What?

Anonymous
Huh?

Anonymous
My other one has gone to moderation.
Similarly, in the United Kingdom, the term “working class” can be seen as carrying its own cultural status. The term middle class
implies those people who typically have had a good education, own a
family house, and hold a managerial or professional post. Those holding a
senior role in a profession or ownership/directorship of a corporation
may be regarded as upper middle class, but in England this is as much
dependent on background and education. The upper class is generally
regarded as the aristocracy and landed gentry; very rich financiers buy
country estates in order to qualify. It was commonly held that to join
the landed gentry required a distance of least three generations from
the time at which money was made (especially if through trade) and that
those entering into its rank acquired the manners and mores of those
already established.[1]
So labour has defined us as middle class for lets see:
The squeezed middle are working people. People bound together, now as in
the past, by a set of values. The value of working hard. Whether it is
in a factory, a mine, on a shopfloor, or a barracks. Whether it is on
the railways, at a supermarket checkout, or at a call centre.
So let me get this right how does a Political party improve the well being of a nation,, you alter the definition of being middle class.
My definition of being working class.
Person who works or cannot find a job who basically live on the dropping left over by the middle class. The Min wage is how labour now defines the middle class, but you work forty hours for £185 you will not have a Mortgage for that money so you rent if in my area you rent private the cost is about £150 a week, so if you dare to be labour new middle class your living on £35 a week.
The rent for a council flat in my area and if your on the min wage you have to pay this your self, you will be getting wage £185 to £190 have to pay rent £100 council tax which will be £20 so £120 so you take home about £65 which is the same as the dole, which has annoyed both labour and the Tories, you should not get the same on the dole as you do in work, so what do you do you cut benefits you do not put up the min wage to a level which would be seen as actually being middle class
Does anyone see any reason to vote labour.
Do not get me going on the Barrack boy who has had his legs blown off and is not even see as being part of the new labour ethos, because you have to be hard working.
Tell me please what is the difference between this labour party and the New labour party , again I cannot see it.
Anonymous
What utter bollocks.
Anonymous
And the simple belief that you should not have to battle vested interests
which use their power to rig the system, that everyone deserves a fair
shot.”
Bit like the Labour party really
Anonymous
And get blown up by them.
Anonymous
we lost a few not to long ago….
Hugh
He’s not defining it. “People bound together, now as in the past, by a set of values. The value of working hard” is meaningless, and the rest is simply commentary designed to ingratiate himself to a particular audience. Next week the examples will include higher tax rate earners who are losing their child benefit.
Anonymous
Thank you, Ed. This is precisely what I – and the core vote – want from the Labour Party. The clue is in the name: Labour – we are the party of the workers, not the workless.
I still fundamentally believe that you, Ed, do not have the credentials to sell this mission to the electorate, but on substance you are on the right track.

Anonymous
The Labour Party is the party of workers not the workless because it has the word “Labour” in its name? Just like the National Socialist German Workers’ Party aka the Nazi Party was the organisation of first choice for Socialists in Germany from 1920 to 1945 I suppose. Blimey! Naive much?

Anonymous
An excellent point, Jeff, ”workless” tends to imply that only working for money is “work” whereas, of course, carers, for one example do a great deal of real work, for I believe £55 a week, and also of course, as you rightly point out, if you are ill, or elderly, that is not what Cameron described as a “lifestyle choice”. Many people becoming unemployed after 50 stand very little chance of finding another job (there are only so many B&Q can take on). Also a lot of people not drawing a wage or salary do voluntary (unpaid) work.
ovaljohnson, if I may say so, seems to be falling into the trap as Purnell and co did, of suggesting there is a “deserving” poor and a non-deserving poor and “not working” in the going out each morning sense, means everyone should be tarred with the same brush.
I’d like to know, with unemployment at a 17 year high, where all the jobs for “Hard-working families” are in the Tory & New Labour dream worlds. Perhaps they could all start up their very own “faith foundation”

Anonymous
When I was a member of the Labour Party it was supposed to have been for EVERYONE, Alan, no matter what their circumstances and aspired to better the lives of all, most particularly the downtrodden and the suffering, without fear or favour. Of course, like you, I’m an outsider now – for obvious reasons.

Anonymous
Come on the silly battle to see which part is the real conservative party is on again. We have the Tories cutting working tax credits to the silly mothers and those who are disabled and work sixteen hours and what are Labour sa2ying well not a lot really, the attack which could be so damaging to the Tories are not really being carried out.
It’s as if Labour think well the Tories might be right, or well we may have to do that our selves.
I dam well do not think Labour speaks for me
Anonymous
It probably doesn’t for many people, not least for the reasons Jeff and myself mentioned.
You do get the feeling that the party these days tolerates older, or poorer people, because what they really want is the young up-and-coming elete, who went to Oxford like they did, and see politics not so much as public service and to help people, but to “network”, have a good laugh and a drink after campaigning, “Twitter” sometimes silly remarks, usually with a degree of bad language or obscentities usually abbreviated to initials, and, of course, at the end of their “hard work”, a nice little job in Westminster, or in a think tank by the time they are 28 .
Anonymous
last election my local party had to pay to get activist into the area to knock on doors and they aimed this at the more expensive area, they stated we know who are voters are, so we will aim for the area which does not vote labour, they went for the new housing estate around the golf course.
MY CLP wrote to Miliband saying you have to look out for the poorer workers the people on £12,000 because these people are our life blood hence Labour dumped these people into the middle class.
My labour party really is fighting to stay alive, if you want to hold office come and join my local party

http://twitter.com/SimonG_1 Simon
And yet today Labour are spouting about the tax credit changes announced over 6 months ago. They think it is right that people who work hard full time should subsidise those couples who work 12 a week each. I work that in day. Tell me why I should subsidise these people?
This delayed band wagon jumping has an unfortunate habit of demonstrating that these soundbites are hollow.
To be a party of the “squeezed middle” then I suggest that Labour don’t assume that the middle want a ever expanding welfare state.

Anonymous
”
They think it is right that people who work hard full time should subsidise those couples who work 12 a week each. I work that in day. Tell me why I should subsidise these people?”
Simon, had it occurred to you perhaps “these people” cn only find part-time work (unemployment is at a 17 year high) or they may have responsibilies or personal circumstances that make them unable to work longer.
I am sure those who work shorter hours, are indeed “hard-working families”.
I don’t like the “squeezed middle” nonsense, I have to say – it sounds ungrammatical. It reminds me of a woman who has been wearing her Playtex girdle too long and too tight.

Anonymous
I don’t like the “squeezed middle” nonsense, I have to say – it sounds
ungrammatical. It reminds me of a woman who has been wearing her Playtex
girdle too long and too tight.
God now your showing your age

Anonymous
I with you, we do not need the dirt of society. scum who get injured fighting wars and do not die for their country totally agree, people who become ill doing jobs of work somebody has to do.
“Arbeit Macht Frei”
Anonymous
Like most ranters you’re clueless, sport.
Nobody gets Tax Credits working 12 hours week.
Every Tax Credit claimant not responsible for children HAS to work a minimum of 30 hours or more a week. Claimants who are responsible for children, have a disability and are 16 or over, are aged 50 or over, and are going back to work immediately after being on out-of-work benefits, or aged 60 or over HAVE to do AT LEAST 16 hours of paid work every week in order to qualify. Check out the following link for the official take:
What counts as work for Working Tax Credit?
An expanding welfare state is not a sign of a “dependency culture” but of economic failure, i.e., there are far too few jobs that pay people a high enough wage to enable them to support themselves without top-ups. More well-paid jobs means less welfare. Simple as. This “squeezed middle” mythos is vacuous bullshit.
We live in a civilised society based on mutual obligation where risk is pooled and those who can afford to pay taxes in order to help the less fortunate and the common good. Why should you pay taxes to subsidise part-time jobs? You might as well ask why childless citizens should be taxed in order to fund the education of other people’s children or contribute towards any purpose that seems not to benefit them directly. The answer in fact is simple: if you don’t maintain and repair society eventually it crumbles and tumbles down around your ears like a dilapidated castle.
I’d advise donning a hard-hat from April 7, 2013 onwards.

Latest

Comment
Housing upheaval can be traced back to Thatcher
By Chris Williamson
If further evidence was needed that the Government is destroying our communities then it came by the bucket load with proposals to relocate hundreds of housing benefit claimants. Councils across London desperately searched for a solution to the housing benefit cap that made it impossible for some of the capital’s poorest residents to stay in their homes. First we heard of plans to move residents to Darlington, Stoke, Hull and parts of Yorkshire. But the revelation that Westminster Council planned [...]
Read more →
Featured
The austerity consensus has collapsed
By Owen Jones
There is no alternative: the only way out of Britain’s current economic plight is massive cuts to public spending. Taxes on the wealthiest must be slashed: they are blocks on aspiration and economically counterproductive. Austerity is the only game in town. Or so we have been told ever since the Coalition was formed in the rose gardens of Number 10 Downing Street. The overwhelming majority of the media has gladly reinforced the Government line, and those voices calling for an [...]
Read more →
Comment
Should Labour go further on football reform?
By Ben Shave
“As a party, Labour should take great pride in the fact that we initiated Supporters Direct, but now is the time to go further.” These sentiments, expressed in a recent article for Progress by Steve Rotheram MP, hark back to a time where the landscape was somewhat different for the Labour party, but similar in many ways to that faced by football supporters in 2012. The Football Taskforce was established soon after Labour came to power in 1997, with the [...]
Read more →
Comment
Making Labour Policy: Who calls the tune?
By Ann Black
Excellent election results and rising polls have brought a mood of unity and created space and time for serious work on policy. Francois Hollande’s victory shows that austerity is not the only option, and Labour must start to develop an alternative agenda, rejecting the Tory politics of resentment and division in favour of policies which are fair, principled and credible: on housing, crime, transport, health, schools, higher education, manufacturing, tax, defence, social care, equality, employment rights and the environment. We [...]
Read more →
News
It’s the budget what won it…
Why did Labour win the 2010 local elections so convincingly? It’s the budget right? This graph of polling from TNS BMRB certainly suggests that. Labour’s slim lead extends rapidly following the budget (highlighted) – and current stands at 12 points (42/30). And as for why Labour did better in 2012 compared to the 2011 elections – just compare May and May 2012. A year is a long time in politics…
Read more →