RUTH SUNDERLAND: Workers divided… according to Labour’s definition of a worker!

As my fingers fly over my keyboard to type this column, I could have sworn I’m working.

Although I’m not. I can’t be, because I own some stocks that pay dividend income.

Therefore, according to Sir Keir Starmer, I am not a working person. Having investments means I don’t fit “within their definition” of a worker.

Not only that, but I had a dental emergency the other week. I was fortunate to be able to pay for my tooth to be repaired, which quickly put an end to the agony, if not the financial pain.

A working person, Sir Keir says, would not “have the means to write a check to get out of trouble”.

Well, who’s still writing checks? If our wealthy Prime Minister does so, it suggests he is very out of touch with the realities of modern household money management.

The most important question is: what have I been doing in the newsrooms of various newspapers for the last 30 years, for at least ten hours a day?

It felt a lot like working, but it couldn’t have been like that, because I’m not a working person.

I’m being hyperbolic, of course. We all know what Starmer meant: that he wants to prioritize people who work hard but are barely getting by.

But the way politicians express themselves is important.

His words revealed a reductionist and divisive attitude with a tinge of moral contempt. The anti-aspirational tone of this narrative is at odds with Labour’s goal of boosting growth and boosting investment in UK assets. It is quite extraordinary that the leader of a party whose real name is Labor seems to dismiss the work of so many and get so bogged down about what constitutes a worker.

Starmer and Reeves should encourage greater share ownership – particularly through employee share schemes – and not appear to stigmatize people for it.

There is some contrived anger at the Prime Minister’s unfortunate line, but I and many others feel genuinely insulted.

Work has always been a big part of my identity. I am as proud of my northeastern working-class roots as any descendant of the aristocracy of his lineage could be.

I will not receive any legacy from my family but I have inherited something much more valuable: a work ethic.

Any action and any ability to pay our way out of an emergency is the fruit of our own efforts, not unearned privilege. With the implication that we have become undeserving workers, Starmer struck a chord.

Emotions matter in politics and it seemed like he was trying to erase our working class heritage.

The impression conveyed is that the only worker the Labor Party considers worthy of respect is one from the oppressed public sector.

They should be exempt from pension tax increases and lavished with wage increases. Private sector? You are easy prey.

Starmer’s words suggest an alarmingly simplistic view of the world.

It harkens back to an earlier imagined era depicted in Victorian melodrama, even further back than checkbooks, when evil capitalists twirled their mustaches and oppressed virtuous factory workers.

The world has never been so binary and it certainly isn’t now.

Creating a stock portfolio and some savings does not make you a rentier. However, in Starmer’s Britain, that makes you a prime target for the taxman.

And why strive for success and social mobility if that puts a target on your back?