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 see how you can be a good person, with true moral altruistic intention, but I find it really hard quite honestly to associate socialism, which includes state control and ownership of the means of production, nationalisation ( and anti-capitalism in Marxism), with what many have talked about on this thread. It isn't socialism, it's being a decent person. Huge difference. Like those very rich people who organise gala balls wearing dresses that cost thousands, but raise huge amounts for Charities, very nice, but not socialist.

Doesn't bother me, EatsShit, I've always been a floating voter and won't be voting this time. I can't control whether there's an effective opposition or not so I'll just watch the passing show. That's my informed decision.

I doubt whether Labour's current core philosophy has much in common with the lives and aspirations of its voters. That's their problem, not mine.

A meh on all their houses.

I'm a single mum living in a 2 bed flat earning under £15k a year. I don't even own a car.

Anyone who is voting labour is fine with me, whether they're a millionaire or not.

Honestly I don't find it hypocritical. I find it more odd that some of the poor in my area vote Tory. sigh

Great post Ratonastick.

I'd say I'm fairly comfortable, earn an above average wage and generally vote lib-dem or labour, depending on which candidate has most chance of beating the tories. I'd love to live in a more equal society and would happily pay more taxes in a 'fair' system (whatever that is) but I'm buggered if I'm going to do it all on my own and disadvantage my kids in the process - they would just be poorer and the cats would be just as fat as ever.

I find it really hard quite honestly to associate socialism, which includes state control and ownership of the means of production, nationalisation ( and anti-capitalism in Marxism), with what many have talked about on this thread. It isn't socialism, it's being a decent person.

Quite, appearingnormal. I keep on describing myself as a centrist because that's what I am - it's massively misrepresenting what the left is to call "making sure people aren't hounded to death because they tried to claim disability benefits" socialism.

Champagne socialist is really a nasty little dogwhistle phrase designed to get the not very well off small c conservatives feeling jealous of wealthier, kinder people and voting like turkeys for Christmas instead.

Well this Turkey is off to the wine cellar to grab a bottle of bolly

Have a good evening all

I agree op. Grammar schools are elitist.

I'm a bit confused. Surely if you are a socialist you need the rich on board.

I personally dont vote labour as i disagree with taking from people who have worked hard. Neither of us grew up with a silver spoon but now have a good education, nice house & cars. We proved social mobility IS possible. My personal feeling in building more council houses is it only encourages people to stick as they are rather than striving for something be
better. However, i do admire people that want to share their wealth so fair play to the champagne socialists. I dont know why it would annoy you.

On the grammer school front - why is it wrong to have the opportunity for a better education? Its a bit odd to say lets keep the smart wealthy kids back so the others can catch up. Surely some privilege is ok?

If all schools were equally excellent, there wouldn't be a debate about grammar schools. And imo that's how it should be - excellence for everyone, regardless of where they live or how much money they have.

You're not thinking logically.

Labour"s core values are about acting in ways that are beneficial for the whole rather than a few. The fact that when the whole is better served the 'few' do better as well is often forgotten.

Think about two companies. There's 45 possible sales in the market.

One has a 10 person sales team that divides work up, helps each other perform and stay motivated, and each sales person makes 2 sales a day with the best two making 4. Because they are all sharing leads and encouraging each other, the team sells 28 items a day...that's like the Labour model of society.

The Tory model of society is have a sales team of 10, but only give a phone and leads to two sales people who manage to get 5 sales each.. their colleagues get none. The company makes 10 sales overall, the two 'top' sales people 'prove' their colleagues are 'worse' and so make the case that no income should be spent getting the other sales people phones, because they didn't generate any income, so the pattern repeats. The two sales people instead take 6 sales worth of company resources as bonuses. The second company is doing worse than the first, and the company's resources to invest are 4, compared to the first company' 28.

That's why clever well off people support labour. Under Labour i have bought houses, started pensions, generated huge incomes in collaborative teams etc. Under Tories i am living on foodbank working for less that i need to live on.

If all schools were equally excellent, there wouldn't be a debate about grammar schools. And imo that's how it should be - excellence for everyone, regardless of where they live or how much money they have.

^^ Absolutely this.

On Grammar schools - I live in a totally Comprehensive LA. It is also both Tory and one of the highest achieving LAs. Lots of pupils go to the best Unis. And whilst some schools are "better" than others, even in most of the best (some are Catholic or there is a State boarding school which favours Army children) there are students from Council and other social housing.

scary

I like your analogy. However, basic maths dictates the first team in your scenario gets 24 sales unless the two top people make 6 sales a piece. And if it were that simple, labour would have sorted this out. News flash: they didn't. They had a very very long time to do it in. And absolutely oodles of cash. Instead they spent like hell.

And how the fuck can you explain that the labour government saved no money in BOOM times pre 2008 and actually left the country with a larger trade deficit than when they were elected in? Surely this would have been a time to stash cash for a rainy day!!

Don't you remember the note from ex-Treasury secretary when labour was voted out "there's no money left"?

I'll be voting lib dem but I won't vote labour because labour squanders money. The tories are now doing the exact reverse by cutting back because labour didn't bother and it's also really hurting the country. Both parties have helped to run the country to the ground.

Scary
Your analogy is exactly why people vote Labour and they flawed logic is exactly why they are wrong. This has been proven across the world with socialist run countries failing and producing worse economic outcomes for the poorest people as well as average people.
The reason is that people are fundamentally lazy and selfish, they look after their own before others. They are prepared to spend a % of their income on preventing starving in the streets, but not enough to give others the same lifestyle as themselves. When top tax rates were 98%, people stopped working rather than pay those rates.
In actuality, your scenario 1 would end up with those who believed they were the best salespeople leaving to company 2, leaving behind people who are unable to make any sales, so the company goes bankrupt. Name me a company that operates as per your example, because, if it worked, companies would do it.

The whole grammar schools or not grammar schools is such an archaic way of thinking about how we are going to educate our children.

Grammar schools may have been appropriate in the 60s, but surely today we should have a wider range of schools teaching much more appropriately for the world we live in today. And it shouldn't be muddled at all with whether you are labour or not. As a previous poster said/ the problem that labour had with the grammar schools was not with the grammar schools, it was with the inequality of a system that effectively sorted children at too young an age and then only invested in the so-called clever ones. Not really a fair society?

caroldecker, Denmark is a good example of socialism working - high taxes and small businesses thrive. Good welfare.

And if it were that simple, labour would have sorted this out. News flash: they didn't. They had a very very long time to do it in. And absolutely oodles of cash. Instead they spent like hell.

I keep being told by Govt. spokespeople that the current Govt. are spending 'more than ever before' on education and health and yet both are in a big bloody mess.

Re. squandering money.

The Conservatives have borrowed more (absolutely and on average) and paid back less while in power over the last 70 years:

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

(which is all the more interesting when you consider the amount of national assets that were sold off to boost the coffers under Conservative rule)

"I personally dont vote labour as i disagree with taking from people who have worked hard." Oh come off it! The hardest workers are those on low wages! Cleaners, carers, manual unskilled workers, shop staff...

As for tories understanding economics better, are you insane?

(Don't you remember the note from ex-Treasury secretary when labour was voted out "there's no money left"? - that was a long standing in joke that had been done for years, total idiocy taking it seriously labour doesn't 'squander' money it spends where it's needed, the nhs, education, emergency services etc cannot run on fresh air! If you have a house with a leaking roof you pay to get it repaired, if the cupboards are bare you go shopping, you don't sit in a wet house starving so you can say 'oh but look at all the money I've saved' while the house collapses around you from water damage! 🙄).

In real terms uk wages have dropped so much only Greece in Europe is worse.

Under last labour govt deficit was in low billions under cons it's now in the trillions.

Lowest level of house building since the 1920's pushing house prices through the roof!

Huge increase in food bank use (I'd never even seen a food bank before tories got in and I live in a very poor area)

and that's all without even mentioning election fraud and tax dodging in the billions

In my opinion labour is RETURNING to its core values, new labour was centrist at best but generally Tory lite (I never voted new labour). I don't see anything wrong in higher taxes, nationalisation of core industries & services etc

Grammar schools are not and never will be part of a fair society and if there's grammar schools in an area the 'other' schools are NOT comprehensives they're essentially secondary moderns. ALL state schools should get fair funding, support and resources. A true comprehensive system works far better than writing a bunch of 11 year olds off before they've had a chance to develop.

I'm 44 I've been at times fairly well off, am currently very very poor and struggling. I don't care what kind of socialist someone is.

It's the poor/very poor voting Tory I REALLY struggle to get my head round and in not one case have they been able to give me a decent reason why they vote Tory, it's often 'cos I don't really understand politics' 'my parents always did' etc

"Name me a company that operates as per your example" erm every call centre ever!

We live in a county with the Grammar School system so no matter whether you go to a GS or a Secondary Modern (refuse to call them comps because they are not) you are in that system. It doesn't mean you agree with that system!

Champagne socialist is really a nasty little dogwhistle phrase designed to get the not very well off small c conservatives feeling jealous of wealthier, kinder people and voting like turkeys for Christmas instead.

This ^ -- can't remember who said it. And what EatsShitsandLeaves said in several posts.

It was me, chavelita. I'm a cheap white wine centrist with aspirations to champagne socialist. I know a lot of them and they're got much more coherent political positions than right wing voters with limited means.

scary

What about if, in your interesting analogy, there genuinely are some salespeople who are much better than others? They work longer hours, put more time into improving their skills, have more of an aptitude for the job etc. Company 3 comes along and siphons off the best salespeople from both companies to create a more successful company that, in turn, leads to companies 1 and 2 failing.

That seems to be more the reality in terms of market forces. The better salespeople now in company 3 may be the wealthy "champagne" solicalists, while the people left behind will be much worse off and possibly unemployed (or employed in lower paid support roles in company 3). While those wealthy salespeople may be prepared to vote labour and care about society, they may very well not want to change the fact that they are working for a better company etc.

I think that illustrates one of the problems that can make wealthy people voting labour appear hypocritical. They may agree with the overall policy of limited wealth redistribution, but ultimately they are more likely to want to maintain the status quo in other ways. They are likely to think that, while people in low paid jobs work extremely hard, those people probably don't have the skills or aptitude (or desire) to do the kind of professional jobs that command the highest salaries. That therefore creates a sense of having deserved their wealth and success more.

Just playing devil's advocate really, because I do agree that there is nothing wrong with being wealthy, using selective education, and voting labour. But I am not entirely sure that all those parents who profess a dislike for grammar schools while using them are really being truthful when the current system is actually suiting them very well.