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