The Nanny State: what a slogan that’s been. No three words have done more to undermine the basic thought processes behind Labour governments.
The role of government is to make people fitter, happier and more productive, they say. Leave us alone, we reply. Wherever ‘The Greater Good’ and ‘For Your Own Good’ come together, Labour’s on the case with awareness campaigns, initiatives, Quangos and, if you’re unfortunate enough to be a smoker, some pretty degrading laws too.
The Liberal Democrats haven’t been blameless in this game, but slowly the instinct we share for liberty, for adults to be regarded as… well, here’s an idea: adults, maybe? Well, that instinct is snapping us out of our temporary madness, lost in the political zeitgeist of the time. We’re only human, after all, and most of us, political or not, party or not, have found ourselves crying, “Ban this!”, “Stop that!” at one time. I’m glad that, as a party, we appear to be learning from these mistakes.
Yet now there’s a rival to the Nanny State, coming from our friends in the Blue Corner. I’m going to be cheeky and call this the Granny State. Modern Conservatives, it seems, would like to make it known that we are to be liberated from oppression by the state (please, don’t all start writing thank you letters, contain yourselves). In return we are to behave in a civilised and decent way. We are to learn the mysteries of Civic Responsibility, and the intricate arts of attending church social events, doing a spot of community gardening, saying, “How do you do?” and having proper sensible haircuts and wearing sensible clothes.
Really, when you think about it, who needs CCTV when you’ve got an army of curtain twitchers to do the job for you?
Of course, quite how this new age of Civility and Decency is supposed to happen without subjecting anyone to ‘oppression by the state’ is quite beyond me. Surely the Granny State would need to empower Curtain Twitchers to issue spot fines for bad ironing, or for truly terrible crimes such as listening to music on your iPod a little too loudly, or having inappropriate piercings, or tattoos, or for … excuse me, this is hard to write, it’s so awful: Eating in public while walking, or chewing gum … well that’s a job for the local Vicar to have a bit of a sit down and a chat. Newsletters will be written about your crimes, you wicked, devious criminal, you.
You know, just for once, and I know I’m asking the impossible here, but could politicians please stop trying to control people’s behaviour, directly or indirectly? Can’t they just use the police and the courts to ensure that everyone is free to do what they want to do so long as it does not infringe the liberties of others? Is that too much to ask?
* Charlotte Gore is a Lib Dem activist and blogger.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
Peter Chambers
Mark Valladares
Mark Smulian
Geoff Reid
Margaret Pollus
34 Comments
Interesting points.
Lets start from the basis that a civil & decent society is a good thing. So we have things like holding doors open for people, putting your rubbish in the bin on trains, letting pedestrians cross in front of you at junctions.
But how do we get to that point.
“could politicians please stop trying to control people’s behaviour, directly or indirectly? Can’t they just use the police and the courts to ensure that everyone is free to do what they want to do so long as it does not infringe the liberties of others?”
Well yes and no (there’s a liberal answer if ever there was one). I think the problem is that the “infringing the liberties of others” is not a binary state. Some things infringe others liberties a bit some a lot, and sometime’s it depends on a person’s sensitivities. And that’s the line between law (ie compulsion) and polite conduct.
In Scotland at the moment would you believe the SNP government has been trying to ban people aged 18-20 from buying alcohol in off-licences? The plan would still allow them to buy a drink in a pub, and they could still drink alcohol bought or provided for them by someone else (e.g. at a party). But they couldn’t go into a shop themselves and buy it – not until they are 21.
What nanny state nonsense! But the encouraging thing is that the plans are being defeated as all the other parties – Labour, LibDema nd Tory – are voting against them. So perhaps it’s not all bad.
I think Hywel makes some interesing points. What he is alluding too is the need for balance in these things.
For example, as a smoker I was prepared to accept the ban on smoking indoors in public places because the evidence that it infringed other peoples health or right to health is compelling enough.
However, Charlotte is right that these attacks on the civil liberties are now downright degrading and in fact smokers are social pyriahs.
What you are calling a ‘Granny state’ is, incidentally, more perniscious than a ‘nanny state’ because the former encourages a kind of vigilante mentality where private individuals are given the power to determine what is acceptable and what isn’t. It’s more insidious because, of course, it is not subject to any kind of transparent or due process; merely the diktats of the person in question.
Yes, Charlotte, and yes, Darrell.
I’m sure I’m not the only person who really values that “not be enslaved by conformity” bit on the back of my membership card…
It was in a different context but Toby Ziegler in the West Wing puts the difference between laws and societal values quite nicely:
“there’s nothing wrong with a religion whose laws say a man’s got to wear a beard or cover his head or wear a collar. It’s when violation of these laws become a crime against the state and not your parents that we’re talking about lack of choice.”
Charlotte – yes! Very good piece, I too am part of the why can we not let people get on with their lives, as long as it does not infringe on other people…
@ Jennie “I’m sure I’m not the only person who really values that “not be enslaved by conformity” bit on the back of my membership card”
Let’s hope we all don’t!
“What you are calling a ‘Granny state’ is, incidentally, more perniscious than a ‘nanny state’ because the former encourages a kind of vigilante mentality where private individuals are given the power to determine what is acceptable and what isn’t. It’s more insidious because, of course, it is not subject to any kind of transparent or due process; merely the diktats of the person in question.”
Hang on a sec; what you are really criticising here is the concept of community. In fact, I come down very strongly against Charlotte’s argument that we should leave everything to the “authorities”. This is more or less what has happened, and what leads to too many members of the general public walking on by and thinking “not my problem, guv”. And there will never be enough coppers on the beat to fill the void that leaves.
Certainly “curtain twitchers” may seem like a menace, until you look at the alternatives. Policing, and legal procedures, have real problems tackling low-level ASB – they are essentially powerless against low-level but persistent activity that is anti-social but not illegal, but that adversely impacts the quality of life of a lot of people. Indeed, the idea that something is necessarily OK if it is not explicitly forbidden by law is one of the menaces of our times.
So, all on all, I think that Charlotte’s is a very dangerous thesis, as is Darrel’s desire to reduce community to “due process”. That is a centralist, rather fascist, approach (not to mention that such due process is all too easily manipulated by a small number of people to their own ends).
I might disagree with the Tories’ concept of values, but some kind of civic responsibility is the only real way we can have a decent & free society without the state needing to get involved. Yes, too much government has undermined personal responsibility (which is Cameron’s argument), but personal responsibility needs to be instilled in some way.
How, for example, are you going to stop littering? By having it become socially unacceptable, as drink driving is socially unacceptable to everyone except Sean Gabb, Guido Fawkes, Gavin Webb & the others of their mentality.
I actually agreed with Dominic Grieve when he said people should be willing to stop anti-social behaviour themselves. Returning to the specific example of littering, I see it happen several times a day: to my shame I don’t tend to confront these people but I know it should be done. How else are they going to learn to respect other members of society?
It might sound paradoxical but individuality can only really flourish if certain things, such as respect for others, are entrenched in society. I agree state control isn’t the best way to achieve this, but there is a place for some legislation, working in tandem with social attitudes.
I am extremely liberal on matters such as drugs, consensual sex & what have you, & I was against BoJo’s ban on drinking on the Tube as it sends out the wrong messages. But while there’s nothing wrong with drinking, there is something wrong with for example heckling people & shouting abuse at them, & this should be both punished & censured.
The matter of where to draw the line is hard to resolve, & is nothing like as simple as control freaks or militant libertarians would have us believe. There isn’t a black & white choice between a zero-state, no civil society utopia & a socialist tyranny…
Sorry, I shouldn’t have said “it sends out the wrong messages” (that’s early morning knocking off a mindless comment for you). I should have said it mindlessly vilifies people, punishing the innocent for the actions of the guilty, & thereby spits in the face of my values.
What he should have done was put those resources into punishing those who cause problems for others, drunk or sober, while leaving the rest of us free to engage in whatever pursuits we like so long as they are harmless.
Finding the balance between the state, civil society & the individual is the Holy Grail of contemporary politics: no section should be too strong or too weak.
What is the nanny state ?
Is the Government really concerned about obseity because they are control freaks? or because they realise that wieghting 35 stone is bad for your health, both mental and physical, bad for your employment prospects and bad for your quality of life.
Is jumping off a clift into the sea freedom of choice or an imposition on others when you break your spine and spend the rest of your life being looked after ? Health and Safety gone mad?
Drink driving – people are’t ‘responsible’ for their actions when they kill or injure someone.
They can’t compensate for the life they have ruined.
There is no utopia – it’s a question of balance and judgement.
Banning things ought to be used sparingly, often because it is ineffective – but these things are a spectrum. From no restriction through to draconian punishments.
There will always be pressure for comformity – that’s neither all bad or all good.
It depends what you mean by “conformity”.
Persecuting homosexuals or denying jobs to talented women is wrong, I should hope obviously so.
Insisting that no one litter the streets, shout abuse at neighbours, etc is something I’d certainly put my name to.
There are all kinds of murky grey areas in between…
“Insisting that no one … shout abuse at neighbours, etc is something I’d certainly put my name to.”
What about MPs who not only shout abuse, but also use physical abuse against people they take an objection to?
Should such an incident be judged by “due process”, or should “private individuals” grant political privilege to the offender?
Or should each case be judged on the political views of the offender and victim, so that if people signed up to The Party object to the victim’s politics, then the offender is congratulated on his violence?
Julian, ask Harry Redknapp. What can you do about the baying of a 6,000-strong mob?
As much as I object, with declared bias, to those several thousand fiends, it’s an entirely different scenario to the one I refer to, is it not?
Passing Tory,
What hokum. I was not arguing against community; i was arguing against a culture in which private individuals are the arbiters of justice. I think you will find that is not fascism, it’s called democracy.
Due process and accountability are an integral part of democracy. I am all for the empowerment of people but *not* when it comes to taking control of other peoples lives in such a way…this is what I am arguing against, not community…
“Due process and accountability are an integral part of democracy”
Absolutely. So do you think that democratically-elected people should be held accountable, according to due process, for committing offences?
Or, instead, should the arbiters of justice be private individuals who grant political privilege?
I don’t mean to appear belligerent, but it is rather important that we don’t preach what we fail to practice.
team/party – both actively support a philosophy, and the difference is?
In football such offenders hope to benefit by influencing the action in order to gain 3pts and improve their league position; in politics offenders also hope to gain by cowing their opposition.
In football the physical game is defended as an inherent part of the sporting contest; in politics the state reserves legitimate use of force for itself.
In both cases it is the abuse of regulated behaviour which is abhorrent, not the existence of such behaviour. So MPs should be encouraged to engage in vigorous exchange across the floor of the house, but they should beware that constructive behaviour is more effective.
I draw a big distinction between shouting and what I consider to be abusive shouting.
NB (I don’t think you actually referred to any scenario)
I’m also a little concerned about Passing Tory’s blanket definition of ‘community’ – it’s almost as if vigilantes should be celebrated as the saviours of society!
Why has all your rhetoric about responsibility dried up, PT?
“and the difference is?”
Sorry, I was perhaps too vague in the last comment. The difference I’m referring to is primarily between verbal and physical abuse.
As you may recall, last month one of our MPs committed the latter, but certain people feel that for political reasons his offence should be excused (as it indeed was).
I recall hearing about the incident, but did it really amount to abuse, or was it just handbags at dawn?
Is a bit of patty-cake really that much more threatening than 6,000 fans chanting in aggressive unison behind a restraining barrier which includes numerous security guards and for which you get paid inordinate sums to perform in front of?
Without lapsing into exaggeration, this isn’t quite as clearcut as it looks on initial inspection.
Julian H,
Of course I think they should but having read through your comments I am a little unclear on what kind of axe you are grinding to be totally honest.
You need to contextualise what you are saying about;
What about MPs who not only shout abuse, but also use physical abuse against people they take an objection to?
Should such an incident be judged by “due process”, or should “private individuals” grant political privilege to the offender?
Or should each case be judged on the political views of the offender and victim, so that if people signed up to The Party object to the victim’s politics, then the offender is congratulated on his violence?
…then I will give a more concrete opinion.
Darrell, apologies also for being vague.
I refer to this and this.
To quote from the first (ie. not mine):
“On Monday morning when I was handing out leaflets at the Conference Centre Adrian Sanders MP pushed past me, almost knocking me over. He physically attacked Mark Littlewood (the party’s former Press Officer) and Stewards and Bournemouth Centre security staff intervened to calm things down. I understand the incident was recorded on CCTV”.
ie. one person physically assaulted another, and there is evidence of such.
Given the views above on due process and equality (which I share) and also how far lesser assaults should be “punished & censured”, can I assume that we feel that Adrian Sanders should be similarly accountable for his actions, rather than having them hushed down by the party and even celebrated on LD blogs?
Julian H,
Having had a little read I agree totally with yourself that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable and should be censured in some way. Surely there should be some kind of due process within the Party to address this?
A mechanism whereby both parties can present their case with accounts from witnesses if need be…
Having said that if the injured party has accepted a written apology and doesn’t want to pursue the matter then that, of course, is their perogrative…
“Having said that if the injured party has accepted a written apology and doesn’t want to pursue the matter then that, of course, is their perogrative..”
True, I accept this; but I suspect that if you or I had attacked an MP, we’d have been booted out of the party and seen the Old Bill contacted without any prior negotiations.
Julian, my feeling is that any issue between Adrian Sanders and Mark Littlewood is a personal one which is not worthy of official or direct intervention, despite its symbolic value which was always likely to be used/abused for exploitational purposes.
If you, I, or any other onlookers wish to describe the behaviour as an assault or an affray, I’d hope we could further such claims by providing evidence that, for example, blood was drawn or actual harm likely. Otherwise it is sensible to leave judgement to the participants and await any victim to step forward in their own name to provide such evidence.
It is not substantial enough in my view to merit the ability to draw conclusions from recorded single-sources or hearsay alone.
Hang on. The arguments are out of date already.
Having for years banged on about how to be a Liberal you have to believe in deregulation, what is the Lib Dem critique of Labour over the financial crises?
That they haven’t regulated the financial institutions enough!
I actually agree with this.
I can agree that there are times Labour go too far, like with national ID cards.
But I am just as concerned about the libertarians at the other extreme who now think we should repeal the UK guns laws.
I also think that state funded health education is perfectly reasonable, and is nothing like as pernicious as the advertising industry that manipulates people into buying things they don’t need and cannot afford.
“Nanny State” is a great propaganda term, and there ought to be a similar term to describe the advertising industry.
Geoffrey, why do you not think people are capable of deciding what they want, and what they don’t want?
It seems to me that this article is not really about civil liberties at all. It is a devious defence of smoking.
Smoking is not a civil liberties issue. I have no objection to faggites poisoning themselves in private. What I do object to very strongly indeed is faggites forcing innocent people to breathe their vile filth.
Banning smoking in enclosed public places is about protecting the innocent from a poisonous environmental nuisance. And that is jolly good thing that all civilised folk should welcome. I would go further. I would ban smoking in all public places, especially streets, where one still has to duck and dive to avoid having fag stink thrust up one’s nose.
So let’s not pity faggites. They can kick their vile habit any time they like. Let’s pity their victims – and that means the rest of us.
Young man riding bicycle on pavement towards me as I walk along. We meet by a tree that causes the narrow pavement to be even narrower – and he cannot go past on the road because that is dangerously narrow for him: he’s riding wrong way, so should be other side of road. I ask him to ride on the road, he asks me what right I have to ask that, I say everyone has the right to ask him. This actually hits home (unusual – more usually the response is a degrading comment or obscenity). Anyway, traffic ceases for a short time (traffic lights nearby gone red), and he rides round the roadway side of the tree and back onto the pavement…
Sesenco, how do you feel about the shisha smoking joints on the Edgware Road, or for that matter any establishment which wants to overtly offer itself as a place for smoking? Should they be banned from offering such a service?
Also, would you ban coughing / sneezing without hands in front of one’s mouth / nose in “public places” too? These spread illness potentially far more than cigarette smoke.
Julian H writes:
“Sesenco, how do you feel about the shisha smoking joints on the Edgware Road, or for that matter any establishment which wants to overtly offer itself as a place for smoking? Should they be banned from offering such a service?”
I would have no problem with a private club staffed exclusively by volunteers advertising itself as a place where one can smoke. But not a public premises with paid staff, since the health of those staff would be put at risk.
Julian H further wrote:
“Also, would you ban coughing / sneezing without hands in front of one’s mouth / nose in “public places” too? These spread illness potentially far more than cigarette smoke.”
Coughing and sneezing is certainly a nuisance and one does try to give people who do it the slip. But there is a difference between this and smoking. Coughing and sneezing are things that one is unable to control and the conditions that give rise to them have not generally arisen voluntarily. Smoking, by contrast, is entirely voluntary and has no beneficial function other than to enrich the tobacco industry.
This is rather similar to an argument that Dr Roger Scruton once put forward in defence of capital punishment. It doesn’t matter if we hang people by mistake, he said, because we put up with mistakes in medicine. Wrong, Dr Scruton. Medicine is necessary and beneficial. Hanging people is neither of these.
Thanks for the response, Sesenco.
I didn’t refer to coughing and sneezing per se, I referred to the act of doing them in an inconsiderate manner, so that they might affect other people. I’m sure we’ve all been on trains and experienced someone sneezing openly (rather than attempting to limit the spread of their mucus). Illnesses are also spread, I believe, by people touching common surfaces. Thus someone touching hand-rails on trains with unclean hands is also threatening your health. These actions are not involuntary, as most people take measures to mitigate their effects – so should we ban them?
With regards to your first point, I’m intrigued by how a private club is private only if staffed by unpaid volunteers, but becomes public upon those staff being paid.
Can I only act voluntarily if I’m not paid?
Julian H wrote:
“Can I only act voluntarily if I’m not paid?”
Up until the end of the 19th century our courts always answered that question in the negative. Then the message began to get through that employees often accepted dangerous working conditions because if they didn’t they would starve to death.
I find gum-chewing a grossly anti-social practice, especially in confined spaces like Underground trains. I would love to ban it, but perhaps that might be going a bit too far. It is, of course, illegal to gob the stuff on to the pavement or stick it under tables.
Perhaps recklessly transmitting disease should be a crime. It is already a crime to have sexual connection without telling one’s partner that one has AIDS (and in some jurisdictions prostitutes are requried to undergo regular medical examainations).