to think that maybe we all expect too much support from 'the government' with everything-childcare,healthcare, breasfeeding, the whole shebang?

[moondog]

Eh?

There are perfectly good weightwatcher clubs all around the country. They provide motivation for a fraction of the cost of a 20-a-day habit.

And don't you think there is an elemetn of desenstisation in those warnings, moon? I remember feeling quite shocked when the 'SMOKING KILLS' strapline was introduced. People would become blase at looking at gunky lungs too. That's not to say it shouldn't be done but I don't know how many people would actually stop smoking.

The odd lefty social smoker like yourself maybe

I think there is room for public education. I believe that road traffic accidents involving children have gone down since I was a child. There was a lot of road safety advice drummed into us as we were growing up and I think it worked. Ditto the clunk clic every trip campaign. People ranted about the nanny state when compulsory seat belts were introduced but would we really argue it was a bad thing?

There seems to be a lot of stuff produced which goes out of date very quickly and will not get to everyone who needs it. But those who need it most are not always the poorly educated (presumably by our horrific state schools ), chavs amoung us.

Plenty of educated people refuse to take notice of advice because they think it is not meant for the likes of them.

I do think there is too much and it becomes overwhelming particularly if you are pregnant or have a new baby. I have seen it increase incredibly since I had my first and youngest child (a gap of 16 years). Frankly it made me switch off because it was making me anxious.

Moondog They must have some success rates though, even if skewed to sort their intentions. They can't really just throw money at things for fun/'control'. Or do they??? I was just trying to be rational, but maybe they are not! I am studying obesity for my diss and therefore Change 4 Life is implicated. I must say, what I am saying is also not backed up by what I have found. But I am also a bit at people who go so far as to attack government policies on the basis that they do not help the illiterate masses (I know it was not said exactly like that!) etc...

Rustybear I do think my course particularly attracts boarding school types because of the 'outdoorsy' kind of thing. (soooooo many overheard convesations of the weekend shooting etc). Also I wasn't there in 06/07 and would not be at all surprised if the state school pupils have declined. If that is not the case then State Education is producing an awful lot of rahs!!!

Well, DD was in Holland (or rather, having her meals there) so she did encounter a lot of rahs!

tricky question. But those of us who need help need it. It no longer comes from community.

a good discussion!

great point, dollyparting.

TheDMshouldbeRivened Agree. If the government support was taken away there would be nothing for so many. The state has taken on the role of the community in many ways. It would not work to have no government support because society has changed and is dependent upon it. Probably too much in many cases, but it is a hard one to get out of for both sides.

RustyBear Ah yes, kind of Rah Capital in Holland (House Exeter Uni...not the country!)

But the thing is has the gov't replaced 'community' because it had to as there was no longer any 'community' OR is there no 'community' any longer because the gov't took on that role?

As the gov't takes on a kind of parental role will the 'children' (general population) no longer mature and take responsibility for themselves?

Hope that makes sense.

That's what I was thinking juuule. But I suppose it was kind of simultaneous. Post war slum clearence = declining 'community', while money is being thrown into education and health care etc. But it has not been a straight pattern since then. I think each responds to the other in some rather compicated way.

Also the Reagan/Thatcher era saw the emphasis shift to individuals supporting themselves, but with no community support, and that was all a bit of a disaster (anyone disagree!?)

Well Thatcher's (or Tebbit?)thing was "on your bike" to look for work wasn't it? So, dividing communities as people moved away, which in turn isolated people and removed them from their traditional support networks of family and friends.

Kinda. Last night there was a piece on You and Yours about Job Centres, and this enormously articulate and well-educated woman was fuming about the fact that her (small, rural town) local one hadn't been geared up to help her find a job in her extremely niche and specialised area. I was rather , because what on earth was she expecting? She was in a far better position than her local JC employee could hope to be to know which agencies and companies in her field to approach - the cost of training/retaining JC staff to that level of familiarity with every single employment sector in the land would be ridiculous, and she was clearly more than capable of doing her own leg-work.

I do honestly believe there's a duty to support and help people with various shitty things life throws, and it can at times be crappy at providing enough for those in need, and that's not okay. I also think that public health should be a shared responsibility, and only decent info widely disseminated can achieve that. But honest to God, sometimes people seem to think the State should be providing diamond-studded trainers on demand - while others who are in genuine need have to fight for what really should be provided.

That does sound rather silly Qually. I suppose that is a good example of people expecting too much from the Government to the point they use it as an excuse. BUT, I am sure people like that must be in the minority. Surely it is just human instinct to want to do the best for yourself???

I suspect she was fuming because she is forced to waste her time by going to talk to someone who is less educated than her and can't help her and to fill in bits of paper proving that she has phoned 20 HR depts asking for work that week or whatever it is, when that's not how you get jobs in hre industry. Rather than actually getting on with doing the legwork of finding a job. I remember when I got made redundant a few years ago and realising that if I signed up for the JobCentre stuff, it would actively obstruct my search for a job - having a new baby meant that i had limited time to look for one and needed to do it the most effective way possible, not the JC way. But I wouldn't have been allowed to, so I just didn't sign on. That is a ridiculous state of affairs and I expect she is experiencing something similar (having to waste time jumping through hoops which tick JC boxes instead of finding a job), so she's expressing her frustration in an unreasonable way IYSWIM.

I'm finding it hard to believe that over 70% of Exeter uni students are from state schools, where are they hiding?

See, that I understand and sympathise with, but she actually complained that signing on only took 4 minutes, when she required and expected in depth job search assistance. I do see some people might be able to benefit from more targeted assistance, but an out-of-work lawyer? If you're so highly skilled that you're basically better equipped to find yourself work than the JC can, why be angry about the fact they don't waste your time trying?

I do see that being expected to operate in very basic parameters (X number of application letters a month etc) when your industry may not fit them must be frustrating, and hopefully that wasn't what she meant, but it sounded otherwise, really. And it being Radio 4, her concerns were being treated as entirely reasonable, and an example of how the JC wasn't set up to assist the middle classes (an example: the presenter tried to find a job in Broadcast Media, and a basic entry level on at £14k pa came up. What did he expect? It wasn't exactly the BBC Vacancies webmail, was it?).

The jobcentre ISN'T the place to go for a highre paying/more qualified job. I suppose if it is the first time for someone out of work from a good job it would be depressing.

Fennel I just think that 70% must be wrong! Or maybe the state educated students quickly learn to lie and take up the mannerisms and dress (non)sense of a rah in order to fit in. Also - depressing.

No, it's true , here are the figures for the 2007 intake (stats nerd alert):

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8083423.stm

But it happens the other way at Manchester, which has a similar proportion of state/private students, there they all roughen up their accents and clothes to fit in with the grim city vibe.

Re: the efficacy of SureStart, I'm with moondog - no actual evidence, despite some very thorough evaluation particularly in the US, that involvement with the scheme has a lasting impact on any of the indicators (e.g. academic attainment) it was designed to influence. Despite the ostensible obsession with 'evidence based' services (e.g. NICE decisions on drug funding) the current government seems alarmingly blind to the lack of evidence behind some of its biggest investments.

There are certain sections of our society who, without any shadow of a doubt, think the state is there to provide for them, even though they have never paid a penny into the state.

A recent facebook conversation between two girls I went to school with, went along the lines of

Status update: 'fuckin' boilers broken, gonna have to get the useless fucking council to fix it'

Response by friend: 'Fuckin' joke havin a house ent it m8, at least u aint gotta pay 4 it tho

These are 2 people that have never worked a day in their lives, live in social housing they were given when they fell pregnant. They have no work ethic at all, no sense of personal responsibilty and no shame in execting the state to solve all their woes.

Interesting juuule, I was watching a programme on TV about 100 years of girl guides, and it was so interesting the range of things that they were involved in in the early 20th century. They bathed babies, worked in munitions factories, helped re-integrate people after they had been in Belsen....

It made me think that there is something about how we have "over-professionalised" many helping services. Now no-one would let a girl guide bath their baby because they were ofsted approved, crb checked and qualified in first aid.

The film clips of today's girl guides showed them dipping fruit into melted chocolate for their chocolate badge! A bit different from helping victims of abuse and torture - where do young people of today get any concept of putting themselves out to help others? Where does our continued sense of community come from?

they're lucky, puppy, because in many councils, including this one, they'd have spent months if not years in B&Bs and temporary accommodation.

but alas, they're time on income support won't be long unless they start having more children, the rules are changing in 2010.

and if they are under 25 when that child reaches 7 years of age and they wind up on JSA, they'll be put on work placements of 13 weeks every six months.

If you are given temp. accommodation in my area, you are just given a council flat/house, no different to what you will be allocated.

Changes to the law, although very welcome IMO, won't make a difference to their mindset and it won't stop them passing down this attitude to their children. Its a rotten cycle that gets worse every generation.

I have a friend (who does work FT) One of them has very poor eyesight and jokes she will end up blind. Her DH remarked, deadly serious, that if she does go blind they will get a lot of money from the state. He was shocked when I showed him the directgov website and how little he would receive. He really believed the state should pay for his wifes loss of eyesight - I was baffled.

Someone DH knows thinks he doesn't need to save for old age as he has a council house and 'the government will look after him'.

Society is riddled with these attitudes