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!!

Is there any wonder the sie of the state increased?

Schools were falling down and teacher shortages were chronic. Similarly the health service had been run down to near 3rd world levels. Massive investment was required, not just in bricks & mortar but in attracting, developing and retaining teaching and healthcare professionals.

As we are now seeing, after three years the tories are determined to rip apart all the advances made under Labour, all in the name of "Austerity"

Not disagreeing - but this yoyo will continue whilst you have two dominant parties with such different ideas.

As a nation we need to decide what quality of public services we want and then ring fence the money with agree annual budget increases and stick to it and accept the cost of doing so.

Thats the absolute truth of the matter.

Most of us thought we had actually done that already back in 2010, especially when Dave paid hundreds of thousands of pounds of donor monies to have this poster erected on every street corner...

[urlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/cameron-promises-nhs-cash-protect-spending[/url

I illustrated quite clearly that the Labour government was not a 'socialist' one or ;like any previous Labour government, but one that was a continuation, in many, many ways, of the previous ones under Margaret Thatcher and John Major.

I'm sorry that in the real world, it's hard to understand such things.

And as Coddy has amply illustrated, of course public spending increased, given that the previous governments had allowed hospitals and schools to crumble.

So, unless you believe that those schools and hospitals should simply have been allowed to crumble, it's rather difficult to see why you're complaining about Labour from this point of view.