Nanny State - Is it a necessary evil?

[saffstar]

Personally, I thnk it's ridiculous that government should have to legislate to stop people over-eating etc, but it seems to me, more and more, that large sections of our society actually need to be told what they should and shouldn't stuff into their mouths.  If I see one more slack-jawed idiot whinging on about how "little Johnny won't eat anything without a pretty picture on the box" I think I'm going to explode.  In terms of child protection, if nothing else, do you think a 'Nanny State' is needed?

[andy hughes]

No, a 'nanny state' is what we have - education is what we need. Parents have little or no parenting skills - ways to educate their children in eating at a table with a knife and fork, before we even get to what's on the plate - simple things that are missing from children today. If the government wants to stop obesity, anti-social behaviour, and so on, don;t target the adults, who will take the huff, and no notice, educate children. Bin 'design and technology' off the national Curriculum, in fact bin the Curriculum while you are there (!") and get back to basic human integration skills. Respect for each other, for property, for life, begins in childhood . teach children to love and respect themselves and each other, and the rest will fall into line behind. It's easy, but it's not being done. As usual we have a sitcking plaster on a gaping wound. Nanny State - more like Pranny State!

[woofgang]

I would like to associate myself with the views put forward by the previous honorable member. While the state keeps nannying, a large proportion of the population will feel that they don't need to do parenting!!

[robbieh]

Sadly yes. Unfortunately, any law is now seen as being nanny state by the press which makes things seem worse than it is. With things like food and being overweight, the choice i think is either act like a nanny state or make people pay for their own healthcare. Then when people start realising how much being overweight actually costs, they might wake up and eat more healthily and do more exercise. However I wouldn't like to go down that path as it would probably put more people at disadvantage than it would make things better. Therefore "nannying" after them seems the best idea. Personally, apart from reading about things in newspapers, i've personally yet to find that i've been at a disadvantage or noticably affected by it all. People complained about the leaflet passed out about what to do in an act of terrorsim and how basic it was. But i'd rather they did that than have to pay compensation out of my taxes to people who try and sue for not being told what to do in an emergency, after one happens. That cost would far outweigh the cost of printing these leaflets. If you didn't want the leaflet throw it away

[saffstar]

A friend of mine is a primary school teacher and she's recently been on a training course to enable her to teach children how to listen and communicate, because their parents aren't doing it!  I totally agree that we need to start educating children/people properly and making them understand that they are responsible for themselves, but that takes time and we have problems that need addressing quickly.

[FP]

Like Woofgang, I just would like to say that I agree totally with Andy.  I keep posting to this effect.  I do have my own views, it's just that they always seem to agree with Andy's!

[Robinia]

Nodding (no pun intended) in agreement with the others. Some of the parents could do with a few lessons from my old headmistress who taught 'domestic science', there'd certainly be no obese children to worry about.  I've seen on more than a couple of occasions, mothers with very small children, standing in the food isles screaming at them to decide what they wanted to eat for their tea. How on earth are little ones supposed to make sensible decisions?  I'm far from being a perfect mother but mealtimes (& bedtimes) were never a problem because I made the decisions, kept to a routine & as andy says we sat at the table, ate well & talked.  Now I'm going to explode too....!

[Hgrove]

I think I have said this elsewhere but I'll say it again in this context:  "nanny state" (an expression I don't like because it is misleading) would be unnecessary if we had perfect knowledge, or at least equal knowledge to the other party, in all circumstances.  Instead, whenever we have to make a decision to do with pensions/ investments/employment, but also medicine/ education/local government (the list is endless) most of the time we are in a position of poor knowledge, pitted against someone (pensions salesmen and all the rest of it) who has near perfect knowledge or much better knowledge than us.  Because of this I would prefer more, not less regulation.  I'll give a simple example:  when you are buying a house, it is always "buyer beware".  The vendor knows everything (like the dry rot in the back room and all that) and will make it as difficult as he can for you to find out.  It is not an equal match.  Therefore,  laws and regulations remedy this "unequal knowledge" distortion in the market.  However paradoxical this may seem, laws and regulations do not distort the market.  Au contraire, they help to bring it about.

[woofgang]

ther's a difference between laws to make things fair (IMHO the point of law) as in house buying, and laws that take the place of common sense eg legislation to stop people over eating. Also if you are going to make people pay for their healthcare, then it must be on a total basis eg maternity care and sports injury care should be paid for as well and I want a no claims refund!!

[El D]

the thing is - this question is tied to the welfare state. Move too far back and you encounter a world where the benefits system allows only subsistence living - that means poverty, despair, children with very little to smile about, and associated social problems (drinking, abuse etc). Move too far forward and we have a generation of people who see no need to work and rely on the state to support them, look after them, even tell them how to eat. I believe a happy medium can be struck, I also believe that people are too intelligent to have to be told what to eat. There is some underlying social current which needs to be addressed, and its not just the 'I want now dog eat dog' culture currently reigning supreme. The nanny state is not necessary, state control of certain areas is. When people start to think for themselves, the nanny state will be a thing of the past. However I have no idea when that will be because people are also extremely lazy.

[ianess]

You`re all doing great so far, people!  Keep it up.

Does anyone else think that our Home Secretary is a very dangerous man with his own brand of extremist views?

If he`s a non-comformist lock him up and throw away the key so that the rest of us can sleep easy?

George Orwell, where are you?

[Ralph]

Indeed ianess. I'd rather live in a nanny state than a police state. No Ronald McDonald on the tv in the afternoon or "what to do in an emergency" leaflets through the post? Fine and in the recycle bin respectively. Possible long term incarceration without trial potentially for a case of mistaken identity? Not acceptable. In fact, not even acceptable in a case where the correct person is arrested. Do I buy this salty food? Probably best not to 'cos I'll just need a fattening cola to quench the resulting thirst.

Both are important and relevant issues today. One is easily solved by educating the masses with rubbish slug ads and the like. The other is almost impossible to painlessly remove once it has a hold. I know which one worries me more.