"I've never seen anything like it!"

I am assuming (but may not be correct, of course) that she thought it was the house of a hardworking patriotic Englishman who was going to vote Labour in the election and was thrilled to be able to tweet about it.

But obviously Ed Miliband, Rachel Reeves, Hazel Blears, Simon Danczuk et al disagreed and thought she meant something derogatory.

Oh, come on!

If you are not supposed to be a 'champagne socialist' is it also wrong to be a 'working class' Tory?

No it is not..what a lot of inverted snobbery going on!

What is wrong is lack of empathy, honesty and most of all moral purpose from some MPs of all political parties.

I rarely agree with Conservative policy but I can respect individual Tories who are genuine and honest in their beliefs. I may never agree with them but I do not have to be personal /rude about them or denigrate them personally to promote my point of view.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CFYQFjAH&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fids_mp&ei=0b1zVMqxDdXrarDKgsgL&usg=AFQjCNH9tIsBL4PW1oWo-z1m8ewQVUaI_w&bvm=bv.80185997,d.d2s

Would you like to see what IDS puts on twitter?

Where that argument falls down is the Tory Party doesn't go around professing to be the party of the wealthy elite whereas the Labour Party does go around declaring they are the party of the working man.

I think if that's what IDS has put on twitter he is equally as bloody stupid, pathetic and beyond common decency as those who made comments of pure bile and hatred when say Margaret Thatcher died, or said Tory MP Liz Truss should swing from a noose. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

We could mention Ken Livingstone and the Unions who advocate going to peoples homes to harass them and their families and make their life hell, showing absolutely no regard for the poor children who get innocently sucked in to some fantasy world where grown men and women turn into nothing short of predatory animals.

Does it have anything to do with this thread, no.

Does it deflect from keeping the focus on the issue being discussed, yes.

Is that the reason for doing it probably.

Why bother then. Because if you can't beat um, join um.

Now I understand that the link to Ian Duncan Smith was a load of b-----s , because the link was put up twice on GN and the other thread has pointed this out.

I wish I had never been so stupid as to get 'reeled in' and even responded to it.

I thought it was a bit stupid but never thought of it being a 'spoof' . I'm happy to accept naevity.

Goes to show you should be careful what you post.

Your post made perfect sense anyway, POGS.

You did say that 'if' IDS had put up those tweets that would be your opinion of him.

No shame in being taken in [seems to happen quite a bit on here] but it takes guts to admit it!And as Ana points out, you did say 'if'.

I haven't lost interest in this subject and will watch to see if it has any affect in the weeks to come, but I have certainly lost interest in the rather unpleasant comments being made which seem to add nothing to the discussion so that's me out of this thread.

I still do not understand why it is thought not OK for people, who have a level of wealth e.g. that enables them to buy champagne, to have socialist values? I do not have to have experienced poverty before I know it would be better that nobody should experience it.

Penstemmon I agree. Unfortunately it seems that many people who do have wealth strive not only to conserve it but to continue to increase it, and are therefore often reluctant to pay their taxes. Sadly, the few that do have a social conscience are not admired for wanting to re-balance an unfair system but are pilloried for not giving all their money away.

In the same way that we can't rely to a substantial extent on charities to provide for core social needs, we can't rely on a few individuals to redress the inbuilt inequalities in our current system. It requires systemic change.

Indeed Eloethan and could it be that because capitalists find it uncomfortable to hear people with money calling for greater equality that they denigrate them and try to undermine their views by calling them 'Champagne Socialists?
There are few enough people in power on the side of the less well off that you would hope they would get more support !

I still do not understand why it is thought not OK for people, who have a level of wealth e.g. that enables them to buy champagne, to have socialist values? I do not have to have experienced poverty before I know it would be better that nobody should experience it

It is ok to have socialist values. But you should at least have a little inkling of how the people you are trying to help, live.
Else it looks like a case of throwing money at them, but not wanting to live anywhere near them, or like them.

Privately educating their own children. My number one gripe against those who purport to be socialists. I simply don't take anyone seriously as a socialist if they privately educate their own children, I just see them as disingenuous and perpetuating elitism which, I would have thought, is contrary to the basic tenets of their core beliefs. 7 per cent of children are educated in the private sector and they then take up a large percentage of places at top universities and finally into the top professions, business, the judiciary, journalism and politics.

I should add I'm not trying to imply that many with socialist values do this, I was just following on from the comments about champagne socialists, that would be a defining factor for me.

TerriBull - I am absolutely with you on this. It's my redline on where I think socialism ends if you use the private sector in education because of the divisions, inequalities and general unfairnesses that the sector contributes to and perpetuates. Other issues like living in an expensive house or drinking champagne are a nonsense. I know some parents will say that their children have special needs which the state sector cannot meet and in exceptional circumstances I am sure this is the case but as a general poin, it holds true.

One of the supermarkets is advertising what it says is a good champagne for eight quid today. Just thought I would let everyone know, whatever their political persuasion.

You can't say that without a link!

Tee Hee! I think it was Tesco (oops, am I advertising?)

Anyway I went and cleared the shelves. Hic.

Going back to the White Van Man story, here is a VG article by Kenan Malik.

For goodness sake.

'Champagne Socialist' is a terminology used to denote a person who espouses socialist values and has the cheek to tell somebody how they should abide by socialist values but they are themselves totally disingenuous and a hypocrit by doing exactly the opposite of what they say.

In other words 'Do as I say, not do as I do'

When a Labour MP does the above and they are called a Champagne Socialist it is in fact being polite so maybe that's where I have gone wrong and I should stick with the term 'Disingenuous Hypocrit'

Heavens even some Labour MP's struggle with the concept of a Champagne Socialist/Disingenuous Hypocrit.

I agree you can be a socialist and have wealth and do good things, that's obvious. What you can't be is a socialist with great wealth telling others how to live but leading the same lifestyle as that you 'supposedly' despise.

E.g. Don't send your children to Private School if you feel they are Satan's spawn. Don't have Private Healthcare or use any NHS facility that is provided for by a private doctor or private hospital if you find private health schemes the devils work. Don't fiddle your expenses or flip your home which is nothing short of fraud for financial gain. Don't employ staff on zero hours contracts or have non paid interns. The list could go on and on couldn't it.

Wealth is not a barrier to having good intentions or a social conscience, irrespective of your politics.

Politics does however matter if you subscribe to belonging to a party that has a strong ethos such as children must be state educated, private health is bad, believe in gender equality but have women only lists etc. but you don't believe that applies to you only to those you would have conform to your words not deeds. Hence a disingenuous/hypocrit.

Socialism isn't about despising a good standard of living. At least, it wasn't in the socialist household I was brought up in.

The term "champagne socialist" is just sour grapes.

I like your post POGS!!

Wish there was a LIKE emoticon. GNHQ ???????? Hows about it people have been asking for the longest time !!

Do not take your children to A&E when you are telling everyone else not to?
Oh, sorry, that wasn't a socialist, was it, it was Jeremy Hunt.

Nonu, if we had a 'like' button would be automatically get a 'don't like' one? It doesn't seem fair unless we do!