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

And as @HeavensToBetsie just posted - any party that seriously addressed the mass building of social housing estates would have my vote.

First on the list would be a Law that allows local councils to compulsory purchase any land banked by developers with planning permission at original purchase price +10% solely for the building of social housing to rent. Easily available funding from the Public Works Loan Board.

Rents to be set at no more than 60% of local market rents, reducing as the rental market tumbles to more affordable prices.

Now that's the kind of state intervention/provision that's more than worth it's weight in gold.

With respect to healthcare.

It is well documented that nearly all humans don't make sensible choices when it comes to healthcare.

They choose to smoke when they know it will kill them in the long term. They choose to over eat when they know it is likely to lead to health problems.

However this isn't a failure of personal responsibility it's a fundamental part of human psychology. The food is here. In 30
Years you might be dead of something else.

Nearly 75% of patients who get physio don't do their daily exercises. raccoon.world/blog/why-patients-dont-do-their-exercises-and-how-to-help-them-complete-their-treatment/#:~:text=identifies%20three%20factors%20that%20reduce,perceived%20helplessness.

Now you can say that all those people are personally irresponsible. fine.

But it won't improve their health, and so a lot of research into healthcare is about getting compliance with what needs to be done - daily physio, daily pills, whatever.

At the point where most people don't do something, it isn't really helpful to say "they are irresponsible". It's more helpful to look at what can be changed so that people do comply and have better health.

I provide everything my kids need, and am proud to do so.

But the kids whose parents can't or won't still deserve a decent upbringing.

If we can spend billions raining death upon people, we can spend a few quid feeding kids.

Well I’m in my 60’s so been around a lot longer than most of MN and also worked in the public sector for 45 years.
Can you list all of these things that used to be provided because I can’t think of a lot?

Me too and I don’t have children. Yes there are some incompetent/ negligent parents but if there is no intervention made then it is the children who are punished not the parents. This also has an effect on future adult citizens and their ability to function and contribute in society.
This thread smells to me of yet more blaming and I’m alright jack mentality yet again.
How long till the benefit bashing starts in earnest?

And then there is the older end of things too - caring for elderly relatives, there seems to be a common expectation that someone 'else' will care for them/us(one day) when it used to be that many households included an elderly relative or two.

God it would be awesome if we could get back up to 50% council housing again.

Just think how much better it would be if people had secure affordable homes. Much less strain on schools, social services, police, all sorts.

YES. It’s been years I’ve replied to threads about “schools should teach xyz” with “no! Parents should teach xyz”. Whether it’s cooking, budgeting, taxes, anything to do with phones, walking caravans, parking outside schools, how to deal with bullies - whatever.

And not just the state. Ageing parents should provide childcare; step-grandparents should treat step-grandchildren as their own; my siblings should share their good fortune with me; the staff at John Lewis should have done abc for me; my manager at work should take on parental duties for me; my employer needs to accommodate my personal choices wrt my children and leisure activities etc.

An endless stream of adults shirking responsibility for their own choices and actions. In many cases, these are the very same parents who, either through an excess of empathy and love or through deeply felt entitlement, go on to repeat the cycle with their own children. My baby is a princess. Infantilising them well into school years and beyond. Making excuses for them in the outside world, including before teachers and adults with legitimate authority over their children. Modelling entitlement. Shouting the odds if their precious offspring don’t get the best of everything whether they deserve or have a right to it or not.

It’s utterly depressing. As a lifelong Labour voter, and someone who generally thinks she can and should be taxed more if more money can go to those who need it, it’s enough to make you think maybe the state should shrink. Let it be stripped back so only the truly deserving receive. I’m not prepared to pay higher taxes for more inefficient managers in the NHS to squander my cash. I’d gladly pay twice the NI if it means nurses are paid more, waitlists are cut, doctors don’t go on strike, hospital buildings are kept in good repair.

Yes, my mum tells me that warm school milk was horrible too. But my point is that it was an example of the state providing something for the benefit of children’s health on the basis that not all parents could/would provide it themselves.

I sometimes roll my eyes when I see posts on here or news stories about people complaining that the council won’t give them big enough house etc, but I remind myself it was only a little more than a generation that the state DID provide these things to those who needed them.

We were having a row about this at work not long ago and we looked up some statistics from our childhood, we are both old so 1970s/80s. We found that 50% of the population lived in council housing during rhat time.
It explains both the popularity of right to buy, which turned out to have been a Labour policy originally and why so many people struggle with private renting now.
And I agree about how parents see schools, they see us as a service and they really don't like it when we have to say no we aren't going to do that for your child.

Yeah, the state's role has definitely been dialled back.

In addition to everything you've listed, we had nationalised energy, transport and water back then too.

We still have a health service, just about, but a lot of treatments have been quietly dropped - chiropody, physiotherapy and ENT all provide a lot less - you are expected to go to a private clinic for a lot of things now. Peripherals and services are hollowed out too - expensive hospital parking and limited patient transport for eg.

And at the same time over the decades as less is provided by the state, we seem to have acquired an entire extra tax ie council tax - which for a lot of people means handing over at least another 10% of their already taxed income.

So we're paying more tax but getting less back.

I guess that's maybe why people now are expressing a wish for increased services.

I completely agree. Although I wouldn’t want children to suffer because their parents are incapable of looking after them properly.
Childcare is terrible expensive but people moan they can’t afford it like it wasn’t their choice to have multiple children!
There was a thread recently where a mum
couldn't potty train her son and said she’d given up and he’d just have to go to school in nappies. Just completely resolving herself of any responsibility.

Many of us loathed school milk - especially in summer, when the crates had been sitting outside since the early morning. But you were expected to drink it.
I imagine that a lot of kids were relieved when Thatcher did away with it.

There’s certainly a dissonance, with regard to the expectation of what schools and teachers can offer.

On a local FB page recently, there was a poll asking which professions are least respected. The vast majority of replies said that teachers were least respected and many declared they wouldn’t be able to do it.

On the other hand, so many complain about the schools their children go to, uniform, homework, detentions, school trips, sanctions, homework, class sizes, bullying etc. So what do we do. Either teachers have the tools, knowledge and expertise to do the job and be paid for it appropriately, with good working conditions and reasonable hours, or we continue what some have called ‘the race to the bottom’.

Could you expand on why you have this view? The health service is stretched to breaking point. There is a big focus within healthcare on prevention, so these people are accessing healthcare. However some people deliberately ignore the advice/ intervention given.
We have to be actively involved in our healthcare.
As a tax payer I'd rather the money be spent on those who, as PP have said have never had the resources to learn how to do this, than the few who choose to assume they can ignore advice and then have the state 'pick up the pieces'.
The NHS isn't a bottomless pit of money. We need to take some responsibility ourselves and work with the NHS the best we can.

Hmmm, when I was at primary school in the 80s we had dental and eye check-ups at school, and the “nit nurse” used to come and inspect everyone’s heads at least once a term. I just missed out on free milk at school, thanks to Thatcher the Milk Snatcher. My children haven’t had any of those things. In fact, we have to pay for them for them to see a private dentist because we couldn’t find an NHS one with spaces. Child benefit was universal back then too. About a third of the UK population lived in council housing in the late 70s. So I don’t agree that expectations of “the state” are higher now than in the past.

Some of this is true - social services used to teach people how to clean their houses and then if they didn't, no more council housing for them.

Now they are apparently employed as whipping boys for parents who abuse or neglect their children. This is a very poor use of resources.

The state should provide education, and a safety net for the unlucky, but citizens should expect to play their role in that provision - not demand endlessly for themselves (or their children) with no consideration for the public good. We would all benefit from calm, well run schools with zero tolerance for poor behaviour, but it would require everybody to pull their weight and alternative provision for the students who just cannot self calm. It costs and lots of people don't like the idea of violent children being "excluded" even temporarily.

^ this, exactly, but - particularly in an election year - I wish politicians would be honest about this too. But the public don't want to hear this, and so it continues...

Perhaps before the State provides money and services, it should focus on incentives and disincentives that might lessen the demand for these tax-paid services.

Eg incentives to be a responsible parent and prioritise your child’s education
Incentives to look after your own health to reduce risk of avoidable health issues
And disincentives too.

Ethically carried out, of course. But why aren’t parents being incentivised to do these things for the children that people are now calling on schools to pay for?

This thread was kind of a straw/camel/break moment for me. People genuinely couldn't understand why the government wouldn't look into it.

Well we all pay in, so taking more than your fair share on purpose is like stealing supplies. I believe that gets you shot in wartime.

Please link that thread. I have to see it.

In effect, there is two tier pricing though. It's called market segmentation.
That why TESCO has three of every own brand product. Economy version, normal version, TESCO finest version.
To maximise profits, you want to provide something low income people can afford, alongside something that tempts high income people to pay more.

The state should provide a safety net for children whose parents are not caring for them. But ultimately it’s parent’s responsibility to raise their kids and it’s best for society if they retain that responsibility.

However there are a small number of people who think they can do what they like and expect the state to sort out the mess they get into.

And in that case so they should. It's a health service