Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

AIBU to be fed up with all the champagne socialists?

461 replies

winniemum · 05/05/2017 16:01

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.

OP posts:
Rhayader · 07/05/2017 21:51

I don't really have a problem with it if they are paying their taxes. It's when Russell Brand, Charlotte Church, footballers etc who all pay tiny amounts of tax but harp on about how we should be spending more tax payers money that annoys me.

velvetcandy · 07/05/2017 21:57

Both my parents came from nothing, poor working class families and did very well for themselves with uni degrees, phd in my dads case. As did my H, hes had a very poor difficult childhood where they litrally had no food some weeks. I believe in investing in people, build people up rather than destroying communities and prospects.

superbean · 07/05/2017 22:07

You so need to read what Caitlin Moran says about people being labelled "champagne socialists".

Pretty much sums it up really.

You're welcome.

Demant0 · 07/05/2017 22:25

I don't have any problem with CS's per se although do find them to be quite irksome when they start taking the moral high ground and believe themselves to be 'enlightened' and 'progressive' over us mere mortals.

Guardian readers basically.

I think I can see a bit about where the OP is coming from. If someone is flashing around capitalist status symbols like expensive cars, living in gated communities and spending money quaffing Bolly like it's going out of fashion then it does seem a bit hypocritical.

I'd get their viewpoint on life and politics a lot better if they had a lot of money but didn't feel the need to use it to reinforce their superiority over other people. I'm thinking this is more in line with what the OP was getting at, rather than saying people with money should all be conservative voters.

And I do know people like this. A lot of them.

velvetcandy · 07/05/2017 22:44

Yeah Caitlin Moran said somthing along these lines.

Tapandgo · 07/05/2017 22:48

Demanto
What newspaper would be more acceptable to you?

RedToothBrush · 07/05/2017 23:14

Ideological puritism is a thing that is destroying this country, every bit as much as 'champagne socialism'. If not more so.

JustAnotherPoster00 · 07/05/2017 23:36

This is what Blair and Mandelson understood

Those pair didnt have a socialist bone in their body

RedToothBrush · 08/05/2017 00:42

I believe in a balance between socialism and capitalism. Both in excess are not good for society. More important than either is public accountability.

When people act in a way inconsistent with what they say they believe it's often down to them not feeling they can challenge the system anyway, so might as well get as much as they can rather than be at a disadvantage. A sort of if you can't beat em, join em mentality.

Or they are simply blind to the reality others face and have distorted understandings of hardship through no real fault of their own. They've just never known any different.

Ideological purity is self defeating. If you only appeal to the ideologically pure you also fail to understand other people's reality. What motivates them and what concerns they have.

Ideas of socialism and liberalism should appeal to a wide church even if people don't properly buy into all of it. It helps bridge divides and highlight differences as being ok rather than stereotyping people into boxes which constrain their political beliefs.

Headofthehive55 · 08/05/2017 06:52

People don't fit into a narrow pattern - liking all one parties ideas but disliking the others. It's so much more complicated than that.

AnnaFiveTowns · 08/05/2017 07:12

You can be wealthy and have a conscience too.

GreenGinger2 · 08/05/2017 07:47

It's not about having a conscience but about lecturing to others less well off than you when your wealth gives you and your DC advantages and then making choices that are no more superior.

jellyfrizz · 08/05/2017 07:52

It's not about having a conscience but about lecturing to others less well off than you when your wealth gives you and your DC advantages and then making choices that are no more superior.

So you can send your kids to a grammar school and vote Labour but not talk about it?

GreenGinger2 · 08/05/2017 07:58

No, you can't berate grammars and then use money to buy into a preferred school catchment or to spend on school fees.

Pure hypocrisy.

jellyfrizz · 08/05/2017 08:07

But you can. A grammar system has overall lower achievement than a comprehensive one. This is a fact not an opinion based on politics.

Headofthehive55 · 08/05/2017 08:15

Comprehensive where people are buying into catchments become rather like grammar schools. They don't end up being comprehensive in the way you imagine.

jellyfrizz · 08/05/2017 08:21

Perhaps league tables should be scrapped then?

jellyfrizz · 08/05/2017 08:27

Or ensure all schools are good schools.

Headofthehive55 · 08/05/2017 08:50

A good school is generally considered good because it gets good attainment. Which is obviously more likely if the students are from homes where education has been achieved before.
I think there are lots of good schools that are not recognised as such as the headline rate of passes are lower.

jellyfrizz · 08/05/2017 08:52

Comprehensive where people are buying into catchments become rather like grammar schools. They don't end up being comprehensive in the way you imagine.

What I mean is overall achievement is higher in areas where there are no grammar schools, just comprehensives. So catchment wouldn't come into it.

HPFA · 08/05/2017 08:58

But you can. A grammar system has overall lower achievement than a comprehensive one. This is a fact not an opinion based on politics.

Spot on. All the stuff about house price schools, champagne socialists, Diane Abbott is meant to distract us from the fact that the majority of children will be in secondary moderns and on the whole do worse than if they were in comprehensives.

jellyfrizz · 08/05/2017 09:01

Many Conservatives are against the grammar school system (Nicky Morgan a notable figure as former Education Secretary).

www.conservativehome.com/platform/2014/12/the-case-against-grammar-schools.html

Would they be hypocrites to send their child to one?

Headofthehive55 · 08/05/2017 09:16

I think you have to go with the best interests of your child at that point.

supermoon100 · 08/05/2017 09:39

The general consensus is that you do what is best for your children because your children must have the very best start in life. This is what I inherently have a problem with. How about giving your children an ok/adequate/good enough start in life. Why do they have to have the very best?

Eolian · 08/05/2017 09:46

Perhaps league tables should be scrapped then?

Yes, definitely. Schools should be sharing good practice, not being made to compete with each other to survive.

Or ensure all schools are good schools.

How on earth do you do that?

Swipe left for the next trending thread