No More Nanny State?

According to the Economist Magazine the term ‘Nanny State’ first appeared with the introduction of a 70mph speed limit on England’s motorways in 1965. More recently it has been used to express outrage at schools being asked to supervise teeth brushing for primary school children. The term is often used by people on the political right who object to the state behaving in a paternalist way, directing or encouraging people towards better life choices such as drinking less, smoking less, eating healthier food and brushing their children’s teeth. The fact that the ‘encouragement’ sometimes slips into penalising measures such as higher taxes on cigarettes or alcohol means that those on the right, who value low-tax government and greater freedom, tend to oppose ‘nanny state’ interference in the choices of adult citizens.

Why should we pay extra tax to fund someone else’s social security payments or for the education of their children? Why should we pay for free school meals and dental health care for other people’s kids? If we are young and healthy and don’t smoke, why should we pay for the health needs of others in the NHS, why can’t we opt out and rely on private health insurance?

There is no such thing as society?

In the UK we remember Margaret Thatcher saying ‘I think we’ve been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it’s the government’s job to cope with it.’ Similarly, Boris Johnston after being ousted by his party advised his successor to ‘cut taxes and deregulate wherever you can’ and to ‘stay close to the Americans’.

Both Thatcher and Johnson seemed to be transfixed by the right-wing politicians of the USA who believe in low tax, low regulation economy where people sink or swim by their own efforts. We will see how well this viewpoint plays out if Trump returns to power. No safety-nets, home repossessions to pay for cancer care and tent cities seem to be the American way. Trump has already pledged to cut more taxes for the top 1% of earners and to deregulate on an industrial scale.

Social Contract and Society

Despite wanting to slim down government, even Thatcher accepted that there was a social contract, that we have obligations to our neighbour and fellow citizens.

All of us accept that we need to pay taxes to fund common services such, law & order, policing, national defence via our army. Collectively, we need to fund roads, mains water, street lights, bin collections. Our safety necessitates regulation of restaurants and those selling food so that we are not poisoned, laws which govern commerce including e-commerce allow us to purchase goods safely. All of this tends to be taken for granted today, but these systems took decades to develop and require funding through our taxes.

An absence of regulations and an absence of tax sounds tempting and will be offered by unscrupulous politicians who never explain what we would lose. No-one likes getting points for speeding, but nor does anyone like to experience a speeding driver smashing into the back of their car. Regulations are necessary for our safety and the social contract provides us with a stable society where everyone feels they have a stake. Most people in Britain would pay an extra couple of pence on income tax if it would provide a properly functioning NHS where public money went directly to services and not into the pockets of private contractors with links to the Tory party.