Falkirk MP, Eric Joyce, recently hit out at something he called, “The New Paternalism.” He was writing about Scotland’s proposed new licensing laws, minimum pricing, tackling binge drinking and the like. The point (I think) he was trying to make is that by restricting choice in order to help cure our love affair with drink, there were some silly, catch-all prohibitions on the sale of alcohol, in petrol stations, for example.
The core of his argument seems to be that the less-well-off (who tend to be the ones who drink too much White Lightning) are being forced to reduce the amount they drink by Government edict rather than persuaded to give it up by power of argument, explanation of the risks involved and the offer of help to see the error of their ways.
In other words, too much control is being exercised over people lives in order to help the poor help themselves. So, in order for Buckfast to become prohibitively expensive for a sixteen year old, some nice wee middle class auntie from Kippen or Inverkip has to be penalised by not being able to buy a bottle of wine from her local fishmonger.
And, says Mr Joyce, that’s just not right. Now maybe the Government’s new laws won’t have the desired effect. Perhaps there will be just as much drunkenness in Falkirk of a weekend and all the anti-social behaviour, vandalism and violence, both public and domestic, that goes with it. Mr. Joyce seems to be of the view that a lighter regulatory touch with more emphasis on education and persuasion will work better.
It’s vaguely reminiscent of the new American book that’s been all the rage among the chattering London classes this summer. It’s called Nudge, and was written by two academics.
They say you don’t need loads of laws to stop people making all the wrong choices that do them harm. All you need to do is start schemes that will point them in the right direction. Ultimately, you leave it up to them. You say, “Here’s something that will allow you to make a better decision about this type of behaviour”, and leave them to make their own mind up.
I don’t think Mr Joyce is a roll-back-the-state libertarian (at least that’s not my impression from reading his musings) but he does seem to think that we can interfere in people’s lives too much. Hence, he writes :
“The central definition of the new paternalism is that it’s patronising. It says some folk aren’t open to change so we’ll target them and make life difficult for them. This seems to me the apotheosis of bad legislation.”
But the argument comes down to decision-making. Even the authors of Nudge realise that people are hopeless at arriving at the best choice. But, they would claim, it’s better to guide than force.
The trouble is, it’s the poorest who have the biggest problem in breaking their cycle of behaviour in anything that’s remotely bad for them. It’s the poorest who have the least chance of giving up smoking. It’s those at the bottom end of the socio-economic scale who have the worst dietary habits, although, experts say there is less of a gap between how much money you have and how pished you get.
And anyway how much guiding do people need ? It’s been going on for years and hasn’t worked. Surely, and I think Kenny McAskill would agree (although maybe not publicly), that the time has come to stop pussyfooting around and start proscribing things.
Look at the new fag packets (if you dare) and look at the groups of kids hanging round the off-licence on a Friday night and wonder to yourself if the encouraging, friendliness of “please don’t to that” has had the desired effect ?
What our American friends in their nice book say (without actually saying it) is that people are too stupid to make the right decision about what’s right for them. So who’s going to do it ? Who will grab the bull by the horns to make real inroads into improving not just people’s health but society ?
The only answer is the state. Take one look down Falkirk High Street and you will see people who are crying out to be told what to do. A succession of political leaders are to blame for this as much as anyone.
The post-war generation has been sold a dream of endless consumption and they have bought it. The pursuit of money in the hope that buying things will make them happy has been state policy in what’s laughingly called “the developed world” for too long. Its beauty is it doesn’t require the long arm of the state to make it work. People have, therefore, become used to governmental non-interference in their lives, although they have quite happily allowed multi-national corporations to shape their desires and spending habits with the minimum of fuss.
And it’s all turned out to be a house of cards. It’s created unsustainable development which threatens the future of the planet and every living thing on it. At a more micro-level, people are unhealthy, their lives are full of stress and unrewarding. They have no beliefs to help them cope. Their familial relationships are floundering in a sea of amorality. They have no friends. They are sad.
Who is going to fix this ? New age economic gurus with buzzwords ? Or do we need a benign, strong force for good to regulate what we do, so it’s better for the majority ? The next one knocking the Nanny State gets it, alright ?
The core of his argument seems to be that the less-well-off (who tend to be the ones who drink too much White Lightning) are being forced to reduce the amount they drink by Government edict rather than persuaded to give it up by power of argument, explanation of the risks involved and the offer of help to see the error of their ways.
In other words, too much control is being exercised over people lives in order to help the poor help themselves. So, in order for Buckfast to become prohibitively expensive for a sixteen year old, some nice wee middle class auntie from Kippen or Inverkip has to be penalised by not being able to buy a bottle of wine from her local fishmonger.
And, says Mr Joyce, that’s just not right. Now maybe the Government’s new laws won’t have the desired effect. Perhaps there will be just as much drunkenness in Falkirk of a weekend and all the anti-social behaviour, vandalism and violence, both public and domestic, that goes with it. Mr. Joyce seems to be of the view that a lighter regulatory touch with more emphasis on education and persuasion will work better.
It’s vaguely reminiscent of the new American book that’s been all the rage among the chattering London classes this summer. It’s called Nudge, and was written by two academics.
They say you don’t need loads of laws to stop people making all the wrong choices that do them harm. All you need to do is start schemes that will point them in the right direction. Ultimately, you leave it up to them. You say, “Here’s something that will allow you to make a better decision about this type of behaviour”, and leave them to make their own mind up.
I don’t think Mr Joyce is a roll-back-the-state libertarian (at least that’s not my impression from reading his musings) but he does seem to think that we can interfere in people’s lives too much. Hence, he writes :
“The central definition of the new paternalism is that it’s patronising. It says some folk aren’t open to change so we’ll target them and make life difficult for them. This seems to me the apotheosis of bad legislation.”
But the argument comes down to decision-making. Even the authors of Nudge realise that people are hopeless at arriving at the best choice. But, they would claim, it’s better to guide than force.
The trouble is, it’s the poorest who have the biggest problem in breaking their cycle of behaviour in anything that’s remotely bad for them. It’s the poorest who have the least chance of giving up smoking. It’s those at the bottom end of the socio-economic scale who have the worst dietary habits, although, experts say there is less of a gap between how much money you have and how pished you get.
And anyway how much guiding do people need ? It’s been going on for years and hasn’t worked. Surely, and I think Kenny McAskill would agree (although maybe not publicly), that the time has come to stop pussyfooting around and start proscribing things.
Look at the new fag packets (if you dare) and look at the groups of kids hanging round the off-licence on a Friday night and wonder to yourself if the encouraging, friendliness of “please don’t to that” has had the desired effect ?
What our American friends in their nice book say (without actually saying it) is that people are too stupid to make the right decision about what’s right for them. So who’s going to do it ? Who will grab the bull by the horns to make real inroads into improving not just people’s health but society ?
The only answer is the state. Take one look down Falkirk High Street and you will see people who are crying out to be told what to do. A succession of political leaders are to blame for this as much as anyone.
The post-war generation has been sold a dream of endless consumption and they have bought it. The pursuit of money in the hope that buying things will make them happy has been state policy in what’s laughingly called “the developed world” for too long. Its beauty is it doesn’t require the long arm of the state to make it work. People have, therefore, become used to governmental non-interference in their lives, although they have quite happily allowed multi-national corporations to shape their desires and spending habits with the minimum of fuss.
And it’s all turned out to be a house of cards. It’s created unsustainable development which threatens the future of the planet and every living thing on it. At a more micro-level, people are unhealthy, their lives are full of stress and unrewarding. They have no beliefs to help them cope. Their familial relationships are floundering in a sea of amorality. They have no friends. They are sad.
Who is going to fix this ? New age economic gurus with buzzwords ? Or do we need a benign, strong force for good to regulate what we do, so it’s better for the majority ? The next one knocking the Nanny State gets it, alright ?
No comments:
Post a Comment