I know you have mentioned this absolute nonsense on numerous occasions but all that does in confirm your ignorance of what hypocrisy means. It is the[i pretence[/i to have [ibeliefs[/i that they don't actually posses. Just because someone has a well paid job doesn't mean their beliefs are a pretence.

It is not and never has been hypocritical for those in lofty positions to campaign for reform and fairness. What a completely moronic stance to take to suggest it is.

It is market forces as you have so nicely illustrated. They have leverage and used it. It would be hypocritical of those on the right to be nothing other than pleased to see the market in action. After all there are cries of "jealousy" if anyone suggests a curb on executive pay.

Those on the right can't have it both ways.



Still conductors on the [itrain [/iI will use on Saturday to Manchester. I'd like to see them return on buses as well at least on urban services as that would reduce congestion in towns and stop the situation where a gaggle of buses are all parked up for ages while the driver takes the fares. Be interesting to know how many more passengers could be carried and how much less pollution there would be if buses moved off quickly rather than sat there belching out diesel fumes.

Progress eh?

Good job. People like Bill Gates would be royally f***ed if it was.

Exactly, just like your average Labour voter. Particularly those who bitch and whine about NHS privatisation, ATOS, cuts, rich donors etc etc.

So you think the average labour voter is favour of NHS privatisation, ATOS, CUTS, and rich donors?

Yes – this is precisely the bølløcks you keep coming out with.

And in which case, you were asked what pay a "real socialist" should receive in order to be allowed to comment on unfairness etc without you getting your dander up. You have not done so.



And this is more of your usual bølløcks, showing – yet again – that you don't know the first thing about hypocrisy. You claim that, at a certain financial point (never stated) it become hypocritical to comment on societal unfairness. Yet you think that an organisation should act in direct contravention of what it has as its aims – and don't understand that that would be hypocritical.



That was not the point. Sal has claimed that, at certain levels of pay, one becomes a hypocrite if one comments on unfairness in society etc. It was pointed out to him (not by me) that this logic means that no non-slave should have campaigned against slavery, but he continues to peddle it. And he has repeatedly refused to explain what level of remuneration one should be allowed if one is still allowed to comment on these matters without upsetting him.

I suspect that, when people in general comment negatively about "high earners" (and such people are hardly limited to any one political side), they're not talking about £90k (plus pension and employer's NI contributions, which is the reality of the headline figure on Crow's 'wage'), but about people getting millions – in many cases, in situations where other employees in the same company/organisation have had their pay driven down, or where they have done nothing to earn massive bonuses (see the recent case involving the Co-operative Bank).

They must be, otherwise they would have voted for a party who didn't have these things as the bedrock of their policies or "ideology".

If you really believe matters are a simplistic as that, I'm afraid that you're showing your ignorance.

Would you also consider William Wilberforce to be a hypocrite too?

After all, surely it should only be slaves who campaigned to abolish slavery, anyone else would simply be hyprocitial to do so

How so?

More Minty diatribe!!

It is hypocritical to spout equality, fairness and wealth spread from a lofty position - the fact you cannot see that says much about your own thought processes and possibly your own cosy position? In a socialist system the level of remuneration should be in context to all those have an input into generating that wealth. You cannot put a figure on it because no two circumstances are identical - I know that urinates on your bonfire but that's life.

Take Richard Rogers - in his practice there is multiple between the lowest earner and the highest of ten times so if the top man wants to pay himself more he has to raise the salaries of the lowest earner. That seems like a sensible socialist compromise? The fact that he introduced after he had made his millions is a point to note.

Interesting comment from an interview with Vince Cable today in The Observer...

Mr Cable putting in this CV for a job in the next Lib/Lab Government?

Why does it matter what other people earn? A banker earning millions of pounds a year does not in anyway affect your life. You do not earn less just because somebody else earns more. The recent increase in Wayne Rooney's salary to £300k per week has not meant that my salary, your salary or Vince Cable's salary have seen corresponding decreases.

People need to stop being blinded by jealously and envy. I will never understand why somebody becoming enormously rich through sheer luck of winning £104 million on the Euromillions is something to celebrate whereas somebody becoming equally wealthy through hard work, entrepreneurship and talent is lambasted. This drive to the bottom, this celebration of mediocrity needs to stop. Instead of bashing the successful, people should look up to them and seek to emulate them.

I know it's late but I'm getting my shorts on and going out with the ball to try emulate Wayne Rooney. This time tomorrow I'll be a millionaire.