To think the level of state involvement many posters expect is bonkers?

You can look up pre pandemic if you think 2019 is much different

I think you’ve got a bit muddled with the council housing info, it doesn’t actually represent much as items including pensions will clearly be higher now to 1970s

I did Google the ONS but they don't have any records for the 1970s, I told you that, which is why I used the example of council housing to compare. You are the one focussing on that while providing absolutely no information about dependency levels in the 1970s just saying there is more to it than council housing which I agreed with, several times. But without comparable information I can't, you know, compare.

And we now must pay the price. The day of reckoning is upon us. It was always going to have to be paid for and Rishi was the architect. We shouldn't have locked down as we did. We should have protected our vulnerable and our schools should have stayed open as a minimum.

Can you not Google ONS? It’s all there.

But yes you do have the method wrong as you were focussing on council housing. You do know it’s not the only state provision?

I was looking at this all wrong, I was looking for an ONS page but the article was about an analysis compiled by Civitas, a think tank set up by a former Times/Telegraph/Mail journalist. Of course state dependency was high during the pandemic! Half the country were on state funded furlough!

FaeryRing · Today 12:45
BIossomtoes · Today 12:42

Some have much greater opportunities than others. Surely that’s obvious or you wouldn’t have sharp elbowed parents moving into the catchment areas of good schools.
Show quote history
What makes them good schools?

Quite! Schools are not buildings - they're the students, staff and parents working together (or not, as the case may be).

It makes me roll my eyes when politicians talk about bringing in a different demographic to the 'good schools', as if by entering the portals a magic spell will make students successful, well-adjusted and happy.

It's families behind those children who make the difference, and where students are motivated and well-behaved, good teachers will want to teach them - in preference to having to practise riot control in every lesson.

That’s different though. Because profiteering fat cats are obviously far more deserving than benefit scroungers. 🙄

This is the thing though - “parent motivated”. Schools where parents have bothered with their children’s education and general behaviour will have better students who learn more.

parents who aren’t bothering are the problem. No, I don’t think it’s fair that student A with a family who has taught them how to behave and gives a shit about their education has to be in a class with student B who interrupts the lessons frequently and ruins things for everyone else and needs extra support because at home they are stuck in front of the tv all day and no one does anything to help them with their studies.

someone needs to help student B, yes. But not at the detriment to student A. It’s a very shitty and awkward situation and frankly there’s a number of people who just shouldn’t be having children at all because they are not raising them in a way which is fair to the children.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9317/#:~:text=According%20to%20Public%20Spending%20Statistics,2022%2F23%20across%20the%20UK

Frankly if you're paying a group of workers to do a job, the government should do it directly. I see no reason to add a level of tory donor fat cats into the middle of the process to cream a profit off the hardworkikg taxpayer.

It was foul and put me off milk forever.

3WildOnes · Today 12:31
Gruffallowhydidntyouknow · Today 12:19

No. You don't have children you can't afford or care for. It's appalling. If you are not even managing to feed your children 3 healthy meals a say you are failing as a parent. Edited
Show quote history
I agree with you that those parents are failing their children 100%. However, I think we as a society would also be failing those children if we didn't step in to make sure that they have all the opportunities that other children have. We don't punish children because they had the misfortune to be botlrn to parents unwilling or unable to provide for them.

3WildOnes - yes, of course unfortunate children need to be cared for - I wouldn't argue with that. What tips me over the edge is that we're also preached at not to judge the awful parents! It just seems (particularly on MN) that you must not criticise anyone, even when their choices are harming their children and the state has to pick up the pieces.

Definitely protect and care for children - and call a spade a spade when it comes to criticising horrible parents. That's all I ask! Why are we as a society so scared to do this?

£393bn was given to private firms for government contracts. Yes, there were services received in return for that, so we can't just look at the top line. But these companies are not operating at a loss as an act of charity. How much profit do you think they creamed off these contracts?

I'd wager that it's pretty damn close to the disability benefits figure. And that those profits weren't recycled through the economy as effectively either.

• Eligibility criteria
• Families receiving income-related free school meals (FSM)
• Families where FSM eligible and non-eligible children live in the same household
• Families just managing financially (subject to referral from a professional)
• Recently arrived refugee families

I wonder if disposable nappies are more comfy now than then? When did was born in 1998 girl nappies and boy nappies had only just ceased. Gah, pampers in pink packaging for girls and blue for boys. Huggies gave DS a rash! Perhaps a damp feeling gave the infant more incentive?
I recall earlier than that, late 70s, disposable nappies in the UK were essentially a thick wad of cotton wool that glued to the baby's skin when used! Using Pampers in Germany in the early 80s was luxurious but expensive, we never used them for everyday, just when travelling.
I personally think that this idea of staying in nappies until they can write a note asking to use the loo is designed by the disposable nappy industry, it certainly seems that their products are for older and older children. It may have been unpleasant but there was nothing like a soggy, heavy terry nappy for encouraging children to use the potty then loo, most were out by 2 and were none the worse for it. Yes, I know that 'research' alleges otherwise but experience doesn't.

This is a whole other topic, but if we're going to survive as a country economically and from a welfare viewpoint, we need to face up to some hard choices and accept that we can't necessarily have all we want.

The NHS was set up with pretty limited and modest aims in 1948 (or was it '47?). If you compare that with what we expect it to do for us now, you can see where the problem lies. What we want and expect now is going to cost us much more, and I don't think we've really taken that on board. Govts of all complexions know this - neither of the main parties has managed to fund it to the required level. It's great when we hear of a new drug for cancer or dementia, but do people realise that it will be expensive to prescribe? Some people complain about prescription charges, but have they any idea how little this is compared with the cost of the drugs? There has been resistance, for eg, to patients being told that doctors will no longer prescribe certain over-the-counter medicines free and that they'll need to go to the pharmacist and buy them, at a modest cost. I don't think all the NHS's problems are to do with money, but we definitely need to ask the electorate some difficult questions about future funding; how much more are we willing to pay for it? Disclaimer: I know there is huge waste, though, in the NHS and that needs addressing.

One of the areas I'm very pessimistic about is mental health services. It's an area that the NHS was never intended to cope with, and MH is such an open-ended problem that I don't think it will ever be able to satisfy expectations. My daughter has suffered MH problems and has been able to access very little help - and I get that. I don't expect much if the situation isn't acute (which is was in the case of a friend's son, and that's different, of course). If you give people 6 counselling sessions - that's expensive enough - are those people going to say 'Right! Job's a good'un, I'm OK now, thanks - bye!' No they're not - it's not in the nature of MH illness, is it? And that's the massive problem - the difference in our expectations and what the state can realistically be expected to provide.

Funnily enough those are the first places I checked. The ONS doesn't seem to have any data on net dependency from the 1970. I can't even find the data the article refers to.

I think the point being made is that everybody should step up and take responsibility.
If you have repeatedly done something which is damaging your health, for example smoking, is it seriously acceptable to keep doing that and expect to keep getting quite frankly pointless treatment for free? Remember this is delaying treatment for other people. People who may need an operation because they slipped and fell on ice whilst walking to work/carrying out their job.
Yes lots if things lead to injuries but let’s not kid ourselves that all behaviours are equal.
Someone who is run over whilst correctly using a pelican crossing for example. Yes if they had stayed in their home they would not be injured but you can hardly compare that to the person who drives whilst under the influence of drugs and then keeps doing it and receiving free treatment.

I’ve used excellent state, it’s usually motivated parents and dc reflect that too

On another note VAT won’t help incidentally as competition will increase for those schools, displacing dc

Some of them still exist.

The Cambridgeshire Holiday Activities and Food (HAF) Programme offers free holiday scheme places. It runs during the 2024 Easter, Summer, and Christmas school holidays. Eligible primary and secondary school children and young people can attend. The Department for Education funds the HAF Programme.

Here is a letter I recieved from my childs school this week. It's heartbreaking that have had to resort to saying this.

@FaeryRing they haven't ever been as far as I know but I believe they should be.

Have a google see what you can find.

Look at ONS etc

I’d say the information I linked doesn’t support your claim or method even