Not like the rest at all ?

[french frank]

But as regards the concept of 'nannying' (call it what you like), the two sides of the argument are that universal benfits are designed to ensure that no one falls through the net, which means testing doesn't guarantee, in which sense it is 100% efficient at reaching those in need; the flip side is that those who don't need help still get it regardless of income.

The schools curriculum teaches various skills, but in the real world they won't be enough to ensure that everyone can cope in all situations. In practical terms, what do you do? How do you choose who needs to be 'educated' and who doesn't? If they aren't coping financially, do you just send them to classes to teach them how? The elderly? People with minimal education already?

In the long run (according to Beveridge) universal benefits cost less and were more efficient.

In any system it has to be recognised that there will be individuals who will manipulate it, abuse it, try to get as much as possible for nothing. That isn't the same as dependency - it's criminality which goes through the whole of society from top to bottom. It would be more cost efficient to start tackling it at the top.

[Flosshilde]

But as regards the concept of 'nannying' (call it what you like), the two sides of the argument are that universal benfits are designed to ensure that no one falls through the net, which means testing doesn't guarantee, in which sense it is 100% efficient at reaching those in need; the flip side is that those who don't need help still get it regardless of income.

In the long run (according to Beveridge) universal benefits cost less and were more efficient.

& not just according to Beveridge, I think.
The way to get rid of the 'unfairness' that BO (and others) see is not to restrict benefits by means-testing, but to increase taxation for the higher earners - so that the state takes away with one hand what it has bestowed with the other (the much-vaunted increase in personal allowances, on the other hand, designed to remove low earners from taxation, will apparently benefit them less than it will higher earners).

[jean]

It's clear from the examples that Beefy has finally given that he's not using the term nanny state in the way that anyone else understands it.

[MrGongGong]

It's clear from the examples that Beefy has finally given that he's not using the term nanny state in the way that anyone else understands it.

Which is why it's worth asking what he means wouldn't you say ?

[Beef Oven!]

But as regards the concept of 'nannying' (call it what you like), the two sides of the argument are that universal benfits are designed to ensure that no one falls through the net, which means testing doesn't guarantee, in which sense it is 100% efficient at reaching those in need; the flip side is that those who don't need help still get it regardless of income.

The schools curriculum teaches various skills, but in the real world they won't be enough to ensure that everyone can cope in all situations. In practical terms, what do you do? How do you choose who needs to be 'educated' and who doesn't? If they aren't coping financially, do you just send them to classes to teach them how? The elderly? People with minimal education already?

In the long run (according to Beveridge) universal benefits cost less and were more efficient.

In any system it has to be recognised that there will be individuals who will manipulate it, abuse it, try to get as much as possible for nothing. That isn't the same as dependency - it's criminality which goes through the whole of society from top to bottom. It would be more cost efficient to start tackling it at the top.

Nannying (call it what you like) is not the only way to ensure that there is a safety net to ensure that there is the help available for people who need it.

I understand the tautological argument that universal benefits ensure everyone gets them and therefore no-one can fall through the net. I just don't think that it's the best use of resources and, more importantly, it looks to the state to take care of people, when people could be taking care of themselves. If that doesn't matter to you then I suppose you'll be happy with a nanny (call it what you like) state. It's anathema to me.

Given that we all want the best for people and we want a safety net to ensure that anyone who needs help gets it, it seems to boil down to whether we see the state and its apparatus as the means to achieve it, or the state principally as an enabler to effect the outcome.

[Beef Oven!]

It's clear from the examples that Beefy has finally given that he's not using the term nanny state in the way that anyone else understands it.

So how do you, and all the other people that you are speaking for, understand the term 'nanny state'?

[Serial_Apologist]

So how do you, and all the other people that you are speaking for, understand the term 'nanny state'?

Simplistic reactionary shorthand for the welfare state safety net.

[Beef Oven!]

(the much-vaunted increase in personal allowances, on the other hand, designed to remove low earners from taxation, will apparently benefit them less than it will higher earners).

Even if that were true, which it isn't, so what? Who cares what the bloke down the road has got? Is this about envy? Revenge? You'd be happy for the poor to stay poorer, so long as the rich don't benefit. Too much spite in the world, methinks.

[Beef Oven!]

Simplistic reactionary shorthand for the welfare state safety net.

The safety net, even where one doesn't need one? That's what it means? Hmmm. Think we're getting to the nub of the problem

P.S. Reactionary? What's that in decimal?

[MrGongGong]

Given that we all want the best for people and we want a safety net to ensure that anyone who needs help gets it, it seems to boil down to whether we see the state and its apparatus as the means to achieve it, or the state principally as an enabler to effect the outcome.

Sadly I don't think that "we all", by which you mean everyone in the UK I would assume ?
Want the "best" for people at all.
There are an increasing number of people who think that disabled people get given "everything" for nothing and are all "shirkers" swinging the lead etc.
Empathy, understanding and compassion aren't on the increase i'm afraid.
As the parent of someone on the Autistic spectrum I'm very worried about what the future holds. Well meaning amateurs can do more harm than good and i'd not trust my children's future to random "lady bountifuls". Which is NOT to say that everything the "state" does is great or it shouldn't be monitored and kept an eye on.

[Serial_Apologist]

The safety net, even where one doesn't need one?

Where's that, then?

[Serial_Apologist]

You'd be happy for the poor to stay poorer, so long as the rich don't benefit.

Point out where Flosshilde says that

[Beef Oven!]

Sadly I don't think that "we all", by which you mean everyone in the UK I would assume ?
Want the "best" for people at all.
There are an increasing number of people who think that disabled people get given "everything" for nothing and are all "shirkers" swinging the lead etc.
Empathy, understanding and compassion aren't on the increase i'm afraid.
As the parent of someone on the Autistic spectrum I'm very worried about what the future holds. Well meaning amateurs can do more harm than good and i'd not trust my children's future to random "lady bountifuls". Which is NOT to say that everything the "state" does is great or it shouldn't be monitored and kept an eye on.

I know only too well about some people's views on disabled people. I was thinking of people, as the people in this forum, not the wider population.

There is no reason why children should not receive the specialist professional care that they require. On the contrary, if we had a less universal approach and a more needs-specific focus, they might get better care, as they do in some other countries.

[french frank]

I understand the tautological argument that universal benefits ensure everyone gets them and therefore no-one can fall through the net. I just don't think that it's the best use of resources

I suppose it depends how closely to the really needy in society you are. However, I do agree with you and against Flossie that even if the rich do 'benefit more' (and I agree again, they don't) the important principle is that no one falls through the safety net. AndI do think it's perfectly possible if the aim is to target only those who obviously need help.

I also believe that the majority of people who are fit and of working age want to work and to earn a reasonable wage - that they do not want to have to rely on the state - that they are not content to fall into a state of dependency. And again, along with the wealthy receiving benefits that they don't need, some will 'sponge' off the state. But both 'injustices' have to be tolerated (in my view: of course I accept that it is anathema to some) for the sake of a system which aims to benefit the majority.

[jean]

Simplistic reactionary shorthand for the welfare state safety net.

Actually, I don't think that is quite how it's used by the people who use it.

Here's an excellent example from the Daily Mail:

...The state has long since decided that it knows what is best for us, and our opinions on the matter are not deemed remotely relevant.

This approach to governance, in which our political leaders stop us from doing what they decree is bad for us, robs people of the ability to think for themselves; it also vastly increases the power of the state.

Armies of advisers are now employed at our expense to dream up new ways of protecting us from ourselves, which means their tentacles penetrate further and further into every aspect of our existence — and with a zealotry that verges on the totalitarian.

We are, of course, well used to many of the government campaigns to improve our health. Some, such as those concerned with the evils of smoking, have been sensible. Others, however, are absurd.

Perhaps one of the most absurd is this week’s suggestion from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence that car park charges should be raised to encourage people to walk or cycle on short journeys. This is to help counter what countless groups of government advisers concerned with our wellbeing have called the national ‘epidemic’ of obesity.

Had a government body had the temerity to tax us into taking more exercise in such a way 50 years ago, it would have caused an outcry. The person in charge would have been sacked. The minister responsible would have been roasted in the Commons.

However, we appear to be so cowed by the interfering state today that, without much of a fight, we are happy to accept that government advisers have a perfect right to lecture us on such intimate aspects of our personal behaviour as how far we should walk every day. This both endangers our liberties, and undermines our self-respect...