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 was educated in the comprehensive system in one county and then moved to a grammar system in another (dad in army).

The comprehensive was far superior (but that's of course only my personal experience) plus you can have streaming in a comprehensive system it doesn't have to be mixed ability.

I started in the lowest stream in both schools and was able to progress to top stream but in all honesty in the top stream in the secondary modern I was unchallenged and bored. As I'd moved there in 4th year (don't know what that is under current system - first year of GCSEs) I wasn't able to attend the grammar.

A comprehensive system is not only fairer, it's more flexible and should be able to cater to all strengths and address all weaknesses.

Uni is not grammar for older kids, for starters uni students are adults. But currently the situation we have with uni is that the poor are put off by the idea of a mountain of debt with no reward. We're back to where only the wealthy can really afford uni.

As a pp said that's not just bad for those missing out personally, it's bad for the country. We need scientists, mathematicians, teachers, nurses, Drs, economists, physiotherapists, opticians, dentists, lawyers, engineers, architects, IT specialists, midwives, environmentalists, translators/interpreters, pharmacists, psychologists, social workers, even bankers, artists, media producers, journalists - from ALL backgrounds.

Actually I believe part of the reason we're in this mess is because we DON'T have enough people in some professions from anything lower than the upper middle class!

Diversity, different perspectives make us stronger, more adaptable and more successful!

user, you are being quite obtuse. Working 40 hours + commuting and being sole carer, for two children, both of whom have extra needs, does not leave an enormous amount of time left over. In fact as I mentioned I could do with some help myself!! But no matter, the real point is that a caring society would fund help for all to supplement the kindness of neighbours, not rely on those who have time and the inclination. There are countries who do this well - e.g Denmark, Sweden, I don't know why we think it's such a outrageous concept here to use our communal wealth to help those in need!

The Tories are the party which can fund help for the less fortunate however and most voters know that and will vote them in. Labour don't care for people very well at all.

How will they do that Janet? What makes them different to the other parties?

I'm ignoring the dire state of social care now for the sake of argument.

The Tories are the party which can fund help for the less fortunate however

Except they choose not to??

Can you explain what a "never event" is please? Because my understanding is that it is not the same as a non-event.

I was a teller for the Lib Dems in Thursdays elections and I teach in a very expensive private boarding school. My children go/did go to the same school.

Apart from what everyone else has said about being happy to pay more tax and making the best decision for you children, there are many valid selfish reasons for affluent people not to vote conservative.

One example - if the conservatives get a landslide and we have a hard Brexit then several big, powerful companies might move abroad, meaning many of pupils families either relocating or losing their jobs. If the situation gets bad enough the school would close and I would lose my job. I'm a single mum of 3 kids and I need that full time job.

Champagne socialists can be just as self interested as everyone else!

Champagne socialists can be just as self interested as everyone else!

Yes! For instance it benefits everyone to have a healthy and well educated population. Letting the NHS and education go to crap is inefficient and uneconomical.

It's good that wealthy people will vote for labour, makes up for all the idiotic working class who think the tories will look after them 🙄

The whole "champagne socialist" thing is a distraction anyway. Going on about how Diane Abbott will stop your kid going to a grammar school - no, the thing that will stop your kid going to a grammar school is the fact that they only take, at most, 20% of the local population.

I'm totally against grammars but if there'd been no choice I would have made sure she was as prepared as possible to get through the exam. I'd have pushed her in Maths much earlier than I did and would have paid for tutoring after a certain age. Plus all the advantage she would have got in verbal reasoning from being read to from the moment of birth.

I've always found it ironic that people like me get accused of "wanting to hold poor kids back" by opposing grammars, not realising that when grammars return that's exactly what parents like me will do!!

Errk, should have said "my child" instead of "she"

Thank you. And do you know when this protocol for classifying MRSA, C diff etc as never events came in?

I've had a look at infection rates and can see the requirement for monthly reporting for MRSA came in under a Labour government and the guidelines for dealing with C Diff were published in 2008 (also Labour).

It also seems that the trend for healthcare associated infection was increasing until about 2006 - does that sound right? My source is a report from National Audit Office.

I really want a nice graph showing rates of healthcare acquired infection from about 2002-present from a reputable source but I can't find one! Lots of separate bits makes it a bit confusing.

Grateful to be pointed in the right direction (I am supposed to be working not MNing!).

Yes I have also wondered what makes person X think their child will even get into the grammar they so heartily support when the odds are so stacked against them.

Ime if you peel it back a bit the underlying concern is usually that they are unhappy with the current school provision.

Anecdotally only of course.

I agree. That's why I like a bit of evidence for context.

So, it looks to me from a quick look, that MRSA seemed to peak in 2003/4 (according to BMJ Open report I'm reading on my laptop so can't link but the reference seems to be e000797) and then declined with a positive correlation between early hand washing campaigns and rates of infection but less effective with later campaigns (I think that was an NHS report but may have been NAO but loads of data until about 2010 from various sources all saying similar things).

Then MRSA Action seem to have a graph that does show some increase in the last few years on their monthly statistics page looking at trends from 2011 but the numbers look pretty low generally. Also if there was an issue with underfunding I would imagine it would take a while to become an issue?? However their red wiggly line for 2015 does look a bit worrying as it does track consistently higher than previous years including 2011.

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')

I'm not suggesting that all elderly people are cared for by unpaid unskilled volunteers. What I am advocating, however, is that the elderly who have families or close friends and neighbours and are still reasonably healthy but unable to completely care for themselves, would benefit from care that is not provided by the state, as that would free up those careers to cope with those who are substantially more vulnerable and do need the care.

The lady I visited was in her late 80s, sharp as a pin but with arthritis and a dodgy hip. She could only afford a paid career in the morning to help with getting up, so her family and community helped out where we could, to enable her to stay in her own home for as long as possible. She eventually had to sell, and now pays extortionate care home fees. Having worked hard all her life and been self supporting, she will have nothing to leave to her family. Those who choose not to save for the future will have their elderly care completely state funded.

I feel rather aggrieved that I am saving hard for my retirement from a fairly meagre wage so I can be less of a burden on society, but those who currently 'enjoy' a life on welfare can take foreign holidays, smoke and have the latest mobile phones, but will be state funded in their old age - that is not a fair society, but it is a socialist one.

I know I'm talking in extremes and their are thousands of genuine welfare claimants who are in desperate need, but to deny that the other extremes does exist is blinkered and fuels resentment.

Yes, we need all the Labour or Lib Dem votes we can get but a core theme of socialism is equality. And the rich have more options to access a better education, not just using private schools, but by moving to areas where there are good schools which can result in local poorer people not getting a place. I'm not blaming them for doing this, because I understand that they want the best for their kids. But it is in conflict with their view that they are socialists. Another core theme is collectivism, and these actions go against that as well.

We need rich people to support Labour, and I'm glad when they do but.. I have a few so called champagne socialist friends, and I personally think that they could walk the talk a bit more by putting something back into the community instead of living in their au pair bubbles with £300 lunches and their socialist chat with no action.

Yes I have also wondered what makes person X think their child will even get into the grammar they so heartily support when the odds are so stacked against them.

Because supporters of grammars deliberately use language designed to obscure the fact that you probably won't have the choice as to whether your child gets in. The continual implication that somehow "hypocritical socialists" are stopping your child getting in rather than that being in the intrinsic nature of selection.

And, to repeat, the irony is that those well educated and "hypocritical" socialists will be exactly the ones who do indeed make sure that the average child from a poorer background will not get into grammars.

Well thank god the Conservatives have been in power for 7 years they will have no doubt have got rid of all those smoking, holiday-taking, latest mobile phone wielding layabouts 'enjoying' a life on welfare and are only helping those genuinely in need.

Regarding trends in hospital MRSA bloodstream infections I've added up the reported totals for each year (April-March) from the mrsaactionuk.net website and they are as follows:

2011-12 472 cases
2012-13 398 cases
2013-14 376 cases
2014-15 430 cases
2015-16 552 cases

It is indeed ironic HPFA. Still, it keeps us proles fighting amongst ourselves rather than focusing on the real issues.