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 care and I contribute, but I can no longer bring myself to vote Labour.

I'm not sure I will either. I really can't see how Conservatives are going to make anything you talk about better though. There are other parties.

Don't know if this point has already been made as haven't looked through the whole thread but it is perfectly possible to send your child to a grammar whilst being opposed to them if you live in an area where there are only grammars or secondary moderns.

People who say this is hypocrisy are those who want to pretend that comprehensives and secondary moderns are the same when they are not.

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.

I don't understand this. If people are supported to achieve from the start (SureStart, libraries, youth schemes, sports schemes, a full and varied curriculum etc. etc.) they are more likely to be valuable members of society.

Why would fewer people be willing to step up and help a neighbour in need if there is a Labour government?

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

I think that's exactly what Labour engineers; state funded dependency. Higher taxes to pay for other people to discharge your moral obligations. If we all worked at looking after our vulnerable at an early stage, it would save the NHS and social care system a fortune, and that money could be spent on those who genuinely need it. If you pop in on your elderly neighbour every week and have a cup of tea and help with their shopping, and six other neighbours do the same, then there will be less need for paid staff to do this and their time would be freed for looking after those more in need.

But we have a Conservative government and people haven't started popping in on their elderly neighbours have they?

Higher taxes to pay for other people to discharge your moral obligations.

And what happens when people don't step in? The whole point of state funded social care is so that people don't suffer when their family/neighbours etc are unable or unwilling to help.

username, love it. As a full time working single mum earning a crust, when do you realistically think I am going to have a cup of tea and do the shopping for my elderly neighbour? Agree with the others, there is a lot of kindness going on already, but the govt would do well to help us out a bit where there is need. Do you know - the only day today help available to me for support with an exceptionally challenging child with ADHD is from a charity. This is not right. This is exactly the sort of help our taxes should help fund. And there are others in much worse situations than me. That's what our taxes should help. It's about helping those who are vulnerable, not keeping people in dependency.

Hmm. I earn a decent income, live in a decent house, drive a decent car. We're not loaded but we're not badly off. We can afford for the DC to play musical instruments, join pony club, go on expensive school trips to Iceland etc.

I grew up with a single parent on benefits. We couldn't afford to do anything. But I could go to university with a student grant and that meant I could work hard and better my situation. My life now is a million miles away from my childhood.

I'm a socialist because I believe that every child should have the opportunity to better themselves, work hard and change their situation. This won't happen under the Tories and austerity.

Unfortunately, we're way beyond the stage where care staff are popping in for a cup of tea and some shopping.

Youd have to commit to washing, feeding and dressing your elderly neighbour every morning to make up for the holes the tories have left in social care.

And as jellyfrizz says, we've had a conservative government for 7 years now, and i haven't noticed that happening.

Can one even pop in on the neighbours when one lives in a mansion?

Would popping in on the staff do?

I admit that ^^ is taking the point to the absurd but really, who is going to be doing all this shopping and elderly care? It's not the people who already buy this help in for themselves. The most wealthy don't even drive themselves or answer their own front doors! It will be those at the bottom, who have the least, expected to do all the shitwork.

Who doesn't want universal healthcare and sparkling beverages...?

Seriously. OP, your post doesn't add up. You don't have to be poor to be a socialist.

Squeegle not sure what difference the single mum bit makes tbh. When I was working 30 hrs with two young kids (lone parent for a period) I managed to pop in on said elderly neighbour and take her shopping with my kids - they had a wonderful time with this beautiful old lady who adored spending time with them, and they loved seeing her too. When it snowed, my kids cleared her path and when it was sunny we sat on her garden bench. I made the effort without obligation, because although I do not label myself a socialist, I have a social conscience.

Jemima but surely university is the epitome of selective education, as it's only available to those who can pass the entrance exams?!?! Is that not a grammar school, but for older kids?

That's an interesting point username.

University is about specialising in a particular area though and is not compulsory whereas being in secondary education is.

Unlike grammar schools university level education is not based on general 'intelligence'. It is very specific. If you're shit at maths but brilliant at art you won't be going to a grammar school but you can go to university.

At the moment university is also selective in terms of who can afford it which is not good for society as a whole.

To be globally competitive we need to be encouraging the most talented to use those talents - whatever their economic background.

What about the old people who don't like children and are not very nice? Or those people who are a threat to children or women? Who looks after them?

There are several conditions that manifest more in older people that can change their behaviour and make them a risk through no fault of their own. Those people deserve to be clean and fed as much as the next person but not everyone can feed and care for them.

The whole point of a welfare state means that none of the care falls on one person or one group of people and ensures that everyone can get care no matter how unpleasant, dangerous or ill they are. The problems come when what is provided is substandard and you get people relying on good will rather than working to need.

This idea of sweet, grateful little old ladies is fanciful nice but it's not the reality for many. I bet if you had to turn your neighbour over in bed, dress her bedsores and change her soiled sheets, while she calls you a fucking whore because she's got vascular dementia that has completely changed her personality, you probably wouldn't be so eager to help.

It's nice to be nice. It's important to have a social conscience and do what you can to help others but it's also important to realise that having the time and means to help is a luxury and being able to help comes down to luck. It's also important to have a safety net because we can't all rely on having a nice lady next door who is fortunate enough to be in a position to help out.

Back on page 6 there was some discussion of education with the socialist posters asking why they should sacrifice their children's education because of their own beliefs, as a justification for using grammar or fee-paying schools.

I have listened to and read variations of this philosophy for 45 years, going right back to when numerous grammar schools were being converted and expanded into comps, back to a time when grammar schools provided social mobility to bright working class children because they weren't a scarce commodity to be hoarded by the middle class, like truffles.

What I never understood was the concept of "sacrifice". So, education is IMPROVED by the wholesale introduction of comprehensive schools, but no actual socialist wants to risk their actual child in one?

If these schools are such a risk to the middle classes, who could they possibly have been invented FOR?

The pretzel shapes I have seen socialist people get into, trying to justify their use of vanishing selective schools (or fee-paying schools, when actual child turns out to be uncoachable) are, sorry, very funny.

(I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused, as the song said).

And now people make the non-socialist choice without even a shred of guilt, or irony, as they're a generation away from it all.

"Oh I don't believe in grammar/private schools! (Except for meeee and my kiddies!)"

"I don't believe in private health either! (Until there's a health problem affecting meeee and my family!)".

Don't your own in extremis choices give you even a basic clue that all the stuff you prescribe for Other People is, well, worse? And if it's worse, why do you believe in it?

Where is the evidence grammar schools improve educational outcomes? Britain of 1963 when my dad did the 11 plus and went to grammar school is not the same as today and it's naive to pretend it is.

It's not even a level playing field now with tutoring and hot housing for the grammar schools.

This is worth a read from the Education Policy Institute about the evidence regarding grammar schools and social mobility: epi.org.uk/report/grammar-schools-social-mobility/

Have you read the other pages user147? Because I've answered this question from my own point of view a couple of times.

People are fundamentally selfish, it is human nature to do what is best for your own family. It's a socialist view to recognise this, otherwise everyone would just share everything anyway and there would be no need for the state to get involved. You wouldn't need socialism.

You have to do your best with the system that you are currently in.

*And now people make the non-socialist choice without even a shred of guilt, or irony, as they're a generation away from it all.

"Oh I don't believe in grammar/private schools! (Except for meeee and my kiddies!)"

"I don't believe in private health either! (Until there's a health problem affecting meeee and my family!)".

Don't your own in extremis choices give you even a basic clue that all the stuff you prescribe for Other People is, well, worse? And if it's worse, why do you believe in it?*

It's worse because the current government is managing education and the NHS so bloody badly. It doesn't have to be like this, they could be better if funded and managed properly.

If state schools and hospitals were good there would be no need for ANYONE to go private. Socialists want good services for everyone.

As an ex-nurse who mainly worked in elderly care I have to say username you are clueless. Caring properly for the elderly/disabled requires more than a social conscience and a desire for recognition as a 'nice' person. An unskilled untrained person dealing with personal care, Meds, wound treatment etc could be fatally dangerous (and not just to the 'patient'). Social and medical care NEEDS to be collaborative and efficient or people die. It's that simple and that serious.

The rise in things like MRSA, c-diff, septicaemia etc in correlation with reduced funding of the nhs & social care imo is not a coincidence.

We also ALREADY have millions of untrained lay carers (usually relatives) trying to care for elderly/disabled with very little knowledge, support or resources.

In my family there is someone who cared long term for not 1 but 2 very sick relatives consecutively. It affected their own health quite seriously yet when it came to when the 2nd person died and the carer hasn't worked or done any training for nigh on 25 years BECAUSE of their time being taken up by caring, they were treated as if they were a lazy burden on society

Yet they'd saved the govt thousands at least by doing this.

They are now at a point where they need help themselves, nobody in the family is physically capable of doing their care and those that are work and don't have the time or already have other caring responsibilities which take up their time so this person has to pay for care out of their meagre benefits.

It's a bloody insult!

So no, the tories don't give a shit, they never have and never will. They line the pockets of them and theirs and stuff everyone else.

Jellyfizz's posts are excellent by the way.

So, education is IMPROVED by the wholesale introduction of comprehensive schools, but no actual socialist wants to risk their actual child in one?

I am sure the vast majority of socialists, like non-socialists, have their children in comprehensive schools. The same names of the few socialists known to have their kids in selective schools always comes up - how many Labour MPs and Ministers have sent their kids to state schools in the 20 years since Diane Abbott didn't? Hundreds I imagine but oddly their names never get mentioned.

All evidence suggests that children do worse generally in selective systems than comprehensive. At the moment I'm doing some research on Oxfordshire compared with the selective counties. Figures suggest that somewhere around 170 children get Maths and English GCSE in Oxfordshire that don't do so in the selective counties. That is the size of a year group in one secondary school. Why are these children not important?

It's flawed logic to think that failing to engage with the status quo will somehow improve the system as a whole.