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.

Sorry I'll rephrase that, if middle class labour voters with plenty of money, chose state over private, it would raise the standard of state schools and make it a fairer system

It is human nature to act in a way that benefits your own situation. Humans are essentially selfish.

That's kind of the point of socialism IMO, it's understanding that you need an overall 'power' i.e. government to be the ones to make things a bit fairer. It doesn't work on an individual level.

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?

Which is why I won't be voting Conservative. Cutting funding of things like SureStart, youth schemes in deprived areas, sports, libraries, a narrow curriculum etc. etc. is not going to help people escape the cycle of benefit dependence. Education and skill building is.

There will always be some people who are stuck in the cycle of dependence, and we should tackle this certainly. There will always be people who are vulnerable through disability, mental illness, physical illness, caring for others etc. I am happy that the money I have been lucky enough to be able to earn should go to help others who haven't had the good fortune to be able to help themselves.ndurely that is what society is all about, we all do our best to help each other.

It's not just choosing grammars or private schools it's buying your way into the best catchment you can afford and bypassing certain schools. The vast maj do one or the other.

Some just like to focus on grammars to make themselves feel better about their choices and keep their supposed moral superiority of being so "caring'.

You might have all you need, but that doesn't stop you caring about those that don't.

I send my dc to the local comp. Could probably send them private if I worked FT, just. But that comp is within a hugely expensive housing area with a catchment of 1 mile for 1500 places. It's a fantastic school. Would I send them to the "local comp" if we didn't live here and the option was a failing school? No. It's easy to say it when your own options are good.

I feel very lucky we are in that position. But that doesn't stop me caring for those who don't have access to good education.

It does make you a hypocrite to some extent. But I think it's about working with what you've got. I can't cure the ills of the UK on my own. DH and I are some of the very few here who are more left wing. Our vote goes in vain every time. But we will still vote that way. We are here yes through studying hard, working hard. But I think there's a huge element of luck to it.

We bought this house ten years ago, at what was considered "the top of the market". We took out loans as well as a mortgage. But over that ten years, wages have stayed the same and the house is now worth £100k more. No way would we have found that money now. We simply wouldn't be living here.

I feel I need to give my dc the best chance they can get to survive in this world. I feel helpless to have any effect on the direction the UK is going in. It makes no difference what I believe in.

Some just like to focus on grammars to make themselves feel better about their choices and keep their supposed moral superiority of being so "caring'.

Do people really think like that? Moral superiority? I do what's best for my family and am not ashamed of that. I also believe that what's best for my family is having a more equal society. I don't think that is something that can be done on an individual level however.

We don't have grammar schools here but I would certainly send my children to one if that was the system in my area and it was the best fit for them. I don't see that as conflicting with my wish for excellent education for all. You have to do your best in the system you are in. I wouldn't be doing my best for society to allow my children to have a crappy education just because the current government can't get their act together.

My children also attended private schools for years (not really out of choice as we were in other countries).

Jelly I completely agree that investment and intervention needs to be from an early age, but the money needs to be there first. High wages in one geographic area can become barely a living wage in another ( London and south east).

If you impose punitive taxes on those who are earning well but struggling to afford housing and living costs, then the move is counterproductive - nurses in London earn circa £25k which seems like a fab salary, but some are resorting to food banks because they cannot afford to support themselves. If taxes are used to raise their wages to London-liveable, and provide better healthcare, and provide outstanding non-selective education, etc etc then there won't be enough left to pay for everything that we will demand; when money is available it is always sucked up and spent and there is never enough because demand increases.

How do the high earners using PE feel about the possibility of their fees increasing by 20% under Labour? Will you be able to continue to afford it, or will you find somewhere to minimise your tax liability in another area, effectively negating the policy? For those who are JAM and won't have the luxury of being able to do that, their children will be deprived of that opportunity.

It's a delicate balance and in my opinion none of the political parties have policies which can realistically support all of our expectations for a good health service, good education and fair welfare support, but the conservative model is more likely to provide fairness all round, once the money is there.

It's a delicate balance and in my opinion none of the political parties have policies which can realistically support all of our expectations for a good health service, good education and fair welfare support, but the conservative model is more likely to provide fairness all round, once the money is there.

I have seen no evidence for that either historically or in the current climate.

And not making nurses pay to train would be a start to help them income wise.

usernamealreadytaken IDK how you can male statements like that and expect to be taken seriously.

DJ because I have worked myself out of growing up in poverty. Not just 'not enough for a holiday or new 4x4' poverty, but actual no food, no heating, second hand clothes and underwear, no Christmas presents poverty, where my paranoid schizophrenic, alcoholic father was given generous benefits to feed and house his family but chose instead to invest in Guinness and tobacco and sod the rest of us. If welfare had been paid in rent and food stamps, my mother and I would not have had to go without meals and had the threat of eviction from our damp barely furnished council terrace hanging over us on a regular basis. My reaction to my upbringing was to pull myself out and rise; for those stuck in the current welfare trap there is little similar incentive as they are able to afford to live and some even have foreign holidays (apparently lack of holidays is a poverty marker now, FFS).

Welfare should support the very most vulnerable; those who are genuinely sick and disabled and cannot or do not want to work, the very young and the very old BUT we also need to build on personal social responsibility - we need to take care of our young and old and not just demand that the rich pay higher taxes so that the government can pay care workers to do that for us, absolving us of the responsibility.

I think you have to do your best for your children now, and try and make things better long term by voting.

BUT we also need to build on personal social responsibility - we need to take care of our young and old

I agree but I don't see how you equate that with the Conservatives? Social Care is currently, under the Conservatives, one of the biggest causes for concern (along with the shitty state of education and the NHS).

Sending your child to the local state school is not'sacrificing your child at the alter of your own beliefs'! They still get an education!

And not making nurses pay to train would be a start to help them income wise.

I can think of a couple of other ones to help the NHS. Offer more part-time, funded courses (there are a lot of mums out there, well educated, desperate for a 2nd career).

Stop insisting all staff sign contracts for 24/7 shifts - when I worked there, they lost loads of nurses to the private sector, simply because they refused to offer set shifts so that they could organise childcare. It is impossible for most people with young dc to organise childcare for random 24/7 shifts.

Jelly you are spectacularly missing the point - WE should be looking after our young and old, not expecting the government to pay other people to do so. The government is having to pick up the bill for us being too busy to help our elderly neighbours and support the young struggling mum next door.

Yes, like in education, there are loads of ways to make it better without necessarily involving lots of spending.

e.g. Not changing policy in education every ten minutes would help students and teachers and make education better for all in state education.

It's all just really badly managed at the moment.

Jelly you are spectacularly missing the point - WE should be looking after our young and old, not expecting the government to pay other people to do so.

No, I understand the point. What I don't see is how Conservatives have done anything to improve that. It is worse than ever.

And yes, I put my money where my mouth is; I looked after my abusive father when he wasn't sick enough to qualify for social care, right up until he attacked me and had a psychotic episode when I was 39 wks PG. I looked in every week or more often on my elderly neighbour, who used her life savings by the age of 90 and could not afford to pay for her home help as regularly as she needed the help. I stop and talk with the homeless on our city streets, and tell them where the local hostels and help centres are, and where they can get a hot meal if they want it; I give them no money but will buy food if they don't want to go to a shelter. I care and I contribute, but I can no longer bring myself to vote Labour.

You can have money and have liberal views at the same time...

You can have money and care about other people who are living in poverty...

You have no idea whether or not they make large charitable contributions or otherwise use their money and time for good causes. You're making assumptions about them because they're wealthy.

I don't know why you care so much that people with money might hold certain political views that aren't the stereotypical "norm". Leave them to their views and opinions which are not made any less valid by their income or lifestyles.

It's not like other parties are saying, abandon your young and old, it's ok we'll look after them.

Personally I think we need all the socialists we can get. Champagne, gin, tee-total ...

^ this

Jelly it has nothing to do with the government or how I vote, it has to do with my social conscience. I believe that under a Labour government fewer people are motivated to actually step up and help, because 'the government' will take care of it, which in turn traps people in a never ending cycle of dependency.