Interesting discussion. I fall in the same category as many other posters on here, which is that I can see both sides of the argument.
I certainly know of people who seem to think that everything is someone else's responsibility (usually the state's). I have little patience with these people.
However, I think there are many positives to the nanny state. When I became pregnant (planned pregnancy) it was after I had set aside enough money to pay for childcare to allow me to go back to work after maternity leave. I felt it was my responsibility to organise this, not the state's. Then I found out I was having twins. Suddenly my childcare fund only covered half of what I needed.
Then, at 4 months after birth, my (now-X)P held me up against a wall and threatened to kill me. I left the relationship. I found myself homeless, with two babies, no belongings, and with way less money than I thought (XP helped himself to much of the money I'd saved while I was busy sorting out accommodation and before I had thought to freeze the account, but because it was a joint account I had no comeback in law).
If it wasn't for this nanny state, I would be currently living in social housing and living off benefits. The fact that the state has picked up 70% of my childcare costs allows me to continue in my job. I do not see this as my right; I feel incredibly grateful for it. However, it makes sense. Even with the government paying a large chunk of my childcare costs, I cost the state far less than if I were unemployed and wholly benefit dependent and am also still paying into the system. Surely that's what it's about? Helping people help themselves while trying to reduce the burden on society as a whole? And I had spent 14 years paying into the system before claiming anything back from it.
Likewise, I receive no maintenance from my XP. In my case it is not strictly necessary because we manage. However, there are many women out there who are wholly reliant on this. I agree that it should be the absent parent's responsibility to provide, but take away the safety net and who suffers? Primarily the child. Many lone parents ask the question about what benefits they can get because they are frightened to death about how they will manage and they know that asking their XP will be a waste of everyone's time and energy. Even when maintenance is agreed, it gives the XP a lot of leverage to completely mess up the lone parent's life. It's not so much that lone parent believe they are entitled to state assistance (though to be pedantic they are indeed entitled because this is a right enshrined in law), but that fear has led them to find out what help they may get to prevent them from starving/being homeless/at the mercy of their XP. If we really want to tackle this, let's start meting out some proper punishments to feckless absent parents who take no responsibility for their offspring. Until non payment of maintenance is treated as harshly as tax-fiddling, nothing will change.
For those who are persistently of the 'f**king crap council' description, we need to realise that a lot of this type of talk is an aggressive/devil-may-care type mask designed to cover up for knowing that your life is crap, you've got no control over it, you can't get out of it and it isn't going to get any better. Why not take what you can get and take advantage of it? Isn't there some sort of skill involved in playing the system? I spent several years living on a council estate in the past and knew people who spoke like this. the Daily Mail would love to hate them. But if you actually got to know these people they were also the type who would mind your kids for an hour if you had to do something, or invite you round for dinner if you'd run out of money etc. No one is all bad. Most people behave crap when their life is crap. Then, of course, their lives become more crap because they are behaving crap. It's a vicious circle, and if it needs state nannying to break it, I don't mind that at all.
I do, however, feel (like many other posters) that much state nannying is woefully ineffective. The leaflet approach is a disgrace both to the government coffers and the environment! What's a better alternative? I don't know, though it's a debate I feel we ought to have.
While I would love to see schools that concentrate on education and not so-called life skills that many people feel should be part of the parent's responsibility, isn't there an argument that actually that's exactly what education should be for? Who decides that education means only academic qualifications and job training? Isn't education supposed to be about broadening one's horizons as much as learning to read and write? Isn't offering a vision of a different future (and the means to achieve it) to a child from a sink estate an extremely valuable form of education in it's own right? And don't those 'means' involve notions of self-resonsibility and social-responsibility as much as they do a set of GCSEs? It may not be the individual's right to be given these things, but I would rather live in a society where they are offered. I don't want someone's future written off because they come from a crap background, and if they don't have the advantages of Mr & Mrs Perfect's children down the road then tough, that's life and we shouldn't expect the state to pick up where bad parenting leaves off. That approach just leads to society's detritus increasing exponentially.
What are 'life skills' is, in itself, an interesting discussion. Let's not think it applies only to people from disadvantaged backgrounds. the credit crunch has neatly demonstrated that there are plenty of people from middle- or upper-class backgrounds who have no concept of money management and/or self-restraint (debt for example is not necessarily a bad thing if it is manageable). Perhaps life skills should encompass things like money management, home cooking from scratch using healthy ingredients and sticking to a typical family's meal budget, healthy relationships and good/bad parenting, etc. Controversial? Yes! It may not even be a good idea. But it should be discussed. If kids are to escape the disadvantages of the circumstances into which they were born, how are they to do it? Targeting the parents with leaflets does not seem to work, so should we target the kids instead?
Sorry, this isn't so much an answer to the OP as my own ramblings on the subject, but it is a fascinating topic.