Just before he became Tory leader David Cameron opened our office in Witney. He didn't have security, instead he oozed through the front door, his motion lubricated by the oiliest Lord Mayor you could possibley imagine. He (the Mayor, not Cameron) said to me, while quaffing the free champagne, "if there is anything you need just let me know" while actually nudging me and winking. Straight out of Monty Python.

I also had the misfortune to run into Rees Mogg the Friday morning after the election - 5am at Bath University. The Scotsman I was with decided to share his views with him about leaving the EU. I don't think I could have managed much more than a c***, w*******, J**z faced t***. So elected to remain silent. Where are terrorists when you need them eh?

Again I ask

Of what and whom Am I supposed to envious of?

You didn't answer before and I doubt if you can this time either.

Your attacks are always on those who you deem to be in a priveledged position. Regardless of how clever they are, how hard they may have worked or how much they may have sacrificed to achieve you resent that they earn what they do. Even rugby you think the likes of Keighley should get an equal share of the Sky money despite contributing nothing to generate it. Yours is the rhetoric of envy.

Now just once answer my point about Hockney and McIlroy and your ill concieved meritoracy of earnings

Quite right Sal. He must be a member of the Green Party (as in green with envy)

They use exactly the same tools and techniques most often associated with confidence tricksters (making someone feel "special" or an "insider" is as old as the hills - and still works). Which is what they are, really.

It was F. Scott Fitzgerald who once said, [i"An artist is someone who can hold two opposing viewpoints and still remain fully functional". [/i

But even Fitzgerald would have been left open-mouthed at the likes of Tony Blair, who really was the master of the craft. He could hold four different conversations in the same room - each of which fundamentally opposes the other three - and speak with flawless conviction. And he likely believed in all four standpoints - at once.

Cameron is Blair's spiritual progeny. And he's good, too. But he's still a long way short of the Master. Roman Polanski was extremely close to the mark when he made that film, [iThe Ghost Writer[/i.

It's interesting to contrast Blair and Cameron with political operators who are closer to the more traditional "Cult of Personality" school of leadership - the best example being Boris Johnson. Both he and those around him have been very clever in crafting his style and behaviour sufficiently close to Churchill for people to make the connection (seemingly on their own). He likes to project this image of spontaneity. But there's nothing spontaneous about the guy. His image is finely managed (very few people are even aware he's a bloody Yank!). If ever a Tory was being groomed for No. 10, Boris is he. He's done his time giving oral to big business as Mayor and he can expect plenty of benefactors when he throws his hat into the ring.

Boris is the political equivalent of Joey Essex. Successfully forging a career on the back of pretending to be the village idiot but the joke really is on us. There are plenty who are still suckered in by the 'bumbling buffoon' Boris as portrayed by the right wing press, but underneath that scruffy hair and cheeky chappy demeanour is a scheming, ruthless mercenary.

Funny that he twice got a majority for the Mayors job from all those metro savy lefty Labour Londoners. Who are the real buffoons then.

Is this a [irhetorical[/i rhetorical question.

As a certain Jeremy Paxman once repeated several times ANSWERTHE QUESTION !

Define how I have , in your words "attacked" anyone?

Where, in any comment, statement or query has it been stated there is resentment?

And to clarify, of what or whom am I still supposed to be envious of?

You seem to have, IMO , the idea that money, things and the concept of status are the most important part of life. I could be wrong but somehow, based on your postings and the risible chuntering of Lord Elpers and AJW I doubt it.

Last I looked, neither Hockney or McIlroy were looking to foist their (or more precisely, their masters') ideological beliefs on the population of the UK

never said they were so i am unsure what your point is?

are you suggesting the comments are untrue about the SL monies?

Just for once answer my point about Hockney or McIlroy

I don't see the relevance of any of this to what I originally posted and to be honest couldn't care less.

It's obvious that what I posted and what you read got lost somewhere.

You assumed one thing, thought something else was said and then went off about something else.

Revisit the original post and apply it to anyone, and that seems to cause you a problem.

Well it's your problem, if you want to make it, such, how you deal with it isn't of much interest to me, nor should I imagine anyone else, but then again don't you learn something new every day

I'm still waiting to find out what or whom I am envious of. You made the statement so please answer, if you can, although I doubt very much you will be able to.

I simply wondered why you introduced the straw men

just answer the question its pretty simple really. Something - despite 3 subsequent posts - have failed to address. Your views that nobody can earn huge money unless they are ripping somebody off is petty jealously. I agree there needs to be a more even spread of wealth but there still needs to opportunity for the talented to max out.

This article pretty much sums up how I see things as regards our wonderful Cameron / Osborne economic miracle: www.standard.co.uk/business/mark ... 76913.html

This article pretty much sums up how I see things as regards our wonderful Cameron / Osborne economic miracle: www.standard.co.uk/business/mark ... 76913.html

Because it avoids answering the question? Something our friend here is very adept at.

I didn't I simply gave examples of people who earn huge sums through their talent alone and asked the question how do they fit into his categorisation? Simply really even for you!! I am unsure why you even entered the debate you clearly have nothing of value to add other than try and deflect as usual.

What I don't get about you is, you apparently had it all good job, good salary, fine clothes, you own house etc - you made a conscious decision - as is your prerogative - to give it up. Yet you seem to want to stop others following the path that you yourself was quite happy to follow years ago - this seems a little hypocritical? Perhaps you are saying you know best and we should all follow your doctrine?

And another lefty with nothing of value to add - why do you feel the need to stick together - you are both grown men!!

Kettle and pot come to mind with you two.

League fan is always critical of the rich, seldom hear him having a go at other areas of society that cause far more trouble than a tiny number of mega-rich individuals. He give no value to how they may have made their money it is just unfair that they have so much and he has little - envy a terrible emotion.

Quote ="Dally"This article pretty much sums up how I see things as regards our wonderful Cameron / Osborne economic miracle: www.standard.co.uk/business/mark ... 76913.html'" The issues about UK productivity growth are quite interesting. You often see the argument that our productivity issues are due to having more labour market regulation, particularly in comparison to the US. The idea of efficiency wages (mentioned in the article) is something that I think will become increasingly popular in the next few years, so for example with regards to the London Living Wage 75% of employers surveyed said they felt the quality of their employees' work had increased. Stiglitz also argues that inequality is decreasing productivity because it "undermines market incentives". While capital investment is almost always going to increase productivity, how else the government attempts to boost productivity could be the biggest variable. It could either see the low productivity growth as a consequence of rigidities in the market, or a consequence of rampant growth in inequality and falling real wages (for most). Sadly under this Conservative government, I think the answer to that is very clear.

Quote ="Dally"This article pretty much sums up how I see things as regards our wonderful Cameron / Osborne economic miracle: www.standard.co.uk/business/mark ... 76913.html'" The issues about UK productivity growth are quite interesting. You often see the argument that our productivity issues are due to having more labour market regulation, particularly in comparison to the US. The idea of efficiency wages (mentioned in the article) is something that I think will become increasingly popular in the next few years, so for example with regards to the London Living Wage 75% of employers surveyed said they felt the quality of their employees' work had increased. Stiglitz also argues that inequality is decreasing productivity because it "undermines market incentives". While capital investment is almost always going to increase productivity, how else the government attempts to boost productivity could be the biggest variable. It could either see the low productivity growth as a consequence of rigidities in the market, or a consequence of rampant growth in inequality and falling real wages (for most). Sadly under this Conservative government, I think the answer to that is very clear.

You believe this nonsense? How old are you?

I doubt there is anyone who doesn't think (even if it is only in the privacy of his own home) he or she bears some semblance of responsibility for some portion of the world's ills. After all - there's PLENTY of blame to go around.

But the notion that a hundred, or a thousand, or a hundred-thousand "ordinary" people are MORE CULPABLE than Kenneth Lay (ENRON), Basil Jackson (Anglo-Iranian Oil), Allen W./ John F. Dulles (United Fruit), Warren Anderson (Union Carbide), Bernie Madoff, Jordan Belfort, Allen Stanford, Ivan Boesky, Howard Hughes (Hughes Tool & Die, TWA), Fritz Thyssen, Paul Warburg, George Herbert Walker Bush, Clint Murchison, D. H. Bird, Martha Stewart, Thaksin Shinawatra, Alisher Usmanov, Roman Abramovic - and all the other Russian oligarchs, the Wall Street bankers who financed Hitler's Third Reich, the chairmen and fellow board members of all the major cigarette manufacturers who demonstrably LIED about the effects of tobacco smoke on the human respiratory system, the senior staff of ITT who played a key role in overthrowing the Allende government in Chile (plus the thousands of deaths at the hands of Pinochet, the car-bombing of Orlando Letelier), the chairmen of BP who have worked hard to install repressive dictatorships in the former Soviet southern states in exchange for oil rights (as well as the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe), the war profiteers of Halliburton, KBR, the Carlisle Group, Blackwater (now "Xe"icon_wink.gif, BAE Systems, Lockheed, Boeing, Bechtel, Aegis Defence Services, General Dynamics, Nour, Chevron, Exxon-Mobil, L-3 Communications, EADS, Raytheon, Environmental Chemical, International American Products, Custer Battles, Monsanto, Krupp, Syngenta, Grupo Mexico, Smith & Wesson, I.G. Farben etc. etc. etc. etc.?

I'm sure if you looked hard enough and far enough down the chain of causality you could find some means by which I have profited from the actions of BAE Systems or Lockheed - but this DOES NOT mean I gave my permission for the former to irradiate a patch of Iraq with depleted uranium shells or the latter to slam hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Hellfire missiles into Palestinian apartment blocks or that I am "equally guilty" or "jealous" of them.

I'm sure my grandfather at some point in his life purchased products made by one of I.G. Farben's international subsidiaries. This DOES NOT mean he gave his permission for them to develop Zyklon B for the role of exterminating the Jews or that he is "equally guilty" or "jealous" of them.

I'm sure a good proportion of the world's population have eaten Chiquita bananas, or filled their cars with BP's oil, or made phone calls through ITT's telecomms infrastructure, or purchased goods or services from ENRON - this DOES NOT mean any of them approved of overthrowing the democratically elected governments of Guatemala or Chile or Iran - or ripping off the pension funds of tens of thousands of hard-working employees or that they are "equally guilty" or "jealous" of them.

I'm certain YOU have wittingly or unwittingly eaten produce which was grown with the aid of Monsanto's fertilizers. Does this mean you are EQUALLY CULPABLE for the hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of acres of not just unusable but highly toxic Vietnamese land which was sprayed with Agent Orange during the war and forty years later is still causing birth defects, stillborn babies etc. - or that you are "equally guilty" or "jealous" of them?

Explain to me - IN PLAIN ENGLISH - how you arrive at this PERVERSE idea that anyone you know is equally culpable to the above - or the myriad number of other examples I could produce from memory alone?

Or are you just going to carry on spewing out this RIDICULOUS and OFFENSIVE mantra that anyone who takes issue with the gross economic imbalances we see all around us is just "JEALOUS"?

Marvellous post.

I don't understand why people don't understand that the world is more skewed than the people who run it would have us believe.

Clearly what you still "don't get" is the fact that I have absolutely no problem with anyone making money - the only caveats being how they made that money and what they then do with that money once they have made it. I applaud any entrepreneur who uses his/her talents to make money and if in doing so, they also employ others, then that too is to be lauded.

My caveats exclude those who simply make money from money: by doing nothing other than gambling on markets, shorting etc. they are unlikely to be employing anyone, apart from a Philipina cleaner or nanny. Once they've "made" that money, if they then seek to avoid paying tax by employing someone to show them "tax efficiencies", then they'll be subject to my derision. I seriously struggle to understand why anyone who has previously enjoyed all the benefits of a tax-payer provided infrastructure and welfare system, should then think it is equitable to do whatever in their power to avoid making any such contributions to the present economy.

As for my own situation, it is my choice and I'm far happier than I was 20 years ago. I probably wear better clothes than I did then, 20 years ago I'd never dream of wearing Savile Row bespoke, Pal Zileri Abito Privato suits or Turnbull & Asser shirts, Nudie jeans, Trickers shoes etc. Back then I was spending up to £800 on Armani suits, £50 on Thomas Pink shirts and £120 on Loake shoes. Now I buy my clothes (socks & underwear excepted) from car boot sales, charity shops and ebay.

The reason you don't understand say far more about you than it does about me

Graeme & I haven't seen each other in ten years and during that period, I can count the number of electronic conversations we've had on one hand.

Please don't let your psychosis run away with you

Quote ="Dally"This article pretty much sums up how I see things as regards our wonderful Cameron / Osborne economic miracle: www.standard.co.uk/business/mark ... 76913.html'" And the solitary comment at the bottom pretty much sums up the two-facedness of the media since the election.

Quote ="Dally"This article pretty much sums up how I see things as regards our wonderful Cameron / Osborne economic miracle: www.standard.co.uk/business/mark ... 76913.html'" And the solitary comment at the bottom pretty much sums up the two-facedness of the media since the election.