Nanny state is a term of British origin that conveys a view that a government or its policies are overprotective or interfering unduly with personal choice. Unsurprisingly the term was first coined by the notoriously right wing The Spectator in 1965 and then repeated by right wing figures from that moment on. These same figures who also celebrated the centralisation of the state and the removal of economic and political choices from millions of their own populations. Ironic? Yes. Surprising? No.
However, any form of government can be said to be interfering in personal choice. That is what a government does. If we are to argue for no government then fair enough but the term ‘nanny state’ has become a throw away phrase that means next to nothing.
A person who has used the NHS, received free access to education and makes use of the benefit system at any point in their lives and then uses the term ‘nanny state’ in a derogatory way makes absolutely no sense. Pure hypocrisy.
As Dan Snow points out do we want to go back to the 19th century when 1 in 5 of all 0-5 year olds died? If you are a strong advocate of ridding society of the ‘nanny state’ then surely that death rate is exactly what you are prepared others, besides yourself, to endure.
And should those opposed to vaccines, because of their suspicion of the state, and who refuse to be immunised once all the safety checks have been completed and continue to reject them be forced to isolate from the rest of society?
I am not arguing for or against but if the individual believes they know best in this situation how should society respond?
It is huge dilemma that at some point we will have to face up to and another potential example of the massive division that currently exists within human populations.
Jason Cridland
PLEASE SUPPORT US FOR JUST £2 A MONTH
