Britain is still a class ridden society?

tbh 50k is on the very loose edge of upper class already, in terms of income (apart from london, that's middle - upper middle)

It depends largley where you live and what type of middle class job you undertake.

In 2011 it was around £38k-£48k to be earning the adverage middle class household income.

By comparison the average upper class wage was around £90k.

My household for example earns around £55k, any claim we're upper class would be completely laughable.

Wage, not household income. That's two (plus) wages.

Wage, not household income. That's two (plus) wages.

By 60k, I mean one individual on 60k. Expected to be pumped up by another individual from similar social class, which should bring the household income to marginally over or marginally under six figures (before tax)

And I own a flying pig named George...

The existence of an aristocracy and an underclass is essential in this society. In between, you'll find a spectrum of classes. You will have heard of such popular terms as "middle class", "commoner" etc. There needs to be a strong, clear divide between differenct classes. It's not a negative force, it's inevitable and it's essential to the maintenance of this society. As long as capitalism lives on, that split will always remain strong. If any individual feels that their position in soceity is undersirable, there's always scope for social mobility, so that future generations may have the opportunity to climb up the social ladder - they won't be able to reach the very top, but they'll get close. It's not something that can be accomplished instantly, it may take many decades to get there but it's possible. I feel that the social class hierarchy can a positive driving force for achieving a better standard of living and a higher position in society.

To sum up, there is nothing wrong with the current structure of this society. Capitalist Western societies need an elite minority and an underclass, this is necessary.

as a foreigner moving to the UK i generally wonder what the British society is like.
there are many books and movies that depict Britain as a classist society, not speaking about Victorian novelists obviously, I've just finished reading "the casual vacancy" by J.K. Rowling and i've seen the obnoxious " the riot club".
i wonder if these representations of contemporary Britain are realistic or it's just an overrated common place, and i would also like to know your opinion about this, i generally consider myself a "conservative" but i can't really stand something like this.

I go to university with a high proportion of privately educated individuals and have noticed class divide here more than back home. However, I have visited other universities where this has been less noticeable.

My definitions would be slightly different to the above:

Upper Class: generally, 'old money'.... daddy is rich, his daddy before him was rich. Some self made millionaires. Likely to live in affluent areas of london like Richmond. Also likely to have several properties...or even a small, private island abroad.

Middle Class: the majority of people at uni. This has sub-divisions. The commonalties being the importance of education (aim to get their children into good universities) , care about good food and culture (museums, theatre) etc. After uni, these people tend to get professional jobs such as doctor or teacher.

Working Class: A lot of people. The class system is almost like a pyramid,. Jobs that do not require a university education, hairdresser, etc . However, some may be as wealthy as some middle class people with jobs like builders paying quite well.

Underclass: The unfortunate souls who are on long-term benefits. Low aspiration. May be due to disability.

The most that class has really played into uni life, is some friends not being able to afford activities that others can. However, personal management of finances can also contribute to this. It is also more likely to be lower-middle that struggle as they do not get as much as help from the government as lower class people, yet their parents may not be able to afford to support them financially like the government presumes they will. Differences make you laugh....or angry. Some upper-middle class people think the UK is a meritocracy and poor people are poor because that's what they deserve. May also determine romantic choices.

I think politics has slightly more to do with personality than class. In my experience people who aren't very nice or empathetic are more likely to vote Conservative, even if they're poor. I know that's a sweeping statement and I also know some Conservatives who aren't like that.

Whereas personally I vote Labour for chip-on-shoulder reasons, despite coming from a comfortable-ish background from one of the home counties. I think that's because where I'm from, the rich are so much richer and more obnoxious that even if you're hardly 'struggling to make ends meet' yourself, you still can't help but feel immensley ostracised by this nasty bubble of insular snobbery that exists between them and you.

The existence of an aristocracy and an underclass is essential in this society. In between, you'll find a spectrum of classes. You will have heard of such popular terms as "middle class", "commoner" etc. There needs to be a strong, clear divide between differenct classes. It's not a negative force, it's inevitable and it's essential to the maintenance of this society. As long as capitalism lives on, that split will always remain strong. If any individual feels that their position in soceity is undersirable, there's always scope for social mobility, so that future generations may have the opportunity to climb up the social ladder - they won't be able to reach the very top, but they'll get close. It's not something that can be accomplished instantly, it may take many decades to get there but it's possible. I feel that the social class hierarchy can a positive driving force for achieving a better standard of living and a higher position in society.

To sum up, there is nothing wrong with the current structure of this society. Capitalist Western societies need an elite minority and an underclass, this is necessary.

Compared to most of Africa, Asia, South America, or the US, no, we're not...

While I do agree that a social hierarchy is essential and even healthy for the good functioning of society, I can't understand why there needs to exist such a wide gap from underclass to aristocracy. Why is such a radical difference necessary? Even an aristocracy at all?

The idea of an aristocracy goes against the notion of social mobility and meritocracy by definition. We can have a class stratified society without such immense disparities between the top and the bottom.

if you question the existence of aristocracy you question the existence of the Royal House and the United Kingdom, being united or/and a kingdom.
still, in Britain, meritocracy and mobility are much more developed than in most of the other european countries, i would prefer living in a country were class division is almost institutionalized but you still can manage to improve your life and social position rather than living in a country, like Italy, where everyone is supposed to be equal, everyone has the same opportunities to study, you get the second best universal healthcare in the world but everything you do is senseless because it's a stuck society and there are no chances in real life

I have to say that your argument is utter bosh. I don't accept that a questioning of the merits of the aristocracy is equivalent to questioning the idea of the united kingdom. You'll have to develop your argument there or try explain it better because it makes little sense at present.

In fact, rather being being ahead of most of the other European countries, as you argue, we have some of the lowest rates of social mobility in the developed world. 24% of vice-chancellors, 32% of MPs, 51% of top Medics, 54% of FTSE-100 chief execs, 54% of top journalists, 70% of High Court judges… went to private school, though only 7% of the population do; does this strike you as characteristic of a meritocracy?

If you read this article, it has lots of facts that support what I'm saying: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/may/22/social-mobility-data-charts

aristocracy is a fact in Britain, if you say that coming from an aristocratic family and living a life of luxuries just because of that is wrong i do agree with you, but then this reasonings works for the royal house too, i mean the Queen covers a position that in other countries is elective, and those who cover it are there for a reason, her only merit is to be the daughter of the last king.

the article is interesting, i seriously thought Britain was in a "better position"

The Queen enjoys her position because of the family she was born into and I disagree with that. It's important to note that the Royal House really has nothing to do with modern Britain other than a tacky tourist industry and symbolism of bygone pomp. Her very position contradicts meritocracy.