The Guardian offers counselling to staff after ‘upsetting’ Trump election result!

Thanks for explanation nanna8.

nanna8

Australians aren’t allowed to use ‘champagne’ any more ( French being precious) so it’s Chardonnay for us. Just saying.

I know this isn't related but is this post just a bit of fun or do you really now use the Chardonnay Socialist phrase instead of Champagne Socialist?

I do know about the PGI re champagne - just curious.

Blimey all this fuss over an email from an organisation saying that it offered an old door to its employees.

Open door not old door.

I was wondering what an old door had to do with anything...

GrannyGravy13

Casdon

madalene

There are plenty of them about. They don’t like the name though, even though it’s accurate.

Who says we don’t like the name? It’s really just another of those intended insults from the right that we laugh at, like woke lefties. The truth is, most people aren’t wounded by people who they are convinced have the wrong idea about something, whether those people are on the right or the left. Lack of compromise applies to everybody, very few are prepared to listen to views miles from their own, even the ones who purport to be in the middle.

I started a thread a while back (tongue in cheek 🤣) asking if I was now a champagne socialist because I couldn’t recognise or support my party anymore.

I really dislike these sound bites (yes I appreciate I used one referring to myself) which have only one intention and that is to slur or other those we disagree with. Ones that spring to mind are:-

Loony Lefties
Brexshitters
Remoaners
Champagne Socialists etc…

Couldn't agree more.

During the run-up to the referendum, I got so tired of the Brexshitter/Remoaner epithets on social media, and really it wasn't worth engaging with those who used them.

'Champagne Socialist' is now so, well, old isn't it? Also, the actual definition of a socialist differs, too. Some equate it with communism and argue from that premise, so it's all a nonsense.

But as a left-leaning person I have to say I really dislike the Nazi slur not infrequently used against those on the right.

I think, from what I can gather, most on here are neither ultra-left nor ultra-right.

Anyway, it's an interesting discussion.

For me, the point of departure from a debate is when someone counters an inoffensive POV in a debate with either grow up, get a life, or delusional, usually with no reverse argument of their own. And I've seen all of them used by both left and right.

I agree Dickens - your last paragraph particularly. POV can be very divided, but put up an opinion.
There is so much truly horrible stuff out there on Social media, we can treat each other better than that.

Yes Dickens and Wyllow3, we should try to be more 'Miss Goody Two Shoes', and a lot less 'Miss Goady Two Shoes'.

madalene

There are plenty of them about. They don’t like the name though, even though it’s accurate.

How is it accurate? What is wrong in being privileged, in so many ways, and at the same time wanting to help those who are less so, and support systems to give better conditions for all. Like education, NHS, social services, etc.

Do you think it is better to be privileged, and want to keep those to oneself instead?

I echo Fleurpepper’s question, madalene.

Are all socialists supposed to wear clogs and cloth caps? Life has moved on you know - it’s not the 19th Century any more.

It's one of life's mysteries on which I've commented a time or two over the years.

Labour is castigated for not being the party of 'aspiration', but if Labourite is successful they're castigated for being 'champagne socialists'.

Then, as FP notes, it also is applied to anyone not born working class who supports Labour. I think it's something to do with them being a traitor to their class

Corbyn came under fire for similar reasons- the assumed price of his house, his education, etc.

And yet many were quite prepared to accept that Boris Johnson was some sort of man-of-the-people.

It's all nonsense.

Another grimly argumentative thread, saved imo by posts that followed GrannyGravy’s list of words used in order to make someone feel silly or unimportant.
I remember the thread where, like `Spartacus, many of us said I too am a champagne socialist. Left leaners hope and work towards a fairer society. I’m a northern leftie, I don’t wear clogs, I have a lab n a spaniel, no whippets or homing pigeons here.
It really is nonsense when Trump, Farage and Johnson can present themselves as men of the people

Casdon

madalene

There are plenty of them about. They don’t like the name though, even though it’s accurate.

Who says we don’t like the name? It’s really just another of those intended insults from the right that we laugh at, like woke lefties. The truth is, most people aren’t wounded by people who they are convinced have the wrong idea about something, whether those people are on the right or the left. Lack of compromise applies to everybody, very few are prepared to listen to views miles from their own, even the ones who purport to be in the middle.

Agreed, Casdon.

I see no hypocrisy in someone who lives a 'champagne' lifestyle (whatever that might mean - different things to different people, obviously) wanting others to have a fair deal too.

What's the alternative? Only allowing those who want to exploit others to drink anything other than beer? Keeping the 'finer things in life' from those who have to work for a living?

Apart from the sheer unpleasantness of wanting to do that, what happens to aspiration? I think that most people, whether they vote Labour or Conservative (or Republican or Democrat), have aspirations for themselves and their families. Most managers and business owners want those they manage or employ to have aspiration too - without it why would they do more than the minimum?

I also agree that it is difficult for anyone to be neutral about very much. I find it amusing when people post on a political thread to claim that they can see both sides of every argument. When someone is as naive as that it is always very obvious that they can't, whether they believe that to be the case or not.

Where people have no personal investment in a particular issue, of course it is possible to see two or more arguments, but even then, we tend to have a political perspective that pushes us to see through one lens or another.

I have no axe to grind about farming, for instance. I would argue that I can see that they have a grievance as regards IHT, and also that I can see why RR has brought them more closely in line with other taxpayers in that regard. If either 'side' wanted to persuade me to their cause, I would listen with genuine interest and weigh up the pros and cons. I don't slavishly follow any party or their policies, but as a Labour voter I would probably find their argument more persuasive though, as I share their world view.

I suppose it's the same for the WFP, although that is more contorted for me. I firmly believe in universal benefits and not means-tested ones. I do not want to see anyone living on an inadequate income. But equally, I see no reason why people like the friends I mentioned at the time, who can afford long holidays in Monte Carlo and expensive new kitchens being prioritised over young families working long hours for little money. When they moan about the 'cut' and claim to be speaking for the poor (who have never troubled them before) then my world view kicks in and my hatred of means-tests takes a back seat. It's not about slavishly doing anything - it's about views aligning.

Dickens, as GN is the only social media I use, i have no idea what is said elsewhere. My remarks were general, not specific to anyone.

I just think all the fuss about Trump getting in is just so overdone. he is an unpleasant man, but we have already survived 4 years of him. I am sure we can survive another 4. Most importanly, he is clearly the choice of the American people and we need toe respect their choice.

All this maoning and catastrophying about how awful his presidency will be is only playing into the hands of Trump and his supporters. If we could only, just act rationally and say, fair enough, I wouldn't vote for him, but that is what the American want so lets get on with living with him and approach him and his adminsitration in an open and friendly way (bit inwardly guarded) we can actually take a lot of the sting out of him.

Trump thrives on being exceptional in being hated as much as he is loved, he thrives on the power knowing every other country is scared of him and all right thinking people(as those to the left of him see themselves) are up in moral arms against him.

Your actions are actually building him up and making him great again.

The way forward is to shrug your shoulders, to say, Trump, nothing special. he thrives on opposition, take it away from him. By that i do not mean agree or support him, just turn him into a shrug of the shoulders.

MaizieD

It's one of life's mysteries on which I've commented a time or two over the years.

Labour is castigated for not being the party of 'aspiration', but if Labourite is successful they're castigated for being 'champagne socialists'.

Then, as FP notes, it also is applied to anyone not born working class who supports Labour. I think it's something to do with them being a traitor to their class

I agree.

Basically, we can’t win can we…

Can’t win, apart from being in government for the next five years do you mean MayBee70?
It’s really not something that bothers me. Name calling always says more about the person who’s doing it, as does repeating lazy mantras about the opposition. Lefty, liberal, privileged, smug, woke, champagne socialist sums me up if that’s what people want to think, and that’s fine by me, because if they see those as insults they must be the opposite, mustn’t they?

I don’t think it’s the champagne quaffing that annoys people it’s more the attitude from some politically left wing that think they know best what the working classes want and is good for them.
That’s one reason that DT won.Those in power weren’t listening.

Oreo

I don’t think it’s the champagne quaffing that annoys people it’s more the attitude from some politically left wing that think they know best what the working classes want and is good for them.
That’s one reason that DT won.Those in power weren’t listening.

So the working class don’t want good health care, good affordable housing and a good education for their children ? If not what is it they want that multimillionaires know that I don’t ?

Oreo

I don’t think it’s the champagne quaffing that annoys people it’s more the attitude from some politically left wing that think they know best what the working classes want and is good for them.
That’s one reason that DT won.Those in power weren’t listening.

Absolutely, Oreo, I totally agree.

There is one Trump policy that could affect all of us in the UK very seriously and that would be the imposition of heavy tariffs on all our trade with/by the USA.

It could well mean we are forced to make choices about future relationships with the USA as opposed to deals with Europe. This is not exaggerating or scaremongering. It will possibly come out later this week (highlighted in the observer today) in a Reeves speech.

Oreo

I don’t think it’s the champagne quaffing that annoys people it’s more the attitude from some politically left wing that think they know best what the working classes want and is good for them.
That’s one reason that DT won.Those in power weren’t listening.

So what would you say that the working classes want, *Oreo'?

We're continually being told about people not knowing, or thinking they know best, what the working classes want, but none of the people who tell us this seem to want to spell out what the working classes actually want.

At the moment it seems to be a secret known only to an enlightened few which they are not prepared to share

Or, perhaps MOnica could tell us?

I think the Brexiters are keeping a low profie on the tariffs issue, Wyllow.

I seem to recall that the last time the UK tried for a free trade agreement with the US it was on condition that we took their hormone fed beef and chlorinated chicken and we weren't to label them with their country of origin! Wasn't that during the last Trump regime? I doubt he'd be so easy us now as he'd know we were desperate to avoid tariffs being port on anything we export to them and would be ready to roll over to any demands...

I had to laugh at the front page story in the Observer. 'We'll oppose Trump's plans to slap tariffs on the UK - Reeves'. Does she seriously think that he'd be bothered by our 'opposition'? 😂