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?

I didn't do YTS ,but I'm 50 so I remember people doing them wasent the issue ws that for some it could lead to a career and for others it was just a year or two years of ,being very poorly paid and not being taken on at the end of it so not really any better off?

100%

the clearest example of where “no judgement” gets you in the obesity crisis in this country. Massively impacts the nhs but no one is allowed to comment on it.

people should have judgement - it’s necessary to keep a society functional. If your neighbour smacks their child you SHOULD judge them and intervene. If your friend is commuting benefits fraud you SHOULD judge them and intervene.

i think funding is sorely needed in social services and sectors which can actually make society better, and be diverted away from parents who are not doing their job, as OP said.

Lots of people on YTS didn't have such a good experience though.

What voluntary work do you envisage people doing?

It's just over 22 million or 1/3 of people, about the same as the percentage who lived in a council house in the 1970s.

State dependency has not increased it has been privatised so now costs us WAY more!

Yes sorry I should rephrase to just “any contribution”. There is obviously a bit of a sad perpetual cycle that tends to trend with this type of accidental pregnancy scenario with a dead beat dad who has several children. It ends up being a benefit reliance scenario and then the child will go on the same path.

you are of course right that plenty of people who don’t net contribute do have essential jobs. You do see a number of threads on here though where posters are encouraged not to net contribute/keep hours low etc and top up with benefits as it’s a better work life balance etc. it’s wrong.

They tried that - it was called Workfare.

What it became was a scheme by which big corporations took on "volunteers" allegedly who would be trained and given a job to get them off benefits, who simply used any excuse to terminate them at the end of their "voluntary" period and take on another "volunteer" - rinse and repeat. The only beneficiaries were the employers who essentially got free labour.

Currently the unemployed are sanctioned if they do not treat job-seeking as a full time job and prove it, regardless of any "personal responsibility" they may have domestically.

Perhaps a number of these feral parents everyone is conjuring up are letting "standards" slide because they are living in fear of being left with zero money if they don't ask "how high" whenever a DWP employee says "jump". Which raises the spectre of homelessness and instability which makes you even less appealing to an employer.

Are you only looking at people who live in council houses?

State dependency is more than that?

No. Probably just people who disagree with you.

Where are you getting those statistics? Anecdotally and from DC school and demographic I haven’t found that to be the case.

although even in their private school, plenty of parents don’t bother doing the basic 5-10 mins of reading per night then complain their child is behind, which is its own type of entitlement “we are paying so school need to teach/we absolve ourselves of any responsibility”. But generally at the 3-4 year old intake only 1-2 children per 20 are in nappies (without SEN and should still be 0)

It’s so yawn inducing when you’re a bot because you dare to post something that’s unpopular on the echo chamber of MN. I don’t see anyone on labour threads yelling “bot”, but everyone is too busy sneering at the people who pay the most tax and patting each other on the back for being so kind and generous with other people’s money

Why can't we just give them an actual job?

I did a little calculation on your £26/week in 1990 when Thatcher left office is the equivalent of £74.06 now which is MORE than over 18s get now, at 17 you'd get nothing. Did you pay for your accountancy training btw? Because you'd have to today!

I'm getting a bit bemused by some of this thread. Is state dependency catching then? If it's high earners sending their kids to school with no basics skills and nappies too is it because they're all doing coke in their downtime? The general tone is "all state dependency is bad" yet just by being resident in the UK we are all state dependent to a degree.

If such a high number of people are suddenly unable to raise their children at all across the classes, then there's two options isn't there? No kids for you, you're unworthy, and all the rest go straight into state care, which is a "communist" answer. And communism (as it has been tried) is actually complete state authoritarianism and dependency.

What is it people actually want?

I don't think anyone on here trying to pin clear global and engineered economic crisis on lack of personal responsibility and demands for school tooth brushing (which is an absolute red herring) really knows what they want, except to ensure that those at the bottom of the heap keep getting a good kicking, psychologically and financially.

I am comparing the number of people claiming any benefit at all today, to the number who were in a council house in the 1970s as the percentages are pretty similar and both are a benefit provided by the state. DWP benefits statistics: February 2023 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Yes but why just that figure? Why just council houses when dependency is other stuff included

They are provided by the state you’re right, but so is a whole raft of other stuff

On your link the top three in the graph are state pension, UC and PIP

I didn't say you did go to uni, I didn't either, but there were more opportunities for higher education back then, whether that was uni, polytechnic. Night school, college, apprentiships and other training.

I live in a rural area, which is extremely poor, it wasn't always when we had industry it was far richer. My area is now the poorest in my country. There are no jobs, no housing, no transport, nothing. It's hard to imagine if you live in a city, but it's bleak. Most of the jobs around here are 0 hour contracts in retail or hospitality, even though there are only 4 hotels across 2 towns and it's all bargain shops or one the 4 supermarkets who pay nmw and will give no more than a 16 hour contract.
All of the headteachers came together and sent a letter to all school parents which I will post if anyone would like to read it, it's a sad read though.

it's not a case of not being responsible or as easy as moving out of the area, it's just broken. So i'm glad your son managed to do well and get his dream job, but he would definitely be in the minority around here. My 24 year old has a 1st class degree with honours, but that is honestly useless around here because there are no opportunities.

Judging people by your own standards and what is available in your area is not how it is for a large percentage of the country.

Do you remember when they would give you vaccinations for polio on a sugar cube?😃

@ChishiyaBat

I know what you mean about the further / higher education thing - I was one of the last cohort to get a free college course and a full grant.

The reason why compulsory education to 18 was introduced was to massage employment figures because of the lack of entry level jobs for the less academic who used to leave school at 16 and go into entry level jobs with prospect of progression that simply don't exist any more.

University education is now available to more, but at a price if course, because it's been turned into an industry in itself.

It's framed as "any degree is a good degree" because even entry level jobs demand one, yet only certain degrees are valued, and it's not about pursuing a passion or actual education it's about turning out good employees. In theory that is, as your son's situation illustrates.

But again, if most 18 - 21 year olds are "in education" it keeps another cohort off the unemployed figures.

The gig economy, zero hours contracts and the carrot of riches via Internet entrepreneurship have sprung into being at a vast pace, further altering what the employment landscape truly looks like in the modern world.

Again it's a big, complex picture with constant change and instability at its core.

Come on this isn't true, politicians are always talking about taxpayers money, saying 'its your money' etc. I think politicians want people to understand this.
I accept many votes don't though...which is a worry.

GentlemanJohnny · Today 09:21
Phineyj · Yesterday 12:21
Hence the call for schools to do everything. It's the only institution many people are familiar with and the only one they feel they can influence.

See: schools doing things that were previously done by local authorities, the NHS, social services, youth services, housing.

(Sorry, Gentleman and Phineyj - I couldn't work out which of you has posted the above.)

I don't deny that an element of social work is required in some school now, but I'm strongly against it being dumped on teachers. Being a professional teacher was always a demanding job and I think now it's reached breaking point for some dedicated people.

Of course teachers have a role in spotting warning signs of all kinds of things to with safeguarding or say, radicalisation. From being expected to potty-train infants to dealing with the results of neglect and abuse, I think far, far too much is asked of teachers now.

In my experience the majority of teachers are highly conscientious and this is their Achilles heel - they are always easy meat for anyone (govts, local authorities, parents) who want to a) make them take on other tasks than teaching children and b) take responsibility when these things go wrong. They can be their own worst enemies because, like nurses and doctors, they care, and that gets exploited.

Having thought about it for many years (this sounds callous, but hear me out) I wish teachers would strike for their own interests. Usually a bleeding-heart cause to do with their students is cited as a reason for taking action. If teachers were a bit more assertive and yes, selfish, they would be happier and they'd have better working conditions which would lead to happier teachers and happier students - it would filter down. And (and this makes me cross), if they were more 'selfish' about their own welfare, society and parents would respect them more.

"Just by being resident in the UK, we are all state dependent to a degree"

Could you define that statement further please? "Nationalised provision is now restricted to the NHS and education". Our DC were independently educated from 8 and 13 (could have been from 4 but there were good local options until we made a disastrous choice in relation to a holy grail cofe secondary for dd. We have private healthcare although are registered with a GP who monitors the two chronic conditions I have but it isn't actually necessary. The only bit of the NHS that can't presently be purchased is A&E.

The state provided us with: three births (one was dire) and crap post natal care; two HV interactions which I declined thereafter because the service was crap; education at primary from 4 until 8 for DS, 4 until 11 for DD (tutors and parental enrichment were required and the ethos was not that anyone should take personal responsibility); two years secondary for DD (disaster both academically and pastorally); we have paid the DCs uni fees and they have no student loans; the DC were immunised, free eye tests for the DC. I received child benefit when it was universal and continued when it wasn't and DH paid the tax. DH had an emergency appendectomy in 1993, DS had a hospital.admission as a baby for bronchiolitis - the asthma follow up was poor - so we switched to private which cracked it in two appointments. The DC had a couple of breaks via A&E and the NHS refused any physio - again a couple of sessions privately made the world of difference. Both DC were refused grommets on the NHS for absolutely rank ears because their speech was well developed - it was fine evidently for them to be in constant pain and constantly taking antibiotics. When DD had some mental health issues the state declined her support and our interaction with CAMHS was deeply disappointing and I don't think it was all about resourcing, rather a structurally dysfunctional and toxic provision. Our GP told us to Google a therapist off the Internet.rather than help with advice or a referral.

In our early 60s I would say the state has provided us with nothing of acceptable or high quality. We are indeed net contributors and in spades. At the height if DH's career we paid £250,000 in tax one year. It's a chicken and egg situation and I am not prepared to pay more tax unless standards significantly improve. I would argue strongly against the state spending more to provide a higher quantity of crap services. People who need services need higher quality provision.

Finally, a perfect example.of where the system is an arse. Because DH and I are over 60, we are now entitled to free prescriptions and free eye tests! We both still work full-time and both have a six figure income.

Perhaps @RosesAndHellebores also account for the infrastructure that you use: roads, railways, utilities and the indivisible stuff like defence?

The Covid vaccines.

Training of the doctors and teachers.

Having the money to opt out gives more choice, for sure, but none of us can really operate in isolation from the state.

Railways and utilities are privatised. Defence and covid vaccines I shall grant you.

newnamethanks · Today 08:33
Gosh, torybotsRus have started early today. Or is it reform4u?

And this is why we're in the mess we're in.

As long as people think as crudely as this, with no desire to look afresh at things, and no deep knowledge or understanding of nuance, we'll be stuck with tribal politics.

I think you need to leave your tribal prejudice behind for a moment and consider that there might be some point in listening to people who don't agree with you. I'd bet there are a lot of them. I'm not tied to a political party (never found one that matches my diverse views) but it really makes me despair when people are labelled 'Tory scum'. Well, that's about half the population that some people feel good about despising!!

My hero was the Labour MP Frank Field, who sadly died recently - and didn't get the recognition he deserved. He was someone who cared about people deeply but knew that sometimes, tough love (sorry - awful American cliche) is the best way of helping them. He was devoid of party-political crap and would genuinely say what he thought - which sometimes wasn't what his Labour colleagues wanted to hear. He was a brave and sincere man, and absolutely head and shoulders above the sort of politicians we have now. Similarly, Alan Johnson.

There've also been some Tory politicians over the years who've tried sincerely to make society better. Please don't reduce things to party politics - it's more complicated than that.

That’s the thing, isn’t it? Healthcare professionals in the private sector were trained in and by the NHS, same with teachers. I do agree with this though:

I would argue strongly against the state spending more to provide a higher quantity of crap services. People who need services need higher quality provision.

@Phineyj I think the training of the doctors and teachers needs to crank up a gear. I also think bursaries should be given to doctors, nurses and teachers on the proviso they deliver 10 full-time years or the equivalent thereof to the state in return. That always raises a storm on MN however with people claiming it erodes freedom and is equivalent to being indentured rather than accepting nobody shoukd get owt for nowt if they can provide for themselves.