AIBU to conclude that it is not a crime to be a "Champagne Socialist"

[Rosaxpxp]

I hear this term getting bandied around as an insult. Surely it is better to be an affluent socialist than a well off Tory!?

I’d describe myself as a cava or at a push a Prosecco socialist

@mustlovegin

Of course it is or they wouldn’t vote for tax raising governments

Most champagne socialists don't realise that what they preach will mean higher taxes (or they naively believe that those taxes will not apply to them)

Don’t be ridiculous.

I loathe champagne socialists. My sister is one and she’s so selfish and moans about everything. It’s very much do as I say, not as I do.

@Iggly

They all want free healthcare but put their fingers in their ears when you explain you'll be waiting hours on an ambulance, you'll be expected to labour in a waiting room, and you can go years without seeing a doctor

These things have happened because the Tories have underfunded the nhs. It wasn’t always this way 🧐

It has, funding has been an issue virtually since the fifties. The Labour government that set the system up believed that improvements in the quality of housing and people's lifestyles would reduce the number of people seeking treatment over time. What they failed to account for was that as people's lifespans increased, so too did their need for treatment. There can never be enough funding.

@limitedperiodonly Multiple people have already explained what it means though. If you don't class yourself as a socialist then I'm not sure what your point is or why you're offended at the term...

It has, funding has been an issue virtually since the fifties

It wasn’t in the first decade of this century. The investment then improved the NHS exponentially. Then the Tories squandered it all with austerity.

@Blossomtoes

It has, funding has been an issue virtually since the fifties

It wasn’t in the first decade of this century. The investment then improved the NHS exponentially. Then the Tories squandered it all with austerity.

You've got a very short memory. PFI is an anchor around the neck of many trusts.

Having billionaires means less for everyone else because there is no infinite supply of money or wealth.

I'm not sure that you quite understand how fiat currency works.

[quote TheToddlerLife]@limitedperiodonly Multiple people have already explained what it means though. If you don't class yourself as a socialist then I'm not sure what your point is or why you're offended at the term...[/quote]
I'm not offended by the term socialist. I just wouldn't describe myself as one though others might. I explained what the term champagne socialist means to me. If that's all right with you...

Well... it's not a crime, but it is somewhat hypocritical.

You've got a very short memory

So have you. PFI was one element.
.
Overall, in our view, the results of this audit are very positive. The ambition for the NHS has been appropriately high. There has been unprecedented investment. There have been significant improvements in most areas that the Government has focused policies on. Has there been a ‘step-change’ in NHS performance? If step-change means a significant shift of gear, with more and better services, then yes there has

www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/default/files/field/field_publication_file/independent-audit-nhs-under-labour-1997–2005-sunday-times-march-2005.pdf

@DdraigGoch

Having billionaires means less for everyone else because there is no infinite supply of money or wealth.

I'm not sure that you quite understand how fiat currency works.

Fiat currency is so last century.

The concept of money has moved on somewhat.

@limitedperiodonly Makes no difference to me. You were the one who took exception to the phrase "champagne socialists", saying that people who use jt have "sourness and lack of ambition", and that they couldn't explain what the phrase means...even though people have explained it. Then went on a defensive rant about how you're not going to apologise for having nice stuff (even though no one said you had to). Then said you weren't actually a socialist after all 🤷‍♀️
Between this and the weird debate going on about public vs private sector workers, I'm confused AF and will bow out now...

@DdraigGoch

Having billionaires means less for everyone else because there is no infinite supply of money or wealth.

I'm not sure that you quite understand how fiat currency works.

Agree. Some people lack basic knowledge about fiscal and economic laws. Or they have been living under a rock for the last 15 years of quantitative easing. And therein lies the problem with all socialists - champagne or otherwise. They are basically illiterate about the basics.

@TheToddlerLife byebye

What they failed to account for was that as people's lifespans increased, so too did their need for treatment. There can never be enough funding.

Yes the Blair New Labour government's anti smoking crusade did indeed fail to take that into account. The fall in the number of smokers has two consequences. Longer life expectancies, and a significant loss of tax revenue.

www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/08/smoking-and-drinking-save-public-purse-money

As for funding the NHS. There would be less need for treatment if the focus moved more to prevention.

Stress and poverty. Two of biggest (and very often but not always) causes of poor physical and mental health.

We'll never have a utopia, but a mass social housing build would work for both altruism and self interest.

Upfront costs, yes. Longer term savings, massively so.

The knock on costs of poor housing and homelessness are huge. On individual - and societal levels.

It effects so many areas including social services, welfare (there'd be less need for top up benefits if people had genuinely affordable housing), and the criminal justice system. And of course, it impacts heavily on the NHS (including mental health care).

Health is holistic.

(and very often but not always interlinked* )

@Tealightsandd

(and very often but not always interlinked* )

Although you are not wrong with the two posts you’ve written, only there is a strong link between social economic status and the NHS v Private Health Care.

E.g. If you hurt your back in the garden, after a few days of pain that ibuprofen couldn’t shift, you go to the doctor. The doctor prescribes more painkillers. This doesn’t work. After numerous GP visits and the taking much stronger pain relief, they eventually redirect you to a physio (not a chiropractor or osteopath). There are now 12 weeks between your physio appointments meaning the treatment is useless. So, after 6 months or more, the back pain is still there and now you have an addiction to pain relief, you know have more problems. You’re forced to give up work and not dependant of the welfare system. This is a real life example that is subject to poor patient management. The NHS doesn’t take responsibility for you giving up work but requires you to rely on the service. It’s power is that you believe your poor care is down to lack of funding and yet it could be down to inefficiencies in the NHS. The private health system could have fixed your back pain in months not years, and you wouldn’t need to quit your job.

This is the trouble with the civil service. It make you dependent on it rather than independent. That’s what socialism relies upon.

[quote Tealightsandd]What they failed to account for was that as people's lifespans increased, so too did their need for treatment. There can never be enough funding.

Yes the Blair New Labour government's anti smoking crusade did indeed fail to take that into account. The fall in the number of smokers has two consequences. Longer life expectancies, and a significant loss of tax revenue.

www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/08/smoking-and-drinking-save-public-purse-money[/quote]
London Mayor Sadiq Khan has a similar problem. ULEZ (Ultra Low Emission Zone) was meant not just as a health measure but to plug the funding gap caused by falling commuter numbers on public transport and also the slashing in grants from central government.

We've all had to tighten our belts because of Covid but it's hard not to escape the suspicion that the cut in funding was punishment for London not voting for the Tory candidate Shaun Bailey. One of the people like Boris Johnson who has been caught out indulging in a Covid-busting party, by the way.

London is the only major city among the likes of New York, Paris and Rome not to have public transport heavily subsidised by central government. It's not relevant to say that London gets loads of money that other places in Britain don't. That's true. But it doesn't make sense not to encourage the use of public transport in a city and again, it's hard to escape the impression that this is not political.

As a resident of London who does not have a car and walks or uses public transport I welcomed this public health measure. There was a warning last Friday not to exercise outdoors because the air pollution was dangerous. It will continue as long as the cold, still weather conditions persist.

However, Khan didn't realise how many people would switch to ULEZ-compliant vehicles so has had to go back to the drawing board to get money to run the city. It's a good thing for me and the air quality here that so many people have changed their habits. But I still support Khan. It was a rare pleasure for me to vote for Labour candidate and see us win.

It's not relevant to say that London gets loads of money that other places in Britain don't.
If that's not champagne-socialist (spend the money but spend it on meeeeee) then I don't know what is.

I'm glad to see this thread. There were comments a few days ago cheerfully calling someone a "champagne socialist" as if it were a badge of honour...

I think some people don't know the proper meaning of the term, and just assume it means you're a socialist who drinks champagne or a rich person who IDs as a socialist.

@senua

It's not relevant to say that London gets loads of money that other places in Britain don't. If that's not champagne-socialist (spend the money but spend it on meeeeee) then I don't know what is.

Then we disagree @Senua. "Spend the money on meeee" is not what I said and you know that unless you can't read. You also selectively quoted me. Everyone knows that cheap trick.

Lon'don like Birmingham. Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds and other UK cities and urban areas (that's not an exclusive list) deserve major investment for upkeep and development of public transport to improve the lives of people who live and work in them. I would support that.

This is not a London v Other Parts Of The Country argument. At least not from my end. I can't help it if you are into that kind of thing.

It was a point about my local area. You are free to make them about the place where you live and I would listen and most probably agree. We are better working together - don't you think? Or do you think it's better to score petty points off someone you don't know without putting your own point of view?

Unfortunately you are exactly the sort of person who chants Champagne Socialist with no back up. Do you have any details about my life beyond my saying that I live in a nice place and like nice things including champagne? It was prosecco actually but I've stopped drinking that because the fizz is bad for your teeth and we all have to worry about the cost of dental work these days.

I suppose I should be grateful to you for proving my point but I expected that. Luckily I don't think everyone is like you.

London like Birmingham. Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds and other UK cities and urban areas (that's not an exclusive list) deserve major investment for upkeep and development of public transport to improve the lives of people who live and work in them. I would support that.
Good, thank you. But you only mentioned them when prompted. Your original comparator list was New York, Paris and Rome. London and their "world city" status always seem to end up hogging most of the public investment.

@senua

London like Birmingham. Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds and other UK cities and urban areas (that's not an exclusive list) deserve major investment for upkeep and development of public transport to improve the lives of people who live and work in them. I would support that. Good, thank you. But you only mentioned them when prompted. Your original comparator list was New York, Paris and Rome. London and their "world city" status always seem to end up hogging most of the public investment.

Elementary dear Dr @Senua but I wouldn't get too excited about your powers of deduction. I gave it up without waterboarding.

You still haven't explained why you call me a Champagne Socialist. I merely said what I thought should happen in my area. I didn't call you names or say you should never get anything.

So what is your wish list for your hometown? That would be a constructive way forward wouldn't it? I'll even say yes in advance. It's not like I'm in charge and either of us is going to get it.