"Look, there is a sort of old view about class which is a very simplistic view that we have got the working class, the middle class and the upper class, I think it is more complicated than that"
About this Quote
Ed Miliband pushes back against the tidy, three-tier ladder of working, middle, and upper, arguing that modern Britain is riven by more tangled lines of power and vulnerability. The old labels still carry cultural weight, but they no longer map neatly onto how people earn, live, and feel secure. Income, wealth, assets, housing tenure, education, job security, and geography now combine in ways that cut across the traditional classes. A graduate on a short-term contract, a homeowner with a mortgage and rising bills, and a skilled care worker on a zero-hours schedule may occupy different rungs in old schemes yet share the same sense of precarity.
This argument tracks Miliband’s broader political project during the 2010s, shaped by the financial crash and austerity. He stressed the squeezed middle and set up a moral economy frame of producers versus predators, targeting firms that profit from rent-seeking and market power rather than productive investment. That framing sought to unite low- and middle-income voters who were not served by a politics that treated class as a fixed identity. It also sidestepped the stale charge of class war by insisting that the real divide is about power in markets and the distribution of risk.
Britain’s deindustrialization, the rise of services and gig work, and the surge in housing and asset values deepened stratification not just between classes but within them. London’s globalized economy widened regional inequalities; renters and younger workers found themselves locked out of asset gains that buoyed older homeowners. Professional jobs once seen as secure blurred into overworked, insecure roles, while parts of the working class moved into service sectors with weak bargaining power. Against this backdrop, a three-box taxonomy misleads policy and flattening rhetoric hides lived experience.
Miliband’s claim is ultimately a call for analysis and policy that track where power actually lies today. Effective politics must build coalitions around shared material conditions and curb predatory dynamics, not around comforting but outdated labels.
This argument tracks Miliband’s broader political project during the 2010s, shaped by the financial crash and austerity. He stressed the squeezed middle and set up a moral economy frame of producers versus predators, targeting firms that profit from rent-seeking and market power rather than productive investment. That framing sought to unite low- and middle-income voters who were not served by a politics that treated class as a fixed identity. It also sidestepped the stale charge of class war by insisting that the real divide is about power in markets and the distribution of risk.
Britain’s deindustrialization, the rise of services and gig work, and the surge in housing and asset values deepened stratification not just between classes but within them. London’s globalized economy widened regional inequalities; renters and younger workers found themselves locked out of asset gains that buoyed older homeowners. Professional jobs once seen as secure blurred into overworked, insecure roles, while parts of the working class moved into service sectors with weak bargaining power. Against this backdrop, a three-box taxonomy misleads policy and flattening rhetoric hides lived experience.
Miliband’s claim is ultimately a call for analysis and policy that track where power actually lies today. Effective politics must build coalitions around shared material conditions and curb predatory dynamics, not around comforting but outdated labels.
Quote Details
| Topic | Equality |
|---|
More Quotes by Ed
Add to List
