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.

Just following your lead. Asked you 3 simple questions. No replies.

Well, I don't know Mrs M's precise definition - but it will inlude housing, pensions, medical, welfare, education, etc

GDP per capita is a good proxy to wealth. If Europe has 7% of the world's population and 25% of its GDP it does not take a genius to work out that its per capita GDP is many times the world's average. If you have ever travelled outside Europe you would have seen that too. It's not rocket science.

As to spending, as was widely reported earlier in the week the OECD issued its findings on education across 65 countries. Our 15 year olds' performance was 26th in Maths, 23rd in reading, 21st in science. Our average percapita spend for 6-15 year old education was 17.6% over the OECD average spend whereas our per capita GDP was only 4.6% above. Our spend was the 11th highest per child but as noted above their proficiency was less than 11th in all three categories. So, seems like our kids are inherently thick or money is not been wisely spent.

And you have failed to respond to repeated requests to explain what you think 'social spending' means.

I asked my questions first. I have also done so above.

And I have explained to you, in the simplest terms that I could manage, that the wider the income gap, the more the cost to the state in terms of lower social outcomes.



As has been pointed out, you're quite clearly confused about matters such as GDP etc.

And are you really suggesting that, for instance, the UK should increase aid so as 'level the playing field', as you seem to see it?

Or what? We stop, for instance, selling lots of financial services and let the Chinese or the Indians do it instead?

Or are you seriously suggesting that we cut healthcare and education etc?

What you refuse utterly to deal with in all this is the actual, real-time consequences.

Do you imagine it would suddenly be nice and cheap if people just happen to be bounced out of their homes on to the street because they don't earn enough to keep a roof over their heads and government decides it'll do away with housing benefits? Or if we'd just butcher education and health spending, even though we'd then be consequently less productive?

Perhaps we should cut pensions? Maybe just send the retired off into the wilderness to die and stop eating up valuable resources?

I repeat, because I have been asking this for weeks if not months, and you're just one of many who ignores it: the evidence shows that the wider the income gap, the poorer the social outcomes for ALL of a society. And those poorer social outcomes come at a financial cost too.

Next, for someone who has posted many times on this forum about the need for people (well, not himself, obviously) to become religious again in order to make them behave better, you could do with showing some sense of morals/ethics yourself.

At present, your entire line seems to be that if Big Business and Big Finance tell you something, you swallow it hook line and sinker, and are then entirely happy for your fellow citizens to suffer,.

You never have a single concrete answer to that suffering; ever, or to how far you think people who blameless for the financial crisis can be pushed and what will happen if they keep on being pushed.



The bulk of the global 'cake', if you insist on such an analogy, is held by a very, very small percentage of the population/companies/banks: and the ordinary working people of this country are not included any more than the ordinary working people of any other countries are included.

Merkel is a conservative who will never easily admit that the major problem is the power of transnational and multination corporates, and the era's dominant political-economic ideology that has worked to put an ever-increasing share of that bleedin' cake into the hands of fewer and fewer people.

Different shares of the cake? Happily. Let's sort out big business and big finance then, which is ripping off people around the world and then playing them off against each other.



See your previous question and my previous answer. It wouldn't need to if big business and big finance behaved with human decency at their core, and if sustainability and the long-term were considered as opposed to short-term profit that puts human beings as the least important part of the equation.

Lie down dear. After that off topic rant you need it.

It's not "off topic". And yet again you cannot or will respond.

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25241726Illustration of how highly profitable companies are using the financial crisis to exploit even more people.[/url

"Although US internship offerings have always ranged from the paid to the unpaid, increasingly in recent years, as the number of unemployed youth has surged in the wake of the financial collapse, the balance has tipped to the unpaid."

You don't half write some tripe at times but this is just out of the Ark.

My wife recently visited a local school to find out about its web site but while she was there was shown the way they organise the students work and in particular homework.

They all have an iPad and the work they do along with notes from the teachers and other resources is all in the school's intra-net. This is accessible from home and the parents are also given access. So the parents can see what homework is set and when it is due.

It uses software similar to this: [urlhttps://www.showmyhomework.co.uk/[/url

No more "The teacher didn't set any homework" from the kids and if teachers don't set any, parents can complain etc.

I am sure this is a very slick and comfortable environment to work within and as the students know everyone can see what they have to do the last thing it will breed is complacency. It will do the exact opposite.

I am sure it also took some money to set it up and to ensure all students could access it.

It is therefore completely at odds with this statement of yours "I would argue that an austere environment is preferable when it comes to education". It's modern, bang up to date and has obvious benefits.

You and Gove will get on well. Harking back to the "Good old days" and blind or even against genuine improvements such as this to the educational system for nonsensical reasons such as it does not provide an austere enough environment. A mind-bogglingly ridiculous stance.

It's too long to be bothered!

But, for a start - where is this evidence you refer to (re income inequality) being bad for ALL. If it is ALL why has nobody thought of adressing the issue? If they haven't and it is bad for ALL then it is only a matter of time before someone does.

Just thinking about China's recent history - income disparaity was relatively low and nearly everone poor. Now they are not but more and more people are not poor. Is that good or bad? How does your evidence explain that?

This big business that rips people off. Are people forced to buy Apple products? Or work for them?

But can they read and write properly? Mrs Dally was only saying last night how bad spelling is becoming in this country - when reading the latest document churned for us by our beloved friends in local government. These people lecture people on how to live their lives and seem incapable of the most basic task themselves. Bet they have iPads and iPhones though! Cool!

Not read your link but in OUR country companies are now been fined significant sums for not paying interns.

Will it? So it includes both public and private spending on such issues then?

Not necessarily. For instance the GDP for producing Nissan cars in Sunderland is counted in the UK's GDP figures. Yet the profits of that aren't necessarily going to British people. GDP and GDP per capita are rendered fairly irrelevant due to globalisation. They give an indication but it is only an indication and needs other factors and indicators taken into account. Such as income inequality. China being a good example of that.


Very nice.


Which, due to numerous factors including types of government, levels of international co-operation and cultural and specific differences is almost impossible to compare.


I'd love to know how they worked that out. Since our public education system isn't split that way, our own government doesn't split education spending figures that way.
But even according to the actual OECD figures, the UK is 13th out of the 32 OECD countries that they've provided proper figures for spending per student on primary, secondary and secondary non-tertiary education core services. What bumps us up the spending table is ancillary services. The OECD average spend is irrelevant.


Only if you think every nation is the same, gives the same information, has the same problems or the same priorities.
Did you also miss the parts where UK students had moved up the tables?

Says everything, really.



[iThe Spirit Level[/i. Despite efforts, nobody has been able to refute it and politicians across the mainstream now pay lip service to it.

Now, time for your answers.

So as the "evidence" shows inequality is bad for all then things will soon change won't they? If not, why not?

Well I asked 3 questions on page 13 that you have not answered. Since they you've been rabbitting on about me not answering your points. They only thing I can see you are referring to are the above. Most were not questions but statements of your apparent opinion. But as you are so keen on me writing something:

1. What do I prefer to be done about it? It's not up to me, it's up the majority to decide what they want to do about it. I have expressed no opinion the matter.

2. Can't see why it should be. What's your view?

3. Aside from the slip into holiday mode, maybe it should not be. Give me you thoughts on how that could be arranged? I have expressed my view on here many times and that is that I believe the only sustainable economy to be a hunter-gatherer one. Not sure how that would help the majority of today's people though.

4. Or maybe that is the only reason why we can? In a historic context the world is feeding more people than ever and feeding most of them most of the time.

5. May point was that Europe is spending relatively more looking after its populace than elsewhere in the world and that under the current economic system that will make it less competitive and so its relative wealth will decline and that of other places will grow, unless Europe comes up with startling new innovation that makes it very propserous relative to others. As its wealth declines so will its ability to spend on its citizens (whether that be private or public spending). But, as I thought you were not a fan of income inequality you would think that OK? But it seems I was wrong. Your counter proposition therefore seems to be that everywhere else would rise to our standard of living, which will mean an enormous rise in their prosperity and consumption of resources. Without a quantum leap in technology that would not seem feasible without total environmental degredation. So, what is your thinking here?

I answered you above, in which case it's your turn to answer all the questions/points that have been put to you.

Yawn. Change the record and answer some direct questions for the first time that I can recall.

I did.

You show yourself up for what you are by refusing to answer questions yourself.

Where did you answer?

I think isostatic readjustment may have played a part in the North Norfolk flloding. There, I have answered all you questions ever - in similar fashion to your "answering."

In effect, I'm not saying that at all. According to yourself people are worse off than they were 30 years ago, citing foodbanks as a factor yet we've had them for a decade or so in their current guise and before that we had other, less efficient if you will, mechanisms to hand out food or other help.

Unfortunately/fortunately (depending on your viewpoint) it will always be the case that we'll have inequality, for a few reasons, the first one being that people are different. If you take 2/3/4 blokes/women from the same sort of background, train them up to do something, plumbing/mechanic/whatever I will bet all the money in my pockets (£7ish) that over a period of time they will all wind up having had different successes/failures based on luck, work ethic, health etc etc.

Then there's the fact that people are inherently selfish, they like other people to do well as long as it's not too well so it makes them look "inferior". I work for a bloody good company, it's German, the levels of bureaucracy are eye watering, but the overall package is hard to top. Anyway, our "bonus" scheme has been altered for next year and in the meeting to discuss this it became clear that one section were getting 1 rung up the bonus step compared to others, a non exact calculation showed this extra rung gave an extra £125ish before tax, on a "bonus" of £3k! There was no goodwill displayed towards them, they were all bloody bone idle who nothing all day but talk weddings and celebrity jungle (which they do) who only got the job because of how they looked! The people whining have almost no contact with this group, working in a completely different part of the plant.

Then there's MP's, unfortunately they say stupid things and make promises they can't possibly hope to keep, but then history says we should be wise to this so it's our own bloody fault. But I've never, not once heard a mainstream MP talk about equality, simply because there's no votes in it. "Yes, it's terrible that Mr Davis' plumbing business didn't work and mine did. Sorry, what was that, you want to give him some of my money so he can have my lifestyle?"

So, I suppose that's it really there's not enough votes in equality.