"I've never seen anything like it!"

rosequartz as only 7% of pupils are privately educated I can't see them causing the collapse of the education system if all their parents decided to move them to state schools. As it is children tend to move in and out of both systems, in my experience. Of course, all those parents who opt for independent schools have paid their tax just the same as those receiving free education but do not take this. I have always felt, for this reason, that charity status balanced this out.

The thing about private education, private healthcare etc, is that, if people didn't subscribe to it and use it, the education and health services in this country would collapse totally with the added burden of all those pupils and patients.

People (MPs especially) should not use it and then criticise other people for doing the same thing and try to pass legislation to prevent it flourishing.

I agree POGS that those who disagree with private education should not buy it for their own children (unless there are very special family reasons for doing so), similarly grammar schools. Of course, they should also not be employing people on zero hours contracts or engaging in any dodgy expenses shenanigans - but I think that should apply to any MP of whatever political persuasion.

As to healthcare, I don't think those who disagree with private healthcare should use it for themselves or their families. BUT I recall one Gransnetter (can't remember who it was) who felt very upset because she had booked a private consultation relating to an undiagnosed health problem. She had been told she would have to wait quite some time for an NHS appointment and she was terribly worried. She felt guilty because she felt that, as a critic of private health care, she was being hypocritical. I disagree with private healthcare too but I wouldn't criticise someone for making that decision in that particular situation - I may well do the same myself.

We haven't got gender equality and, with so many all male lists, it looks like we're never going to get it until some sort of measures are taken to give women an equal chance.

just reading some of the comments below my Guardian link - are these typical of Guardian readers?

No wonder no-one can take that rag seriously any more!

www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/26/jeremy-hunt-jousts-with-labour-shadow-over-childrens-ae-visit

I wonder if Andy Burnham would wait over a whole weekend before taking his sick child to the GP? I doubt he would neglect a child although:

If you are not sure who Andy Burnham is, this is the same Andy Burnham (Labour) who was in charge of the Health Service during Stafford Hospital's outrageous neglect of patients.

The thing is, once something has been given it is very difficult to take it away again, eg the last Labour Government gave GPs a hefty pay rise and told them also that they need not work weekends. Should this Coalition Government be brave enough to say that working a 5 day week is unjustified and that they need to go back to working weekends? Cue for unrest from GPs.

Perhaps the child needed to be taken to A&E and perhaps the out-of-hours service advised that because they could not deal with the problem. We don't know, do we? If Labour had not allowed GPs the weekends off then the child may still have needed to go to A&E if the GP could not have dealt with the problem.
We have had to contact the out-of-hours service who advised calling an ambulance and the paramedics then advised A&E (not for a child). Perhaps that is what happened to Jeremy Hunt and his family.

I don't think it's fair to expect any parent to be expected to wait to see their GP if they're worried about a sick child whose illness may or may not be serious. I'm not talking about a splinter here.

I for one don't know why Jeremy Hunt took his child to A&E. Do you, durhamjen?

Durhamjen

Can't argue with that one, yes it would hypocritical.

However I don't know the precise reason why he took his child to A&E. It could have been well justified so I won't guess I may end up with egg on my face.

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

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.

I like your post POGS!!

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

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.

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.

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

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

Anyway I went and cleared the shelves. Hic.

You can't say that without a link!

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 !

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.

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.

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.