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

[FaeryRing]

It seems like there is nothing the state shouldn’t be responsible for any more! Feeding your kids, getting them to school, hiring ‘behaviour specialists’ for every classroom because parents don’t want to discipline their own children, giving you money towards virtually anything you ask for because it’s not fair you have to pay for anything yourself.. I find it absolutely wild and don’t think it’s at all realistic or representative of what most adults believe?

@ChishiyaBat how on earth can you say that university is out of reach for young people today and that you and I at 44 and 63 respectively had easier access to HE? With all due respect, when I was 18, 3% of young people went to university (5% if the Polys were included). It was higher when you went. Today it is about 35% and young people have to stay in education beyond 16. Whilst student loans are an issue, how do you think society could fund 35% in HE without them and if there were no fees? I didn't go to university BTW and have never said I did so you have jumped to that assumption.

I don't know where you live where there is limited transport and no jobs but where I live, transport is good (notwithstanding the strikes) and it's talent that is hard to attract rather than jobs. My DS has just relocated to the north of England for his dream job and his wife has kept her London centric one because nowadays she can work remotely in her field, coming to London twice a month.

In response to another poster, who noted that the SEN children in her country get buses to school, my dd teaches in a specialist SEN school (LA funded) and most of the pupils are taxi'd to and from school. Many are from chaotic homes.

My children (29 and 26) had an excellent education, nits were dealt with (the nit nurse came into the DC's primary school and gave talks and bright yellow combs), good dental hygiene (not state provided), free eye tests at the optician, lunch at school - poor quality imo so they had packed which cost more at primary. Healthcare was poor 29 years ago to be fair and it was Blair, a Labour government, who allowed GPs (who are self employed to contract out of home visits). No other first world country follows the NHS model and they all have better systems with better outcomes and systems of social insurance.

So, who was responsible for the education of our DC, their health, happiness and nutrition? DH and I were. There has to be a safety net for those who are are vulnerable but the current sense of entitlement has gone too far and many need to be encouraged to take personal responsibility.

One thing that would be a help is the ability of the able, where there is work available, to refuse to work more than 16 hours a week, otherwise their benefit will be cut. That is immoral and reprehensible, particularly where they have school aged children and could easily work 24/25 hpw without incurring childcare costs. Nobody who is capable should be allowed to refuse to work at the expense of the state.

Yes but your statement doesn’t seem to hold true in terms of state dependency rate

Going by ONS it’s high, around half of population

When did we have that figure previously?

The state is unquestionably bigger in monetary terms. The overall tax burden is at a 70 year high and they're not saving any of it, given the levels of debt.

What has changed is how it's spent. The three big ticket items are state pension (because there's the most over 65s there's ever been), the NHS (biggest budget ever although spread thinly because of population growth and a lot of sick people) and servicing the National Debt (still paying off the financial crisis).

Plus slow growth and high inflation makes all that feel worse.

It's perfectly possible to have a huge welfare state that still doesn't do the main things most people want.

It would not have been thought unreasonable even 10 years ago to have a road free of potholes, or to be able to see an NHS consultant about something serious within a few months, or for a child struggling at school to receive some one to one help!

@ Llamaramma -

“Extra funding gained by removing fiscally incompetent Tory government. “

And which fiscally prudent, all-providing party do you consider to be more economically responsible? The Conservative government has been an absolute shower, but in terms of fiscal responsibility, they are alas still more responsible than the alternatives. As an example, it’s been calculated that Labour ministers only paid £5 billion of the £65 billion "spent" on building more than 100 hospitals through PFI (Private Finance Initiative) between 1997 and 2010, leaving the rest as a bill to be picked up by the taxpayer.

Yes indeed, let's not forget to add to the size of the state all those off-balance sheet billions in PFI spending! And the student loan system. Even the OECD doesn't know how to compare our education spending to other countries because we do it in such a weird way.

I repeat as I assume you didn't read it first time:

We have a low wage, high cost economy.
People didn't need much state support when we had a high wage, low cost economy.

Trussian economics abounds on this thread.

Plus: most of those in receipt of state support are pensioners getting state pension ONLY. Do you propose a cull at age 67 to get the numbers down?

Hahahaha 😂 this is the sort of thing they wheel the Tory out to say on Question Time!

Did you get a memo from CCHQ?

No repeating it won’t change the figures. Have you looked?

‘The “net dependency ratio” is the highest on record.
It had been falling steadily since 2011, from 52.5% to 47.5% in 2019/20, but grew during the pandemic as the result of increased assistance.

And Civitas argues the long-term trend is “clearly” upwards, with the 1977-2000 average of 41.2% significantly less than 2020/21’s figure of 54.2%.’

It may have gone down a bit post pandemic but we’re not back at the rate 40 years ago

YANBU

People seem to reject any notion of individual responsibility and want the State to nanny them.

It's pathetic b

Desperate people can't always afford morality.

There's no point discussing as your points are not in response to mine, you have fundamental misunderstandings of what the numbers you're quoting mean.

When wages are high enough to cover living costs, people in work didn't need top-up benefits.

I assume you will decline your state pension then? It'd be pathetic to expect the state to nanny you.

But I’m not saying I want to curb librarians and teachers. I’m all in favour of anything that directly benefits children (not just handing over cash to their useless parents) or things that make society more pleasant, educated and civilised as a whole (ie also enjoyed by the people who work and fund the whole thing!). I’m saying those individuals who cost an absolute fortune because they can’t do the most basic things are dragging us down and it’s a real shame.

This won't make me popular, but it's something I've come to think after many years of working in the public sector...

We are told not to be judgmental. Yes, this country is a better place than it was 70 or more years ago in because LGBTQ people and, for eg, single parents, are no longer stigmatised and that is great.

I'm not talking about that kind of judgmentalism - I mean the 'lack of personal responsibility' variety. The message comes over so strongly these days that no-one should be judged, and I think it's dangerous for society as a whole. There's at least one generation of people (maybe 2) who've been given the green light that nothing is ever their fault. Some egs:

TV documentary about people who'd been 'romance scammed'. These people had been warned several times by family, friends and their banks, but still went ahead and gave vast amounts to their scammers, then expected help! The whole message of the programme was 'don't feel bad - it could happen to anyone and your situation is totally understandable'.

People who've had tattoos and other procedures who then expect the NHS to reverse these things free of charge. No -they're not life-threatening, so please save up yourself.

And the most glaring and damaging aspect of this ideology: schools! It seems that parents and children are always right, and the school always wrong. It's now incredibly difficult to remove a student from school and parents know this. I've been in many schools when vile parents have come in and verbally and physically attacked staff members with absolutely no consequences - the poor teachers couldn't even tell them to F off! Why can't schools take a more high-handed approach to awful parents and put them in their place? I just cannot understand it. And why is no govt, of any type, ever prepared to blame parents?? Oh, and the phrase 'school has failed this child' - so annoying! I bet the school is the only agency which hasn't failed the child in many cases. I'll I'm surprised there are any teachers left standing in some schools.

All societies need to set standards and 'judgmentalism' is a vital part of that. Any anthropologist will tell you that we need them. It may be too late now to inculcate the idea that we are responsible for ourselves and should take the blame for bad behaviour.

I think you are seeing your statement was incorrect.

State dependency is higher now than 40 years ago. If ONS are using these figures then it’s ok by me.

We’ve discussed this time and time again. Corporation tax here is high and in line with Scandinavia, but we can’t stop companies from registering elsewhere. If it was that simple labour would do it and promise us the moon and stars wouldn’t they?

Has anywhere managed it? Apart from the country in which they are registered

The figures are fine, no problem with the figures.

Wages were higher 40 years ago.

Oh, your OP talked about support for families/children.

No understanding of what the welfare state is - you just mean you want to cut benefits currently paid to those in highest need?

This is the third time I have posted this if you actually read the article it's by shona Sibary who is famous for writing controversial articles in the daily mail to get people frothing
She also appears to have entirely missed the point as she talks about her child being in night time nappies just before school started which has absolutely no bearing on school and its also not uncommon for children of four / five to wear pull ups at night.

Not really no. Generally speaking the people being used as examples in the post don’t go on to raise net contributors. It’s pointless having more people if they aren’t going to contribute.

My son is severely autistic he goes to a special school, he also gets transport to and from home ,he also gets breakfast at school not because I cant be bothered to feed him but because the school.are very aware that their pupils have complex needs and many children WONT eat before school
I'm an a Facebook group for parents of children with severe autism and learning disability it's an American group but has members from all over the world
From what I read special education in America is much like the UK very hit and miss .

And to add to that ,in his school.he has access to OT ,speech therapists ,he regularly swims in the hydro pool as it helps regulate him ,this is an LEA school in the northwest of England

Gosh, torybotsRus have started early today. Or is it reform4u?

Schools can. In various schools local to me parents have been banned from the premises for various lengths of time for different reasons. Some parents have restrictions on school communication. Some parents only talk to teachers if a member of SLT is also present.