Labour’s problem with the media

Oedipus Rex

Great article from 2000 you linked to Nick.
When the expenses scandal was breaking I wondered who else would have to open up in the name of transparency.
I'm still waiting, to name but two, on local councils and the Media other than the BBC (it might not be 'our' money with ITV for example but it still matters for the reasons you pointed out a decade ago).

The hypocrisy that the media showed over MPs expenses hasn't been truly highlighted - but then who should be doing this, other than the self same hacks?

peter boreham

Nice article.

I recently heard a BBC London presenter nearly choke on her cornflakes when someone called her "middle class". She indignantly claimed to be "working class". Hilarious - I'd be VERY surpised if she was on less than £50k pm and it's hardly manual labour!

Ian Stewart

Well said Nick. They cant have it both ways- we are either all middle class now, or we have a larger working class than we are led to believe. Which is it?

Fiona

Good article. I did listen to this interview and yes, the exasperated Humphrys is certainly exasperating.

I don't find it difficult to understand that by "squeezed middle" Miliband means working people who earn a damn sight less than the spectacular salary of a BBC star journalist, but it was a pity that he sounded as though he'd just got out of bed.

I want to like Ed Miliband, I really do, but he doesn't seem to have a grip on the job. He seems gauche, unformed, and unsure of what he thinks - rather like a work experience kid.

Old Slaughter

Did he use the word a 'bit'? I don't think he did and you have misquoted him.

John asked if he meant the median and Ed said above it or below it and he also said 'around' it. Now ten grand below that is about minimum wage. Ten grand above is still receiving child benefit. Is that what he meant?

Millipede has included those facing child benefit cuts as part of the 'squeezed middle'. Therefore that is more than a 'bit', it means people on about double the median wage are still 'middle'. Maybe that's fair but it is a wide enough band to allow John to wonder how far it works. Because if the middle is £20,000 to £100,000 as Ed also seemed to suggest then he was being disingenuous by saying 'around the median'. He means a little below and four times above.

Why was he so reluctant to define it at all specifically?

Basically, the more people he could include in the magical 'squeezed middle' then the more people would feel touched by his wonderful rhetoric.

The fact that the real middle classes have had their balls but through the grinder for a decade and a half is something Ed hopes we will soon forget.

So Nick, if you understood him easily, please explain a rough range you think he meant, if you think he said 'a bit above or below (he didn't) how much is a bit? It would suggest as much below the median as above, with the £26,000 in the middle. If so people facing child benefit cuts CANNOT be in the middle as the lowest of the range would be like £5,000. Which nobody would call 'middle-class'.

Basically, Ed was trying to have a cake, eat it and attract voters with it. John rightly sensed that and pressed. You say "£30-£50,000" but that is not a bit below £26,000 is it. It is also barely touching the group having to have their benefits cut.
If you understand what Ed meant then please explain to us because to this listener he was bluffing his case. There is nonsense in here somewhere.

windter

I don’t want to sneer at Humprhys, the way he sneered at Miliband

but you just did. at length.

How much do you earn, Nick? Are you in the 'squeezed middle', too?

Ian Walker

Old Slaughter - Nick says in his article that what matters is household income, not individual income. So earners in the 25-27,000 range are very likely to be in household of the 30-50,000 range.

Chris

>He is a fine broadcaster, who deserves every penny he earns.

About 15p, then. The rest, he is paid.

Old Slaughter

Ian. Fine, but that makes no difference. The point is that Ed wants to stick up for the 'squeezed middle' on the child benefit issue. Two salaries of £26,000 still don't fit into that camp as joint income is irrelevant to that cap.

Ed is still trying to appeal to all and John was right.

Commondog

Brilliant. Just brilliant.

Do more on this please.

Tim Sewell

In a similar vein I was amused when Marlborough alumnus daughter of multi-millionaires Kate Middleton was described by one and all as 'an ordinary middle class girl'.

Ian C

Let's be clear: the squeezed middle starts as the family where only one parent (can afford to) work[s] and the other stays at home to provide parenthood, a home and tarditional family set up. These are the minority in today's reality. Then there are are those couples and singles who take home less than the average wage between them.

Anyone who has wondered who they are should start there. Two working parents on average wages are hardly in the squuezed middle, even if they are about to pay more in tax/take less in benefits.

But why they are so politically sought after is a mystery as they are either young people on the up or couples whose earnings have reached maximum regardless.

matthew

Mmm, back in 2007 Nick you said that a 'standard young couple' found it difficult to live on £100,000/year in London.

Fergus Pickering

Somebody who stays at home ALL day is just bone-idle in my book. Every mother should have a part-time job. It stops her fantasising about her offspring and supposing all her geese are swans. If she wants to sit on her arse all day then her husband can pay for the privilege. I don't see why I should have to.

normanc

"Their services are being cut.."

Is our rubbish only going to be picked up once a month now?

Jez Sullivan

In a recent IoS magazine, there was an article on 6 young hot actors, of the 6 profiled, 3 had famous parents and one was a Stockbrokers son. So much for social mobility eh, thats all there is now. Posh people pretendinjg to be ordinary and going to the footy...ridiculous.