Do you think you can be a socialist and

[Swedes]

1. Pay for your child to be independently educated?
2. Buy a house in right catchment for the right school?
3. Feign religion to get your child into a faith school?
4. Object to a lottery system for school places with urban areas (ignoring all convenient environmental issues)?
5. Vote Tory? (because some people seem particularly confused)

Huh? I went to a private school and my friends include builders and cleaners as well as doctors and teachers. The reason I'm sending my son to a private school is so that he has more chance of finding a job he loves. I couldn't give a fig if it doesn't pay a lot.

And I work in a very creative industry. My husband, who went to a prestigious public school, works for a charity.

I guess we have to say there are good and bad private schools just as there are in the state system, and that what's a good school for one parent/child combo may not be good for another. But common traits from public school, and some other private school pupils, I have noticed, are a very irritating over-confidence born of being told how fabulous and special and priviledged you are, and an attitude that the world owes you a very substantial living. People from state schools are much nicer, IME!

(Sorry, there is no tongue in cheek emoticon)

No they just have worse inter personal skills, can't mix with people and aren;t confidence enough to succeed (not all of them but certainly some). So what you regard as a bad thing I regard as a normality of being confidence and able to cope in all situations rather than some of the shy inadequates, out of their depth children/young people. Why is being confident a wrong?

Being confident is great. Being over-confident to the point of arrogance is hugely irritating and a great disadvantage when it come to interpersonal skills, in fact.

How many of these over-confident, arrogant children do you actually know? Do they all come from the same school?

Do tell!

Tory front bench

Bridie, of course these over confident privately educated people exist as well as people like you and your family .
My response was to a post that stated that privately educated children, as well as being better at everything else also have more imagination than everyone else.
At the whole conversation came up from a poster quoting Einstein's criticism of the education system in general.
That would make a far more interesting debate than state vs private which is complicated and usually full of assumptions, don't you think?

But much less fun..?
In medicine I was surrounded by ex-public & private school output, with a handful of state school high achievers. It is a profession in which interpersonal skills are hugely important and helpful, and the state schoolers were head & shoulders above the others at relating to "normal" folk, especially in their training and early careers. Stands to reason; how on earth can Charterhouse boys know how 99% of the poulation live? That might not matter to their careers if they go from school to Oxbridge to the city, but I would argue it is not right on so many levels.

Can it really be true that "Throughout most of history it is capitalists who have made the most contribution to lifting the poorest out of poverty."

"Benfactors who built schools, funded burseries, gave employment opportunities to those who needed to learn a trade."

Yes - but the contribution of individual philanthropists compared to the effect of the welfare state, the founding of the NHS, the introduction of 'old labour' labour laws, education reform, sex discrimination act?

Without going as far as communism as practiced in the USSR , China etc, I think that socialism has made the greates impact, in this country, on how wealth is distributed / spent.

No I dont think you can.

Wasn't responding specifically to you--mrs ruffallo!

I also get annoyed when parents of solely-privately-educated children tell me how dreadful the state sector is when they have never experienced it. My children experienced things in their state primary that will enrich their future lives.

Agree about Charterhouse...

Blu- I agree. The NHS, state schooling, benefits system etc are built upon socialist principles

Blu - I agree with you in part - socialism has certainly helped to make the distribution of wealth more secure rather than leave it to the vagaries of the individual benefactor. However, my point is that without the wealth created by a capitalist economy, there is much less to share around.

It is possible for both to coexist, but to suggest that capitalism is the route of all evil is misguided, imho!

Blu - I agree with you in part - socialism has certainly helped to make the distribution of wealth more secure rather than leave it to the vagaries of the individual benefactor. However, my point is that without the wealth created by a capitalist economy, there is much less to share around.

It is possible for both to coexist, but to suggest that capitalism is the route of all evil is misguided, imho!

Blu - I agree with you in part - socialism has certainly helped to make the distribution of wealth more secure rather than leave it to the vagaries of the individual benefactor. However, my point is that without the wealth created by a capitalist economy, there is much less to share around.

It is possible for both to coexist, but to suggest that capitalism is the route of all evil is misguided, imho!

No, I wouldn't argue against the capitalist economyeither.

But like 'class' our notions of capitalism v socialism need updating and re-applying, I think, to enable the strengths and imperatives of the best of each approach to do what they need to do. The 'trickle down' effect seems to hit a damp-proof-membrane in it's slow trickling progress, while the 'get-rich-quick' effect for the few seems to operate much faster!

Well I would certainly start by upping the minimum wage to the level where it might be possible to support a family without having to top up using the benefit (or tax credit) system. Why should the tax payer be subsidising the likes of tescos and sainsburies who should be paying workers a living wage?

Set the minimum wage at £10 an hour and be done with it. If people are running businesses that are uneconomic when paying a living wage, then they should not be subsidised by tax payers. I might be prepared to make a concession for small businesses in their first 5 years of operating, but as a rebate from NI payments (so that employees still get properly paid).

Recycle the not insignificant cost of administering the tax credit system into increased benefits for those paying for childcare in order to work. But give a set benefit per child, means tested.

Scrap family allowance for those earning above £40k and redistribute it to those that need it.

Stop selling off social housing and make sure it is fit for purpose.

Extend the assured shorthold tenancy from 12 months to 3 years with annual (rather than 6 monthly renewals) but make it easier to repossess in cases of default.

I could go on all day, but lunch time is rapidly coming to an end!

Suedes, you should defintley read this

and this and especially this That last one isn;t very long either.

I think many of these class labels are old fashioned and out moded. We need an evolution

Why bother? We'd only use alternative terminology to mean the same thing.

Soapbox: Yes - the minimum wage / state subsidy of under-paying high-profit businesses is spot on!