I recently heard a suggestion that the English national anthem be changed from ‘Land of Hope and Glory’ to ‘Land of Health and Safety’. The latest example is one close to the heart of many students: alcohol. On the national level the main three parties are competing to look tough on drinking, on the local level some of the candidates for VP Welfare at the last Union election endorsed minimum alcohol pricing. It would seem that the nanny state is running wild. But who is Nanny, and does she know best?
The term ‘nanny state’ was coined in 1965 by Iain Macleod, Conservative MP. Since that day it’s been a staple cry of liberal-Conservatives. There is, of course, a reason why the phrase has such limited popularity: it’s deeply loaded. Macleod was attempting to package together what he perceived to be excessive paternalism with regards to personal safety, and excessive regulation with regard to business. These are very different concerns.
Few (who believe in capitalism) would advocate excessive regulation, but it’s difficult to agree on what excessive is. Too much red-tape strangles business, whilst too little leads to all sorts of horrific consequences. For instance the last recession was caused by too little regulation on banks, and yet higher levels of regulation protects workers from unsafe conditions or overwork, whilst other regulation protects consumers from being ripped off or killed because products are dangerous (think of Metal Krusty-O’s). This would largely seem sensible, and has prompted some on the Left to attempt to reclaim ‘nanny state’ as a positive thing. But does the government have a right to look after us personally, when we know the risks? Should the government decide how much we drink, whether we can smoke, or if it’s safe to climb trees?
Governments making decisions in our personal lives is nothing new. Those who hark back to A Golden Age™ of The Days When Children Played in the Streets© have a false memory. The government decided the gender of who you could sleep with, whether or not you could watch porn (or read Lady Chatterley’s Lover), a woman’s right to choose, the days of the week you could drink and the time of day you could drink. The difference is that the government’s rationale has changed; now it’s to protect us from harm, not immorality. It would seem that the government does think it knows best, from Labour’s cigarette tax rises, to Conservative plans to enforce stay-at-home husbands or wives, Liberal Democrat plans for minimum alcohol pricing, BNP plans to ban ‘public homosexuality’ or Green plans to make us protect the environment.
Some plans sound better than others, but when the government starts protecting us, we lose the ability to learn to protect ourselves. If children don’t learn how to analyse risk at school, when will they learn? If the government decides how much we can drink, what happens when we go on Tour and drink too much? Even if all that’s true, who are the government to decide what’s too risky for you? Some people just like living on the edge; others prefer to be a little more sedate. Surely it’s a personal decision how you want to live your life.
It’s sometimes difficult to identify who the Nanny is. Various candidates include: the National Health and Safety Executive, the European Union, Whitehall and Westminster. In many cases, these various institutions are to blame, although some newspapers (and I think we all know who we’re talking about) like to blame the evil Brussels Eurocrats a little more than is fair. In many cases it’s just overbearing schools or cash-strapped local councils who blame their decisions on ‘Health and Safety’, and the local and national media eat it up unquestioningly like Bart Simpson and a packet of Metal Krusty-O’s.
Personal freedom is vital. Let’s not sacrifice our right to personal freedom to the evil Health and Safety dragon. But also remember that the evil Health and Safety dragon protects us from bigger threats, like corporations only interested in the bottom line.
David Bender
Loading ...