Not like the rest at all ?

[Beef Oven!]

But your boyfriend is
surely you will stick up for him ?

Boyfriend? I'm a married man with children. How dare you say something like that.

[MrGongGong]

Boyfriend? I'm a married man with children. How dare you say something like that.

ssshhhh don't tell MrPee about them :wink:

[Beef Oven!]

ssshhhh don't tell MrPee about them :wink:

HaHa - very funny!

You'll need to get some help with your Mr Pee obsession!

Mr Pee, if you look in, can you please come back? I need some normal people to talk to!

Oh, and I got some great Egyptian blades that I'd love to have a blokey conversation about. No chance with the Greenham Common Brigade in here. GongGong seems to wearing dungarees and Doc Martins all the time now!

[french frank]

I'm getting fed up with checking on all the nonsense on this thread. And from now on, please, no offensive language or people will go into pre-mod.

This board can be viewed by the public.

[MrGongGong]

I'm getting fed up with checking on all the nonsense on this thread. And from now on, please, no offensive language or people will go into pre-mod.

This board can be viewed by the public.

I thought the purpose of the basement was that nonsense was allowed ?

Not everything is serious even though there might be a "serious" point

I started this thread to draw attention to how a certain group of people were, in spite of their continuing protestations, much like the rest of politics. Which seems to have been a justifiable conclusion.

[Beef Oven!]

You don't like the "nanny state" but can't give an example of what you mean by the phrase?
That's a fail i'm afraid.

Ok. The latest school meals for infants is an example.

I think it's right that school meals are provided for children in school, and they are free for families that can't afford them. This seems sensible and proportionate. It's what we have had in place for decades.

It now seems that the coalition partners have a concern that families don't feed their children properly. Rather than tackling the reasons for this, which can really only mean know-how and desire, they have decided that the state will now provide and pay for infants school meals. Instead of investing in ways to create the know-how and rekindle the desire that parents from generations ago had, they have absolved parents of responsibility. Nanny state will do it for them. This I believe disempowers people.

Another example is tax credits and family credits and similar schemes. The nanny sate steps in and subsidises earnings instead of investing in real jobs, skilling people up, establishing a realistic minimum wage and taking the poorest workers out of income tax altogether.

When people's qualification for these benefits runs out, say when their children leave home or reach a certain age, there is a massive gap in their income that can't be bridged. This is just one deleterious effect that the nanny state has. People are de-skilled and reliant on the state for their level of income.

There are man examples of the nanny state. I believe in state intervention for the benefit of people, but a nannying is harmful.

I would like to 'roll-back' the nanny state.

[MrGongGong]

Ok. The latest school meals for infants is an example.

I think it's right that school meals are provided for children in school, and they are free for families that can't afford them. This seems sensible and proportionate. It's what we have had in place for decades.

It now seems that the coalition partners have a concern that families don't feed their children properly. Rather than tackling the reasons for this, which can really only mean know-how and desire, they have decided that the state will now provide and pay for infants school meals. Instead of investing in ways to create the know-how and rekindle the desire that parents from generations ago had, they have absolved parents of responsibility. Nanny state will do it for them. This I believe disempowers people.

Another example is tax credits and family credits and similar schemes. The nanny sate steps in and subsidises earnings instead of investing in real jobs, skilling people up, establishing a realistic minimum wage and taking the poorest workers out of income tax altogether.

When people's qualification for these benefits runs out, say when their children leave home or reach a certain age, there is a massive gap in their income that can't be bridged. This is just one deleterious effect that the nanny state has. People are de-skilled and reliant on the state for their level of income.

There are man examples of the nanny state. I believe in state intervention for the benefit of people, but a nannying is harmful.

I would like to 'roll-back' the nanny state.

Ok

In your first example BOTH options (free meals vs tackling the reasons) involve state intervention
it could be argued that your chosen option is MORE intrusive as it's an attempt to modify behaviour of adults to make it more acceptable (a touch of "Walden 2" ?). Surely the real "libertarian solution" would be to say "tough" , "your life, your choice " ?

In an imperfect world maybe the best worst option is to "do no harm" ?

[Beef Oven!]

Ok

In your first example BOTH options (free meals vs tackling the reasons) involve state intervention
it could be argued that your chosen option is MORE intrusive as it's an attempt to modify behaviour of adults to make it more acceptable (a touch of "Walden 2" ?). Surely the real "libertarian solution" would be to say "tough" , "your life, your choice " ?

In an imperfect world maybe the best worst option is to "do no harm" ?

"Do no harm" is paramount.

Yes, I have already said a few times that I agree with state intervention in this matter.

Intrusion is hard to measure. But I don't think that educating, encouraging and incentivising people is more intrusive. You can't get more intrusive than hiving off a family responsibility and giving it wholesale to the state to carry out.

I really believe in people and their abilities. I struggle when the solutions do not see people as competent, talented people who may have temporarily lost their way a bit - and just need a helping hand, that's all.

[MrGongGong]

"Do no harm" is paramount.

Yes, I have already said a few times that I agree with state intervention in this matter.

Intrusion is hard to measure. But I don't think that educating, encouraging and incentivising people is more intrusive. You can't get more intrusive than hiving off a family responsibility and giving it wholesale to the state to carry out.

I really believe in people and their abilities. I struggle when the solutions do not see people as competent, talented people who may have temporarily lost their way a bit - and just need a helping hand, that's all.

hummm

I've met people who are completely "lost" and have children
If the aim is to create a situation where children are well adjusted and fed then it's a "no brainer"

[Beef Oven!]

hummm

I've met people who are completely "lost" and have children
If the aim is to create a situation where children are well adjusted and fed then it's a "no brainer"

Yes, but are you saying that you want the state to do it rather than the parents?

[Flosshilde]

I'm getting fed up with checking on all the nonsense on this thread. And from now on, please, no offensive language or people will go into pre-mod.

I'd already asked you to pre-mod BO, who is the origin of (most of) the nonsense. After endeavoring to meet him at his level (very difficult to sink so low) I've decided to ignore him - much easier to have a sensible discussion that way.

[amateur51]

Ok. The latest school meals for infants is an example.

I think it's right that school meals are provided for children in school, and they are free for families that can't afford them. This seems sensible and proportionate. It's what we have had in place for decades.

It now seems that the coalition partners have a concern that families don't feed their children properly. Rather than tackling the reasons for this, which can really only mean know-how and desire, they have decided that the state will now provide and pay for infants school meals. Instead of investing in ways to create the know-how and rekindle the desire that parents from generations ago had, they have absolved parents of responsibility. Nanny state will do it for them. This I believe disempowers people.

Another example is tax credits and family credits and similar schemes. The nanny sate steps in and subsidises earnings instead of investing in real jobs, skilling people up, establishing a realistic minimum wage and taking the poorest workers out of income tax altogether.

When people's qualification for these benefits runs out, say when their children leave home or reach a certain age, there is a massive gap in their income that can't be bridged. This is just one deleterious effect that the nanny state has. People are de-skilled and reliant on the state for their level of income.

There are man examples of the nanny state. I believe in state intervention for the benefit of people, but a nannying is harmful.

I would like to 'roll-back' the nanny state.

I wonder if the same objection was raised when the Labour government post-1997 established Breakfast Clubs in schools? I understand that these proved to be both popular and successful.

As I understand it, the Coalition proposals are along the same lines.

[Beef Oven!]

I'd already asked you to pre-mod BO, who is the origin of (most of) the nonsense. After endeavoring to meet him at his level (very difficult to sink so low) I've decided to ignore him - much easier to have a sensible discussion that way.

I think that you are kidding yourself. You tend to follow me around the forum and make personal snipes. It's a bit rich what you are coming out with now. Just check your interactions with me and see the number of ad hominum posts you make against me. Just check your posts!

It's me that should be asking to have you put in pre-mod!

Now, ff has got it all back on track, so join in, or keep schtum.

[MrGongGong]

Yes, but are you saying that you want the state to do it rather than the parents?

For many people that's not what the choice is
what one "wants" in an ideal world
and what is the best (or even "best worst" ?) option aren't necessarily the same thing

[Beef Oven!]

For many people that's not what the choice is
what one "wants" in an ideal world
and what is the best (or even "best worst" ?) option aren't necessarily the same thing

But I think that these things should be left to the family to work through. And there is also something wrong with Clegg's view that we need this to bring people together from different cultures etc in this way. That can be done with any form of school dinner provisions including the existing one and has been going on for a long time in schools.

It does feel that Clegg is trying to fix something that isn't broke, or worse is cynically creating a perception that he is helping communities, when it's really just a careerist politician stunt.