From Tony Wilson's last interview

[dogsbody]

Whilst Morrissey did have a working class upbringing and the first album was definitely sang from a working class standpoint he now could be considered to have many middle class attributes now eg well read, well travelled, aspirational, wealthy, liberal views (with a small l) and appreciation of culture and art. That is not to say that working class people could not have these attributes as well!

However someone like Saun Ryder no matter how rich he was would always be working class because of the kind of person he is (I could not see him having afternoon tea with Nancy Sinatra!). In the same way that James Blunt would always be middle class no matter how low he fell (how I pray for this!). But like I said Morrissey still believes he is working class and although he is not now he does not come across as a middle class artist like Keane, Genesis and Blunt do.

There is a great Fast Show sketch where a group of men argue about who is the most middle class (“I am more middle class than you because my parents could afford to send me to a private school but sent me to the secondary school instead”).

And perspectives do change depending on income. When I started work on a piss poor salary I firmly believed that higher rate tax payers should be taxed far more severely. Now I am a higher tax payer I think it is shocking how much tax I have to pay (40% of income!). But this could be because I live I now London.

 

[Jones]

Thanks as always for the detailed response.

I'm curious about the longterm unemployment. You're saying that Morrissey's experience would not have been uncommon? In the late Seventies/early Eighties a northern working class person might leave school and remain on the dole for five or six years at a stretch (give or take a few quick stints removing flesh)? That's very surprising. At what point would the state step in and put a halt to that-- or is there a time limit?

Just before I left school in the mid-eighties I remember our Economics teacher told us there were people leaving school at that time who would never find work (and we believed him). This was in the comparatively well-off south. It seems a pessimistic view now but that was how people were feeling at the time. Times felt very bleak for some people.

 

[dogsbody]

I was speaking to my brother in law recently and he could not understand how in the early nineties as a graduate I spent a year on the dole as I could find any work at all and most people I knew from school/university were on the dole as well. Luckily I had no responsibilites then but it must have been terrible to have no work, no prospect of work and have to look after a family as well. Bleak is not the word!

 

[HIM]

[...]

I'm curious about the longterm unemployment. You're saying that Morrissey's experience would not have been uncommon? In the late Seventies/early Eighties a northern working class person might leave school and remain on the dole for five or six years at a stretch (give or take a few quick stints removing flesh)? That's very surprising. At what point would the state step in and put a halt to that-- or is there a time limit?

as others have said, long-term mass unemployment was a major problem at that time and so it wouldn't have been unusual for people to be economically inactive for five years or even more. on the question of the point at which the state would "step in", their has always been a legal requirement that 'social security' recipients would make themselves "available for work". until the mid-1990s, though, the recipient was required, in practice, to do no more than turn up, fortnightly, at a job centre and "sign on" (i.e. sign a statement to the effect that s/he continued to be available to take up an opportunity of employment, should it arise). i seem to remember steven saying that he felt that paid work was akin to "doing somebody else's chores", so i imagine that the, then, system would've suited him quite nicely.

for the most part, the state relied on the concept of 'less elligibility' to discourage people from treating benefit payments as a viable alternative to work. it has since become a legal requirement that claimants be "actively seeking work" in order to claim "jobseeker's allowance" (i.e. the dole)

i could go on, but i'm boring, even, myself.

 

[Worm]

as others have said, long-term mass unemployment was a major problem at that time and so it wouldn't have been unusual for people to be economically inactive for five years or even more. on the question of the point at which the state would "step in", their has always been a legal requirement that 'social security' recipients would make themselves "available for work". until the mid-1990s, though, the recipient was required, in practice, to do no more than turn up, fortnightly, at a job centre and "sign on" (i.e. sign a statement to the effect that s/he continued to be available to take up an opportunity of employment, should it arise). i seem to remember steven saying that he felt that paid work was akin to "doing somebody else's chores", so i imagine that the, then, system would've suited him quite nicely.

for the most part, the state relied on the concept of 'less elligibility' to discourage people from treating benefit payments as a viable alternative to work. it has since become a legal requirement that claimants be "actively seeking work" in order to claim "jobseeker's allowance" (i.e. the dole)

i could go on, but i'm boring, even, myself.

Ha. Thanks for overcoming your boredom long enough to post.

After reading the insightful replies here about unemployment in the late 70s/early 80s, I guess the main conclusion about the working class is probably the one we'd all have made beforehand-- that the economic facts of one's life don't have much to do with one's attitudes about life. You can be firmly working class and still say "I've never had a job because I've never wanted one" or "I won't do someone else's chores", two attitudes that are probably not common among the working classes (or the middle classes, for that matter). Or as Danny said, Wilson was wrong, and working class rock stars can easily have what Wilson called "the middle class work ethic". Values and attitudes aren't necessarily tied to class.

Of course, if that's true, it follows that the unified, cohesive concept of an individual's working class identity would be shaken to the core.

 

[HIM]

Ha. Thanks for overcoming your boredom long enough to post.

After reading the insightful replies here about unemployment in the late 70s/early 80s, I guess the main conclusion about the working class is probably the one we'd all have made beforehand-- that the economic facts of one's life don't have much to do with one's attitudes about life. You can be firmly working class and still say "I've never had a job because I've never wanted one" or "I won't do someone else's chores", two attitudes that are probably not common among the working classes (or the middle classes, for that matter). Or as Danny said, Wilson was wrong, and working class rock stars can easily have what Wilson called "the middle class work ethic". Values and attitudes aren't necessarily tied to class.

Of course, if that's true, it follows that the unified, cohesive concept of an individual's working class identity would be shaken to the core.

i dunno. again, i could go on & on about this, too, so i won't. i think there's an element of truth in wilson's view - but only an element. in an almost paradoxical way, he's emphasisng the importance of class as an indicator of a person's future but, simultaneously, de-emphasisng the importance of class by saying that a strong work-ethic and determination to "succeed" are all that is required be upwardly mobile, which implies the notion of meritocracy.

class is important as a determinant of a person's 'destination' in life. class certainly affects a person's perception of self and shapes their direction. traditionally, it influences all sorts of things, from educational attainment, to voting behaviour, to economic aspiration, to leisure pursuits. i really could go on about this, but it's pretty late, so i'll probably come back to it long after the thread has died.

 

[the judge]

Another interesting thread. Thank you.
"middle-class" and "working class", these concept are often used in the UK and the US, it seems. Not that these words don't exist here, but it's different, the contrast is not so emphasized.

 

[dogsbody]

There is no doubt that the 80s in the UK were incredibly hard for many people/communities especially in the midlands, the north of England, Wales (I know because I was there!), Scotland, NI and even some parts of the south with economic hardship/long unemployment etc.

However it could be argued (and many do) that this was a necessary evil to transform the economy from one in which there were inefficient nationalised industries, powerful combative unions (with closed shops and many strikes!), high inflation, a lack of flexibility for managers to make necessary business decisions, to an economy with low inflation, high employment, high management flexibility and steady growth. France did not go through the painful process in the 80s and their economy has been f***ed for years.

I remember the miners strike and hearing Arthur Scargill saying they were fighting not for their jobs but their children’s jobs as well. Well I never wanted my kids to go down bloody mines for a living! The closure of the mines was a tragedy for people living in those communities (I grew up near some of them) and a hell of a lot more should have been done to support them (and not just ecourage the building of call centres 20 years later!). However I still think it would have been disastrous for this country if the miners had won which would have no doubt brought down the government and we would all be a lot poorer today!

I can feel that this post is going to go down well (nothing to do with tony wilson though)!