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.

I wouldn't be reasonable to prevent someone achieving to fulfil someone else's political ideals.

Or ensure all schools are good schools.

How on earth do you do that?

Not starving them of funding would be a good start

Yes funding - it worked for London schools.

And like you said Eolian collaboration rather than competition between local schools.

Having a long term educational policy rather than changing your mind every two minutes. Maybe a cross party decision making board so that education isn't a political football.

Stop wasting money and resources messing around with academies and free schools.

Reduce the amount of pointless paperwork teachers have to do so they can concentrate on teaching (the not changing things every two mins would help with this).

Allow children to have a broad curriculum rather than focusing on high stakes tests.

etc, etc, there are many ways to improve things for everyone.

Tony Benn was loaded, but he was still a hardworking, inspirational socialist.

Keir Hardie grew up in absolute poverty and was a legendary orator and socialist visionary.

It doesn't really matter where you come from, its the shared vision of where we should be going as a country that counts.

I would describe myself as definitely socialist. I always vote labour. I bloody love champagne and drink it at every opportunity. As far as I'm concerned difference between me and a Tory voter is that I want everyone to have the opportunity to drink champagne if they want, not just me and my friends and family. I think everyone has the right to basic access to champagne, and if I had six bottles arriving every month or massive cellars of champagne left to me by my family, I'd definitely be happy to share my champagne with people who did not have any champagne at, all even if I didn't know them.

Nice post faithless I like your thinking. I bloody love champagne too.

The trouble there a that in a true socialist environment there may not be any Champagne to give away because it would probably be done away with by the Government in power.

socialism in its truest form puts economic output in the hands of the government for it to control based on what it deems to be necessary to meet human need.

As a result, in this socialist environment, status symbols and luxury goods could well be canned as superfluous to human need so, if you have a penchant for such items, the question is how would that make you feel?

Of course there are softer forms of socialism that blends it with capitalism - a more progressive style conducive to western and modern life. How socialist you really are depends on just where along the sliding scale you'd put yourself.

Personally I rather doubt many people in the uk are truly socialist. They instead sign up to certain aspects of it either out of genuine principle, or to reinforce their own self worth that they are caring types as a means of feeding their egos.

In the latter case, it could be said that socialism itself becomes a status symbol. To go with the Champagne and fast cars.

Personally I rather doubt many people in the uk are truly socialist.

But there is no such thing as true socialism; like you said there are many forms of socialism, which one is the 'true' version?

The OP was talking about people voting non-Tory, I don't think that voting non-Tory necessarily makes someone a socialist anyway.

As a simplified blueprint socialism in its purest form is where everyone works for the state and then the government distributes wealth according to need. The opposite is where there is true capitalism where individuals take responsibility for their own wealth creation and there is no welfare state. That's how I see it anyway. We are all somewhere along that line and my suspicions are that many people who think they are socialists in the UK are actually far closer to centre ground politics than they'd like to admit. Closer to Theresa Mays conservative outlook than they are to my version is true socialism, anyway. Especially if Champagne holds any kind of significance in their lives at all.

Sorry 'of socialism', not 'is'.

We are all somewhere along that line and my suspicions are that many people who think they are socialists in the UK are actually far closer to centre ground politics than they'd like to admit.

Oh yes, I agree.

Supermoon that's a really interesting point! I think it's more a case that people say they want/are doing the very best for their children, but in reality the majority of people do achieve a good or adequate provision and say that's the best, because it's the best they are able to provide iyswim. Saying you want something adequate could be equated to not caring enough or bothering, and no parent wants to be accused of that!

I think there is some confusion about socialism and communism on this thread.

I think it's more a case that people say they want/are doing the very best for their children, but in reality the majority of people do achieve a good or adequate provision and say that's the best, because it's the best they are able to provide iyswim.

I think this too username

Supermoon Isn't it human nature to bypass the 'adequate' if something better is available? Not just in terms of children but in general.

Isn't that why all the 'Finest' ranges do so well? (whether or not they are actually 'better' is a matter of opinion of course).

I think this is a big issue for the left. At the moment they can really only connect with middle class voters who like to think that they are caring but also know they will look after their interests and that they will benefit from globalisation. They also connect with people who can't work and those who work in the public sector and possibly some people who live in social housing.

But there are swathes of people who are supposed to be their core voters, working class people who work. They're simply not connecting with them or offering them anything. I don't think they're going to manage to win elections until they somehow work out that they have to offer those people something tangible to win back their trust again.

I would describe myself as definitely socialist. I always vote labour. I bloody love champagne and drink it at every opportunity. As far as I'm concerned difference between me and a Tory voter is that I want everyone to have the opportunity to drink champagne if they want, not just me and my friends and family. I think everyone has the right to basic access to champagne, and if I had six bottles arriving every month or massive cellars of champagne left to me by my family, I'd definitely be happy to share my champagne with people who did not have any champagne at, all even if I didn't know them.

^^ This

I think some previous posters are confusing communism with democratic socialism. There is no reason why champagne (substitute good schools, a decent NHS or housing here) would be done away with just because a country follows democratic socialist principles. We wouldn't all be down the salt mines.

I happily pay any tax asked of me. I'd like in return that tax evaders are pursued to the end of the fucking earth.

Tories believe in equality of opportunity too.

Champagne is interesting as it's a special protected word under EU law only grown in that region of France. After Brexit it might be subject to massive import duties..... It also brings to mind North Korea where their leader is quite keen on his imported cheese and drinks whilst the populace do not do quite as well.

Yes Labour is going to need to do something to appeal to its core working class group of previous voters. Even adding in the new people who joined because they ilke Corbyn there are probably nothing like enough supporters to get Corbyn elected (which as a Tory supporter I am pleased about).

So what can Labour do to increase its appeal? Low wages are a big issue for many families. High rents are only a problem because wages are low. Increased minimum wage does not help. reducing the number of people available applying for jobs obviously then increases pay. High inflation increase pay as in the 1970s (as indeed did the 1970s strikes and look at London tube drivers' pay compared to others - they have only a few people able to do the job, a strong union and strikes - hence high pay).

Tories believe in equality of opportunity too.

In what way? Because their policies encourage the opposite in just about any measure I can think of and particularly the important ones i.e. education and health.

It's really easy to confuse socialism with communism.

Because it's not so straightforward it's easy to get carried away I think, and this leads me to think there is a bit of band wagoning going on. Perhaps it has become slightly fashionable to claim you are socialist when really you are just a bit left?

Socialism is serious shit. Here is a definition: Socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership of the means of production and centralized planning. Socialism grows directly out of capitalism; it is the first form of the new society. Communism is a further development or "higher stage" of socialism.

Yes there are many forms of it, but you can't claim to be a socialist and then come up with your own version which will let you send your kids to private school and drive about in a land rover when you only use it to go to Waitrose but still want to be seen as supporting equality for all.

If someone really wants to be considered a socialist I think they have to put their money where their mouth is. Yes, carry on enjoying drinking fizzy sweet alcoholic stuff but buy an Aldi bottle of prosecco and give the change from £30 to a homeless charity. Even so called experts can't tell the difference in a blind tests, which means most people part with good money to drink 'the real thing' because it makes them feel glamorous, aspirational and a bit superior, which is everything that socialism isn't.

Communism is a further development or "higher stage" of socialism.

This is like saying fascism is a further development or "higher stage" of conservatism.

I suppose so jelly. However I've just been trying to get my head around something called the horseshoe theory of politics which contradicts the notion that far left and far right are at opposing ends of the spectrum and that as you branch out from the centre ground the two extremes start to come closer together. That explains a lot I think.

It's called the ideas rainbow in my son's 'Book of Politics' but socialism is about the same distance away from communism as conservatism is from fascism.

Not exactly in so much that your son's rainbow doesn't demonstrate how both sides end up in more or less the same place: totalitarianism and state control.

I guess so - we certainly wouldn't have a choice about grammar schools in either case .

If think too far right - or left is a bad thing.
Why would you give something less good to your child, when you could give something better.
Isn't it about doing the best you can rather than anything will do?