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.

Redible conomic structure? One has to look to Tory failure on national debt to realise austerity is a not very well hidden means of keeping the poor in their place. National debt has increased hugely under Tories and given this was justification for their savage cuts to public sector, they perhaps need to revisit whether further cuts are in national interest.
Self determination is fine if you have a reasonably level playing field but we don't. Schools do their best but a school in Hastings serving a very deprived community with huge social problems gets about a third per child compared to London.
Coconutella is right about changing goalposts being used to undermine perceptions about state schooling too. Many very good state schools do a fantastic, inclusive job with a very mixed cohort of pupils, less funding and the problems created by coastal deprivation. They are unfairly judged against the same framework and expectations as a highly selective school that cherry picks the affluent or aspiring immigrant children, who have significant additional funding and where parents are very engaged with education.
The NHS is not failing. On every possible metric it comes close to the top ranking globally, despite chronic underfunding. The government is failing the NHS. The myth about failure is put out by the press and endorsed by the government to secure their own position to impose further cuts and reforms.

Seriously? People can't vote Labour if they are wealthy and send their children to grammar schools? What a load of crap!
Why on earth should they share their wealth; perhaps they are surgeons and cancer specialists...do you really think they should be on £10 an hour?
I will be sending my children to grammar schools (if they are academically able) because they are the best schools in my area. I don't feel bad about that and never will. Plenty of lower working class people attend grammar schools.
Oh and I'd buy a 4x4 if i had the money ;) Do you share your money? Doubt it very much

One has to look to Tory failure on national debt to realise austerity is a not very well hidden means of keeping the poor in their place.

Following the 2008 financial crash, the multi-billion bank bailout (carried out by a Labour Government) and the Great Recession thereafter, with the deficit inherited by the Tories in 2010, national debt was always going to rise substantially... Blaming the Tories for this and their endeavour to cut public spending to help deal with it is unfair unless you can provide a credible alternative of how Labour would have done things differently. Does anyone genuinely think that had Corbyn been in power since 2010 that the deficit would be sorted with national debt falling?!?

All this "austerity's not working!" Is a bit like sitting in your armchair watching the Olympics and criticising Tom Daley for his poor execution of a triple tuck (or whatever) whilst all you've done is belly flop off a 3 metre springboard at the local lido when a teenager.

I think we need more people who earn well to vote something other than Tory! So more champagne socialists (as you put it).

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/

I think if you look at a comparison between Labour and Tory borrowing then Tories do much worse over time. Nothing to do with recession.

Over the years I've presented a lot of facts and statistics to demonstrate that George Osborne has been doing a terrible job as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that his ideological austerity agenda is spectacularly failing to achieve what he claimed it was going to when he came to power in 2010.

One of the main problems I've faced is that the facts and statistics I've presented contradict the almost ubiquitous mainstream media narratives that "George Osborne is doing a good job under difficult circumstances" and that "there is no alternative" to his ideological austerity agenda.

People find it difficult to accept the evidence that I'm presenting because it conflicts so badly with the narratives they've been conditioned to accept as true through their endless repetition in the mainstream media.

One of the assertions that people really struggle to accept is that George Osborne has created more new debt than every Labour government in history combined. This one is particularly hard for people to come to terms with because it conflicts with the (totally inaccurate) "folk wisdom" that "Labour always spend loads of money, then the Tories have to tidy up the mess". Further confusion is added by the way that Tory politicians (including the Prime Minister David Cameron) try to conflate the meanings of "the debt" and "the deficit" which are economic terms with completely different meanings.

George Osborne has created more debt than every Labour government in history

A quick look at the economic evidence reveals that only two Labour governments have ever left office leaving the national debt higher as a percentage of GDP than it was when they came to power, and all of the others have lowered it as a percentage of GDP.

On the two occasions that Labour oversaw increases in the national debt as a percentage of GDP there were the mitigating circumstances of huge global financial crises. The Ramsay MacDonald government of 1929-31 coincided with global fallout from the Wall Street Crash (they left a 12% increase in the debt to GDP ratio), and the last few years of the Blair-Brown government of 1997-2010 coincided with the 2008 financial sector insolvency crisis (they left an 11% increase). The other Labour governments all reduced the scale of the national debt, Clement Attlee's government of 1945-51 reduced the national debt by 40% of GDP despite having to rebuild the UK economy from the ruins of the Second World War; Harold Wilson's 1964-70 government reduced the national debt by 27% of GDP; and even the Wilson-Callaghan government of 1974-79 managed to reduce the debt by 4% of GDP.

The majority of Labour governments have ended up reducing the national debt, and the two that didn't happened to coincide with the biggest global financial crisis of the 20th Century and the biggest global financial crisis so far in the 21st Century.

When we come to look at George Osborne's own record as Chancellor of the Exchequer it is an established fact that in his first 3 years as Chancellor, Osborne managed to add more to the national debt than the Labour Party did in the 13 preceding years.

And what did Osborne do in 2010? The mistake he made was taking 850k out of tax payments by raising personal allowances (note this cut didn't apply to those earning over 150k who don't have tax allowances). And increasing the thresholds for paying tax.
What Osborne got wrong is what needs to be corrected. 5% on top rate of tax sure. But for the changes people want to see you need to see a wider number of people paying tax and more of it. But as everyone rightly points out most of those people are struggling.
Osborne was trying to offset austerity of the welfare state by incentivising work, and guess what it didn't work well enough the results of finl crisis and then Greek crises in 2011 and 2012 meant he did not get the economic tail winds.
I don't believe Labour Party would have done better. He tried to take lib dems and centre ground with him on tough policy.

I joined the Labour Party about 2 years ago motherintraining. I'm also a member of WEP (just about hanging on in there) and I support a greener agenda. Previously I have voted Lib Dem and Green but I've never voted for a winning candidate in any election, even when I voted for the incumbent I'm more Harriet Harman than Jeremy Corbyn on the political spectrum although I do feel what he has been saying about health and social care has been important and I think that has made a positive difference.

I totally agree about the credible economic strategy and that is a big sticking point for me. I don't care for John McDonnell much and anyone who refers to Mao's Little Red Book in any serious political context either has poor judgement or is staggeringly ignorant.

I think JC's team is all wrong. The Labour Party needs to work together and embrace the wide political spectrum within the party. Yes, they need some core fundamental policies and education, health and social care are good ones because they have cross party appeal and they are what got JC elected so they are popular but there needs to be realistic, strong and credible policies around the economy to pay for this and to future proof our economy.

I was also quite careful in my post about what I'd like the world to be like not to specify where I think we are now. For me, most of these things are on a spectrum and some are closer to ideal than others.

I do agree with coconutella that HMI isn't everything and we can't just move the goal posts and say everything's ok or not ok (I was furious when the government redefined child poverty to make themselves look better. That didn't suddenly give a child new school shoes or enough to eat who didn't have it before). But we all know there are failing schools and we know from Sutton Trust and others that Social Mobility is at an all time low and some children are not reaching their full potential and these are more likely to be disadvantaged children. I posted a link about this further up the thread that is worth a read.

We know they don't from HMI and from the lower than expected attainment levels

The latter is a relative measure of quality.

Thank you Crumbs, keep up the good work, hopefully people will eventually wake up and start listening [*]

Interesting analysis on debt, which shows Labour a historically is not bad when it comes to managing debt levels. However, debt is not necessarily a bad thing, only unmanageable debt. In fact a manageable level of debt is essential for economic growth, and at the heart of captialism.

Whilst interesting, what Labour and the Tories did regarding debt in the 50s or 60s is little more than of academic interest. It doesn't change the fact that I don't believe Labour under Corbyn have a credible strategy for reducing the deficit, and (notwithstanding their other faults) I'd far sooner trust the Tories with this. If Corbyn had been PM since 2010, I don't see any reason to believe we'd have balanced the books by now... on the contrary - his insistence of no cuts would have led to public spending ballooning far above currrnt levels, and I have seen nothing in his economic plans to lead me to believe he would have led the country to a sustainable economic boom to offset the extra spending.

I'm going to reserve judgement until I see the finalised manifesto for each party.

Moving, coconut, jelly
Just want to say thank you in particular have really enjoyed your insights. It's so hard in current political climate when you have a generous human spirit but faced in incompetence or opportunism by those who represent us and your arguments have all been thoroughly insightful and made me pause and really think. I am not here for the election and will vote with a postal vote and I'm certainly going to pause for thought. My candidate I darent say who but a safe labour seat.... I may not impact much but I will vote with purpose and bear in mind compassion and hopes as well as reality.

And all others cos I now sound biased I've enjoyed this thread. All aspects of it.

To answer the OP of course champagne socialists are terribly annoying. It they are fundamental to a social contract required to enact socialist policies. Ina democracy you will never be able to tax the rich unwillingly.... you have to make them want to help everyone else voluntarily or society fails.

Here's an utterly radical idea - let's implement a PAYF tax system; those who want to can contribute more, those who feel they cannot don't have to.

Put a flat rate on everybody earning over say £15k (including out of work welfare; that should be counted as taxable income or paid as the net equivalent). If people receiving welfare payments were seen as equal to those working then there would be far less animosity towards 'them' ( I have absolutely no problem with welfare for those in need; it should be paid quickly and efficiently once need is established, and stopped as soon as possible, never allowed to be a lifestyle choice BUT that does not mean no long term payments for those in actual need).

Having direct experience, I also believe that a portion of welfare should be paid in food vouchers that cannot be used for alcohol or tobacco - I'm sure I'll be flamed for suggesting we take away personal choice and responsibility but it is our collective responsibility to ensure that those in need are fed, especially children, and this might actually make a small difference. Yes, some will find a way round it, but some won't and we will be feeding people.

Then see the system collapse as the extremely wealthy socialists suddenly find that they have a myriad of excuses as to why they are not volunteering to pay more. Let's face it, they could currently contribute voluntarily via donations direct to hospitals or schools, but I bet the vast majority do not. I'm not talking about tax deductible donations via vast charities which are swallowed up in admin fees and CEO salaries, I'm talking about a payment to a hospital or school that they can use there and then for equipment or enrichment - schools are struggling to provide basic equipment for arts and if wealthy parents volunteered to contribute it could make a huge difference. This is actual socialism; taking personal responsibility for making small improvements on a local level, rather than forced socialism where we all do it because the government makes us.

Then see the system collapse as the extremely wealthy socialists suddenly find that they have a myriad of excuses as to why they are not volunteering to pay more.

But username humans are inherently selfish - it's human nature, socialists recognise this and understand that is why there is need for an accountable government to do the sharing.

I've enjoyed it too mother. I hate those threads where people just repeat the usual sound bites and call each other stupid.

Username of course wealthy parents contribute to their children's schools- how do you think the majority of independents pay for new art installations, real tennis courts and the cricket pay refurbishments?

I get the idea of vouchers but can also see they would create stigma. They would probably only be redeemable at major supermarkets so disadvantage small retailers. They'd also disadvantage the very poorest who can't get to the large out of town retail parks.

You can't fund the teachers and nurses so desperately needed from donations because of their own job security. Major charities like Macmillan can but not the local primary. It also doesn't feature in the training costs and recruiting difficulties most hospitals and schools outside London face.

Should, of course not be a flat rate of taxation. Those who have the ability to spend more should pay more. I still think increases in inheritance taxes is way forward. Nobody needs to inherit anything and we'd have a far stronger meritocracy without inherited wealth.

I disagree with your comment regarding inheritance.
Some people do need to inherit to secure their future.
My friends parents died just as she turned 18. She had no means if support. Why shouldn't she inherit the house to enable her to continue living in her family home?

In my extended family of about thirty people, only one person works full time.
It is evident that there is a lot of "you should give /pay for me this that and the other because you have more money than me"
I've been told "no I don't want to work more hours" or "well I'd rather be a singer songwriter" but still demanding things off other people.
They really believe they should have state help.

Yes, it is a psychological socialist view - the state will provide, not I am responsible for keeping myself and my own family. You only change that through a range of carrots and sticks.

One reason the tax allowance went to over £11k was because average families getting family credit were getting £2k and paying back £1k in tax which was a bit of a silly system. the simplicity of higher starting tax bands makes sense (and no tax allowance at all for higher earners as rightly was pointed out above). Also national insurance contributions on earned income kick in at about £7300 of income.

I suppose we could keep increasing the single person tax allowance and gradually get rid of child tax credits whilst encouraging people into work particularly as we are going to see some employee shortages soon I expect so we might well be moving to a position where there will be jobs for those who want them.

of course wealthy parents contribute to their children's schools- how do you think the majority of independents pay for new art installations, real tennis courts and the cricket pay refurbishments?

Wealthy parents contributing to independent schools does not help state schools to improve their funding streams; it's the "I'm alright Jack" attitude which does not fit the socialist model. If the wealthy parents not only contributed to the independent school they are lucky enough to be able to afford AND also gave to a local comp, that would be spreading their wealth.

Crumbs1 you make a very good point about the vouchers, but at the end of the day, stigma vs hungry- I know which one I'd choose.

Sorry, posted too soon. Small shops accept milk tokens, and other nationally issued discount vouchers don't they? Is there any evidence to suggest they would not accept government issued food vouchers?

Username the wealthy parents and schools was a bit tongue in cheek. Do small shops accept milk vouchers? I don't know. We should not take benefits back to level where we only just assuage hunger. That would be a very detrimental step, surely?

So would those supporting the Tory 'each man in his castle' be happy if we only had bare minimum benefits - a food shop by voucher, school uniform by voucher, prepaid keys for heating and electricity with no benefits above hunger line? No support for working parents, no housing support with each family looking after their own. I'd be much better off but it wouldn't sit comfortably at all.

I think it's normal to support a party but not be in agreement with all their policies.