Come on Dally – you can do better than that.

If you really believe what you imply here, then you'll obviously object to a very small minority of the UK population having so much of the nation's wealth.

Come on Mintball - that was poor. As you well know, I was implicitly referring to you obsession with inequality. So, if you object to it you'll be happy for the UK and the rest of Europe to have a much smaller share of the cake.

You first need to define "social spending"

There's no "obsession".

And you're another one who dodges the main questions. Since there is evidence that the greater the income gap the worse the social outcomes for ALL, what do you think should be done about it, or would you prefer to do nothing and simply be able to continue whinging about the said social outcomes whenever news stories about them arise?

The bulk of the world's wealth is concentrated in a relatively few hands. That's shouldn't be a cause for celebration.

It should not be beyond the whit of man to build more sustainable economies across the world.

The only reason we cannot at present 'feed the world' is, at core, greed, short-termism and downright nuttery.

It would take some attitude changes, but it doesn't mean a "smaller share" of some imaginary cake – with shares divvied out by whom? The banks and financial institutions that are a large part of the problem?

Well it's quite obvious if that Europe is spending more public money than other parts of the world its economy will struggle to compete and so its living standards fall as will its ability to have a big social spend. It's a fact that will make things worse for more or less everyone. Despite Mrs Merkel's warnings the German coalition is following a dangerous path and its economy is starting to suffer. France with its strange leader is already a basket case.

Why do people on the left always equate throwing money at something equalling improvement? We throw more money per head at school kids in this country than most places and get worse outcomes. In my day I went to a school that had relatively poor, outdated facilities but good teachers and outcomes were pretty good. Mrs Dally went to a similar establishment and her school produced the best outcomes in the county. Indeed, I would argue that an austere environment is preferable when it comes to education. Comfort breeds complacency (which in a wider sense has become a national problem). It's not what you spend, it's how you spend it that counts.

Thank you.

You've not answered a single point I've made.

Let's put it another way: if wide income inequality affects social outcomes negatively, then it will cost more money than narrower income inequality that affects social outcomes less negatively.

So that's saving money, not 'throwing' it at anything.

As one who benefited from the top tier of an elitist education system (yes I passed my 11-plus) I'm not in a good place to comment, let it suffice that we had a good quality of teaching staff across the board who used very different methods to those which my children received, sometimes those different methods worked sometimes they didn't but the facilities at our elite grammar school were as good as they came in the 1970s and they produced the doctors and lawyers that are still servicing our society now, and they produced me, not that they'd ever admit to that.

Good teaching staff in an austere setting will not produce results as well as good teaching staff with good facilities and for this you need public investment and a government who has the will to keep investing and not just throw "emergency funding" at a problem that is highlighted by a press campaign and that only exists because funding was not made right at the start - you can't teach kids in a field no matter how good a teacher you are.

Really good post.

Both of my (state) grammar schools, with quite different intakes and catchment areas, were rated very highly. And neither was poorly equipped or with leaky roofs etc.

I'm still waiting for Dally's definition of "social spending"

It seems appropriate to post the following quote:

"Overcoming poverty is not an act of charity. It is an act of justice." Nelson Mandela, July 2005

Some people here appear to believe that either justice is simply not attainable or that it is not desirable.

There is also the long standing issue of why formal governments exist at all, why do we need them if we prefer not to waste tax income on wasteful unnecessary things like infrastructure, benefits, pensions, education, healthcare etc etc.

We could instead simply have a small forum of senior legal experts to draft and discuss any potential new laws and complete the privatisation of everything by letting businesses "who know what they are doing, for a profit motive" run everything else with a small forum of accountants to divvy up the budgets.

Turn the Houses of Parliament into a museum and bobs your uncle, if we all agree to pay for everything we ever need in life then you won't even have to pay income tax and in this brave new utopia with no MP's I'd suggest that we only pay our council tax to keep the streets lit at night (ours aren't anymore by the way) and policed.

Sorted (on my day off).

You won't need to pay tax though, just a direct charge to a privatised (for profit) police force.

Same with a fire service etc.

We're not far off that happening according to my fireman step brother.

Why? And can you define social spend yet? Or why pure GDP is the sign of wealth of a nation?


What fact? You haven't stated any.


No it's not. Anyone who describes the French economy as a basket case, thereby equating it to Greece, doesn't understand economics. Having said that our dear Chancellor kept equating the UK to Greece so it's an easy mistake to make, especially if you don't know what you're on about.


Why do people on the right insist on making stuff up?


Do we? How are you quantifying how much is spent per head at school kids compared to other countries? Because they aren't easily obtainable or comparable figures. And how are you quantifying the outcomes?


What makes you think it's extra spending that means the outcomes today are worse (in your opinion) than in your day?
Are you saying that schools, teachers and students are more complacent than they used to be? Because I think you'd be in a minority there.