logo
Underdogs: The Truth About Britain's White Working Class review – a complicated class portrait

Underdogs: The Truth About Britain's White Working Class review – a complicated class portrait

The Guardian15-04-2025
On 13 November 1968, a 35-year-old Labour politician got to his feet in the House of Commons and had a go at the ranks of Conservative members who faced him. Six or so months after Enoch Powell had delivered his infamously racist 'rivers of blood' speech in Birmingham, David Winnick – who was then the MP for Croydon South – had decided to attack the Tory fashion for bemoaning immigration to the UK from such countries as India and Pakistan and expressing faux sympathy with deprived communities in British cities. 'Many of those who act as the champions of the white person against immigrants,' he said, 'have not in the past gone out of their way to defend the interests of the white working class.'
As the Economist journalist Joel Budd points out in this nuanced, enlightening book about the people and places Winnick was referring to, this was the first time 'white working class' had been used to describe a certain kind of Briton. And in that sense, that small parliamentary moment was a prescient glimpse of a subject that would explode half a century later, when hostility to immigration fed into the result of the 2016 referendum on Brexit. At that point, the term 'white working class'' became more ubiquitous than ever, and an insurgent political right made up of Powell's political heirs – split between Tory Brexiters and the forces led by Nigel Farage – affected to speak for a kind of voter they claimed had been neglected and betrayed.
Underdogs is based on a powerful argument: that as those political changes happened, the media's understanding of whole swaths of the UK – and England in particular – was warped. In places that had backed Brexit, microphones tended to be pointed at irate older men who probably did not have that much to moan about, while younger, less angry, more economically precarious people were overlooked.
'The white working-class Britons with the problems,' Budd points out, 'are not the white working-class Britons with the complaints.' More specifically, 'a young woman living in a poor coastal town… who is now working in a shop and trying to raise a child without much help from her sickly mother or her erratically employed ex-boyfriend… has very severe problems. A retired miner who is in a stable marriage, who owns his house and two cars, has many fewer problems.'
To get nearer the truth, Budd tends to concentrate on such elemental themes as place, housing and work: his is the kind of journalism that works as accessible sociology. Early on in the book, he divides largely working-class communities into three broad categories. 'Heartlands' are old industrial centres, often seemingly locked into decline. An 'enclave' is the kind of place – sometimes on the periphery of a big city – 'that was once overwhelmingly white and working class but is becoming less so'. Most interesting, perhaps, are what he terms 'colonies', to which people have moved from other places. Some are archetypal new towns, but Budd explores Thetford in Norfolk, 'one of the oddest and most wonderful places in Britain' where local factories drew families from east London half a century ago, and many latter-day cliches quickly fall apart. When he talks to the locals, he finds that 'awareness of their own history as migrants takes the edge off xenophobic instincts … in half a dozen trips to Thetford, I have never heard anyone complain that immigrants are failing to assimilate'.
The book's best material is like this, all about the messy and often fitful ways that society progresses, and written in elegant, understated prose that acts as the proverbial window pane. The New Parks estate in Leicester, Budd says, was once kept largely white thanks to the reluctance of black and Asian people to try moving there, and plentiful instances of local young men committing shocking acts of racist violence. Now, by contrast, its population is increasingly diverse, and white residents offer level-headed opinions that would gladden liberal hearts: 'It's not good for Leicester to be split into whites, blacks, Asians, Chinese or whatever.'
Up close, even people with apparently reactionary instincts can turn out to have more nuanced thoughts, something highlighted by a sixtysomething resident of the same city whom Budd calls John. 'There's two sides now,' John says. 'There's the immigrants, and there's families that were born here.' But only a breath or two later, he offers the opinion that 'Britain's always been a racist country… the English working class thought they were a cut above the Irish, then above the Windrush [sic], then above the Asians.' Even people who might recently have been derided using the dread – and rather snobbish – insult of 'gammon' sometimes turn out to be more complicated than they first let on.
Everyday life, moreover, contains plenty of evidence of the quiet solidarity and small kindnesses people who live outside working-class communities barely see. In the south Mancunian neighbourhood of Wythenshawe, some people 'speak sharply about asylum seekers', but a community centre 'was flooded with pushchairs and other donations when word got around that newly arrived Afghan families needed them'. At one point, Budd wonders if the nastiness that defines some well-heeled rightwing politicians is often projected on to places where it runs a lot less deep, meaning that 'the prejudices of the suburban golf club are imputed to the council-estate boxing club… a kind of ventriloquised xenophobia.'
There's an occasional sense that these insights should have been developed further: when the narrative flow is disrupted by apparent reprises of Budd's past journalism about the rise and fall of armed robbery and the cult of so-called highly modified cars, it feels as if he is wasting space on things that barely touch his key themes. He also ends up making a series of half-cocked political points that sometimes verge on the risible: 'Britain does not need lots more social housing', for example, is a claim that would probably cause most of the people he encounters to loudly guffaw. But most of Underdogs vividly illustrates the point it was written to make: that in a political era as overheated and mendacious as ours, the plain truths of everyday life need to be heard and understood. In that sense, this book is not just well-timed but admirably powerful.
John Harris is the author of Maybe I'm Amazed: A Story of Love and Connection in Ten Songs, published by John Murray (£16.99)
Underdogs: The Truth About Britain's White Working Class by Joel Budd is published by Picador (£20). To support the Guardian and Observer order your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Thought for the Day and the elite empathy problem
Thought for the Day and the elite empathy problem

Spectator

time17 minutes ago

  • Spectator

Thought for the Day and the elite empathy problem

Like much of Radio 4's output, Thought for the Day is something of a curate's egg – sometimes enlightening and a source of inspiration or comfort. Often, however, it's sanctimonious; auricular masturbation for the comfortable. The BBC has been heavily criticised for its segment on Wednesday morning, featuring Dr Krish Kandiah, a theologian and author, discussing 'fear' in relation to the migrant crisis. His reflections amount to a series of boilerplate platitudes beloved by open borders advocates. He calls for 'empathy over suspicion', 'listening before judging', 'building bridges not walls'. While the Church's managerial class will have nodded sagely along to all this, I wonder how representative this sort of intellectually diluted, unexamined rehashing of comfortable tropes about 'nasty xenophobia' really is among the ordinary people in the pews. After all, plenty of churchgoers will know what the less rose-tinted practical realities of mass migration actually look like. Dr Kandiah speaks with total conviction, and a striking curiosity as to why so many British people feel as they do. 'Our fears are misplaced', he insists, citing 'xenophobia'. All this reflects a widely held belief on the liberal-left, that people only believe what has been fed to them (or, better yet, 'weaponised') by the tabloid press and social media algorithms. Accordingly, no fear can be rational or informed by actual experiences. This argument is becoming harder to maintain as we record more data on, for instance, migrant crime (something the government has been reluctant to do). Indeed, listening to Dr Kandiah yesterday, it already felt outmoded. As a sidenote, it's very apparent that people are only ever accused of 'disinformation' when expressing a 'low-status' viewpoint. Treasury Minister Darren Jones confidently told a Question Time audience recently that the 'majority of people' arriving in migrant boats were 'children, babies and women'. According to the Migration Observatory, around 76 per cent of those arriving in small boats in 2024 were men over the age of 18. Dr Kandiah likewise does his best to waft away such concerns. 'Most crimes against children are committed, not by strangers, but by people they know' he insists; a truism which crucially ignores the important point about likelihood of offending. According to data from the MoJ, foreign nationals make up around 9 per cent of the UK population but are responsible for between 15 and 23 per cent of sexual offences. Certain nationalities are dramatically over-represented in the available statistics. Even expressing these points remains controversial; Sky News recently attempted to 'fact-check' Nigel Farage for citing data on nationality and sexual violence, curiously arguing that he should have compared statistics from two separate metrics rather than using like-for-like data. People like Dr Kandiah seem to possess an apparently boundless empathy for migrants, less when it comes to their fellow citizens. There are echoes of the 'telescopic philanthropy' of Mrs Jellyby from Bleak House, so busy directing her good works towards Tockahoopo Indians and tribes of Borrioboola-Gha in Africa that she doesn't notice or care that her own children are suffering. Comfortable England has an empathy problem; it is willing to contort itself into paroxysms of emotion for migrants yet remains incapable of listening to concerns of the communities affected by mass migration. Yesterday's Thought for the Day epitomised this; by throwing out a slur of 'xenophobia' the speaker thought he could shut down these concerns and proceed to moralise on his terms. That simply isn't going to cut it anymore. Meanwhile, there are obvious theological counterpoints to express. Yes, Christ tells us to love our neighbours, to welcome the stranger. But he doesn't say to do so when they are putting others at risk and undermining the rule of law, nor when the poor, the vulnerable, the un-listened-to are begging you to do otherwise. He also tells sinners to repent, to 'go your way and sin no more', he encourages adults to 'suffer the little children' (i.e. nurture and protect them). He also speaks of sorting 'sheep from the goats', that 'by their fruits shall ye know them' and – in an intensely patriarchal society – he calls for the prayers and worries of women to be heeded. All these would be quite convincing starting points for rebuttals to Mr Kandiah's sanctimony. It is time the Church starts expressing them if it wants to be taken seriously, if and when its appeals for calm become necessary. Frankly, theologians owe the public a better explanation than endlessly rehashing #BeKind platitudes. To dismiss the genuine concerns of a not-inconsiderable number of people as simply wicked and stupid, as Dr Kandiah did, not only shows an arrogance which undermines his cause, but a lack of curiosity about the many potential counterarguments to his view. That these don't appear to him to be worth engaging with suggests that his theological nous is not quite as sharp as he thinks it is. Appealing for calm and seeking to avoid violence is obviously a key part of the Church's mission in the wider context of society, but to be able to do that it must have some credibility – it needs to have listened in the first place. Dismissing public concern with cant will not work, indeed it will almost certainly make people angrier.

What a cheek! The US is in no position to lecture us about free speech
What a cheek! The US is in no position to lecture us about free speech

The Independent

time17 minutes ago

  • The Independent

What a cheek! The US is in no position to lecture us about free speech

In the spirit of free speech, I suppose we have to allow other countries to express their concerns about life in Britain, even though it's none of their business and is diplomatic bad manners. However, it is impudent of the Trump administration, currently engaged in dismantling the constitution of the United States, to issue a patronising school report on the state of human rights in the United Kingdom. Every so often, the Americans, whose system of laws owes much to the British, like to tell us we're no longer a free people. 'Sod off' is the instinctive and succinct British reaction to such treatment, but I shall endeavour to elaborate. In the document, produced by the US State Department, Britain is chastised for a human rights scene that has apparently 'worsened' over the past year. From the lofty moral heights occupied by Donald Trump, 'specific areas of concern" are raised, including restrictions on political speech deemed "hateful" or "offensive". The Americans are especially censorious about the way the government responded to the horrendous murder of three children in Southport last year, and the subsequent violence. This constituted, or so we are lectured, an "especially grievous example of government censorship". The UK is thus ticked off: 'Censorship of ordinary Britons was increasingly routine, often targeted at political speech". Bloomin' cheek! What the Americans don't like is that we have laws against inciting racial, religious and certain other types of hatred. Well, first, tough. That's how we prefer to run things to promote a civilised multicultural society. Second, they might do well to consider our way, which is not to pretend that there is ever any such thing as 'absolute' free speech. Encouraging people to burn down a hotel of refugees is not, in Britain, a price worth paying for 'liberty'. Although never stated explicitly, it seems that the State Department is upset about the now totemic case of Lucy Connolly, colloquially regarded in both the UK and the US as 'locking someone up for a tweet'. Connolly was sentenced to 31 months' incarceration under laws consistent with international human rights obligations, which obviously include the protection of free speech. It was more than one message on social media that landed Connolly in the dock, the most famous of which went as follows: 'Mass deportation now. Set fire to all the f***ing hotels full of the bastards for all I care. While you're at it, take the treacherous government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist, so be it.' It was up for three hours and read 310,000 times so not trivial. But there's more. According to the recent court of appeal review of her case, and before the Southport attacks, Connolly posted a response to a video which had been shared online by the far-right activist Tommy Robinson, real name Stephen Laxley-Lennon, showing a black male being tackled to the ground for allegedly masturbating in public. She wrote: 'Somalian, I guess. Loads of them', with a vomiting emoji. On 3 August 2024, five days after the attacks, Connolly posted a further message in response to an anti-racism protest in Manchester: 'Oh good. I take it they will all be in line to sign up to house an illegal boat invader then. Oh sorry, refugee. Maybe sign a waiver to say they don't mind if it's one of their family that gets attacked, butchered, raped etc, by unvetted criminals. Not all heroes wear capes.' Two days later, Connolly sent a WhatsApp message to a friend saying: 'The raging tweet about burning down hotels has bit me on the arse lol.' She went on to say later that, if she got arrested, she would 'play the mental health card'. So that is some extra background on the case of Lucy Connolly, and nor should we forget that she was sending inflammatory messages during the worst civil disorder in years. Of course, the great irony about the 2024 riots is that they were caused by what you might call 'too much free speech'. The entirely false rumour promoted on social media was that the killer, Axel Rudakubana, was a Muslim asylum seeker who had virtually just got off a boat before setting off to commit a terrorist offence. None of that was true, but it was stated near enough as fact by people 'just asking questions' with no official interference or 'censorship' whatsoever in free speech Britain. There was no 'cover-up' of the perpetrator's status because Rudakubana was born in Britain. At his trial, it was established that his massacre was not motivated by any political, religious or racial motive but by an obsession with sadistic violence. Had this propaganda about Rudakubana been banned, a great deal of needless anger, distress, and damage would have been avoided. And what of America? Where you can be refused entry or deported for your political views, and without due process, violations of the ancient rule of habeas corpus. Where the president rules by decree and can attempt to strike out the birthright clause in the Constitution by executive order? Where the Supreme Court is packed with sympathetic judges who give him immunity from prosecution, and the president ignores court orders in any case. A land where there is no human rights legislation, no international commitments to the rights of man, where the media is cowed and the universities intimidated? Where the president dictates what is shown in museums, how history is taught and where the historic struggles of people of colour are disparaged as woke nonsense. A country where gerrymandering is a national sport. Where science is being abolished and statisticians sacked for reporting bad news. America is in a state of incipient authoritarian rule and is in no position to criticise anyone about freedom and liberty. The British should tell them all that, but we're too polite.

More than 11,000 no-fault bailiff evictions in past year, figures show
More than 11,000 no-fault bailiff evictions in past year, figures show

BBC News

time17 minutes ago

  • BBC News

More than 11,000 no-fault bailiff evictions in past year, figures show

More than 11,000 households in England have had their homes repossessed by bailiffs following a no-fault eviction process since last year when the Labour government came into its manifesto, Labour promised to "immediately abolish" Section 21, also known as no-fault, evictions which allow landlords to remove tenants without a reason. A bill ending the practice was announced last year and is expected to become law when Parliament returns from its summer charity Shelter said it was "unconscionable" that "renters continue to be marched out of their homes by bailiffs because of an unfair policy that the government said would be scrapped immediately". A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: "No one should live in fear of a Section 21 eviction and these new figures show exactly why we will abolish them through our Renters' Rights Bill."We're determined to level the playing field by providing tenants with greater security, rights and protections in their homes and our landmark reforms will be implemented swiftly after the bill becomes law."The Renters' Rights Bill will introduce a new system giving new tenants a 12-month "protected period" where they cannot be evicted if the landlord wants to move in or sell the can still get rid of tenants for other reasons including non-payment of rent or criminal behaviour by the tenants. After the first year, landlords would have to give tenants four months' notice to leave, doubling the current time period, and provide a specific reason for ending a tenancy. In September, Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook had said he hoped the bill would be passed "within the first half or around summer next year". However, when Parliament paused for the summer, the bill had just been passed by the House of Lords, albeit with some changes September, the House of Commons will debate and vote on the changes. Both houses of Parliament will need to approve the bill before it can become law. In the latest figures, released by the Ministry of Justice, the number of repossessions by a county court bailiff following a no fault eviction rose from 10,576 between July 2023 and June 2024 to 11,402 the following represents an increase of 8%, a more modest rise compared to the previous two years which saw jumps of 29% and 60% if a tenant doesn't leave a property by a specified date, a landlord can make a possession claim to the courts, with an accelerated procedure, which could lead to a the year to June, there were 30,729 claims, a 4% decrease on the previous 12-month period. Mairi MacRae, Shelter's director of campaigns and policy, said: "To curb record homelessness and ensure renters can live free from the threat of no-fault eviction, the government must deliver on this commitment, pass the bill, and name an implementation date when Section 21 will finally be scrapped."The charity said around 950 households could be evicted for every month a ban is delayed. The National Residential Landlords Association echoed Shelter's demands for the government to set a date when the changes would come into said a "lack of certainty" had "led to a great deal of confusion and concern amongst landlords".The association also noted a rise of more than two weeks in the length of the court process for recovering properties over the past year.A spokesperson added it was "essential that we have clarity about what support will be given to the courts service to ensure it is able to cope with the added pressures which will be created by these reforms". Earlier this month, the homelessness minister Rushanara Ali was forced to resign after revelations about how she handled a property she was renting out. The i newspaper reported that a former tenant of Ali's had been sent an email in November giving four months' notice the lease would not be said shortly after she and the three other tenants had moved out, the house in east London had been re-listed at a rent £700 a month higher, in a practice that would be banned under the Renters' Rights bill would prevent landlords from re-listing a property for rent, if they have ended a tenancy in order to sell, for six months.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store