« Just in time | Main | No room for good news »

September 28, 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Kay Tie

"I see now that we mean differant things when we talk about society."

Well, what do you mean by society? The state? Because it sounds to me like you think society is the collective will of the population exercised through an authority.

I don't accept that view. All the interdependent relationships you call society are (generally speaking) emergent properties of self-organising networks of people. You might as well call life on Earth "society". Of course, if you're a Creationist you do believe that life requires a creator to assemble and oversee it. Perhaps you're a Social Creationist then?

You still haven't explained why "society" is threatened if I earn a lot more money than you (well, other than its members succumbing to the base instinct of envy and using political power to destroy what they envy - an instinct that's been noted since the story of Cain and Abel was written down).


I see now that we mean differant things when we talk about society.

I have no idea where you got the idea that my idea of society is some Borg like collective nothing could be furthur from the truth.

Its sometimes useful to approach a discussion with an open mind rather than one that just wants to express its already preconceived ideas that may have no relevance to what is being discussed.

Kay Tie

Society didn't educate me: I, my parents and my teachers did that. And my parents paid for it through their taxes, and I'm paying still. The Government organised the provision of my education, and collected the taxes. None of these are "society". The closest to your Borg-like collective "society" is an all-powerful government that controls every aspect of our lives in the name of this imaginary society. We see from history and from recent events what happens: injustice and misery.


"Society" ( I suppose we should really define what we mean by this but from the folowing you will probably glean my interpretation of the word) gave you your education it organises and provides your roads health service etc etc. Of course society is integral to your ability to earn a living.Without society in the sense of a structured collection of people the entrepreneurs wouldn't have a market.
Whether you like it not we depend on each other From the bin man who emptied my bin this morning to the teacher I am seeing tonight at parents evening these are fellow members of our society are they not?

Kay Tie

"Of course we must have an interest in what people earn otherwise how are we going to tax them."

Ah, the royal "we". Well, your majesty, may I humbly suggest that you leave this to your majesty's revenue and customs and you mind your own business.

"they contribute a proportionate share"

Actually, it's a disproportionate share: 61% effective marginal rates of tax for those who go over £100,000.

"back to the society that allowed them to earn it in the first place."

And I thought it was me who earned my salary. Now it turns out that it was society that gave me permission to succeed. Now it makes sense that society needs me to carry an ID card, that society wants to register as a non-paedophile. Can you tell me who I call to talk to society because since society is becoming deranged?

Actually, on second thoughts, there is no such thing as society, just collections of individuals. Some individuals believe they have the right to tell others what to do. These individuals invoke a fictitious concept to justify it, like a priest invokes God.


Of course we must have an interest in what people earn otherwise how are we going to tax them.

I have no problem with people earning a million pounds a year as long as they exploited noone and they earnt it honestly and they contribute a proportionate share back to the society that allowed them to earn it in the first place.

Kay Tie

"Come on Kay Tie of course we must be aware of what other people earn."

Why? What's it got to do with you? If I start earn a million quid a year, do you find your money in the bank goes missing? And what gives you the right to grant permission for me to be a success? If you suffer from jealousy, why not mind your own business? It's one of the seven deadly sins, you know.

And talking about bankers is irrelevant: people like you were complaining long before the financial crisis. You're just not letting a good crisis go to waste (and the fact that you're trying to twist the new Depression to one of inequality demonstrates you haven't understood why it happened in the first place).


Come on Kay Tie of course we must be aware of what other people earn. The lack of meaningful outrage at what the bankers where earning is one of the reasons we are in this financial mess. Coupled with the banks not being aware of how little people earned before drowning them in credit.

Even you must find it ironic that Labour is now the party of protecting the wealthy as they seem to have done a good job at widening the differance between the poorest and richest in our society over the last 12 years.

Kay Tie

Paul, is your Death Counter up-to-date with James Prosser's death?

Lewis Page has written this piece for The Register today about the Puma helicopter upgrade programme:


We are spending $17m per helicopter to squeeze ten more years out of antiques. We could spend $15m per helicopter with Sikorski to get new and better Blackhawk helicopters that would last 30 years.

I expect this featherbedding of the UK defence industry from the Tories (Westland anyone?) but from Labour? Just one more example of how whichever party is in power it soon mutates back into the age-old British Government that gave us the Peterloo massacre.

Kay Tie

"Income inequality the highest it has ever been in the UK"

I seriously doubt that. But in any case, why do you care what other people earn? Rather than use euphemisms like "income equality", tell it like it is: envy. That you'd rather rich people were hacked down to make you feel better.


Whereas Mandelson is the friend only of wealth, power and influence.

That's my impression, anyway.


Do you think the electroate will learn to love Labour again ? There have been some successes but at what cost ? So I look at the success of the NHS but the failure to improve reading skills in primary schools.
I look at the reaction to the death of the mother and daughter and what happens ? a restatement of a goal that was set 10 years! You're just reacting , not setting the agenda
What about equality of opportnity and wealth - they have both declined in the last ten years for a party that I thought believed in both - from your actions as a government you don't - so what are you going to tell me ?
Vote Labour in 2010 and we might do some of things we said we'd do in 1997 ?
Or that you'll wind back the state and deliver on the improvements - what would I have to make me believe that ?

Our financial position is precarious and GB spent months denying the state we are in - on this , although you may not like them for it , the Tories will probably make the cust happen. But frankly 'caring' cuts or 'idealogically' inspired cuts end up at the same place - some poor sod loses their livlihood.

Lets face it the economy in 1997 was in pretty good nick but profligate over spending (however well intentioned) has improverished us as a nation and my kids will pay for this for the next 10-15 years - so the question remains how can the chief architect of this situation say anything at all to convince me that he is one to lead us after the next election

What I want from the parties is a view on what happens next, where is the hope, vision etc etc. ? And farnkly talking about ASBO's and child care just does not cut it for me
And when he stands up today and talks about fairness what would I point to and say 'yes, I see what you mean' ? Income inequality the highest it has ever been in the UK and that is a shaming fact that 12 years of a Labour government has done little to try and rectify - to its shame

Paul Flynn

I'm the friend only of truth, logic and reason, KayTie

Kay Tie

Oh, OK. I just wanted to be sure. Because Peter Mandelson has come in for a lot of criticism from the old Labour people, going back to the days of his moustache and guacamole jokes, and it's a bit odd to see you rallying around him now.

Paul Flynn

No it's not sarcastic, KayTie. It's high praise for a consumate politician and communicator.

Kay Tie

"Friends and foes freely admit that in Europe and in the Lords he is a class act."

Should "class act" be read in a sarcastic tone of voice?

Paul Flynn

Ahhh! Complaints of spinning by those who have been spun!

Mandelson committed a technical offence on his mortgage application. Wrong ? yes. But no-one was robbed or cheated, the onlyvictim was Mandelson himself.

Mandelson was found NOT GUILTY of any offencc on the Hinduga afair.

Why allow the facts to obscure the malice?

Friends and foes freely admit that in Europe and in the Lords he is a class act.

Jolly Roger

The only reason that Mandelson's back,
Is to save NewLabour from getting the sack.
Nothing to do with Country or Queen,
Just another chance for him to be seen,
To be propping up a failing Party,
Whose health is far from hale and hearty.
Unelected, just like his Boss.
What have we done to deserve such dross?

Twice he's had to sling his hook,
But is yet to be brought to Legal Book.
A 'spin doctor' eh? Don't make me snigger,
He's just another liar, only better and bigger,
Than his previous mate, Straight Up Guy Tony,
Who proved to be an absolute phony.
They see their greatness just like Malvolio,
Particularly when seen with their property portfolio.

So don't worry, Paul, we're not taken in,
Though you should be commended for attempting to spin.
Telling lies is really rather naughty,
And not truly part of your scope or forte.
Please do us a favour and value your cred,
You'll need it as NewLabour becomes deader than dead.
So whilst you're in awe of Mandelson's 'skills',
Just make sure Gordon keeps taking the pills.


"Peter Mandelson cheered the Labour Party up today. Who could disagree with the logic of 'If I could come back, we can come back.'?"

I'm not sure that the resurection of a notorious spin doctor who's "resigned" twice for dodgy dealing is that inspiring, to be honest. That's kinda reminded me about a lot of the things I *don't* like about Labour.

The comments to this entry are closed.