I hate this kind of stuff, for the reason that it assumes an identity between those identified as 'chavs' by popular media/the public with 'the working class' (whatever that even means these days).
Most 'chavs' (if we assume that to mean ignorant, frequently inebriated, needlessly aggressive people) are not working class, if we understand 'working class' to mean people who work for a living doing something you don't have to study at university. Similarly, the vast majority of working-class people are not 'chavs'. There's no shortage of middle-class 'chavs', or at any rate, obnoxious shallow pricks with a penchance for violence who've come from comfortably-off backgrounds.
This all just comes out of middle-class guilt and self-hatred. I'm reminded of Julie Burchill's ludicrous fantasies about her own 'chavdom'. Because obviously writing a self-important opinion column for a broadsheet newspaper is a typically 'chavish' occupation....
Well, for one thing, you haven't read the book and you're, so to speak, judging it by its cover. Maybe it discusses the subtleties of class.
There is a link between what is called 'chav culture' and poverty. You can't say that most chavs aren't working class - maybe they don't work now but I'd wager their grandparents did. And working in farmfoods for a year I worked alongside people I'd definitely call 'neds' or whatever, they worked, they liked a drink, they watched shite telly and they lived on schemes. They weren't bad people but they probably didn't have much hope or the future, neither did their children.
What you're talking about assumes there is this large group of people who are basically scum and can be excluded from society on that basis. To do so is to basically say that there is a group who are no longer deserving of any intervention on their behalf. I think that the only way we can improve the lot of people in estates and what else is to not view them as simply 'needlessly aggressive, frequently inebriated' but people who exist in malign and insidious social conditions that results in a kind of nihilistic hopelessness and anger. The only way to improve on this is to take efforts to try and improve their conditions.
I think that there has been a concerted effort to break down class identification and redefine the terms of what belonging to a certain class means since the 1980's. I view it as two-pronged. People who would have identified as working class 30 years ago will often now identify as middle-class simply because they have aspirations, they perhaps own their own council house, they want their kids to go to a university. The distruction of the trade-union movement also contributes to this, as less and less people see themselves tied together with workers doing similar jobs and trying to get better conditions for themselves.
On the other hand you have the muddying of the lines of what 'working class' means to start to become the aformentioned 'chav' culture (also called the underclass), and nobody who is aware of the significance of class would want to identified with such a group as it is portrayed.
The benefits for essentially dissolving the working class as a self-identified group seem to me pretty obvious.