Not like the rest at all ?

[Beef Oven!]

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.

I believe that too. That's why I am confident that the best outcomes are to be had by facilitating people, rather than surrogating their earnings.

Where I don't agree with you is the necessary evil of well off people receiving money they don't need (I'm not concerned with scroungers and fraudsters, that's for the local authority and the police to deal with).

[Beef Oven!]

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...

Pardon me for barging in, but is that the understanding that you and the others that you are speaking for, have of the nanny state (as per your statement in post #123)?

[jean]

That's always been my understanding of what those who use the phrase nanny state (of which I am not one) actually mean by it.

However, it does appear that others who don't use the phrase either haven't read enough Daily Mail articles to be clear about what it means to those who do regularly use it, with the possible exception of yourself.

[teamsaint]

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 -

One issue with that is what the government deem to be working age. 67 and rising for people of my age.

Debt to your eyeballs by age 21/22, 40% marginal tax rate, and retirement at 70.

Nice.

[Beef Oven!]

That's always been my understanding of what those who use the phrase nanny state (of which I am not one) actually mean by it.

However, it does appear that others who don't use the phrase either haven't read enough Daily Mail articles to be clear about what it means to those who do regularly use it, with the possible exception of yourself.

Could you explain that a bit more clearly? What kind of exception am I?

[jean]

You don't use nanny state in the way the daily mail does.

Nor, to be fair to you, in quite the way sa thnks you might.

[MrGongGong]

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.

In your "needs-specific" focus WHO are the specialists ?
And which countries do you have in mind ? (A genuine question )

[Flosshilde]

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.

As the benefit makes up a much smaller proportion of their income than it does for low-income people then they are not better off; however, the perceived unfairness of them getting a benefir they don't need can be dealt with through taxation.

even if the rich do 'benefit more' (and I agree again, they don't)

I was referring to Clegg's much-vaunted increase in the personal allowance -

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-nick-clegg-plans-to-raise-personal-tax-allowance-will-help-betteroff-more-than-lowpaid-8952593.html

[Beef Oven!]

In your "needs-specific" focus WHO are the specialists ?
And which countries do you have in mind ? (A genuine question )

Who are the specialists? same ones as in the 'universal' approach.

Regarding the countries that I have in mind, Switzerland springs to mind first as a 'best practice' example, and possibly Italy - although I'd be guided by the experts on this.

[amateur51]

But the people who are being 'naninied' here aren't the ones receiving the tax credits, but the employers who can thus get away with paying inadequate wages.

Is that what you meant?

Cheers, jean - inadequate compensation (as they call wages in the City of London and in big Mercan corprations) is one of the great scandals of our time, resulting in reliance on sundry welfare benefits, tax credits, Housing Benefit, etc.

[Serial_Apologist]

You don't use nanny state in the way the daily mail does.

Nor, to be fair to you, in quite the way sa thnks you might.

I was assuming the welfare state to be The Mail's and like mindeds' target for the term. Your example from the Mail is, I agree, much better than mine.

[MrGongGong]

Who are the specialists? same ones as in the 'universal' approach.

Regarding the countries that I have in mind, Switzerland springs to mind first as a 'best practice' example, and possibly Italy - although I'd be guided by the experts on this.

You make huge assumptions that these people exist
and are available everywhere
Where I live there is no longer ANYONE in health or education authority with an autism specialism
the child psychologist who was employed as a consultant retired and these people are too expensive for a market driven world to support.
Hence a situation for many families and individuals which resembles a series of slow motion car crashes........... sometimes what people need IS the state to say these things are rights.
The only reason my son is able to be at college studying for A levels is that the "nanny state" gave him a statement of SEN which ensured that BY LAW he had to have specific things in terms of time and support. No longer is this the case.

The "nanny state" seems to have worked very well in this case.


Of course in Switzerland they have a handy way of solving the "problem" of folks who are in need

[Serial_Apologist]

Of course in Switzerland they have a handy way of solving the "problem" of folks who are in need

What? Have them making cuckoo clocks in Victorian-styled workhouses??

Actually, your other observations do rather point up the issue of voting for the least worst option at elections, given that it is the state, with whatever government is in power's sanction, that fills the void vacated by private provision in these areas.

[Beef Oven!]

The only reason my son is able to be at college studying for A levels is that the "nanny state" gave him a statement of SEN which ensured that BY LAW he had to have specific things in terms of time and support. No longer is this the case.

The "nanny state" seems to have worked very well in this case.

This is what I've been saying all along. The provision that your son needs should not be an exception in such situations, should be the rule. And we don't need Clegg & co giving free school dinners to people that don't need them, we require the resources and ideas to be put to where it's needed.

[MrGongGong]

This is what I've been saying all along. The provision that your son needs should not be an exception in such situations, should be the rule. And we don't need Clegg & co giving free school dinners to people that don't need them, we require the resources and ideas to be put to where it's needed.

But without the state these things simply won't happen
it's not perfect but the best worst
and also there are those who are very "challenging indeed" , those whom no-one really wants to spend time with.
Articulate and interesting people are easy to provide for, others are much more difficult indeed

So when you say you are against the "nanny state" you mean something different to what others mean when they use the phrase.