The problematic “squeezed middle”

By Darrell Goodliffe

Two recent pieces of information have seemed, on the surface, to vindicate the leaderships focus on the ‘squeezed middle’. Yesterday, we had the news that the overwhelming majority of Britons consider themselves middle-class which followed research which showed that the ‘squeezed middle’ have suffered an income loss of £1,500. So, we should be full-steam ahead in targeting this group then? Well, not quite no. Firstly, I am not saying we should never ever talk about this group. What I want is a more rounded approach. Secondly, I am prepared to concede there is strong electoral logic to this approach – having said that, if all we are is an electoral machine looking to grind out the right result then I think we have failed to absorb the lessons of our last poll defeat. Parties that behave in this way invariably become dried out husks that simply start losing elections hand-over-fist in any case. Also, that logic is one-sided and therefore seriously faulty (more on this later).

We should qualify the findings on the growth of the middle-class in the first survey by saying that people self-defining will always define themselves as what they want and crucially, how they want to be seen by others. In it, nobody described themselves as upper-class for a good reason, I would imagine none of the respondents wanted to project an image of superior snobbery.

Similarly, people being unwilling to identify as working class shows they associate that with negative images in their own mind and therefore didn’t want others to see them that way. I would be fascinated to see an age-breakdown of the results but I suspect those most likely to self-identify as working class would invariably be older and in their own mind see this identity more positively. We have to remember this is what we are dealing with; data on a subjective issue, heavily influenced and determined by subjective factors. Nonetheless, I think this change in self-identity is important in and of itself and you can’t force people to identify in ways you want them too. It however is something of a tangential issue for the purposes of this discussion.

Where it is relevant in this discussion is the exclusion of this minority from ‘mainstream’ discourse. It says that this minority are not only unwelcome in this discourse but their concerns are irrelevant and inconsequential. This is something an exclusive focus on the ‘squeezed middle’ reinforces and here is a core reason I oppose the exclusivity of this focus. Put plainly, it iss undemocratic and is leading to an increasing alienation and embitterment in what were core Labour communities. This could have dangerous long-term consequences not just for Labour but also for our wider political system.

We have already seen some results in episodic successes for the far-right British National Party, the presence of the English Defence League, the rise of UKIP in places like Barnsley and the rising identification with the far-right and the ‘consideration’ of support for it, as highlighted by the recent Searchlight poll. As well as posing a long-term threat to our limited form of democracy, for Labour, this also will cause serious problems. It is true that you can’t win an election just on your core vote but neither can you win one without a stable core support unless you want to end up as merely a protest party and this is something ‘squeezed middle’ advocates would do well to remember.

It’s no coincidence that the decline in core Labour supporters bothering to vote Labour paralleled exactly the dwindling of our parliamentary numbers and eventual exit from power. Therefore, the ‘electoral’ argument in this case is not just the wrong one but also self-defeating. Advocates of the ‘squeezed middle’ say they are speaking in favour of a ‘broad church’ but what kind of broad church obsesses on one social grouping to the exclusion and therefore detriment of the rest?

If we want Labour to a broad church we have to engage with our core and traditional supporters as well, listen to them in a manner less selective than the current one and stop taking their support for granted. As things stand, I would imagine the fear caused by the current government may well be enough to motivate this group but that will not always be the case. When it is no longer the case we will not be able to rely on the ‘squeezed middle’ alone to sustain us and as the coalition that supports us fragments we could be in serious trouble as a party let alone as any kind of viable government.