and they want it by going around all the council flats in hammersmith and promising people a new kitchen if they voted conservative and they did and presumably the new kitchens were provided in other words the state the state's role as a political community is a law based community has been completely bastardized. and has become instead a vehicle for providing material goods and naturally that is open to abuse it's open to abuse by indigenous people it's open to abuse by immigrants and eight he's one of the course is one of the many causes of ballooning state budgets people as you say in your question expect the state to provide for them and they regard the state as i take it to be somebody on our more so if we look at the history of political economy this is a relatively new phenomenon and it came about after the second world war we before that people didn't expect so much of the state you were lucky if you got basic education but nobody promised you would job nobody. promised you job opportunities it's gone too far it's got into the election cycle no. very few people a few mavericks ca

and within one city, two nations, in hammersmith and fulham in west london, more than half the children leaving state schools head to a good university. just thirty minutes east - down the district line to tower hamlets - and just 4 percent do. odds stacked against too many of our children. a deep injustice, when birth is destiny. that's why i've been leading the charge for social mobility - for fairer chances, for real freedom. people keep telling me that it's too hard. that it's futile to push for fairness into the headwinds of an economic slow down, or that it will just take too long. and that i should find some politically convenient 'quick wins' instead. i've also encountered fierce resistance from those who do so well out of the status quo. but for liberals the only struggles worth having are the uphill ones. allowing schools to move poorer children up the queue for admissions. making universities open their doors to everyone. making firms work harder to get women on their boards. breaking open internships. all controversial. all difficult. not easy, but right. so i'm not backing