Alan Duncan

[jj]

Good point; I'd sort of included that mentally in the 'power' thing,
but it's better expressed as a separate desire.

[jj]

Using 'subjective' as a substitute for 'I disagree' or 'I don't
understand' is woolly-minded, at best.

ANYthing can be labelled as subjective, even String Theory. Try
being objective, just for a laugh : -)

[jj]

Be-Seen-Here wrote:
> Yes it's fact for all potential PM's and PM's so therefore
> irrelevant.

IRRELEVANT?
Are you insane?

[jj]

Be-Seen-Here wrote:
> Where the implication is that someone's wealth should exclude
> them from office, that's discrimination isn't it ?
Absolutely. But discrimination, in its original sense of distinguishing
the good from the bad, is a beneficent quality.
What disqualifies [to my mind] the wealthy from even more power
is that they have usually gained that wealth by snatching it from
others, by chicanery, ruthlessness or 'business-sense' [which tends
to euphemise a host of negative qualities]. As moral exemplars and
leaders of a nation, the wealthy are hence the least qualified.
The end result is ministers of science who know shit about science,
and an ex-Chancellor who knows all about economic theory but fuck-all
about money.


> Aren't the Labour party supposed to be all for equal rights ?
> or is it only when it's convenient ?
Only when it's convenient, or Beckett's off caravanning : -)

[jj]

OK, fine; you win.
That's what it's all about with you, isnt it; and hang rational debate?

I'm too tired to entertain, or educate, trolls.

[jj]

I've worked since 13, for every penny I've got; so less of that
patronising crapola, if you please.....

And you make the classic mistake of confusing envy-politics with
a passion for social justice.
Your last sentence speaks volumes. God help us if people like you
are put in charge- where you really belong is a zoo; or a museum.