To think champagne socialists aren't such a bad thing?

[DaisyChaining]

Forgive me if I've got the definition wrong - but if you're a champagne socialist, aren't you just a rich person who thinks poor people should be treated fairly and are happy to pay more tax to ensure this?

I keep seeing it used as an insult on here and I don't get it. What's wrong with that? I feel like we could do with a hell of a lot more 'champagne socialists', to be honest.

A champagne socialist isn't a rich person who votes Labour - it's someone who takes on the trappings of wealth (eg private schooling and health)for themselves /their family whilst arguing against these privileges for others. So, for example - no grammar schools because selection is bad, cf Labour Party policy, whilst sending your child to minor public school: so selecting on wealth is OK, but not intelligence, which is seen as bad.

It's the patronising paternalism that says I'm doing what's best for my family, whilst supporting policies that oppose this for those not in a position to afford it. So, for example - Diane Abbott, sending her son to private school whilst advocating against assisted places and selective schooling = champagne socialism.

And of course not everyone votes in their own best interest - I vote for what I think is in my country's best interests, not mine

YANBU OP

There's no point in trying to explain how wanky champagne socialists are, because the champagne socialists don't want to hear how wanky they are so dismiss the explanation as slurs and borne of envy.

If you're well off & vote for socialist parties, or genuinely truly have compassion for the less well off, then you're not a champagne socialist.

If you have the 'do as I say, not as I do' attitude or sneer at the wrong sorts of disadvantaged people then you are a champagne socialist.

It's not a tag I'd be proud to have, by any stretch.

I'm with @Code42. People with money who walk the walk as well as talk the talk aren't champagne socialists.

Rich entertainers (and the like) who use personal service companies instead of paying proper tax; people who've made money in the private sector then demonise all employers as 'exploitative'; people who use private health care because they 'don't trust the NHS', or who send their kids to private schools despite being in areas with good state schools (with no special circumstance in either case) are those I decry as 'champagne socialists'.

There is nothing wrong with those who are fortunate wanting a better life for those who have less than them. That's not hypocritical.

If you're well off & vote for socialist parties, or genuinely truly have compassion for the less well off, then you're not a champagne socialist.

Dammit. I've always aspired to be a champagne socialist but I've only reached cava, and now I've scuppered myself completely by actually having compassion and doing stuff about it.

If you're not well off, vote for a better life for yourself. If you are well off, vote for a better life for other people. That's how it should work

Give me a champagne socialist over a "I'm in, close the door" person any day. I much prefer the virtue signalling to the alternative. MN has a lot of vice-signalling and depravity-signalling on the benefit threads.

I agree with the PPs who say it's to do with hypocrisy & not wealthy people caring for others.

My husbands relatives are what I would describe as champagne socialists. They are proud labour supporters, remainers, etc. They live in a million + home & object to any planning application that involves building near them, particularly social housing. They have no children & think inheritance tax should be increased even though they both inherited properties. These properties are now rented out. One of their tennents was a doc who had been there years. Upon realising that rents in the area were increasing rapidly they wanted to charge the doc more. He could not afford this so now 2 people live there. The 2nd bedroom used to be a lounge. Oh and they are very disappointed with the new changes to landlords & fear losing money. They don't want to sell the properties as they don't want to pay capital gains.

Apparently I'm one 🤣🤣 im not rich but I'm not poor. I'm one because I own my house (well, mortgaged) and drive an Audi. someone actually said this to me stating those as the reasons.

Tbh i couldn't care less ...As if you can only be a socialist if you're poor!?

And a champagne socialist is way better than a working class Tory

I always get a feeling from the phrase that it means well off people who sit sipping champagne/prosecco (just not tinnies and alcopops) and discussing the poor working class and discuss 'what needs to be done' but don't actually do anything to help ie donate their money or time, volunteer,

As long as they vote for paying more taxes themselves, I don't see a problem, really.

I know plenty people who vote Green, but are chain smokers, eat lots of meat and use their car a lot.

Some people just lack the willpower to do what they consider right, day to day. As long as they are idealistic on voting day, though, that doesn't matter so much. (Or wouldn't, if there were enough such people.)

And a champagne socialist is way better than a working class Tory

Are they?

That statement perfectly demonstrates why the working classes feel like the champagne socialists are sneery 'do what you're told & know your place' virtue signalling & completely disconnected with a superiority complex,

The sort of people that used to tour Bedlam.

I don't like the term champagne socialist.

I think there are those with a great deal of money who can afford extra taxes etc and say more than they should

I think there are those who side , genuinely, with left of centre policies.

I think there are those who side with right of centre policies but want the same outcome.

And then then there are the others - it's hard . It is - otherwise someone would have fixed it by now.

Crap post I know