MARSH FEN AND TOWN.....AND CLASS PART 7 - WORK USED TO GET YOU SOMETHING.

"Working hard used to get you something. It got you a house, a nice life, holidays. It got you somewhere....."

Hannah Spencer - Green Party MP opening lines to her acceptance speech on 27th February 2026

Like many my age (born 1967) I was brought up regarding sociology as a "fake science". I was also unaware of class in the same way you can be unaware of a clock ticking. Unaware of discrimination, unaware of any advantages or disadvantages I had. I believed that if you worked hard you could get what you needed and where you wanted to go.........until it didn't.

As already stated in previous posts I do not deem myself qualified and talk with some caution about class, indeed I strongly believe in the power of the individual and ideally class or any other characteristic should not be sought out as an excuse. But this does not mean that a clock does not tick.

So I return to Hannah Spencer's words and the reason that they chime so well. It is a great lie told and believed by the working and many middle classes that working hard will get you something. Working hard alone will not always deliver and it never has. This has been fed as a covenant and the lower you go down in society the more you see this mantra spoken. Working hard by itself is NOT enough, you need luck, ability, goodwill, wisdom, help, connections and above all else to be accepted. The further up the class hierarchy you are some of these things can be easier. We do not live in a meritocracy, but working hard can earn you respect.

Accepting my lack of academic knowledge what I do have is empirical knowledge based on what I see and experience and how I choose to interpret it. Based upon that I will share some thoughts and consider whether class should be a legally protected characteristics in the UK. Currently there are nine: age, disability, gender, pregnancy and motherhood, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

If class is a characteristic what makes me middle class? How do I fit that label? In my childhood in the early 1970's it was possibly easier to identify. I lived in a large detached three bed house that was owned without a mortgage by my father. We had a car when most households down my street did not. My father was a self-employed partner in a TV and electrical shop. We had two holidays a year, one at the Dunston Hotel in Torquay and the other in a prefab bungalow in Hunstanton. We were regular church goers and involved socially in church life. Being a parochial town everyone knew our family of which I was the fourth generation that had lived in Spalding. We were in many ways well off, but as inflation in the 1970's progressed into the following decade the advantages of a family business were much reduced yet perception of us by others was not. Because of their abilities my father and grandfather were well known and useful resulting in us being known by a wide range of people from different backgrounds, an asset that sometimes helped open doors.

I had a reasonable level of intelligence, read a lot, was extremely polite and had the ability to converse on a wide range of topics on an equal footing to many adults. Looking back though, I did not have a wide social circle and mixed with very few other children, for example I didn't go to pre-School at that time called "play school".

The late 70's saw me go to a Grammar School - a much sought, if over-rated, aspiration of many working class, middle class and migrant parents. In my book Marsh Fen and Town I describe a lady I met on the train that travelled half way around the world to Spalding because it has a Grammar School. Similarly, I have met Kenyan Indians that, as children, were sent alone on boats to India to attend residential British Grammar Schools. Such is the value given to these 500 year old institutions.

Grammar schools are often heralded as a source of social mobility. I believe that Grammar schools are no better or worse than any other school at creating social mobility. Indeed, I view that most secondary schools fail enormously in this area due to a bias towards University. I believe Grammar schools benefit two significant groups: middle class families that are canny enough to know how to "play the game" and the children or grandchildren of migrants that are equally socially equipped from their life experiences to "play the game". Most children from working class backgrounds if they get their foot in the door do not have that advantage.

Hockey at Spalding Grammar School

The art of social mobility and achievement in Grammar School often rely upon exceptionalism. Being good at a sport is the best route. But, for working class children this would often be football, a sport that was virtually excluded from the school in favour of rugby, hockey and cricket. These three sports are all strong domains for University educated parents and professionals that introduced their children to such sports before secondary school.

There is also an issue in my school, that I perceive is possibly true in secondary education today, in that you are exposed to University educated teachers, many from cities, with strong socialist beliefs and assumptions. I fell foul of these as I shall illustrate: The worst of these were teachers assuming I was from a well off household because my father had a business. One day a teacher was explaining to the class why some of his colleagues were choosing to strike over pay. He illustrated this by stating his income. I politely asked, "Isn't that a good income?" He then tiraded at me that with my father having a shop I would be better off than him. I politely replied that I had been taught how to do the book-keeping and my father's income was half that of his. He said he didn't believe me. A few days later, to his credit, he took me to one side and apologised. This was an issue. Sponsored events at school were a nightmare. Neither of my parents at this time had a wide social group or work circles who they could take my sponsorship form to and pass it round raising quite large amounts. Equally I was from a small family. Working class kids were at an advantage because often both parents worked in generally larger work environments. Upper middle-class children of professionals benefitted from wider social circles and their parents in offices and jobs with many colleagues. I found it embarrassing and was even rebuked by teachers for not getting "enough" sponsorship. I dropped out of future such activities whenever possible. It was always the most overtly politically socialist teachers that behaved the worst. One teacher, without any provocation chose to describe how me and my family went to church in our Sunday best for appearances sake whilst he and his family went to church dressed casually and put on no airs and graces in their apparel. This was simply a false comparison - I had been brought up in that Church and for me it was a matter of faith, belief and ritual - a ritual I was so familiar with I knew the service by rote without the need for a prayer book. His vision of class and faith was perhaps as flawed as mine, but his discrimination and behaviour was inexcusable and would not have been done to a boy of working class or professional class background.

One particular incident highlighted how my comfortable ability to interact with local people that I had known all my life was an issue to some teachers. I was walking down the corridor one day when there were a group of school governors touring the school. Some of them I knew and I said hello before they pulled me to one side and asked me simple questions about the school that I answered honestly to the best of my ability. Later that day, a senior teacher that had been amongst them sought me out and reprimanded me for talking to the governors. I told him he was ridiculous and each of them were known to me, some from a very young age, some when I had helped my father carry TV sets into their homes. I was told I should know my place. I disagreed strongly and suggested we bring the conversation before the head at which point he stalked off. It should be noted he had no issue with a solicitor's son who had a similar conversation with governors. A class difference? I do not know. But do know all schools, especially Grammar schools are steeped with such biases.

The other flaw in Grammar schools were those teachers that viewed you as a waste of time because they assumed that you would leave school and go into the family business rather than University. I even had this argument directly with one teacher that didn't even teach me whilst I was studying A levels in sixth form.

It all proved irrelevant as I effectively failed A levels with low grades. Not a surprise in that I came out of one history exam to find a teacher head in hands saying, "We never taught you that bit of the syllabus because they hadn't asked questions on it before." One of my other history teachers had been off work suffering a nervous breakdown and he kindly wrote me a letter of apology stating that my poor grades did not reflect my work. But here is the crux of this, some passed with decent grades because they had the guidance of professional, well-educated parents that had gotten copies of the syllabus before the exam ensuring they read up on the missed parts. I had no such insight.

In the school's imperious single-mindedness towards University admission I had no direction or plan B. It is telling that I have seen this very situation on more recent times in different secondary school Academies in different locations in England where children are guided into University admissions but left to their own devices with regards to other paths whether college, apprenticeships or employment. I must say, prior to O Levels at fifteen I was given guidance not just in school, but also at that time by external "careers officers" that signposted you. This is commonly NOT the case today.

After many job applications, interviews and rejections, good fortune, connections and the kindness of local accountant John Barnes gave me an initial start in employment. From this, within 9 months I started a career in Barclays Bank, helped by his reference. In the interview for the job I was interviewed separately by three people. One employee who I knew as an older boy at school warned me to show an interest in the cricket score because one manager would veto any young man that did not show an interest in cricket. Class bias strikes again. To this day I have a strong disdain for cricket.

I had been working a few months in a largely matriarchal office department mostly given the more physically demanding roles. I was a duck out of water, socially awkward, but confident in speech and willing. But I was not doing well and appeared to be side-lined. Fortunately I had some kind colleagues that helped, but it was several years later that I learned from a manager as he retired that he moved me to a smaller office where I would fit in better as he perceived (rightly or wrongly) I was being bullied by some. I did not perceive this, but the few times I was allowed to engage with customers it had been noticed how good I was and complements from those customers had gone up the line. I fitted better with customers than with colleagues.

Navigating social situations was a weakness of mine in many ways. Social game playing was not a skill I had and certainly was not in my parents vocabulary. The only mantra was "work hard and you will get rewarded". In work I functioned better in smaller units where I was able to learn more. I have the utmost sympathy for any school-leaver or any person in their first job trying to navigate this. Outside work I developed an interest in shooting that was a key to me developing social skills across different strata of society as is the nature of country pursuits described in Part 1 (see connected posts). Country pursuits are a melting pot.

Working in a professional arena relies upon you developing a personal brand, in banking this largely revolved around trust. With some people my family name gained me some trust, with most I earned it by "coding"- changing how I spoke of dealt with different people indifferent ways. In smaller offices and smaller towns I fitted in well.

Career advancement is full of barriers, class and social games. Those that are most successful tend to belong to the right social groups or organisations such as Rotary, Lions, Freemasons, Trade Unions, Church Groups or specific ethnic communities. Those that did really well often moved in social circles where they lived beyond their incomes before getting the promotions and income that matched those lifestyles. I was once on a course in the Bank where this tactic of entering into connections by spending money was recommended. It is telling that I have seen many colleagues in the industry get into financial messes pursuing such a tactic. Regardless of class background the ability to "play the game" can be an asset to social mobility. The promise of hard work being rewarded is NOT necessarily the case.

In various activities I have observed and learned to adapt and exploit class judgement. I feel people from working class backgrounds are often more astute and tune into this and adapt. Putting it simply I learned if you wish to be listened to wear a suite. But even this may not be enough.

My perception is that class and associated image are more likely to be barriers in urban areas with a particular bias the nearer you get towards London. I frequented an office near Cambridge for 18 months and class differences and image importance were a highly relevant factor in office politics. Indeed, when I applied for a job in London I was asked in conversation at the end of the appointment where I got my suite from. Without a thought I answered Marks and Spencer. An experienced colleague told me afterwards that that was possibly

a death notice to my application as all the clothes worn in that department were high end brands. On a separate occasion in a London office I was treated with disdain when I asked where the kettle was not realising everyone had cups from Starbucks and Costa. I was so out of their league!

So local knowledge and knowing local people were my primary asset. In South Lincolnshire and the Fens speaking bluntly tended to be treated with respect. In mid- Lincolnshire, Norfolk and Suffolk it varied greatly. I found people in high socio-economic groups tended to be straight talking, but those lower down the social order generally did not and to make matters worse they surrounded themselves with accountants, solicitors and advisors that would tell them what they wanted to hear whilst happily charging for it. This created a high cost to middle class vanity. Class and region are intertwined in many ways. My perception is that Universities in particular can add to this divide. It is telling that when my daughter was at UAE in Cambridge she was perceived by other students as northern because she lived near Peterborough, and that is in a more cosmopolitan environment.

Class is blurred with many pretenders. This is most obvious in politics where many politicians try to create a working class persona rather than play a straight bat. In this aspect I have far greater regard for the honesty of Jacob Rees Mogg to his class rather than Tony Blair towards his.

It is when you talk to people from deindustrialised areas in northern England such as Manchester and Liverpool, or the North East, or the Midlands that you realise working class communities had the rug pulled from under them with loss of work that was never replaced with anything that provided the same community and social structures and rewards. Those my age (born 1967) were denied opportunity, unlike the region I lived in that saw the growth of the food industry. I have met several people that worked until their mid to late twenties until University was an affordable option to escape the decline of opportunity caused by deindustrialisation. I perceive disadvantages are inherited in many ways with reduced health and welfare and lessor education opportunities. Gentrification both in rural communities and in cities of northern England squeezes housing affordability and availability and creates many insecure, low paid jobs with great seasonal fluctuations. The old industrial jobs provided a stability and level of income that has been removed, nay, ripped out of working class communities. Indeed, the service industries that provided some employment with large regional call centres have increasingly outsourced the calls to other countries or are rapidly reverting to AI models of "service" for their clients. I groan as I hear people herald hospitality, tourism and the arts as providers of opportunity, for unlike manufacturing there are few jobs of substance and reliability. It is especially true of the arts and tourism that they rely heavily on the prolific use of unpaid volunteers, often retired people that have moved to the communities that have been gentrified. This eats into roles that in the past provided employment.

Perhaps this process of gentrification and how it can be damaging is seen in the current proliferation of charity shops. It is a paradox that charity shops provide an useful and essential to some, service of recycling and helping those on lower incomes. But, their very existence on our High Streets paying no rates and with unpaid volunteers working in them reduces both opportunity and diversity of businesses. This is made worse when those charity shops contain cafes that are in direct competition with other businesses in the street. Charities, especially larger ones, make great play on equality and investing in people, but do they consider the social responsibility of their retail outlets?

Charities themselves tend to be top heavy with people from higher middle class backgrounds that have a limited experience and view. Worse still are the class of people that are on charitable boards or volunteer for their own status rather than just to serve. I encountered just such a bias when I volunteered to help asylum seekers. The person that obtained the role had less experience and could give less time than me, but they were perceived to be of greater status and potential for them to "bring money in" was greater. I understand the funds motivation but this reasoning was at best top heavy and at worst crass. Class even determines who receives help from charities as I discovered with two ladies, one in a big house and highly socially connected who received help from a charity at the same time that a farmer's wife in a modest bungalow was told there was no help to be had within the same geographical area. It is a weakness across much of the charity sector that there is often insufficient lower class voices within charities. Such behaviour would be easier to call out for a protected characteristic.

This final piece on class is a meander of thought and experience. Class discussions are distorted, misunderstood and misjudged. Not least by me. So I end asking myself should class be a protected characteristic?

My current opinion is "no". This is because class is harder to demarcate and define. You only have to do online "what class am I" assessments and you can come up with different results. Just look at other protected characteristics and you can see similar problems of definition. Race can be open to where a person feels they belong. Sexuality is a voyage of discovery. You also have the issue that protected characteristics do not just protect the often disadvantaged minority, but also those that have greater advantage. Too often labels of characteristics are used in a divisory manner. But I do understand that the call to protect class as a characteristic is, in reality, a call to protect working class and what is being called for is fairness. And for areas in towns and cities to be consistently disadvantaged by class differences for over a hundred years or more calls into question my opinion.

Finally, what is needed, in my opinion, is acknowledgement of class disadvantage and meaningful structural restoration and recognition of working class and this needs a reindustrialisation secured by cheap energy. Ironically this is in the interests of us all as global supply lines will always be prone to interruption and failings as we were warned with Covid. This is something that our friends in the Green Party will struggle to contemplate for truth is, it ain't green.

An image illustrating the difference between equality and fairness