Which of the British political parties is the least pro-nanny state?

Watch
RJDG14
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1
When Boris Johnson came to power a year ago, he effectively promised not to introduce any new "nanny state" laws while he was in power. Although I'm not a fan of him, and mostly disagreed with his Brexit and law and order policies, I had faith in him on this matter - he said that he would roll back some of the food legislation and proposed online adult content age verification system.

In recent weeks he seems to have changed his mind on nanny state legislation, and now supports even more of these draconian laws which go against civil liberty and have been creeping into the statute books for the past 30 years.

It seems as though every British party in power has had to kowtow to the views of Britain's chief medical officers and "moral guardians" (such as the late Mary Whitehouse), even if they initially said that they wouldn't, and even if it sets Britain out of line with the majority of countries in mainland Europe. This makes me ask which of the political paries would be the least nanny state in their policies and views today (on both public health and moral issues), if there is one? I might place my bets on the traditional Liberal Party, although they're very minor today, and maybe factions within the Liberal Democrats.

This is my overview of the main parties:

Labour - Quite pro nanny-state public health legislation, mixed although slightly against moral legislation

Conservatives - Mixed on public health legislation, moderately pro moral legislation

Lib-Dems - Mixed although slightly in favour of public health legislation, mostly against moral legislation

Green Party - Strongly in favour of public health legislation, mostly against moral legislation



Moral legislation relates mostly to censorship on family value grounds and similar stuff to that. I left out UKIP and the Brexit Party as there are many different factions within them - some are quite liberal while others are very authoritarian leaning.

In terms of my own views, I broadly support the indoor smoking ban but am strongly against attempts to ban it in outdoor spaces, ban the sale of energy drinks to under 18s (as the government is allegedly trying to do; I'm against a voluntary under 16 ban too), introduce stealth taxes, and force food manufacturers to alter ingredients. Rather, I'd much rather the UK adopted a more European approach and gave kids better education on what they eat, along with improving access to gym equipment and sports.

I would also support the government disbanding the BBFC in its current form and replacing it with a voluntary classification board for films rather than anything that's legally enforcable - the UK formally did away with theatre censorship in 1968 and so I feel that doing totally away with film censorship is long overdue. I'm also strongly against proposals to ban adult and/or "harmful" content to under 18s - that should be the responsibility of their parents, not the state.
0
reply
LaPregunta
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
I think the very unsuccessful Libertarian Party might be the most against the "nanny state". This party has no representation.

The UK with a weaker moral system than the one it already posseses is rather frightenin to me.
Last edited by LaPregunta; 1 month ago
2
reply
Iñigo de Loyola
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 month ago
#3
I'm honestly not sure. Can we have a Tory PM who understands that Whitehall has no right to dictate our diets, or whether we smoke or drink?
1
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 month ago
#4
(Original post by RJDG14)
In recent weeks he seems to have changed his mind on nanny state legislation, and now supports even more of these draconian laws which go against civil liberty and have been creeping into the statute books for the past 30 years.
Could you give some examples?

The government's latest press release on their obesity strategy does not list anything that could be called "draconian" or anything that erodes civil liberties.
0
reply
Kitten in boots
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 month ago
#5
(Original post by RJDG14)
When Boris Johnson came to power a year ago, he effectively promised not to introduce any new "nanny state" laws while he was in power. Although I'm not a fan of him, and mostly disagreed with his Brexit and law and order policies, I had faith in him on this matter - he said that he would roll back some of the food legislation and proposed online adult content age verification system.
Why would you believe him?

He is a self-described One-Nation Tory, a particularly paternalistic ideology. He is also a member of the Conservative Party. As their last decade in government demonstrates, the party loves big government, loves bureaucracy and dislikes individual liberty.
1
reply
JOSH4598
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 month ago
#6
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
I'm honestly not sure. Can we have a Tory PM who understands that Whitehall has no right to dictate our diets, or whether we smoke or drink?
Trouble is it costs the NHS if the government doesn't disincentivise poor diets etc. If people are told to do as they please, many will turn to heavy smoking/drinking and eating tons of cheap take-aways, which will just fill up A&E when they're all having heart attacks and god knows what else. Easiest option is to remove all free treatment for obesity etc off the NHS, and keep the service for emergency medical care rather than long-term health problems caused from poor lifestyles.
0
reply
TCA2b
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 month ago
#7
(Original post by LaPregunta)
I think the very unsuccessful Libertarian Party might be the most against the "nanny state". This party has no representation.

The UK with a weaker moral system than the one it already posseses is rather frightenin to me.
Yes, one even more firmly entrenched against the concept of liberty is frightening.
0
reply
LaPregunta
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 month ago
#8
(Original post by TCA2b)
Yes, one even more firmly entrenched against the concept of liberty is frightening.
You have countered me with an important question and I wonder if you might be right. In your case, the subjects are submissive to rule and act in accordance to their governers wishes; in my case, they are not bound by any moral constraints and do as they please.
0
reply
The Mogg
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 month ago
#9
(Original post by LaPregunta)
I think the very unsuccessful Libertarian Party might be the most against the "nanny state". This party has no representation.
Sadly yes, the Libertarian Party (of which I am a member) has no representation, but we are indeed the most anti nanny state party around, being mostly against both public health and moral legislation

A quick lesson to learn for the OP is that none of the major political parties are wholly against the nanny state. The Tories will claim for be these bastions for freedom but they're talking out of their arses.
1
reply
Iñigo de Loyola
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 month ago
#10
(Original post by JOSH4598)
Trouble is it costs the NHS if the government doesn't disincentivise poor diets etc. If people are told to do as they please, many will turn to heavy smoking/drinking and eating tons of cheap take-aways, which will just fill up A&E when they're all having heart attacks and god knows what else. Easiest option is to remove all free treatment for obesity etc off the NHS, and keep the service for emergency medical care rather than long-term health problems caused from poor lifestyles.
Yes. You should be free to chain smoke after your Macdonalds and wash it down with a few cans of strong lager from the polski sklep, but you shouldn't be free from the consequences of doing that.
0
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 month ago
#11
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
I'm honestly not sure. Can we have a Tory PM who understands that Whitehall has no right to dictate our diets, or whether we smoke or drink?
Wouldnt that be Westminster? Whitehall merely doing the bidding of the politicos?
0
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 month ago
#12
(Original post by JOSH4598)
Trouble is it costs the NHS if the government doesn't disincentivise poor diets etc. If people are told to do as they please, many will turn to heavy smoking/drinking and eating tons of cheap take-aways, which will just fill up A&E when they're all having heart attacks and god knows what else. Easiest option is to remove all free treatment for obesity etc off the NHS, and keep the service for emergency medical care rather than long-term health problems caused from poor lifestyles.
It does rather unpleasantly run up against the problem that, despite these people being a drain on the service, they have legally paid for its usage through their taxes.
I mean to run with the smoking one, arguably they should get better treatment than others due to the simple fact that through sin taxes they have become national benefactors :lol:
0
reply
Iñigo de Loyola
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 month ago
#13
(Original post by Napp)
Wouldnt that be Westminster? Whitehall merely doing the bidding of the politicos?
So it would. I typed something wrong.
0
reply
vendingmachine0
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 month ago
#14
Why would anyone ever say regulations against certain foods are Draconian?
0
reply
Iñigo de Loyola
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 month ago
#15
(Original post by vendingmachine0)
Why would anyone ever say regulations against certain foods are Draconian?
The gov't regulating what you can eat is draconian.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 month ago
#16
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
The gov't regulating what you can eat is draconian.
"Draconian: (of a law, punishment, etc.) extremely cruel and severe".

What are the government doing, or what do the government what to do, that is either extremely cruel or severe?
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 weeks ago
#17
None of the current political parties are really anti-nanny state. The Tories slightly less so however there is more than a century of moral conservatism written into their DNA. Perhaps in 79-97 the trend was more libertarian however the modern party is probably more supportive of intervention than even a decade ago.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you confident you could find support for your mental health if you needed it in COVID-19?

Yes (77)
21.51%
No (281)
78.49%

Watched Threads

View All