AIBU to be fed up with all the champagne socialists?

[winniemum]

Just come back from school pick up and the conversation turned to politics for obvious reasons!
My DC is in year 6 and going to high school next year. Many of his friends are going to the local grammar school. Fine, no problem with that we didn't put him in for the GS exams.
However so many of the mums were upset that Lib Dem/ Labour had done badly in the local elections, whilst driving to school in their 4 by 4's, having driven from their £750K + houses.
It's just the contradiction, they are not prepared to spread their wealth or support the Tory policy of Grammar schools and harp on about how they all voted Lib/labour.
When I asked one mum why she was sending her DC to Grammar school if she didn't agree with anything the Tory's stood for, I got, 'Oh that was one of our most difficult decisions, we thought very long and hard about that one, but you know....' No I still don't know as she couldn't explain why that was OK.

Yes, we need all the Labour or Lib Dem votes we can get but a core theme of socialism is equality. And the rich have more options to access a better education, not just using private schools, but by moving to areas where there are good schools which can result in local poorer people not getting a place. I'm not blaming them for doing this, because I understand that they want the best for their kids. But it is in conflict with their view that they are socialists. Another core theme is collectivism, and these actions go against that as well.

Re. equality and collectivism, by their very nature can only work at a societal level.

Individuals cannot alone make a difference to an existing system by deliberately choosing a crap school for their child.

Individuals cannot alone make a difference to an existing system by deliberately choosing a crap school for their child.
But the leaders who run our system, the champagne socialists like Jeremy Corbyn should lead by example. When Diane Abbott says state schools are good its hard to believe her when she sends her children private. Now if she came out and said all the state schools in her area where crap and that is why she went private I could believe her. She could then stand on a policy to improve state school with integrity. But as it stands she is a hypocrite.

Jelly they absolutely can make that difference though by moving to an area with a good school. This effect is then amplified because more and more people who can afford it raise house prices and it ends up pricing local people out of being able to afford to live there and access the good school for their children.

Sorry, posted too soon. That's how 'champagne socialists' for want of a better term, can actually inhibit social mobility through poorer families not being able to access good education and affordable housing in their local area.

When Diane Abbott says state schools are good its hard to believe her when she sends her children private. Now if she came out and said all the state schools in her area where crap and that is why she went private I could believe her. She could then stand on a policy to improve state school with integrity. But as it stands she is a hypocrite.

That was actually what Diane Abbott did say at the time, it didn't help her. Again, though, it's a distraction from the fact that the majority of children will be in secondary moderns where, on the whole, they will do worse than in comprehensives.

Jelly they absolutely can make that difference though by moving to an area with a good school. This effect is then amplified because more and more people who can afford it raise house prices and it ends up pricing local people out of being able to afford to live there and access the good school for their children.

But a change in the system which would ensure good schools in all areas would be better surely? It's the system that's the problem not the individuals.

Didn't Jeremy Corbin end up divorced as a result of his intrenched position in grammar schools? He absolutely refused to send his son and his wife divorced him.

So I think he's probably proved his dedication to the cause on that point Anon.

It was reported in The Guardian back in 1999: www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/1999/may/13/uk.politicalnews2

Yes, JC is far more principled than DA - not headline news.

I was responding to Anon's specific post username.

Not sure it really needed your sarky comment!

Sorry moving, am typing whilst cooking - didn't target it at you just a general observation

I do agree that people see JC as a very principled individual, I just don't think he's in any fit state to run our country. Do not like DA though, she comes across as devious and flimsy.

Whereas that lovely Boris Johnson seems completely competent. And Jeremy Hunt has done wonders in his position looking after the NHS.

I chose not to move into a desirable school catchment. Instead I sent my DC to private school. The state schools here really aren't very good (there isn't a single state school in my county that makes it onto the top 500 lists). I could afford to opt out, so I did. I feel absolutely no guilt for doing what is best for my children.

That doesn't mean that I want the status quo to continue for people who cannot afford to make the same choice I did.

Oh, and for the record I don't employ an accountant or financial advisor. I pay the full amount of tax on my six figure salary via PAYE. I do get a rebate from HMRC most years once I've completed my tax return. This is solely due to my charitable donations. Perhaps you'd like me to stop this 'tax avoidance scheme'

Do not like DA though, she comes across as devious and flimsy.

I can't say I find her very likeable either.

It's not about the schools, but about the children who attend them.

I'm sorry too user :)

I do like the fact JC has firm principles - I think that's pretty rare in a politician, especially when they carry great personal cost. The thing that concerns me, is the lack of cohesion at the top of the Labour Party. If they can't put aside their differences for the good of the country that is a big worry.

If they were all visibly pulling together I don't think JC would be seen as weak and it is that perception of weakness (along with some pretty dubious suggestions that's he's an anti-Semite and anti-women) and the fact he seems so very old fashioned in his outlook (again probably as a result of being numb to spin and politicians who flip flop whichever way they feel the prevailing political wind is blowing) that is damaging.

I think if he was leading a strong team and seen to be leading them he would be more credible.

If you're referring to Blairs govt as 'labour' I and many others don't consider them true labour they were Tory lite. Also MRSA IS still happening far too often.

"The Tories are the party which can fund help for the less fortunate" that's blatantly not true because they have:
Increased debt
Reduced wages in real terms
Cut benefits to the most needy
Won't invest in the nhs, social care, education or emergency services (among others)

They are ideologically opposed to helping a society 'society doesn't exist' so said thatcher. Their ideology is individual responsibility, which is all well and good for those on 6 fig salaries, mortgage paid and with themselves and their families in good health. Where does that leave single mums working 60+ hours nmw just to keep head above water? Those too ill/disabled to work? Carers with no time to work?

"Letting the NHS and education go to crap is inefficient and uneconomical." Absolutely!

And yes to the pro-grammar people who haven't considered how pro will they be if THEIR child DOESN'T get in - we shouldn't be asking if they're pro grammar but are they pro secondary modern!

I trained in 1993 and there was certainly issues with MRSA then. Which was being hushed up. Personally I think the worst thing ever done was outsourcing the cleaning as hygiene is the most IMPORTANT aspect of any clinical care. Under which govt? Guess! It began in the 1980's under thatcher!

"I'm not suggesting that all elderly people are cared for by unpaid unskilled volunteers. What I am advocating, however, is that the elderly who have families or close friends and neighbours and are still reasonably healthy but unable to completely care for themselves, would benefit from care that is not provided by the state, as that would free up those careers to cope with those who are substantially more vulnerable and do need the care." It could be argued that's already happening. Not because people want to necessarily but because it's virtually impossible to get state care for any but the most serious cases.

"I feel rather aggrieved that I am saving hard for my retirement from a fairly meagre wage so I can be less of a burden on society, but those who currently 'enjoy' a life on welfare can take foreign holidays, smoke and have the latest mobile phones, but will be state funded in their old age - that is not a fair society, but it is a socialist one." The tories are far more for people paying their own elderly care than any other party. (Except possibly ukip). Not at all surprised you have fallen back onto the myth of 'them on benefits aren't struggling they have huge TVs, smoke, drink, holidays, false nails, extensions blah blah blah' NOT TRUE anyone existing (and it is only existing) on benefits alone (ie not acting fraudulently or in illegal businesses) is barely managing, people on benefits are DYING because they can't afford housing, food, fuel - the basics!

I have been on benefits for 14 years. In that time I have been a student, working full time and due to ill health currently unemployed. I am absolutely dreading being moved onto UC as the online calculators are saying I will lose between £200-400 a month and I barely manage now, often 'borrowing' from my mum (rarely able to pay it back. She's the one calls it borrowing to make me take it!). In addition I will at some point undergo a delightful WCA where a 'work coach' will probably ask me 'and why haven't you killed yourself yet? Why are there no hospital admissions for attempted suicide?' Which is what is being reported and in a few secretly recorded cases has been proven as what they're asking all depression diagnosed claimants.

I have 4 mental health conditions, 2 physical health and I am not at all hopeful given people who can barely breathe properly are being rejected.

Re extremes - there are far fewer fraudulent benefits claimants than tax dodgers - and the tax dodgers are stealing a hell of a lot more money than the benefit claimants, a quick Google to refresh my info on this reveals benefit fraud costs just over £1bn where tax dodging costs are £30bn+!!

Yet there's around 4000 benefit fraud investigators and...700 hmrc fraud investigators!

"Whereas that lovely Boris Johnson seems completely competent. And Jeremy Hunt has done wonders in his position looking after the NHS." Not to mention goves fantastic job with education! Jelly nails it again

That was actually what Diane Abbott did say at the time
No she said that she was worried her son would join a gang and West Indian mums will go to the wall for their children.

Didn't Jeremy Corbin end up divorced as a result of his intrenched position in grammar schools Yes indeed that does show his dedication to the cause. And if you want to vote for someone who will put his cause above his family then dont complain when he throws the Labour party or the country under a bus for the sake of his cause.

And if you want to vote for someone who will put his cause above his family then dont complain when he throws the Labour party or the country under a bus for the sake of his cause.

What? Do you want MPs to stick to their principles or not?

Sorry what side of the fence are you on Anon?

Or is it more of a shooting range and the only target is Jeremy Corbyn?

HarryLimeFoxtrot, why do you get tax back just because you chose to make donations to your favorite charity. That money could have been used to support the NHS.

I do like the fact JC has firm principles ... If they can't put aside their differences for the good of the country that is a big worry What your saying is that you like his principles but he should put them aside for the sake of the country.

I think if he was leading a strong team and seen to be leading them he would be more credible So MPs should pretend he is a strong leader and do everything he says so no one finds out they think he is an idiot.

No, that's not what I said. Try again :)

What? Do you want MPs to stick to their principles or not?

I am saying they should stick to their principles, I just dont like his and think they are based in cloud cuckoo land.

HarryLimeFoxtrot, why do you get tax back just because you chose to make donations to your favorite charity. That money could have been used to support the NHS.

Only if the government believed in funding the NHS properly, it would more likely to be wasted on outsourcing or failed free schools at the moment.