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.

Denmark's coalition Government is led currently by its Liberal Party, which is deemed to be centre-right.

Still way more socialist than anything even Corbyn is suggesting.

Liberal is considered lefty in the US, central-ish here and centre-right in Denmark.

It's all relative to what you are left or right of.

before we all consider moving to a happy socialist country, this might make interesting reading www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/27/scandinavian-miracle-brutal-truth-denmark-norway-sweden

Danes have huge amounts of personal debt, and a higher overall carbon footprint than their counterparts in the USA, although this is now on the decrease. Denmark has a far higher suicide rate than the UK.

Finland apparently has very high gun ownership. Not somewhere I'd like to bring up my children, really, even if education is great and healthcare outstanding.

Sweden has high youth unemployment and a far higher suicide rate than the UK (UK 123rd, Sweden 46th according to WHO figures).

There will, of course, be many reasons that capitalist countries are also poor places to live, but my point is to those marking Denmark as a wonderful socialist utopia - it depends upon which angle you are viewing from - the Danes don't appear very happy with it.

There will, of course, be many reasons that capitalist countries are also poor places to live, but my point is to those marking Denmark as a wonderful socialist utopia - it depends upon which angle you are viewing from - the Danes don't appear very happy with it.

What?! The article you linked to says:

" Take the Danes, for instance. True, they claim to be the happiest people in the world..."

It then goes on to talk about all the things wrong with Denmark but you can't say the Danes don't appear very happy with it. The article states that they claim to be the happiest people in the world.

And no one has said Denmark is a wonderful socialist utopia, just that it's an example of socialism that works. Every country and every system has it's problems, there is no perfect society whichever party is in power.

jelly my point was that although the Danes claim to be the happiest, they obviously are not as their suicide rate would attest - if they were genuinely happy with life as a whole, there would not be such a high risk of premature death by choice. Maybe they feel a pressure to express that they are happy because their society is ostensibly very fair and equal, but this is not borne out on a personal level?

I think suicide is complicated. I don't think we can conclude it happens because they are a generally socialist country.

The US and Australia have higher rates than Denmark - there's no way that would lead me to the conclusion that's because they are more conservative.
data.oecd.org/healthstat/suicide-rates.htm

user1471545174

Well wasnt that selective reading on your part missed the poster before me did you, pp used anecdata to make the point as I did mine, sorry it doesnt conform to your confirmation bias, but you should probably admit to yourself that you do have one, I openly and frequently refer to my bias when posting so meh

jelly my point was that although the Danes claim to be the happiest, they obviously are not as their suicide rate would attest - if they were genuinely happy with life as a whole, there would not be such a high risk of premature death by choice.

calumslist.org/

France too is more socialist in terms of tax take and redistribution and union protections and workers rights but unlike Scandinavia is more like uK demographically speaking and they have very high rates of unemployment and youth unemployment. Very large problems with ostracising immigrants. (When you pay a lot of tax it's amazing how upset and judgemental people are about who should receive the benefits). Scandinavias homogenous societies are being impacted by immigration and surprise they politicians are shifting right and their tax burdens are falling and their welfare states are being challenged. Socialism the way you see it works far better in a small homogenous society. We are not that. France, Denmark and Sweden are all seeing their politics shift.
We need to focus on what works here and I simply think the socialist ideal is incoherent when mapped to the UK economy.

Also in Denmark 22% corp tax rates (we were 30 very recently) . 55% top rate of income taxes again we were 50 very recently) this is not as different to the uk as you imagine yet the health service surprise was still underfunded.

We nee to deal with who we are not who we'd like to be.

Ps to be clear I'm a central pragmatic floating voter. Let's be civilised. The extremes are university text books not real models of a society like uk. Our pragmatism is one of our greatest strengths. Lack of flexibility is a problem.

We need to focus on what works here and I simply think the socialist ideal is incoherent when mapped to the UK economy.

Can you expand on that? Totally prepared to agree with you if you have any kind of evidence that this is the case or that another political ideal would do better.

And each party we have on offer at the moment is working with what they have here in the UK. I see none that offer a 'socialist ideal'.

Sorry lunch break over but will pop another comment after work....
I

justanother whilst this propaganda "receiving a Department of Work & Pensions brown envelope of despair, destitution and death" is indeed extremely sad, as jelly pointed out above "The US and Australia have higher rates than Denmark - there's no way that would lead me to the conclusion that's because they are more conservative " - there are many different reasons for suicide and if it's unfair to attribute them to a socialist society then it is equally unfair to attribute them to a conservative period.

The point I was making was that Denmark had a higher suicide rate than the UK despite having a stronger welfare system, so perhaps the suicide and welfare link is not so black and white.

Jellyfizz
I have so many in depth answers to your question that I could write an essay. But essentially to encourage the wider populace to embrace higher taxes to support more public provision involves a social contract that britains have learned will not be honoured.
Government on many many things spends more and produces less. So even if the wider populace could accept that some will work harder / achieve more financial gain for others to receive more they don't trust the govt in that reallocation of resource as much as they trust themselves. If you force that Change you disincentivise investment because the Foreign Invt in Britain which makes up for our 3% savings rate disappears making us poorer. Even if you believe in the benevolence and competence of the state the attack on private assets undermine property law in the uk would cause more not less trust on an individual basis in that social contract. In the end you have to willingly engage in asset transfer and that broad scale willingness doesn't exist.

That's very broad because the detail is endless but I think you can raise taxes a bit and spending with it but the utopian world wouldn't follow. The extremes to fill expectations are not accepted.

I think education and NHS illustrate this very well already. People demand a choice of school, a second opinion, want the best are /education available even where the provision is more than adequate they search for the best and do not trust govt to make that decision for them. To wait to give more money and reduce personal choice you have to trust more. Isn't it telling that the politician who promises to make society fairer is ridiculed it is not because of a simple rejection of fairness, although there are many reasons to believe one should for many people. But because you have to really trust them to give them more of your money. If they take away individuals budgeting decisions you have to believe theirs is superior. The Conservatives don't believe ideologically their decisions are superior to yours. Socialists do and corbyn/McDonnell in extremis and British people do not trust them more than each other. Blair succeeded because he won their trust over term 1to spend he didn't demand it. (Rightly or wrongly).

Socialism doesn't only affect the rich in a socialist society everyone pays tax that is fundamental to the principle even if it's progressive.

Conservatives don't believe ideologically their decisions are superior to yours. Socialists do and corbyn/McDonnell in extremis

^^this

Username Mrs May thinks she's superior to everyone and that all her decisions are right.

mother what you describe sounds like communism.

Socialism is not communism. Saying that socialists want to take away your individual budgeting decisions is just not true. No one believes a utopian world will be created by raising taxes.

There is the same amount of difference between socialism and communism as there is between conservatism and fascism. i.e. quite a lot, unless you think that May is working her way towards a fascist dictatorship.

I see socialism takes away decisions from families. By its nature they would organise a state offering that is the same across the country to demand equality in terms of education provision. The distrust and irritation that you might want to choose something different is apparent.
Now you might be prepared to pay more taxes but I agree it does make you more interested in spending decisions as it reduces your freedom to choose.

You have to watch "the island" programmes for a insight why a full socialist model is not likely to work.
In one the group quickly became irritated by one chap who wouldn't hunt for food, but wanted to eat.
In such a society there will always be the ones giving a bit more, and some taking a bit more, which is sustainable probably in times of plenty, less so when things are more difficult.

In such a society there will always be the ones giving a bit more, and some taking a bit more, which is sustainable probably in times of plenty, less so when things are more difficult.

But that would be the case in any society. There are always those that cannot (or will not) contribute the same as the majority for many reasons.

Is it ok that those people should starve to death instead?

If those reasons stem from a place of inequality (e.g. disability, lack of education, poor nutrition..) what then? Surely we need to balance the starting points to at least give everyone a fair chance to contribute?

But I don't think it's hypocritical to send your child to a grammar school if that is what the state offers in your area.

It'd be like saying you won't allow your child to be in the top set at a comprehensive school if you are in a comprehensive area,

I think that's where the judgement comes in. It's human nature. We make decisions on whether we think it's fair to give resources to those who can't / won't get for themselves. Hence the benefit bashing. I can see where it appears from that's what I'm saying.
In times of plenty I think socialism has more of a chance, less so when most people are struggling.