Y'know all those people who slag off 'lefties' (ie whomsoever they don't agree with but cannot come up with a real argument against) as showing "envy", well [url=http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/27/boris-johnson-thatcher-greed-goodBoris says envy is good.[/url

But at the same time, inequality is going to grow: in which case, does theft become acceptable? If not, what is the eventual outcome of that good greed and envy?

What a tool he is.

I am not sure your first paragraph is factually correct. I think the comments on the lefties is more around their hypocrisy - a good example would be Polly Toynbee. I am not sure many think they are envious - let's face it what have many got to be envious of?

Let this be a warning to anyone who thinks Johnson would make a good Prime Minister. If he ever got his hands on the country, he would make even the worst excesses of this evil coalition pale into insignificance.

Far from being the buffoon he happily projects himself, he is a scheming, right-winger with few scruples. Even his own sister describes him as Sicilian, meaning if wronged, he will always seek vengeance.

Perhaps not you, but we do have posters who use the 'politics of envy' comment on frequent occasions, with nary a thing to back it up.

Then again, there are also people around who believe that, somewhere, there is a set rate of pay for anyone who claims to be a 'socialist', and others who seem to believe that, if someone else thinks a living wage would be a good move, they should fork out from their own pockets to ensure that others are not on poverty pay.

The problem with politicians are always on the extremities, right or left, both cause different problems for a country.

The problem with people who follow the mantra of the extremes of either side is that they never seem to stop and consider the effects of their mantra if put into practice but instead will follow blindly with an almost religious fervour and have no hesitation in condemning anyone who does not agree that theirs is the only way, religion is a good comparison actually, you need to have complete allegiance to a policy with unquestioning obedience and not defer from the party line or stop to question why - and then severely chastise anyone who questions you without explaining why or what the theories are that you are following (because you never asked that question yourself).

Being as this thread is about Boris, the problem with following his extreme opinions is that it will lead to something similar to what we see in America where being unemployed and unwell is probably the worst thing that can ever happen to to a person.

Boris' comments also link in with this article from this morning: www.cityam.com/article/138560220 ... ther-apart Boris' mention of allowing cities to raise taxes is, I believe, his way of allowing London to cut its taxes. Other cities will be unable to make up losses they suffer via reduced regional redistribution and so regional inequality will increase. This nation is heading for unrest.

Boris' comments also link in with this article from this morning: www.cityam.com/article/138560220 ... ther-apart Boris' mention of allowing cities to raise taxes is, I believe, his way of allowing London to cut its taxes. Other cities will be unable to make up losses they suffer via reduced regional redistribution and so regional inequality will increase. This nation is heading for unrest.

Roger Quimbly on Twitter is right though

"For me, Boris Johnson's popularity is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma contained within an enormous bumbling ."

Mind, it's only a week or so ago when [url=http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-cameron-calls-capitalism-lessons-2760763David Cameron called for 'capitalism classes' in schools[/url.

Now just imagine what uproar there'd be if anyone suggested 'communism' classes.

It shouldn't be the business of any school to teach any political ethos (or faith, for that matter) over any other.

See Marie Antoinette for details...

Indeed. It's little wonder the French & the Russians killed them. I'm surprised it wasn't more widespread.

Marx always believed Britain would be the focus of a workers' uprising. It may well have happened too had two world wars not ridden to the rescue of the ruling classes

Interesting, though, that at about the time Marx was writing, the British working class was quite effectively bought off by a ruling class that was intelligent enough to do it – so we never had an 1848, for instance.

Prussia/Germany is also an interesting contrast, since Bismarck created welfare for the first time. He was nobody's 'lefty', didn't want to see a repeat of 1848, so understood the consequences of simply battering the least well-off in society and acted to tackle that. And then you get the Churchill quote that, IIRC, Dave O posted a few days ago elsewhere about everyone having a living wage – again, hardly anyone's 'lefty'.

I think it reveals a number of things, including the utter arrogance of the supranational corporatocracy, and also how what was once considered decent even by pretty right-wing conservatives is now instantly slammed as 'left wing' – in other words, there has been a huge shift to the right in the last period.

We come back to the hypocrisy of those who spout Socialist values - McClusky talks about socialism and fairness - how fair is a final salary scheme for union employees funded by their members that will have no chance of such a benefit. That is the type of hypocrisy that gets 'socialists' a bad name. Ms Toynbee spouting about social inequality from her villa in Tuscany!!

N Power are going to outsource to India, what does the local Unison rep hark on about when he is interviewed - not process improvements to lower costs no, the chief exec is paid too much. That is the politics of envy.

I have on a number of threads suggested increasing the minimum wage by the 14% employers NI and removing the tax on employing people - as yet you have never commented on that. It seems to me you want employers to fork out the extra plus the additional tax on the extra - so what would you consider a reasonable return for any company to make?

You you have any other bloody tune no one mentioned unions.
What about answering those questions put to you on various threads.

You just stick to making serious false accusations about posters on here!! or have you erased that incident from your memory bank?

I didn't just mention the unions I did raise Ms Toynbee, I also raised the issue of employers NI and what would you consider a reasonable return for a commercial enterprise - did you struggle with those?

You know the longer he posts the more convinced I am that I was right...

You mentioned unions so let's respond to that.

Now, perhaps you'll answer the question of how much a "supposed socialist" should expect in pay. You didn't last time and dodged around it by providing half a definition of socialist, as though that came close to answering the question you won't answer. It didn't.

Perhaps this time you'll root out the book of pay scales for "supposed socialists".

Interesting to see that you think that a union should not try, as an employer, to act the way that it expects other employers to act, but to actually behave, as an employer, in a way that it fights against. In other words, you want it to operate double standards.

And trade unions have elected general secretaries, so the membership do have the chance to do something about it. That's called democracy.

On Npower: if it's struggling so much that it wants to take jobs away from this country so that it can pay much, much lower wages in a country where the cost of living is much lower, then it is entirely apt to ask if the boss is chipping in with moves to reduce the wage bill – because that's all it is. And after all, if profits had fallen, it would illustrate a bit of failure at the top, wouldn't it, probably more so than among those back-room staff who are set to lose their jobs?

Clue: Npower is not struggling – it made £176m in operating profits in the first part of this year alone.

Such big corporates are greedy – and as a result of their greed, people get shafted. But then you'll be squealing for the people who are chucked out of jobs to be finding work instantly or having any benefits slashed, because obviously there are loads of jobs out there etc.

And as for the 'politics of envy', you do pretty well yourself: whinging and whining about how your boss won't give you a pay rise, but complaining also at any group of workers who dare to fight for one – oh dear, they should put up and shut up, just like you.

I suppose you think William Wilberforce shouldn't have opposed slavery because he wasn't a slave? That is the stupidity of your "logic" re Toynbee or anyone else who isn't on the bread line who dares champion social equality.

You think you are being clever by going on about hypocrisy but you clearly don't understand the meaning of the word.



You are now making stuff up. They weren't asked about "process improvements". The company undertook a review without any consultation whatsoever with the Union or employees and simply announced that is what it was going to do. It is not the politics of envy but a clear illustration of a company that is making the very workers who helped it make a profit redundant!

What is more, Paul Massara the CEO earns £600,000 a year which includes a bonus of £150,000 [uwhich is tied to company profits[/u. So he is going to get an even bigger bonus if him exporting jobs lowers costs and thus increases profit.

Increasing profit by lowering cost has been the way many companies have kept their share price high and the City happy for years. What they aren't doing is increasing productivity. There is only so far you can take this strategy but in the meantime people in this country lose their jobs because of it.

There is nothing envious about highlighting the cynicism of Massara who will benefit in his own pocket at the expense of the very workers who delivered the profits he is already benefiting from.

We have a German state owned company exporting British jobs to India and all you can come up with is simplistic nonsense about comments on the CEO's salary.



What are you on about now? Any company factors in its labour costs into what it charges and so capitalism and market forces will come to the rescue. They will either be able to pass these costs on and so profit margin will remain unaffected or they won't because a competitor is undercutting them despite also having to pay the living wage.

In any case just how many people do you think are going to be affected by being paid the living wage in any particular company? KPMG is a living wage employer. You reckon that cost them a lot? Have they asked for their NI bill to be reduced? No.

He makes stuff up all the time, and isn't very good at it. Don't worry, he'll disappear for a few days and then pop up on another thread.

Will little ajw be tugging on his shoelaces following behind him?

KPMG have become champions for the living wage precisely because it improves productivity, retention and recruitment, and helps reduce sickness.

There is a short-sighted ethos out there of treating employees as a cost, to be cut as much as possible rather than seen as an investment, is actually conducive to better performance by a company. It's bølløcks, it's short-sighted and it damages the economy at the same time.

I wouldn't be surprised. Interesting how he's never returned to the Andrew Mitchell thread.

By communism classes I assume you mean students actually learning about the 'benefits' of communism rather its many ills. If that is what you mean of course there would be uproar. Why do we want our kids taught about an evil ideology as if it is a good thing?

How exactly do you 'teach communism' anyway? Once it is taught even children will realise it is an absolute joke and reject it out of hand. There has to be some kind of sense / purpose to what is being taught.

Much of this speech by Boris is obvious. 'There will always be inequality' - well you don't say. It's fact but it offends the core principles of socialism. Presumably why the left are so up in arms about it.

A really good analogy.

Similarly, one should only have opposed apartheid if a black South African.