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.

If Company 3 took the 4 'best' salespeiple, they would have 4 sales people caoable in theory of generating 18 sales.

Company 1 & 2 merge using 1s management techniques, and ends up with 16 'bad' sales staff each making 2 sales .each..and end up with 32 sales.. ...that's 50in the market. My example had 45 total. My guess is company 3 has the nastiest culture, and is the most recent entrant, so sacks it's weakest salesperson, and ends up making 14 sales. Those sales people are still negotiating hard for bonuses, and so company 3 is now rinsed for 18 bonuses ..6 each for sales team.. but can't pay them as only 14 sales raised. This is how the conservatives run the economy.

Scary If it was true, it would happen. The Nordic model is interesting, as they do manage some sort of socialism without disaster, but no other country has managed, and many have tried.
This country does not vote socialist often and gets rid of them when it does.
On borrowing, the recent Labour government borrowed hundreds of billions on PFI (£300 bn off balance sheet) which is impacting current budgets. if this had been borrowed centrally, it would have reduced costs overall and not impact current education and NHS spending.
Conservative governments may have to borrow more to repair the economic damage caused by the previous Labour administration. Not e Blair's government ran an early surplus, caused by previous Conservative fiscal policies and a promise to follow them in the 1997 election campaign. Much of today's spending

It only works in Norway because of the great oil wealth.

Agree. Parents have some v liberal friends, v wealthy. They are outraged by the return of grammar schools. They live next door to the highest rated state school in the county. They educated their kids privately because they themselves went to private school, it is what their family does. I have no issue with that but I do in them laying down the law about grammar schools (which I'm not particularly in favour of either I just find it all v double standards).

I had an interesting chat with a female lawyer recently. (They are London champagne socialists). It was fascinating her describing the agonies she went through in picking a selective fee paying school for her child at 11+. I just about never meet people like that. (I am a Conservative and quite happily pay school fees as I save the sttae the cost of my children's education and I believe in personal responsiblity and doing what is best for your children but clearly it was very hard for her to make her choice due to principle).

It does happen you dolt. Collaborative companies, European countries and us (because so much of what Labour have achieved using enshrined in law) all operate a LOOOOOONG way from the Tories idea, and in any case, most companies who get the model wrong don't last long.

What do you mean 'we hardly ever vote socialist and then we vote them out again..? It's pretty much 50-50 with the conservatives largely presiding over mass unemployment and poverty, greater threats of war, devaluation of the pound and usually high inflation..which hasn't happened (yet).

Mind you, I like grammar schools I went to school with chair-throwing thickies, fag-stunted evil little midgets and narrow-minded village clans who would convince twelve or more families to not talk to whichever 'outsider" they felt thought was too good for them. 'thick' or 'useless' was the most fashionable status at my school, at it was tiring sometimes.

I'm well off but sent my DC to the local comp even though we could easily have afforded private and they got places at the grammar school in the neighbouring county. I think that might make me a champagne socialist. 🥂🍾

I think grammar school and schools that descriminste based on religion are awful and have no place in modern society.

They select the children based on academic test, not behaviour for grammar schools.

You still get chair throwing, bullying, violence, mental health problems, eating disorders and even short people and those who have families who have lived and feuded locally for generations at grammar schools.

I have first hand experience of this as I did go to a grammar school. I don't know why people think being clever makes people less likely to be badly behaved.

But then I don't understand why people think putting the top 20% of children who took one test on one day aged ten or eleven would make education better for all children. Ignoring all the evidence that says educational outcomes overall are less good, simple common sense says it can't possibly do that because there is nothing being done by splitting off some children to actually improve the education provided.

Wonder if the OP thinks you shouldn't protest about our government's appalling policy towards Syrian refugees unless you are prepared to have at least one of them come and live in the spare room.

it is simplistic to suggest that rich people cannot be socialists. There are plenty of working class people who vote Tory - should they be accused of hypocrisy too. There must be people who send their children to state comprehensives who also vote Tory - does that make them hypocrites for not overtly supporting grammar schools?

Oh. I do kind of think 'yeah if they'd had grammar schools, I'd be as rich as Prince (was) ..

It would have been nice, though, to not have had to spend all my school time pretending not to be clever or able.

In my school you didn't want to be thought of as too clever either as the teachers liked to tell us. Inspiring place

Bad schools are bad schools. No child deserves a bad school: each and every child deserves to reach their full potential in a safe and nurturing environment that focuses on and responds to need.

Some brilliant points here

it is simplistic to suggest that rich people cannot be socialists

Of course. But what this thread is really about the wealthy socialists values that change when it specifically affects them.

Grammar schools are a case in point. I have a close friend who spent decades railing against 'rich' Tories moving house into the catchment of a good school. They they have children and sheepishly move house into an expensive catchment area. of a good school.

It hypocrisy, because of course my children are different.

Scary The country voted socialist in 1945, 1966 and 1974. Not sure where you are getting 50:50 from. Blair was leftist, but not socialist.

The parents may be as socialist as the come. However it is completely wrong to play politics with your dc and use them as pawns.

Just send them wherever THEY will be happiest and do best. Anyone who priorities their beliefs over their child's wellbeing is stupid and adhorent.

*The parents may be as socialist as the come. However it is completely wrong to play politics with your dc and use them as pawns.

Just send them wherever THEY will be happiest and do best. Anyone who priorities their beliefs over their child's wellbeing is stupid and adhorent.*

Yes! You do your best in the system you're in.

Calling people hypocrites for using grammar schools if they vote Lib Dem or Labour is like saying that people who believe it would be better to pay more tax for a more equal society should just give the government extra money out of their pay packet each month. It doesn't work in isolation.

jellyfrizz, you speak so much sense.

Willowtree makes a good point about socialism having to bring the rich along too (or certainly some of them). This is what Blair and Mandelson understood. Can't remember where I read this originally but one of the arguments for child benefit etc remaining a universal benefit was that to get support from the general public for making benefits available, they have to feel that they also get something out of the system and that that's not restricted to others (even if more is given to others in greater need, as it should be). If they don't feel that they won't vote for and support that system. I'm all for taxing the rich but that has to be put into a context where they feel that they're only seen as a source of redistribution income and get nothing in return. That puts off the wealthiest voters and also those who aspire to be rich.

If labour voters put their money where their mouth is and sent their kids to the local state school regardless, it would raise the quality of all schools. It is hypocritical to vote labour and send your kids to private school or pay for extra tuition to get them into grammar school. I totally understand why people do it mind, but at least own up to the hypocrisy of it.

If labour voters put their money where their mouth is and sent their kids to the local state school regardless, it would raise the quality of all schools.

How so?

I could see your point if EVERYONE had to send their kids to the local state school but I don't see how it would make a difference to the quality of all schools if just Labour voters send their kids to local state schools.

supermoon, that isn't logical; why would somebody sacrifice their child's future in the altar of their own beliefs. In an ideal world all schools would cater for the diversity of our children, however the education system isn't working like that at the moment, and it doesn't mean we should send a child to a substandard school just because we believe it should be better funded. Similar argument for the health service actually.

For all the wealthy, six figure+ salary earners on here saying they are happy to pay their taxes, two questions;

1 - do you employ an accountant/financial adviser to minimise your tax liability? Surely if you are happy to pay taxes, you won't be trying to avoid paying them, however legal that avoidance might be?

2 - how do you feel about working hard all of your life to buy a nice house and give your children a better life, only to have a Labour government take 40% of that house (which you've already paid taxes on to buy), which will not only help all who use the NHS, education etc, but will also prop up the second, third, fourth generation of people who are stuck in a cycle of benefit dependence? Simply giving them more benefits does not raise them out of poverty and deprivation (been there, done that), but motivation and support, and the real prospect of a job does.