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.

In times of plenty I think socialism has more of a chance, less so when most people are struggling.

If your aim is to keep your population alive sovialism is also less needed in times of plenty and more needed when people are struggling.

Humans are inherently selfish. I'm not saying that's a good thing or bad thing - just the way we are.

Jelly that's why balance and centre ground is what repeatedly wins. We don't want to abandon those who are vulnerable but we want to be allowed to do better if we work and not be judged for it. People keep misunderstanding why less well off vote for Brexit or Tories and it's a desire for self determination. That the left is so far left at the moment they are looking at top down models rather than bottom up desires. You have to try to balance the two. Workers also don't like being blamed for the plight of those struggling. They struggle/juggle/prioritise every day the y want to rewarded and congratulated for their achievements not vilified and ironically when they are they become more generous.
It's why tax credits were popular rather than increases in universal provisions of various things that are not necessarily desired like FSMs.
Individuals who do well don't want to be criticised for their desire to move forward socialists seem to judge them and no one takes kindly to be being judged.

Individuals who do well don't want to be criticised for their desire to move forward socialists seem to judge them and no one takes kindly to be being judged.

Of course not. But 'individuals who do well' and 'socialists' are not mutually exclusive- hence champagne socialist.

One of inherent problems with socialism is the tendency for 'the state' to be the default solution to your problems, rather than 'yourself'. This represses effort, ingenuity and personal responsibility, and infantilises people, hence leading to lower productivity, a less well-functioning economy, and a lower standard of living for all, rich and poor alike. A middle way is needed that recognises the primacy of individual responsibility whilst recognising society does need the state to provide a safety net for the vulnerable. Labour under Corbyn currently is far too top-down statist. However noble the motives, it won't work.

That's why I tend to vote Tory... though have also voted LD and 'New' Labour in the past.

A middle way is needed that recognises the primacy of individual responsibility whilst recognising society does need the state to provide a safety net for the vulnerable.

So out of our current choices - LibDem?

That's why I tend to vote Tory... though have also voted LD and 'New' Labour in the past.

I wouldn't consider current Tory policies 'middle ground'.

Which is why I may not be voting for them this time.... I'll await the manifestos.

Fair enough coconutella.

Although manifesto promises seem to be optional these days.

Thanks to you all, I am really enjoying actually being part of a political discussion thread that in the majority hasn't just ended up as a string of insults.

A couple of observations, if I may ...

If the country would generally be better off and citizens happier under a socialist system, you would think that would be borne out in our choice of government. Since 1900, we have had approximately 63 1/2 years of conservative government, vs approx. 54 years of labour or liberal administrations (where we have had coalitions, I have taken the lead party as being in power). Obviously, women only factored in the figures after 1918/28. It also seems that conservative governments are in power more often and for longer periods during this timeframe.

It appears that you can ++ earn an enormous salary, live in a big house, drive a 4x4 and send your children to grammar/PE ++ (++ please feel free to substitute any traditional wealth markers) so long as you vote for a socialist party and you are viewed as morally superior, BUT if you have exactly the same lifestyle but vote conservative you are viewed as morally inferior. You are seen to be making the best of the current situation so long as you vote socialist; you are selfishly exploiting wealth and position if you vote conservative. Seems rather shallow to judge one's moral standing on whether they have socialist or capitalist leanings. And how do we judge large wealthy companies who donate to charity but minimise their tax liability?

I think needing a socialist state and wanting one are two different things.
A country may be happier in a socialist state, but you don't always want what you are told is good for you.
Self determinism is very important to people.

I want to live in a country where everyone has enough to eat, there are jobs, where if you work hard you can get on regardless of your start in life and who your parents are, where every child has a good school, where no children live in poverty, where the sick and disabled are looked after and there is excellent health and social care, the trains run on time, energy and other commodities are priced fairly and exploitation of any kind is not only illegal but considered morally wrong.

Nowhere does that say Communist State or no self determinism.

Choose your future. I choose socialist democracy.

Moving does that exist anywhere at all? Is anywhere even close?

Unfortunately you are asking for provision we probably can't afford. Corbyn today suggested abolishing tuition fees for students a laudable idea. That would cost £10bn pa. That's 2% on all income tax rates
Health could probably do with another £10-20bn pa. you wouldn't get that even if you put 100% marginal tax rate on earnings over £200k. 5% to 50% is c£2bn.
5% on Vat would raise £25bn but that's horribly regressive.
We haven't even mentioned education, or housing or benefits or pensions!!!
The utopia you seek is not practical so what are your priorities and how will you fund them? Which families earning less than 20k pa will vote for 2% hike in their income tax rate and 5% on VAT? That makes them materially poorer. But they won't get back the difference as 40% in the £ given to government is wasted in the administration of the money!
I just think the ideal isn't going to be a British reality. What's more I've never met a politician I trust to manage the implementation - they spend the money but the results are disappointing.
The real world has fortunate and less fortunate people we'll never make them all equal we can strive for equality of opportunity but again strive is the operative word.

You are seen to be making the best of the current situation so long as you vote socialist; you are selfishly exploiting wealth and position if you vote conservative.

To vote for higher taxation and better public services is obviously more altruistic than to advocate lower taxation and an "I'm alright Jack" attitude. You can enjoy nice things and at the same time believe that everyone should also have the opportunity to have nice things. As I've said before, there is LOADS of money in this country, it should be shared round a bit more.

To vote for higher taxation and better public services is obviously more altruistic than to advocate lower taxation and an "I'm alright Jack" attitude. You can enjoy nice things and at the same time believe that everyone should also have the opportunity to have nice things.

I vote conservative (previously voted labour or green if that makes a difference) and do not have an I'm alright Jack attitude. I strongly believe that everybody should have the opportunity to have nice things; I believe that working, contributing to the local community and paying taxes is my contribution towards this. I want to see a fairer society where those in real need are helped, but where individuals cannot make welfare a preferential lifestyle choice - welfare for able working age people should never pay more than working; that's a welfare poverty trap.

I want to live in a country where everyone has enough to eat, there are jobs, where if you work hard you can get on regardless of your start in life and who your parents are, where every child has a good school, where no children live in poverty, where the sick and disabled are looked after and there is excellent health and social care, the trains run on time, energy and other commodities are priced fairly and exploitation of any kind is not only illegal but considered morally wrong.

But who decides on the benchmarks for all of these things? There are so many countries that would look at us and say we already have most if not all of this. Our health service is so good that people travel from all over the world to use it. All our children can access good education; you cannot force all children to learn but they are all given equal access and opportunity. Cheap energy might come at a price; are you willing to have workers exploited or use dirty fuels so you can have cheaper energy, because that's generally how things get cheaper. Poverty is complicated; compared to a significant percentage of the world's population even our poorest are relatively well off. Without benchmarks, the wants are meaningless. If you take away people's choice but improve their situation, will they actually be any better off?

I don't think it probably does exist yet. But that's the thing with ideologies - it's something to aim for. I think the UK has as good a chance of any liberal democracy of achieving it.

I don't think I've really suggested anything that out there and a lot of the measures are subjective of course, but morally I feel those things are the right things to strive for. I deliberately didn't say we should all be equal because a) I don't think it's possible and b) fairness and equality are not always the same thing c) a Capitalist economy survives by having those with more than others and I'd just like to narrow the gap.

I was also careful not to say how these things should happen because it's more complicated than just saying we should all pay an extra 2% tax or 5% tax on our income. For example there is a fine balancing act between keeping global firms operating out of the UK, who we need to provide income, and ensuring they pay a fair amount of tax. Both I and dh have always worked for private sector multinationals, we have a second property we rent out etc etc so we're no stranger to the benefits of Capitalism as well as the pitfalls. We don't yet know how leaving the EU will impact the UK and if some of the global corporations our economy is dependent on for jobs and wealth move that could have a devastating impact.

Fwiw I don't think either political side is focusing on all the right things. I've just seen the stuff about the leaked Labour manifesto and If they really are planning to nationalise energy companies and the railways I think that's a mistake and will create a massive distraction from some key issues. I'm also not convinced we have the cash for the cradle to grave education announced today.

We need to focus on and invest in the industries we have and do well (not the industries of the 1970s), our future industries and how to be less reliant on other economies for basics like food and energy. It's not popular, but financial services generate a huge amount for our economy and with a few notable exceptions (mortgage backed securities etc) it's something we do very well. Higher education is another and yet the government has actively been cutting the number of places for foreign students in recent years because it helps fudge the immigration figures.

At the risk of sounding slightly mad, If we could develop renewable energy sources not only would we be less reliant on imported oil and gas but we would be creating something else we can trade and that's a fundamental issue for Capitalist economies - we need something to sell for profit. Of course that needs investment at a whole variety of levels, not least education and research and development in our universities. I'm not suggesting that's The Answer, but rather more another possible part of the solution.

My family could afford to pay some more tax. I don't begrudge that if it means a family earning under £20k pay a bit less or get a bit more State help, or if a disabled person doesn't have to face the humiliation of yet another assessment by an outsourced company and the resulting appeals process to get the relatively tiny bit of money they need. I want a fairer society.

Apologies for such a garbled post. It's late, I've had a glass of wine and I have too many things to put in one post and have managed to explain none of them very well. I'm off to check out that leaked Labour manifesto stuff.

X-posted with a couple of posts.

I don't think every child has access to good schools. We know they don't from HMI and from the lower than expected attainment levels.

I like how my post has been cut and pasted and critiqued from the perspective that those are all Labour or socialist ideologies. Not all of them are :)

Moving thought your post was super interesting not far from my own position.

The energy thing is fascinating. I don't understand why the left leaning parties arent jumping all over this!!! Hugely popular, an opportunity to build a new industry that could employ lots of people and a way to reduce health issues particularly in those less fortunate. Imagine if they decided to make UK an electric car country and invested in factories, in batteries in charging infrastructure, in buses, in taxis. And backed up with decent storage that is round the corner you can make renewables a far larger part of the economy.
It wouldn't just be for fun for a green agenda this is now economically viable and could have huge implications in terms of science, innovation, education, manufacturing, jobs!!! This is why I currently hate corbyn, let's tax and spend in large amounts but to nationalise railways? To nationalise British gas? How about we bankrupt the energy companies with new better infrastructure. How about we ignore the railways that are a bit expensive in London but just aren't the thing the hurts people every day.
Let's create jobs and drive new industries not hark back to some BS of the 1970s that will just drive down innovation and jobs and make everyone poorer. God his stupidity and arrogance make me cross.

It's no surprise that this is exactly what is happeneing in Germany, in China by govt and in US this what the billionaires are investing in whilst we're discussing railways, gas bills and whether £80k is rich.
Please move tell me you're joining the Labour Party to drive change and innovation!?!?

The bit I'd upset most socialists on I think is I don't believe in the 'every'. Don't think it's possible at all or pays attention to human nature. I think as a society you put in place structures and fund them but you can't beat yourself up about those it doesn't help we keep trying but 'every' suggests a level of intervention into private lives and decisions that I simply don't think is welcome. At the moment those structures are under funded like most things in the UK but I'm not convinced they can be dramatically changed only incrementally improved under current budget constraints. (Even with more tax).

Very interesting posts....
I think a key problem with where Labour is at currently with Corbyn is that whereas its focus is on reducing inequality and improving health and education, there's a lack of interest in how you grow your economy to support that (such as throguh the development of green initiatives as outlined above), with their solution to the funding of their initiatives lazily being kept to taxing rich individuals and companies more.

Until Labour have a credible economic strategy that goes beyond Robin Hood tactics, they will not be a credible alternative government, but set to remain an idealistic pressure group who will even fail to provide the proper opposition this country needs.

I don't think every child has access to good schools. We know they don't from HMI and from the lower than expected attainment levels.

But this assumes HMI and expected attainment levels measure absolute rather than relative quality. For instance, Ofsted have raised the bar repeatedly and substantially over the years, such that a Grade 1 College ten years ago would struggle to get a Grade 2 today, and would very likely be Grade 3. Objectively, nothing would have changed, but the perception would be things had deteriorated.

By the way, I'm in favour of raising the bar, as i think we always have the capacity to improve, but it risks being misinterpreted as deterioration when organisations fail to keep up.