How does one 'not particularly' suck a cock? Surely one is either sucking a cock, or one is not.

Can we please kept the bad language down please.

Bad language? Think that was a cock up on my part. You're cock on, though. Won't happen again, cock.

Like others here, I've certainly had a fair share of luck, good and bad.

The only thing I've ever received was unemployment, on occasions when I have been out of work. Although as mentioned earlier, that excludes education and health care.

My own experiences of being out of work were certainly not happy or somehow rolling in it, but the biggest impact, in my experience, is on your confidence and, indeed, your sense of dignity.

I'm fortunate enough, at present (I take nothing for granted) to have regular work that pays well - allowing me, for instance not only the best lifestyle I've had, but also to save. I have long-terms aims, and I invest my own, unpaid time in those, so I'd suggest that that reflects a preparedness to out in the time to 'get on'.

But one of the major lessons of my own experiences was that you can't just do it on your own - we none of us exist in splendiferous isolation, where work, for instance, is simply the matter of getting up and the morning and deciding that we will work today. The idea of everyone running their own business would be ridiculous, so therefore we understand that, for the majority, they do the jobs required by those people who do. And if, as over the last few years, the economy is in recession, then it is patent idiocy to pretend that everyone can simply go out and get that job.

But with that comes something else: government has a role. A national economy does not - just like we worker bees - exist in isolation. Government policy affects the wider economy - and with it, people's jobs. So if that is the reality, and people accept that, then it is crass not to accept that government (the state) also supports those who, affected by downturns in the economy, cannot find work.

But to return to what I mentioned earlier: if we accept that the income gap has widened, and that that is negative for society as a whole, what do people believe should be done to tackle that?

And if people do not accept that, what is their factual basis, given the detailed statistical basis of [iThe Spirit Level[/i?

And can we, for the sake of this discussion at least, get past tribal politics and consider the issues?

I don't know.
If you have some experience on the subject, I'm all ears. ([size=50not mouth

[/size).

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/09/is-camerons-britain-what-we-fought-forThoughts of a 90-year-old WWII veteran on the current state of affairs.[/url

Excellent piece of writing, his was the generation who gave us the NHS, a state pension, social care and social housing fit to live in, they cleared slums and made sure that the governments that followed the war didn't forget why they had been elected - they also gave us NATO, the United Nations and the beginnings of the EU to make sure that we didn't have to do what they had to do.

No wonder he sits there now and shakes his head as he sees all of us stand by and let politicians unravel all of their predecessors good work.

It's extremely moving as well.

And it almost makes you think that, with most of his generation now gone, that's one of things that makes the work of this government easier in its deconstruction of the social contract.

As I've said many times on here, as an electorate we get the politicians we deserve. Apathy among the electorate and people being unwilling to hold politicians to account breeds comtempt for the electorate. People need to stand up and be counted. I had a small temporary victory this week by some very pointed questions I wrote to local politicians / public "servants" pointing out their errors, etc. Basically, they had to reverse prices increases they'd foisted on the public, albeit only for a few weeks. Hold the filth to account if you want to stop them.

From that Guardian article:

[iThe problem with society, today, is not lack of money or debt but lack of ideas, lack of commitment by our government to realise that its constituents are the people[/i

Someone should spray paint that in big fscking letters across the side of the Houses of Parliament. What a man.

A little addition and I'd agree 100%

Which options would the public prefer: Spending budgets more wisely vs spending less money?

Lets face it, if the Tories had inherited full employment, good growth and no debt, they would still have gone along an ideological path of cutting spending and privatising as much as they could. They remind me of the Scorpion and the Frog story, they cannot help it, it's what they do.

I would amend that. The problem with society today is that everyone knows their rights and entitlements. Few know their responsibilities, commitments and duties.

Bollox

I suppose that's why the vast majority of the population pay their taxes on-time and in full

In reality it is the companies/institutions/government depts that 99% of the population work for or use pay their taxes on time and in full - whether that be PAYE, VAT, etc.

Do you think if calculating and paying over taxes was a personal obligation the compliance rate would be anywhere close to the current position?

Agreed but is that not what you would expect from any right wing driven ideology?

If Labour had inherited the exact same situation they would have looked to increase further the size of the state through increased taxation - that is what they do, that is what they always do.

The problem is the term of the government - 5 years will drive a certain pattern of behaviour which they hope will result in re-election.

The vast majority have little choice with PAYE.

So, given that the Blair government continued privatisation and deregulation, it was, by your own logic, not a Labour government at all.

Did the spending on the public sector grow under the Blair administration - yes so by my definition a typical Labour government.

no [is[/ihit Sherlock

Did privatisation and deregulation occur? If so, by your own definition (from the real world, presumably) them obviously not a very 'socialist' government.

So what was your point then?

read the post I responded to

Where in my point did I say anything about deregulation? - I said if you get a Labour government you will get an increase in the size of the state - this is exactly what happened under Blair. So by the measure I suggested Labour did under Blair exactly did what it always does - it increased the size of the state.

That is the reality/fact - what are you struggling with here!!