How to denannify the state
An incoming UK government that aims to reduce the nanny state of excessive government intervention in personal choices might pursue reforms in several key areas to roll it back.
It could scrap or modify the soft drinks industry levy, the sugar tax. It could relax rules around portion sizes, calorie labeling, or advertising restrictions on so-called junk food.
It could oppose or repeal bans on disposable vapes or flavoured vape products, and scrap plans to phase out cigarette sales for younger generations, including Rishi Sunak’s proposed smoking ban for anyone born after 2009. It could scrap the requirement for hideous pictures to appear on tobacco packaging. It could repeal the ban on indoor smoking in pubs provided that extraction fans made the air inside cleaner than that outside.
Minimum pricing schemes for alcohol could be binned, as could proposals for new licensing restrictions or “booze-free zones” and proposed alcohol warning labels. The state could cease suggesting maximum recommended levels of units of alcohol.
The government could stress personal responsibility over legislation. It could promote public education and individual choice over mandates and restrictions.
It could abolish the role of Public Health England-style interventions or opt for non-compulsory health campaigns.
It could loosen planning laws to allow more individual control over property use and design, perhaps repealing the Town and Country Planning Acts.
It might make it easier to sell or promote alcohol, tobacco, or other restricted goods, arguing from a personal freedom standpoint. And it might reduce government paternalism in welfare and behavioural nudging toward certain lifestyle behaviours such as attending health or parenting classes. It might shrink behavioural insight teams or reduce their influence on policymaking.
It could repeal or resist compulsory elements in education and parenting, such as mandatory sex or relationship education at early ages. It might ease up on school meal nutrition standards. It could empower parental choice and reduce government involvement in curriculum decisions seen as ideological.
As far as media and tech regulation is concerned, it could oppose or scale back online harm legislation that aims to ‘protect’ users from content, arguing instead for free speech and adult autonomy.
It might stop initiatives to regulate screen time or tech use by children, and leave such decisions to parents.
An incoming government might declare that for too long, successive governments have micromanaged the everyday choices of free citizens, dictating what we can eat, how we raise our children, what we watch online, and even how we relax at the end of a long day. This culture of top-down paternalism, the "nanny state," treats adults like children and erodes personal responsibility, freedom, and common sense.
It might declare that it should be the right of individuals and families to make informed choices for themselves, without constant interference from the state. It might express the belief that a free society is a responsible society. Personal liberty, not government oversight, is the foundation of health, happiness, and dignity. By scaling back the nanny state, it could empower individuals, rebuild trust, and foster a culture of personal responsibility and mutual respect.
Madsen Pirie