To think that people have the principles they can afford?

[Hullygully]

Do you have, or know anyone that does, principles that would absolutely not be ditched in the event of greater wealth?

If you are a conscientious parent then, even in state schools your children will do well, because you care, you give them time, read to them etc.

Private school is a nice luxury, like Jimmy Choo shoes or a Kuoni Holiday. If you can afford it why not but there are perfectly acceptable alternatives

I think my principles are fluid dependent on my circumstances. I am at least honest.

Hmm, I'm wondering if I don't have enough principles in the first place because if I were rich I wouldnt hesitate to use private schools/healthcare, fly all over the world and spend far too much money on crap I don't need.

But I would also be able to spend more on the things that I care about which benefit other people as much as they benefit me. I'd be able to but local or fair trade stuff all the time and support independent shops rather than the faceless Tesco, and I'd provide employment.

It woudo be nice to be able to afford some principles.

I don't think private school is equivalent to luxury goods like shoes or holidays.

Nor do I Bonsoir. I don't think private healthcare is either.

If I'm honest many of my principals are held because I can afford them: local food, socially responsible hols, contributions to charity, contributions to society, through voluntary work.

These are possible because I earn a decent salary and I consider it important. I guarantee the life of my dinner would be far less troubling to me if my DC's were hungry.

I think private school is worse because it puts your kids at an unfair advantage above others.

I think I would use private healthcare if I or my family needed somehting urgently, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in and support the NHS.
I do and would still fly off on my holidays, but I would be happy to contribute to improving the life for people in the places I might visit (schools, water supplies, etc)

FWIW, I know quite alot of people who have principles, but within reason IYSWIM!

Why not, research shows that home life is far more important to a child than schooling.

Well perhaps there is a lot to be said for 'making a virtue out of a necessity' if lack of finances mean you have to live a certain way why not make the best of it and try to enjoy the good bits.

That's a character flaw your talking about Hully I think. Friend bragging almost about their deeply concientious and right on attitude, well maybe not bragging but wearing it obviously, for applause. When life gets easier the 'deeply held' principles are nowhere to be seen.

So not really about principles, more about weak character I think.

I've been up and I've been down on the lottery of life but my essential principles are not changed. I make a point of not eating humans but, were I stranded in the desert after a plane crash, I would eat a corpse. I always said I would though, so not something that changed according to circumstances.

I do also think private healthcare should not exist same as schooling. And being wealthy would not change that.

Yellow, although I know that most people choose private education to put their children at an advantage, if we were filthy rich, I might possibly have considered it for the facilities and opportunities for sports that aren't always on offer in state schools (as my DC are sporty)

Not that I have as yet Eaten a corpse I mean.

Paul McCartney did send his kids to a state school but then he could afford to live in the catchment of a decent state school. Would he have stuck to his principles if he had to send them to a sink comp on a sink estate?

It is all very well saying if you won millons you still wouldn't go private but i bet you wouldn't live somewhere with crap schools either.

Krum, maybe waiting for months in pain would do it then.

Or maybe you would change your mind if there were life saving/enhancing drugs you or your family needed but couldn't get on the NHS.

I don't believe that anyone would sacrifice their health or that of their child or loved one on principle of 'believing in the NhS' if it really came to it and they could afford it.

Hmm, I am currently wondering about my 'principles' although I wouldn't have put it like that. I always thought I would send DD to an Indie. I thought that it was important for me to give her the best education and opportunities I could. I have been saving/investing for her future since she was born. I went to a bog standard comp but whilst I've done quite well I know I could have done better with the right teaching.

But.

I have realised that the money I have 'made' could instead be used for us to be mortgage free. And that is becoming more and more important to me. I am spending more time looking for homes close to 'outstanding' state schools, rather than homes in the area we wanted to live in. I'm looking at cheaper houses to realise 'that' dream rather than the 'indie' dream.

So I'm wondering what that says about me? It's worrying me a little. Do I possibly 'sacrifice' DDs future for the sake of stability? Would an indie really make that much of a difference? Or am I thinking this way selfishly just to not have to work so hard as I get older?

Hully it can be a shock when people you have previously relied upon to hold certain views suddenly appear to be not quite as principled as you have been led to believe.

As for who you can rely on, you seem to be incredibly pricipled and hold strong beliefs. If you went and read your own posts/threads etc as if written by a stranger I think you would be cheering them on whole heartedly.

I think you can rely on yourself and don't need the crutch of someone else's politics.

State schools in posh areas are no different to Private schools IMO. It makes me laugh when Guardian journalists go on about being state educated, when they went to Holland Park, a state school in a catchment area where the average house price is over a million pounds.

Well you might think organic farmed food is the right way to farm but not be able to afford to buy it. In which case you would presumably find it easier to hold this as a principle if richer than if poorer rather than vv as OP suggests.

Generally being rich affords you more choices, surely?

I've given up a lot of principles I can no longer afford. I used to be all organic, fairtrade and hand-made. Now I eat unethical crap, wear clothes made with exploited labour and all of my choices are dictated by price.

I am glad these options are available. So shoot me. I never have thought that abusive chicken farming and so forth should be outlawed, because I was always aware of why the better option costs more and that I was privileged.

I was politically feminist and liberal whilst rich. My politics have become harder since getting poor - but I think they would have done anyway. With sudden wealth I would channel money to causes that fit my ideals, as I did before.

I don't think I know anybody whose principles have changed much with changing fortunes. I do know a few who pretend to have become more right-wing as they became more successful but, as far as I'm aware, they're just saying what they need to fit in. That makes them politically ineffectual but they probably were anyway ...

I think Josephine you'll find that very few Guardian journalists went to school in Holland Park, but feel free to continue with your somewhat strange vendetta against said publication.

That's terribly kind, Hair, but I am as hypocritical as th enext person I fear.