The Nanny State?

Who needs remote control
From the Civic Hall
Push a button
Activate
You gotta work an' you're late

The words of Joe Strummer – in a recent blog I considered was NZ too democratic for its own good. Now, having had the chance to reflect on that, the outcomes of the local body elections and the political context of New Zealand (as we seeing Rortney Hide going toe to toe with the Maori Party over access to beaches), it would be good to discuss the concept of the ‘Nanny State’.

Returning to the lyrics of the song above – who exactly needs ‘control’? Do we leave ourselves open to be ‘controlled’, do our ‘leaders’ need to have ‘control’ in order to maintain their status and the general equilibrium of society (NB according to Thatcher there is no such thing as society, yet she was one of the most controlling politicians ever!)

 

There is a very interesting and understandable explanation of how politics became ‘left’ or ‘right’ here. What is less well defined is the concept of ‘nanny state’

It is interesting to see how it has been identified as a force for good; in my musings earlier this week I mentioned obesity, tobacco and other harmful things (gambling springs to mind). Anyway, is a government who has ‘controls’ to prevent harm coming to various members of its population actually a nanny state? Some examples

• Having speed limits on roads
• Increasing taxation on harmful substances
• Preventing children from being smacked
• Banning smoking in public places

All four have been contentious issues in New Zealand, generally within the last Labour led administration, and they are arguably one of the reason Labour were voted out. However, whilst exerting ‘control’ all four do exactly what governments are elected to do – to ensure the safety and well being of the population of the country.

Speed limits are there to ensure safety, reduce accidents, minimise wear and tear on roads and structures. Taxation on say Tobacco products increases revenue to assist in treating the ailments cause by that addiction, but also acts as a barrier to taking up smoking. Harming children is just bad – normalising violence is not good (in any case the right did not really explain what the repeal of section 59 was actually for). Same with banning smoking in bars – in prevents the exposure to smoke for those who want a smoke free environment.

None of these are nanny state. So why are the National government afraid to act on our obesity epidemic, our excessive drinking culture and most importantly, ignoring the evidence that drink driving kills? Thinking back to when I studied social policy, rather than taking a pluralist approach, the current government are only really interested in business; their view is self determination, do what suits you, minimise state intervention.

Looking at the second image all I can say is how irrational is that!! Is it time to tell the world about how irrational behaviour will, in the long run, cost the control more than just dollars and cents?