But the historical notions of class are defunct. How to explain a colleague of mine who describes herself as "working class" despite a white collar professional job, university education and being a landlord?

Still there's nothing wrong with that, it shows you are proud of your background and where you, or your parents came from.

But the traditional notion of working class toil in a factory, heavy industry, or a trade has gone.

Indeed if you're a builder or plumber you're certainly likely to be earning more than many in so-called "white collar" professions.

So perhaps we are all middle class or classless?

I don't believe that for a minute.

Perhaps it's easy to say that if you ignore the existence of the top and bottom ends of society, the upper class or the under class.

I use upper class to mean moneyed and frequently public school educated. The definition of under class I take as being long term poor.

I suppose these days it is possible to gain entry to the upper class, but it normally takes a lot of money (hello Kate Middleton).

Personally I had a sharp confirmation that the upper class was still well and truly in existence when I went to Manchester University to study the History of Art, a notorious toffs subject.

I found it strange the students, from Westminster, Harrow, Roedean, and other well-known schools, all chose to go to University together and knew each other from the same public school outings/events.

The old boys network was still very much in evidence.

And I also noticed another quality of the toffs. They would prattle on in tutorials with the uttermost confidence even if what they were saying was absolute rubbish. At comprehensive school you will be sharply shot down if that's the case.

In summation I realised being upper class meant confidence and connections.

Which is entirely the opposite case to the under class. Sadly in this region we have quite a large under class, which can loosely be referred to as long-term unemployed, often with generations out of work, a huge lack of social mobility and a significant amount of child poverty.

Indeed figures released last month show 71,000 children are classified officially as living in poverty stricken conditions in the region. And Save the Children, the charity behind the research, fears the numbers will grow as coalition cutbacks take their toll.

According to Save the Children, families in extreme poverty are getting by on less than £134 per week for a lone parent with one child and less than £240 per week for a couple with two children.

I only hope today's budget helps out those living in poverty, sadly however I imagine because of the policy of cuts it will get worse.

The fact is there is a certain level of wealth you need to be at to be happy, which essentially covers food, heating, a nice place to live - enough money not to worry. After that wealth, contrary to popular opinion, makes not one iota of difference to happiness.

So, much though it can be annoying that for example the upper classes have more money then you do, you can get some compensation from the fact they are unlikely to be any happier for it.

What should however be of concern is that significant numbers of our society, 13% of children, are living in extreme poverty, and that's not acceptable.

That's the real issue of class in Britain today. A classless society? Not while there is still so much poverty in it. Definitions of class may have changed but the divisions remain.

So does it matter what class our children are? No, as long as they aren't under class.