Ken Livingstone - Mayor candidate. 'Same old Labour'

Sewinman

Greg66 wrote:

Monkeypump wrote:

I think the CC is outrageous, although not sure it's 'envy'.

SamWise1972 wrote:

Envy? In what sense?

It is envy, and here's how.

It all goes back to schooldays. In the sixth form, it was a well known FACT that if you wanted sex with a burd, you need a flash motor, with a stereo, an electric aerial, and reclining seats.

Now, those pupils with rich parents could afford to buy their offspring driving lessons, and let them drive their cars. Those pupils would, therefore, be the offspring of Tory voters. And in the result, they got all the best burds, and all the sex.

Those students at the other end of the spectrum - the offspring of blue collar Labour voters - had no such luck. They were consigned to public transport (and no burd in her right mind puts out on the back of the offer of a shared bus ride home) and five knuckle shuffles.

This not unnaturally bred envy and despair. When the saddos grew up, and found that they could not hold down jobs they went to work for the council, clawing their way up into positions of power eventually in the Labour party.

That was when they were able to look back at their sad and lonely teenage years, and realise that the reason their Rt Hon Tory colleagues now had all the fit burds was due to the menace of the car, which they saw as having distorted the natural order of comradely attraction all those years ago.

So, wishing to break the cycle of rejection and onanism, all Labour politicians have consistently waged war on the car and the driver.

It's the paradigm example of the politics of envy.

I thought it was a FACT that most Tory MPs were getting reamed up the batty during their school days?

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

Yes, there is nothing wrong with voting Labour if their policies agree with my values.

I have very different values of what I want locally than what I what nationally.

Oona King appeared to reflect my social values. So if she had been chosen chances are I would have voted for her.

How so?

DonDaddyD

Sewinman wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Monkeypump wrote:

I think the CC is outrageous, although not sure it's 'envy'.

SamWise1972 wrote:

Envy? In what sense?

It is envy, and here's how.

It all goes back to schooldays. In the sixth form, it was a well known FACT that if you wanted sex with a burd, you need a flash motor, with a stereo, an electric aerial, and reclining seats.

Now, those pupils with rich parents could afford to buy their offspring driving lessons, and let them drive their cars. Those pupils would, therefore, be the offspring of Tory voters. And in the result, they got all the best burds, and all the sex.

Those students at the other end of the spectrum - the offspring of blue collar Labour voters - had no such luck. They were consigned to public transport (and no burd in her right mind puts out on the back of the offer of a shared bus ride home) and five knuckle shuffles.

This not unnaturally bred envy and despair. When the saddos grew up, and found that they could not hold down jobs they went to work for the council, clawing their way up into positions of power eventually in the Labour party.

That was when they were able to look back at their sad and lonely teenage years, and realise that the reason their Rt Hon Tory colleagues now had all the fit burds was due to the menace of the car, which they saw as having distorted the natural order of comradely attraction all those years ago.

So, wishing to break the cycle of rejection and onanism, all Labour politicians have consistently waged war on the car and the driver.

It's the paradigm example of the politics of envy.

I thought it was a FACT that most Tory MPs were getting reamed up the batty during their school days?

Not all:

Private school - A finger here a thumb in there
Boarding school - Reamed
Catholic School - :shock:

Labour voters couldn't afford sending kids to the above, thankfully....

SamWise1972

DonDaddyD wrote:

SamWise1972 wrote:

So essentially, what you're saying is that all the stuff which can be PROVED to have changed and improved doesn't mean anything because you, a highly paid management person, don't feel any safer than you did?

What the hell has my job, my position in the organisation or my pay (defined as highly paid but that is a matter of perspective) got to do with anything?

Could it be that you were not one of the peope most in need of protection from crime to begin with?

Well actually during Ken's reign I hailed from Norbury (kinda Thorton Heath/Croydon) and worked in Camberwell. Look them up.

What this seems to come down to is that you're opposed to things that might make a positive difference overall if they inconvenience you personally a bit. Fair comment?

No not really.

That's a legitimate point of view, of course, but it's good to call things what they are.

What do you seem to think you calling out for what it is?

That I'm selfish and I'm not one of the people who needed protection most from crime because of my job, position and pay?

Even if that is incorrect your post is riddled with assumptions.

Naturally it's riddled with assumptions, but it's set up a number of straw men, only one of which you've knocked down. I don't need to look up Norwood and Croydon, I'm personally acquainted, and yeah, not good places to live in the 80s. Do you really not feel safer in Wimbledon 2010 than you did in Croydon in the 80s? Yes, I'm calling that, based on what you've said, you're selfish; your big complaint seems to be that things are more expensive, though you've not really said what, so it's hard to know if that's down to Ken.

Your position etc all contribute to the situations you are likely to find yourself in; crime in London could be reduced massively without affecting someone like you at all. For instance, if knife crime was reduced by 50%, what effect would that have on you? How many times were you knifed in the last ten years, or threatened? You have a vague sense of not being safe; if you want to know whether knife crime is down, a 16 year old in Peckham will have a much more valid view. The stats say crime has reduced, you say it hasn't. Who are we to believe?

W1

SamWise1972 wrote:

W1 wrote:

Labour have just gifted it to Boris. If Red Ken is the best they can do, it's pretty indicative of how pants the rest of them are!

Yep, cos Ken has an appalling record of winning London elections. He is an odd looking bloke with an annoying voice and a face for radio, but he's won a lot. Perhaps he wins on something other than his appearance and voice?

Well he didn't win the last one did he?

DonDaddyD

TailWindHome wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Yes, there is nothing wrong with voting Labour if their policies agree with my values.

I have very different values of what I want locally than what I what nationally.

Oona King appeared to reflect my social values. So if she had been chosen chances are I would have voted for her.

How so?

*Disclaimer* I don't think I'm entirely right on this thought process and it is highly contradictory *Disclaimer*

Locally I'm all care in the community, raising the quality of life for socially deprived areas. Elminate drugs, guns, violent dogs, anti-social behaviour and better quality schooling. It's all about the kids the kids are our future.

Nationally, I think - I'm still learning - I'm more Tory than anything else. I don't share the Tories values at a local level. But do share many other values on a national level. Especially their views on communities, socio-economically disadvantaged ones.

Neither Boris and Ken do enough for me for the communities in my view.

The election takes place before the Olympics.

SamWise1972

Sorry - misread. You lived in Croydon in the late 90s. I suspect you don't remember what London used to be like.

SamWise1972

W1 wrote:

SamWise1972 wrote:

W1 wrote:

Labour have just gifted it to Boris. If Red Ken is the best they can do, it's pretty indicative of how pants the rest of them are!

Yep, cos Ken has an appalling record of winning London elections. He is an odd looking bloke with an annoying voice and a face for radio, but he's won a lot. Perhaps he wins on something other than his appearance and voice?

Well he didn't win the last one did he?

What does that signify? It's not like he can win this one if people don't vote for him, but it wouldn't be his first comeback, would it? Churchill was in the wilderness for years before his wartime leadership, and then again before his (disastrous) last term. Losing one election doesn't speak for the man as much as having won rather a lot, IMO.

W1

SamWise1972 wrote:

W1 wrote:

SamWise1972 wrote:

W1 wrote:

Labour have just gifted it to Boris. If Red Ken is the best they can do, it's pretty indicative of how pants the rest of them are!

Yep, cos Ken has an appalling record of winning London elections. He is an odd looking bloke with an annoying voice and a face for radio, but he's won a lot. Perhaps he wins on something other than his appearance and voice?

Well he didn't win the last one did he?

What does that signify? It's not like he can win this one if people don't vote for him, but it wouldn't be his first comeback, would it? Churchill was in the wilderness for years before his wartime leadership, and then again before his (disastrous) last term. Losing one election doesn't speak for the man as much as having won rather a lot, IMO.

It's not exactly progress though is it - sticking the last loser in to try again?

I suppose if he gets his nasty jealous commie mates on side he might have a chance - but I think Boris has the popular vote.

I can't really believe you're comparing that snide, self serving cretin with Churchill though.

feltkuota

Livingston promised and I mean promised that the Olympics would not cost more than £2.3bn. Where are we now £15bnplus

SamWise1972

W1 wrote:

It's not exactly progress though is it - sticking the last loser in to try again?

I suppose if he gets his nasty jealous commie mates on side he might have a chance - but I think Boris has the popular vote.

I can't really believe you're comparing that snide, self serving cretin with Churchill though.

You've missed the point. It's sticking the most likely winner in, and he's not only a more likely winner than the rest of the Labour options, he's a more likely winner than most from the other parties too.

And I'm not comparing him to Churchill except to illustrate that an election defeat or a period in the political wilderness doesn't mean you're done and there's no point in you any more.

SamWise1972

feltkuota wrote:

Livingston promised and I mean promised that the Olympics would not cost more than £2.3bn. Where are we now £15bnplus

Now THAT is a valid criticism.

DonDaddyD

SamWise1972 wrote:

Naturally it's riddled with assumptions, but it's set up a number of straw men, only one of which you've knocked down. I don't need to look up Norwood and Croydon, I'm personally acquainted, and yeah, not good places to live in the 80s. Do you really not feel safer in Wimbledon 2010 than you did in Croydon in the 80s? Yes, I'm calling that, based on what you've said, you're selfish; your big complaint seems to be that things are more expensive, though you've not really said what, so it's hard to know if that's down to Ken.

Your position etc all contribute to the situations you are likely to find yourself in; crime in London could be reduced massively without affecting someone like you at all. For instance, if knife crime was reduced by 50%, what effect would that have on you? How many times were you knifed in the last ten years, or threatened? You have a vague sense of not being safe; if you want to know whether knife crime is down, a 16 year old in Peckham will have a much more valid view. The stats say crime has reduced, you say it hasn't. Who are we to believe?

Look I'm not here to argue with you and shoot straw men down as though this is Duck Hunt on the Nintendo. I've given my view you disagree. Fine. But I'll entertain this further...

OK I'm selfish, to some extent we all are. We all have wants desires and expectations Or can I sleep with your wife, have your slippers and the keys to your house? if you say no I'm going to call you selfish becasue that's about as much consideration to my values that you've afforded me.

To be honest your being judgemental about a person and a life that you have no understanding of. Your presumptions of my life magnify your arrogance and a prejudice to a lifestyle you seemingly take issue with.

You read Wimbeldon and think one thing. You read manager and think another. And so you've come to a conclusion. A wrong one.

I'm not going to discuss with you how ghetto my life is, it isn't, that is not the point. Or as a young boy growing up in Brixton, Norbury and College in Croydon. Why should I share my experience of drug dealers and how easy, too easy, it is at a young age for your life to spiral out of control. I'm not going to discuss with you about my working in communities to raise the awareness of drug and substance misuse to ethnic minorities and how I saw these people failed by society durings Ken's reign. Nor am I not going to discuss my friends job which is to rehabilitate young offenders in Mitcham, which is next to Norbury. Or give you details of friends who have been stabbed, dogs that have chased them or drug deals at the bottom of parents street. I'm not going to describe my early 20s which was under Ken's rule. I'm not going to share the trials of my parents with my brother who is now 16 and family members who fought hard to keep their kids, my cousins, safe and in good schools where there are none. Why should I mention my cousin in prison for the very same knife problems you seem to think I have no valid view of. Because after all they mean nothing to me.

No, I'm going to leave you in your little World where you think I'm a middle class suit and brogue wearing manager with no direct knowledge of the areas he is talking about and the little affect Ken Livingston had on them.

Your presumptuous ignorance, not mine.

W1

SamWise1972 wrote:

W1 wrote:

It's not exactly progress though is it - sticking the last loser in to try again?

I suppose if he gets his nasty jealous commie mates on side he might have a chance - but I think Boris has the popular vote.

I can't really believe you're comparing that snide, self serving cretin with Churchill though.

You've missed the point. It's sticking the most likely winner in, and he's not only a more likely winner than the rest of the Labour options, he's a more likely winner than most from the other parties too.

To be fair you're missing my point too - if he's the most likely winner of all the Labour candidates, it's a sad indication of the state of the Labour party (well, sad for them at any rate).

I don't agree that he's a more likely winner than the other parties - or at least I hope not.

ketsbaia

feltkuota wrote:

Livingston promised and I mean promised that the Olympics would not cost more than £2.3bn. Where are we now £15bnplus

?

tailwindhome

Londoners voted for Ken as it was a jolly good wheeze to give Tony Blair a bloodly nose.

The woke up to find themselves with Ken as Mayor and it wasn't a joke anymore.

Londoners voted for Boris as it was a jolly good wheeze to give Gordon Brown a bloodly nose.

They woke up to find themselves with a clown* in charge of a major world city. The buffonery which was mildly entertaining on Have I Got News after a nice bottle of red was now in Bejing telling a world audience that PIng Pong was coming home.

You people are idiots






* As I've posted before I live in Northern Ireland and we have a cast of politicians which are a world class laughing stock. Boris out does even them.

SamWise1972

DonDaddyD wrote:

You read Wimbeldon and think one thing. You read manager and think another. And so you've come to a conclusion. A wrong one.

I'm not going to discuss with you how ghetto my life is. Or as a young boy growing up in Brixton, Norbury, going to a school which no longer exists. My experience of drug dealers and how easy, to easy life at a young age is to spiral out of control. I'm not going to discuss with you about my working in communities to raise the awareness of drug and substance misuse to ethnic minorities. Nor am I not going to discuss my friends job which is to rehabilitate young offenders in Mitcham, which is next to Norbury. Or give you details of friends who have been stabbed, dogs that have chased them or drug deals at the bottom of parents street. I'm not going to describe my early 20s which was under Ken's rule.

No, I'm going to leave you in your little World where you think I'm a middle class suit and brogue wearing manager with no concept of the areas he is talking about and the little affect Ken Livingston had on them.

For that is your presumptuous ignorance, not mine.

Too late! But also, fair points. I've taken a massively presumptuous line to get an interesting argument going, and it hasn't worked. I've evidently offended, and looking back, I can see why, so I offer my apologies.

I was slightly irritated by the tone of some of the things you said, which weren't based on fact, at the lack of any reference to what his policies might be, at leaning on personal perception against recorded evidence, but most of all, at you not stating what you really wanted, nor making very many points about what you didn't. The whole thing at the start read as a bit of an "I don't like that Livingstone bloke", and it still does.

To approach it in a more adult way, what do you want an elected mayor to do? And outside the extension of the congestion charging zone, what is it about Livingstone's agenda that you don't like?

SamWise1972

W1 wrote:

To be fair you're missing my point too - if he's the most likely winner of all the Labour candidates, it's a sad indication of the state of the Labour party (well, sad for them at any rate).

I don't agree that he's a more likely winner than the other parties - or at least I hope not.

Well, yes.....except that you'd have to look a long way to find someone with a better record of winning London elections, wouldn't you? He's a thoroughbred at that game, whatever you think of his policies. Blair didn't want him in because they didn't see eye to eye politically, but he got stuck with him cos he knew he could win.

My point is, the fact that he's a very good winner of elections doesn't make him a good mayor. I think he was in most ways a good mayor, but they're different things. He's the most likely winner not because the rest of them are bad, but because he's extraordinarily good at winning London elections.

I think he's the most likely winner full stop; I think Boris only got in as part of an anti-Blair protest vote, although to be fair, I quite like him, and don't think he's done a bad job either. I think now that the Labour backlash has resulted in the kitten-stranglers getting back into power, Londoners will vote for Ken once more. I could be wrong though, it's happened. Twice

DonDaddyD

SamWise1972 wrote:

Too late! But also, fair points. I've taken a massively presumptuous line to get an interesting argument going, and it hasn't worked. I've evidently offended, and looking back, I can see why, so I offer my apologies.

I was slightly irritated by the tone of some of the things you said, which weren't based on fact, at the lack of any reference to what his policies might be, at leaning on personal perception against recorded evidence, but most of all, at you not stating what you really wanted, nor making very many points about what you didn't. The whole thing at the start read as a bit of an "I don't like that Livingstone bloke", and it still does.

To approach it in a more adult way, what do you want an elected mayor to do? And outside the extension of the congestion charging zone, what is it about Livingstone's agenda that you don't like?

To be fair this was one of my following posts:

DDD previously wrote:

My issue isn't that Ken was dreadful or that Boris was terrible.

Its just that in Boris' case I feel London needs someone who will focus on the heart of the city's social-cultural issues and tackle socially-deprived areas. I really think the affluent areas are fine and will now only benefit from the raising of quality in the not so affluent areas.

In Ken's case I just want someone new and someone who won't charge me into poverty. Ken lost the plot when he proposed an increase and extension of the congestion charge. His return smacks full of an ousted dictator returning to claim what he percieves as rightfully his. The majority didn't want him the last time round, what's changed? He hasn't.

I think its quite clear. I'm not going to pick apart the Man's last campaign, but I know that as a Londoner who voted in the first London mayor elections that saw him elected. I didn't even bother to vote the second time around, things for me and where I lived and where I was working were bad. There was no investment, no regeneration - schools were failing and knife crime epidemic and dogs as weapons was just beginning to emerge. Plus they were knocking all the estates closer to the city and moving the-not-nice people outwards, which made things worse. Then there was the increasing the Congestion charge. I didn't want Boris in, didn't want Ken in so I simply didn't vote.

What I want is a person with a more recent and first hand outlook of what life is like in both the socio-economically deprived areas of London complete with failing schools, multiple chicken shops and weed that can be smelt from every street corner (although coke now seems to be the more prevalent drug). I want that person to also understand the middle and upper classes who is not so much focused on the City but the people who travel into the City to make it and the areas they live in. London extends further than just its centre.

SamWise1972

DonDaddyD wrote:

To be honest your being judgemental about a person and a life that you have no understanding of. Your presumptions of my life magnify your arrogance and a prejudice to a lifestyle you seemingly take issue with.

Just rereading, and rethinking. I don't mind middle class lifestyles; I have one. I just think that the better off I get, the more it behooves me to vote for the good of others. You seem to feel the same, which makes some of your broader leanings confusing. Perhaps it would help if you clarified a bit more?

Also, and forgive me if I'm wrong here, I have had you pegged as a bit of a reactionary after your response to the World Naked Bike Ride thread. I'm frantically backpedalling here, you see, because your points about being arrogant, presumptuous etc are uncomfortably accurate, at least in this case. Sorry.

waddlie

TailWindHome wrote:

* As I've posted before I live in Northern Ireland and we have a cast of politicians which are a world class laughing stock. Boris out does even them.

Heh, you just reminded me of this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugailEn8U5o

WARNING: This is NSFW unless you're using headphones.

waddlie

SamWise1972 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

To be honest your being judgemental about a person and a life that you have no understanding of. Your presumptions of my life magnify your arrogance and a prejudice to a lifestyle you seemingly take issue with.

Just rereading, and rethinking. I don't mind middle class lifestyles; I have one. I just think that the better off I get, the more it behooves me to vote for the good of others. You seem to feel the same, which makes some of your broader leanings confusing. Perhaps it would help if you clarified a bit more?

Also, and forgive me if I'm wrong here, I have had you pegged as a bit of a reactionary after your response to the World Naked Bike Ride thread. I'm frantically backpedalling here, you see, because your points about being arrogant, presumptuous etc are uncomfortably accurate, at least in this case. Sorry.

You know, every time someone's nice to DDD, Spen666 dies a little inside?

As you were...

DonDaddyD

SamWise1972 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

To be honest your being judgemental about a person and a life that you have no understanding of. Your presumptions of my life magnify your arrogance and a prejudice to a lifestyle you seemingly take issue with.

Just rereading, and rethinking. I don't mind middle class lifestyles; I have one. I just think that the better off I get, the more it behooves me to vote for the good of others. You seem to feel the same, which makes some of your broader leanings confusing. Perhaps it would help if you clarified a bit more?

Also, and forgive me if I'm wrong here, I have had you pegged as a bit of a reactionary after your response to the World Naked Bike Ride thread. I'm frantically backpedalling here, you see, because your points about being arrogant, presumptuous etc are uncomfortably accurate, at least in this case. Sorry.

There is nothing wrong with voting Tory. Voting Tory doesn't automatically mean disadvantaging the poor. When you're talking about a Governing a Country then yes you can shape the Countries identity to have values such as eliminating the benefit culture rewarding people who want to work, equal tax across the board and not taxing richer people more. When you are talking about working with people more intimately at say a local level then I think left wing policies work better to support people locally. There can be a different Governing system nationally and locally working in tandem for the greater good.

What did I say in the naked bike ride thread?

There is a lot more to people than what they write in a thread and half the time what they write falls far short of explaining their position properly. I fully admit I never do myself complete and utter justice on bikeradar but i make it my business never to have a perception of anyone I've never met personally. It's fine. No need to back peddal any further.

W1

TailWindHome wrote:

Londoners voted for Ken as it was a jolly good wheeze to give Tony Blair a bloodly nose.

The woke up to find themselves with Ken as Mayor and it wasn't a joke anymore.

Londoners voted for Boris as it was a jolly good wheeze to give Gordon Brown a bloodly nose.

They woke up to find themselves with a clown* in charge of a major world city. The buffonery which was mildly entertaining on Have I Got News after a nice bottle of red was now in Bejing telling a world audience that PIng Pong was coming home.

You people are idiots






* As I've posted before I live in Northern Ireland and we have a cast of politicians which are a world class laughing stock. Boris out does even them.

I think people voted for Boris becuase they were fed up with the polished spin of modern politics - people in general don't like being taken for fools. Boris is more "human" than many politicians (even if he appears barking) and people like that.

But don't let the buffonery fool you into underestimating him.

SamWise1972

DonDaddyD wrote:

There is nothing wrong with voting Tory. Voting Tory doesn't automatically mean disadvantaging the poor. When you're talking about a Governing a Country then yes you can shape the Countries identity to have values such as eliminating the benefit culture rewarding people who want to work, equal tax across the board and not taxing richer people more. When you are talking about working with people more intimately at say a local level then I think left wing policies work better to support people locally. There can be a different Governing system nationally and locally working in tandem for the greater good.

I disagree; I suspect all tories, Thatcherite and One Nationers alike of having an agenda to reward the rich and disadvantage the poor. It's what they've always done. I would like to see benefit culture reduced and people who want to work rewarded, but under the last tory administration, which I remember only too well, plenty of people who wanted to work could neither find work nor feed themselves adequately. I would like to be proved wrong about Cameron, but I have such a bitter taste in my mouth from those days that my expectation is more of the same. And I fundamentally disagree with flat tax; the rich, including me, SHOULD be taxed more.

DonDaddyD wrote:

What did I say in the naked bike ride thread?

Variations on "You're all just there to see naked people", and "I wouldn't mind, but none of them are hot". For ages.

DonDaddyD wrote:

There is a lot more to people than what they write in a thread and half the time what they write falls far short of explaining their position properly. I fully admit I never do myself complete and utter justice on bikeradar but i make it my business never to have a perception of anyone I've never met personally. It's fine. No need to back peddal any further.

I'm someone who is extremely confident of my point of view, and prone to filling in gaps in what people say with assumptions. It's not a good point, but it sometimes makes for fun arguments.

DonDaddyD

SamWise1972 wrote:

I disagree; I suspect all tories, Thatcherite and One Nationers alike of having an agenda to reward the rich and disadvantage the poor. It's what they've always done.

I can neither argue for or against this. I think my perspective is more an ideal than anything else.

And I fundamentally disagree with flat tax; the rich, including me, SHOULD be taxed more.

Why should I be taxed more for working hard and making something of myself than the f*cks at school that bullied me, thought it was cool to fail exams and who now complain about not having that job.

Variations on "You're all just there to see naked people", and "I wouldn't mind, but none of them are hot". For ages.

Yeah I can see me saying that and (still) thinking that. Part of me still does, I can be very voyeuristic (whoa wrong forum). I think those comments are more about me than anything else...

I'm someone who is extremely confident of my point of view, and prone to filling in gaps in what people say with assumptions. It's not a good point, but it sometimes makes for fun arguments.

Everyone generalises, our minds identify things through familiarity. It's our concious mind that must always make sure we do not do so in a derogrative way towards people - or so my film lecturer told me when we discussed my dissatation on "TV and the black identity".

SamWise1972

DonDaddyD wrote:

Why should I be taxed more for working hard and making something of myself than the f*cks at school that bullied me, thought it was cool to fail exams and who now complain about not having that job.

So everyone in a lower wage situation than you is a bully and lazy? Getting back at those people hits all of the huge majority of people in lower paid jobs who work hard but aren't as smart as you, and might not have had the advantages you've had. The biggest advantage you can have as a kid is a family culture which teaches you personal responsibility and that learning is useful. Most of the kids (and I met them too, though I was too big to bully physically) who behaved that way were doing so for a reason, and most of the reasons were things outside of their control.

In order to have a society where some of us can be well paid for fancy jobs, there has to be a pyramid of people below doing the less glamorous things. I wouldn't argue for a moment that we shouldn't reward hard work, intelligence, creativity and all the other good things, only that we should ask those who we reward that way to contribute to providing a reasonable standard of living for all (I'm thinking here that someone who rides a full carbon roadie can afford to help someone else buy a £100 mtb to cycle to work on, not for a moment that everyone should have parity of everything), and that also trying to offer as much opportunity as possible to those who by accident of birth don't have any of it (I'm not talking about not having a scholarship to Eton, I'm talking about not being allowed in the house til it's dark, not getting 3 meals a day, and all sorts of other unpleasant things that happen even on the estate I live on in Southampton) is a good thing. So that's why you (and I) should be taxed more. You can take £5 from some people, and deprive them of enough money for fish fingers, where as you can take £50 from some other people, and all that happens is they buy cheaper wine. How could you justify taking the same amount from them if you want to set society right, as you seem to do?

SamWise1972

DonDaddyD wrote:

Everyone generalises, our minds identify things through familiarity. It's our concious mind that must always make sure we do not do so in a derogrative way towards people - or so my film lecturer told me when we discussed my dissatation on "TV and the black identity".

Bloody head in the clouds academics are all alike

Pufftmw

Greg66 wrote:

Monkeypump wrote:

I think the CC is outrageous, although not sure it's 'envy'.

SamWise1972 wrote:

Envy? In what sense?

It is envy, and here's how.

It all goes back to schooldays. In the sixth form, it was a well known FACT that if you wanted sex with a burd, you need a flash motor, with a stereo, an electric aerial, and reclining seats.

Now, those pupils with rich parents could afford to buy their offspring driving lessons, and let them drive their cars. Those pupils would, therefore, be the offspring of Tory voters. And in the result, they got all the best burds, and all the sex.

Those students at the other end of the spectrum - the offspring of blue collar Labour voters - had no such luck. They were consigned to public transport (and no burd in her right mind puts out on the back of the offer of a shared bus ride home) and five knuckle shuffles.

This not unnaturally bred envy and despair. When the saddos grew up, and found that they could not hold down jobs they went to work for the council, clawing their way up into positions of power eventually in the Labour party.

That was when they were able to look back at their sad and lonely teenage years, and realise that the reason their Rt Hon Tory colleagues now had all the fit burds was due to the menace of the car, which they saw as having distorted the natural order of comradely attraction all those years ago.

So, wishing to break the cycle of rejection and onanism, all Labour politicians have consistently waged war on the car and the driver.

It's the paradigm example of the politics of envy.

Post of the year! Brilliant!!!!!

tailwindhome

W1 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Londoners voted for Ken as it was a jolly good wheeze to give Tony Blair a bloodly nose.

The woke up to find themselves with Ken as Mayor and it wasn't a joke anymore.

Londoners voted for Boris as it was a jolly good wheeze to give Gordon Brown a bloodly nose.

They woke up to find themselves with a clown* in charge of a major world city. The buffonery which was mildly entertaining on Have I Got News after a nice bottle of red was now in Bejing telling a world audience that PIng Pong was coming home.

You people are idiots






* As I've posted before I live in Northern Ireland and we have a cast of politicians which are a world class laughing stock. Boris out does even them.

I think people voted for Boris becuase they were fed up with the polished spin of modern politics - people in general don't like being taken for fools. Boris is more "human" than many politicians (even if he appears barking) and people like that.

But don't let the buffonery fool you into underestimating him.

That's what I said, only with a positive spin on it.