I think it is this localism that fosters an urge in locals to 'protect' their surroundings and this means resisting change, especially progressive ideas. The British class system is a good way to facilitate a resistance to change in those rural areas. It is very complicated as to why. Rural villages and their inhabitants prefer to be kept in a time-locked stasis where any subtle change is very noticeable and met with extreme caution.

The class differences are not greater in rural or urban areas, just different. For example, in rural areas they manifest as accent, appearance, house type (detached, semi, terraced), schooling (state or private), postcode and job as probably the last. It might seem strange to place job as the last and least important in this list of criteria but in rural locations, if you own a large sized home on land but work in a local shop or post office, you are materially middle class. I will stop here as more description will lead to cultural cliche and stereotypes.

In the urban case, class is first about accent and salary in second place. Those rural criteria often cannot be applied to city workers because they transcend them. Strangely, if the shop worker I describe was placed into a city environment, they would be seen as lower class 'peasantry' by a city worker. Why? The reasons are complex. Again, it is scale dependent, relative, depending on location.

Better is also a relative term. I'd argue no class is better than another class as they each offer a different but equally interesting set of both positives and negatives. This is why I argue against the class system in my original post because I see it as completely redundant and outdated societal structure that is holding British society back.

'Loathing anything British'. This is a strong statement. There may be some things which the middle class in Britain enjoy and some things which they do not. I'd argue, on balance, there are more things which they don't enjoy which are British than those things which they do enjoy. The middle classes seem inclined to constantly 'transcend' ideas of Britishness in a nationalist sense, but only because those are where the class system struggle is most obvious and frowned upon. I think an individual is allowed to loath if they choose. What they choose to loath is a matter of subjective preference. From an ethical perspective, to force ideas of loathing anything British onto others is facist. Sadly, this happens in Britain too.

I use a general European accent. Results differ depending on the individual I talk to and their position within the class system, of course! I'm often treated as an 'outsider' when I talk to a 'native' Briton who lives in a rural village and works a trade, whereas I'm treated with intrigue and curiosity by the middle class, like academics. You generally find the middle class enjoy European stuff while loathing anything British, whereas the working class tend to be more nationalist and support the Royal Family and grassroots English culture such as village traditions. This means the class system is often most obvious in rural locations such as village culture while being pretty much non-existent in cities. It's all a matter of scale..?

I think this might be some kind of behaviour based on 'in group' preference..? Often you are treated better as a foreigner than as a native.

Evidence? There is data such as economic data. Measures of social inequality. A lot of quantitative data has been produced by researchers which supports the concept of a north/south socio-economic divide based on class system relations. A 'them' Vs 'us' narrative is spun by the power centres such as media to maintain the class system integrity.

It is true that education is a deciding factor in life success but I would argue that it is more accentuated in the British sense. For example, place within the class system decides contacts. Nepotism is common. Not the other way around as in other countries such as the USA. Like I say, the British class system is more deterministic because it alone decides education, contacts and socio-economic progress. It is an unnecessarily 'differentiating mechanism' that holds society back by allocating power to a few because they support the class system, materially.

Define 'acceptable' accent? I assume those jobs you mention require someone to have an accent that sounds 'inclusive' in that it doesn't lead the listener to feel any sense of being marginalised or inferior.

Sadly, in wider society, accents which sound like they belong to a higher social class can sound authoritarian and therefore exclusionary to the listener, as they have been socially conditioned to believe so. This is what creates the power imbalance. This is a social imbalance, which over time, translates into an economic imbalance for the country as you can imagine this happening on a population scale. Think of it as like a filtration effect. If you pour all the accents into the British class system sieve, only the ones I described fall through. It does this because British society is set up for this to happen as a result of social conditioning and how institutions are run and power is maintained from within.

I think there is a scale problem. My description was more about what happens on the every day street level such as shopping or travelling on public transport and all those micro scale events producing a dysfunctional society collectively.

If I have time I will read but I'm very busy now...

I can also see how technology might advance human creativity too. I think there are two types of creativity I talk about. The first is what I describe as creativity in the truest most original sense. This creativity cannot be replicated by technology like code or computers and so on. It is this creativity which drove the Renaissance and enlightenment and why creativity was worshipped and glorified in art and so on.

BUT... the second kind of creativity is simply replicable creativity. It is universal in the sense that it can be replicated by code and everyone can do it because there will be templates to do it, like stencil artwork, and so on.

BUT I can also see how the use of technology might not diminish true creativity. In fact, it might help it. I don't think I know or have described what causes that, except for saying that it comes from some kind of organic human to human interaction and self discovery of the human being as a result of this... Is this the driving force of true creativity, or does it in fact come from, or is triggered by, some interaction of replicable creativity...?

I mean, in the statistical sense, the more people who are doing replicable creativity through the use of communicative technology, the more this might inspire original creativity...

I think I think about using technology to communicate as limiting vocabulary too? Like a oppressive rather than liberating force? It would only be bad for creativity if some limitations are imposed on commutation, whether politically driven, or to purposefully constrain creativity. If the technology is purely facilitative, not constraining, then I see very little problem with it blocking creativity somehow.

And so I have essentially countered my original argument...

Trump is a bastion of capitalism who will come down from the heavens on a chariot made of gold riding the righteous Messianic light of the unfettered free market, vaporising every left wing zealot below, restoring order and balance to this Earth and giving to our fragmented life a gravitas, a high seriousness, a divine significance, an emancipatory power that can unshackle us from the self limiting, deterministic and suffocating stranglehold that is Marxism, socialism and the left, allowing us to reach our fullest and truest potential and ambitions.

In other words, what is the smallest amount of present time that can exist in order to differentiate the past and future?