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

[moondog]

Eh?

bit of an aside as it's not about the UK - but on the issue of responsibility and job hunting - did anyone see that there's a woman in the states who's suing her university careers service because 7/8 (?) months after graduating she hasn't got a job? if you want real responsibility shifting look west...

Well, yes, puppy, and that lack of personal responsibility extends all over the place.

I'm foreign, but was absolutely astonished that British people who took a holiday, completely voluntary, to Egypt and then got bombed wanted compensation from the British government.

I rememeber exclaiming to DH, 'Are they for real?'

And yeah, they were!

WTF?

This is a really thought provoking thread. It's made me think of a thread earlier where someone was totting up whether or not she could afford to have a baby, and wanted to know what she was "entitled to". Child benefit fair enough, but she was including other benefits in her equation.

So to afford kids you need to work out what the taxpayers government are going to pay you???

That sounds judgey, but I think the main problem is that you have to PAY the tax and then claim it back if you are on a low income. This, for example, is fucking ridiculous.

Oh, there've been loads of those threads, Portofino.

Also, when peoples' relationships break down the first question asked is what benefits can be had from the state rather than the non-resident parent providing for his/her offspring after relationship breakdown and then considering assistance if necessary.

My FIL fumed when DH "only" got a grand from the Criminal Injuries Compensation people after being violently robbed. He just couldn't grasp the point that this is government (read: taxpayer) money, and that the government/taxpayer had not in fact robbed and beaten him. I gave up trying to impress the distinction upon him. So the most generous system of criminal injury compensation in the world is now seen as stingy because it's not a lottery win, fgs.

Expat, when travel firms went bust last summer a lot of people were furious that the government didn't instantly send free planes out to bring them home. That's why you buy ATOL bonded holidays and decent insurance... or not, it seems.

Sorry, very confused pronouns there - am too knackered! Should be "and that the government/taxpayer had not in fact robbed and beaten DH." The other "him"s refer to FIL. Thank God.

I was really shocked to find out about the Criminal Compensation thing.

In most countries, you get nothing if someone commits a crime on you, because, as you pointed out, the taxpayer didn't do it.

Great example Dolly re the girl guide thing with the over professionalisation of simple tasks.

With regards to effective education, we know what works and have done for a long time. Lyndon Johnson instigated the largese and longest running research project into effective education in mostly under performing predominantly black inner city schools. Nine models were used and compared over nearly 20 years. Direct Instruction came out head and shoulders above everything else over and over and over and over again. It involves tightly scripted and evidence based curricula which the teacher delivers to a tight format (freeing teacher to teach and not to develop a curricula as well).

The results have essentially been hidden, mainly because they show up most teaching theries and institutions to be a complete waste of time and energy.

I have studied this in depth for the past few years and am convinced (like manyo thers) that there is a really sinister agenda behind this. It suits many people's ends to ensure that significant segments of society fail and keep on failing.

Project Followthrough

Fascinating debate, thanks!

I find myself in the position of many - wanting to be left wing, but feeling that Labour have well and truly cocked up in terms of helping out those who are lazy and money grabbing and missing many who genuinely need support. Although the whole tory 'poor people deserve it' philosophy isn't up to much either.

Are there any examples of countries where the govts effectively provide the necessary while not creating a nanny state type situation? or is it an impossible ideal?

Moondog - have you heard about John Taylor Gatto's 7 Lessons? The full text is here: www.wanderings.net/notebook/Main/SevenLessonsTaughtInSchool

In short children go to school to learn confusion, class position, indifference, emotional dependency, intellectual dependency, provisional self-esteem, one can't hide (someone is always monitoring you). In JTG's words: "All of these things are prime training for permanent underclasses, people deprived forever of finding the center of their own special genius. And over time this training has shaken loose from its own original logic: to regulate the poor. For since the 1920s the growth of the school bureaucracy, and the less visible growth of a horde of industries that profit from schooling exactly as it is, has enlarged this institution's original grasp to the point that it now seizes the sons and daughters of the middle classes as well."

Bit more tough love. Where any effort/money from the State is matched by effort from the individual.
(obviously not the chronically sick/disabled)
So, overweight people not expecting Govt help. Or if they ask for it, Govt taking away their car
And back to schools. Harder education. Schools used to break the cycle, after all, they are there 8 hours a day.

But some days it does feel like we have all turned into sissies. I mean, where else, apart from the US, do people whine about P&T parking and claim it is impossible to get one small child across a car park. Or on a bus. Or they don't have time to cook a meal and so need a ready meal. Make time, stop watching TV.

So I'm for and against here. Help and information for them what genuinely needs it and a kick up the arse for them what don't.

But Callisto, how so if so many of these children actually seem to end up in University ACTING like they came from private school!?!? (See Fennel's link)

I do like this thread. I agree, I hate a benefit's scrounger - no, wrong word, some people are fully entitled, I hate people who think it is a right to be provided for just because they are lazy. I suppose, when I first posted this thread had a slightly different angle, and was thinking more about change 4 life and breastfeeding info than benefits.

Still very at the suggestions about state school. But then that is the image I had of it all when my ds left private school, it really is wrong though. The 'maintained underclass' is happening more on a global scale (keep the global south poor ), I really think, the intention is to educate all in the country, even if some of the ideas are a bit screwed up/not to everyone's taste (hate SATS early pressure to read etc).

Manatee - I've no idea about the demographic of Exeter Uni students, my point was that the privately educated people I know are far more innovative, free-thinking and likely to be financially independant than the state-school educated people that I know and that judging a person on their background is just as wrong whether the person is rich or poor.

Don't understand why you are so angry about 'suggestions' about state schools. Some state schools are unbelievably crap, do you deny this? Lucky for you that your children happen to be in a 'good' state school. However, I reiterate that state school education is not up to much when universities have to put on remedial reading/writing/maths classes and when employers would rather not employ school leavers who seem to have little idea of the realities of work and no work ethic.

'I mean, where else, apart from the US, do people whine about P&T parking and claim it is impossible to get one small child across a car park.'

There are no P&T spaces in the US. At least, nowhere I ever went in 31 years.

Only disabled bays.

And you get WAY towed for parking in one of those bays without a badge.

'I mean, where else, apart from the US, do people whine about P&T parking and claim it is impossible to get one small child across a car park.'

There are no P&T spaces in the US. At least, nowhere I ever went in 31 years.

Only disabled bays.

And you get WAY towed for parking in one of those bays without a badge.

There's also not much in the way of a welfare state.

Many private schools are also crap, I don't deny schools can be crap, but this is not confined to state education!!! The private school we left was horrific really. The level of education was very low, and the management was appaling, resulting in child protection issues. What I am angry about is the suggestion poor education is confined to the people who do not pay.

they had them in Virginia at the Mall and poeple would spend ages driving round and round and getting cross rathr than parking further away. Just like here

Never saw them in my life, Riven, and I lived in 8 different states.

Don't think they're as prevelant as they are here.

People drive around looking to park in the front everywhere you go, IME. Because most people are lazy.

maybe it was just North Virginia. It was a weird weird place. Bit like Stepford wives. Nowhere else I went in the US was quite like it.

A lot of times, people there sue so much because they can't get anything off the government.

If, say, you get robbed. You don't get anything from the government for that.

But you can go after the guy who robbed you in civil court after he does his time and, although you might not get any money out of him, you can make his life shit for a while .

Manatee - whilst I don't deny that there are rubbish private schools, I think that due to market forces they are a rarity compared to state schools. Also, some private schools place much less emphasis on teaching the national curriculum and academic achievement - perhaps the school you chose was one of these? So, whilst not exclusively so, I do think that in general poor education is confined to those who can't afford to pay for a good education. Sadly, the children who are most in need of excellent schools and teachers are the ones least likely to get them. (feel we should now be discussing this in Education...)

I'm not certain that "the taxpayer didn't do it" is a good argument against compensation for victims of crime. The taxpayer "didn't cause" unemployment, disability, old age, ill health, etc., yet we believe the state should offer support to people in those positions.

What's different about a victim of crime?

(For the record: I've never been a victim of crime or received any compensation or benefits, other than child benefit, from the govt., so this is question of curiosity, not defensiveness).

The welfare state is meant to be a safety net to stop those most vulnerable in society falling below the poverty line hence giving money to the unemployed, those with disabilities and old age.

That has nothing to do with giving compensation to those who are victims of crime.

The vast majority, I think, of victims of crime receive no compensation. Those who do clearly suffered in some way (mental problems, physical ones, etc.). They were unlucky; just as the unemployed, the sick, the disabled are "unlucky", and need state support. Why is this problematic? I do see the point about litigation cultures, etc., and am opposed to this as much as the next person. But limited state "support" for some victims of crime doesn't seem controversial to me.