Do government health campaigns herald the nanny state?
Yes.
Simple, eh? Although, to be fair, the Nanny State is not at its dawn, it has been with us for a while, now.
I leave Chris Snowdon to dismantle this pile of poo.
If ever there was an argument for removing the TV license fee, this egregious example of blatant propaganda is it.
Chris Snowden dissects the situation beautifully. However we all know that rational thought and common sense has no place in politics, the NHS or the BBC.
What TPTB want is the cake and halfpenny. Reduce the liability with threats and fears but maintain the revenue stream with ever more draconian tax levels.
The ‘dawn’ of the nanny state? More like the ‘afternoon tea with cucumber sandwiches’ of the nanny state.
“In the early years of the coalition, there was a much more hands-off approach. The government launched its responsibility deal to try to get industry to take small steps such as reducing the sugar and fat content of foods, but apart from further crackdowns on smoking (a ban on tobacco displays in shops and the introduction of plain packaging to name just two), ministers were much quieter on the public-health front.”
Emphasis mine. And there you have it. The obligatory “except of course for smoking – which we all agree is a wonderful activity to apply the nanny-state to, don’t we, boys and girls?” No acknowledgement given to the fact that, in the “early years of the coalition,” so rosily referred to by the author as some kind of “golden age” of hands-off Government, smoking was in fact the only area of life where the nanny state had really applied itself, and thus the only area in which the ambitious members of it were (yet) powerful enough to extend themselves in.
The anti-smoking movement was always only the first experimental step in the total control of the proles’ behaviour, as we now see by the template being eagerly applied in many other areas – so much so that it is often enthusiastically referred to by these new kids on the block in terms such as “we should apply the same controls to xxx as we have to tobacco,” or the much-aspired to “ xxx is the New Tobacco.” As if that makes it all OK, then; if “xxx” is in any way “like the Demon Tobacco” then it should be similarly targeted.
Why can’t these writers realise that the campaign against tobacco isn’t “a thing apart” from all these other campaigns – it was the starting point for the rot and, as such, none of the “add on” scares will ever stop unless there’s a real reversal of attitudes – both from the powers-that-be and from the public, regarding tobacco, first. All the time public passively accepts the principles of fabricating fake research about the “dangers of smoking,” bullying and harassing smokers beyond anything which could be considered even vaguely reasonable, and lining the pockets of greedy vested interests through excessive sin taxes on tobacco, they must by definition therefore accept the principle of applying the same tactics to other “sins.” That, after all, is what a “principle” actually means, in essence – a general rule which is adhered to, regardless of the differing details entailed in different instances. The powers-that-be may be the biggest initiators of Nanny State policies, but it was the self-oriented, “I’m all right, Jack” attitude of the general public towards tobacco and smokers which allowed the nanny state to take root – and continues to allow it to proceed unabated. And until that changes …
Nanny State? Nanny may have been firm, with a good grasp on the needs of her charges, but she was engaged voluntarily for the benefit of said
charges. This isn’t the Nanny State, this is the Molester State, it
knows what it wants, and it’s going to have it. And if the lives
of it’s ‘charges’ get run through the shredder as a consequence? Well,
that’s just tough luck…