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."

Unfortunately, your beautiful nineteen fifties education and mindset didn't enable you to tell the difference between "being" and "been'.

You terribly tedious trolling twerp.

What she is/was saying is that the income gap has widened over ther last 30 years. No one on here is advocating income parity but there should be some redistribution.

You have introduced so many straw men into this discussion, it's looking like a giant haystack. Your mention of harvest festival in comparison to the exponential increase in foodbanks being just one example.

Of course the income gap has widened. People with money tend to be able "earn" more by simply doing nothing other than letting their money accrue interest in a bank. When they start making it work it grows even quicker, unless they invest it idiotically. So, if you don't want income parity, then how much disparity do you want, how much is acceptable? According to recent reports, the highest earning 1% shell out 30% of all income tax. Let's start from that.

I wasn't comparing harvest festivals to foodbanks, as they're basically one in the same thing. A mechanism to distribute food to those who need it. So, that's one straw man I didn't introduce.