Dismissing policies as simply being too ‘nanny state’ is depressingly familiar

As the price of energy becomes unaffordable and the National Grid warns of rolling blackouts, it is somewhat surprising that a floundering Liz Truss has blocked plans for a public information campaign asking people to save energy over the winter, reportedly because she is “ideologically opposed” to the idea. Being ‘ideologically opposed’ to information is a strange position, even from our Prime Minister, who has demonstrated some very strange thinking in recent weeks.

It is with some despair that I find myself in agreement with Business Secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg, who is said to have been keen on a £15m campaign as a relatively cost-effective way of reducing the UK’s energy usage at a time of surging prices and scarcity. Predictably, ministers asked about this have dismissed the plan as too “nanny state”, said it is not needed and asked people instead to use their ‘common sense.’ But political history is filled with examples of policies that were railed against on the grounds they were ‘nanny state’ – which once implemented transformed life for the better.

It seems unbelievable now but – prior to the Health Act 2006 bringing in a smoking ban in public places the following year – it was common to go to bars, clubs and all manner of public spaces where cigarette smoke made it hard to see in front of you and the smell of nicotine on your clothes sometimes took several washes to go. Many workplaces, including hospitals, had smoking rooms and passive smoking was a major cause of hospitalisations.

The Labour government’s ban on smoking in public places was met with wide spread objection, of course. A group calling themselves ‘Freedom To Choose’ launched a campaign for a judicial review of the smoke-free workplace regulations. The argued it was a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998, claiming it did not respect the right to privacy of people who wish to smoke in public. In 2010, pub landlord Nick Hogan was briefly jailed for an offence related to the smoking ban.

But the obvious benefits, once it started, quickly won the public over. By 2017 a YouGov survey indicated that 83% of the public approved of the ban. More importantly, there has since been a marked decline in smoking-related illnesses. Far from seeming part of a ‘nanny state’, the smoking ban is now regarded as one of the most positive health policies in history.

The same anti-nanny state cries occurred in the 1960s when the UK was in a strange period – where cars were becoming the norm and rules to keep people safe were not yet in existence. When Barbara Castle became Transport Secretary,. there were 8,000 annual deaths on the road and 230,000 injuries. She was determined to change things and make roads safer.

Famously, she bought in the breathalyser – a policy proposal that saw her receive death threats. People claimed their own common sense allowed them to know when they were fit to drive, and not being able to drive to the pub was wrong! Castle referred to the opposition she encountered saying: “I was interfering, the opposition said, with people’s civil rights. I said I do not recognise anybody’s civil right to kill somebody else because they’re under the influence.”

Alcohol-related deaths on the road plummeted as soon as the law came in. Castle also spearheaded laws that meant cars had to be fitted with seat belts; in 1983, seatbelt wearing finally became compulsory. A 29% reduction in fatal injuries of front-seat passengers and a 30% drop in serious injuries were reported that year. This was after years of campaigning by medical and safety organisations. But there were objections and complaints that people should be allowed to make their own decisions about seat belt use without the interference of the state.

Of course, it is not policy that Liz Truss has derived as being against her ideology in this case, it is the concept of giving people accurate information to allow them to make choices that might save energy and money. Public information campaigns are nothing new. Over 77 years after the Second World War ended, most people can still recognise public information posters from the era, created by the wartime Ministry of Information, including advice like ‘careless talk costs life’, what to do in an air raid and how to deal with rationing. I wouldn’t like to speculate as to whether our current Prime Minister thinks the wartime public should have been left to use their common sense through that period.

For most people the public information films of their childhood are scored into their memory. Personally, I can never see a sparkler on Bonfire Night without remembering the 1980s advert warning not to pick one up, whereas the ‘Don’t Die of Ignorance’ adverts warning about the risk of HIV/AIDS from the same era still strike a panic in me. Only two years ago, the early public information campaign about Covid and the phrases ‘Stay home, protect the NHS, save lives’ and ‘hands, face, space’ gave us all the guidance we needed. Unfortunately, subsequent messaging like ‘stay alert, control the virus, save lives’ made a lot less sense.

I – like everyone else I’ve ever met – don’t consider myself lacking in common sense. But as I wonder whether having a bath instead of a shower tonight is now an indulgence too far, and whether closing the curtains keeps heat in or out, I would welcome some guidance on saving energy. Changing habits is not easy, and misinformation is everywhere.

The ‘nanny state’ is a meaningless, pejorative term used to dismiss policies or information that improve and save lives. It is incomprehensible that the government is leaving people without accurate information that might have allowed people to make choices that helped them and the country through this difficult time. I would like to know why the Prime Minister is ideologically opposed to giving people information that might help them and the country as a whole.