Let's embrace the nanny state. Shouldn't the government care about our health?

For many, it evokes images of restrictions on personal choice. It’s often used by politicians and media commentators to criticise public health policies and interventions like the ‘milkshake tax’ and the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. Against the backdrop of new data showing a worsening picture of the nation’s health, perhaps it’s time to rethink what we mean by the term ‘nanny state.’

First, let’s take stock of the nation’s health. The latest Health Survey for England data shows a bleak picture. In 2024, 27 per cent of adults were classified as inactive, meaning they participated in less than 30 minutes of physical activity a week. Nearly half of adults aged 16 and over had at least one longstanding illness or condition, and 48 per cent had raised cholesterol. Meanwhile, almost two-thirds of adults are now overweight or obese and more than 1 in 3 children are leaving primary school overweight or obese.

These are unmistakable warning signs that make the case for bold intervention stronger than ever, not only to relieve pressure on the NHS but most importantly so people can choose to live longer, healthier and happier lives.

The term ‘nanny state’ is rooted in gender stereotypes that cast care as weakness. Yet evidence suggests that these traits lead to better health outcomes. During the Covid-19 pandemic, countries led by women had half as many deaths as those led by men, with analysis showing they acted “more quickly and decisively”.

And that’s not all. Despite the rhetoric, polling of the public from The King’s Fund, Action on Smoking and Health, the Obesity Health Alliance, the Alcohol Health Alliance and the Health Foundation consistently shows that people actually strongly support many interventions labelled as ‘nanny state’. There’s overwhelming support for stricter regulations on the food industry. Measures like the phased smoking ban, restrictions on vaping, and the Online Safety Act enjoy broad consensus across age groups and political affiliations, and the British public is in favour of taxation where they can see tangible improvements to the NHS.

Another very live example is the rising public concern about social media’s harms to children and young people. The Academy of Royal Medical Colleges is calling on government to restrict the use of social media for under-16s, a suggestion backed by the Conservatives. These policies don’t affect the public purse like tax rises do but they reflect what people value: safety and wellbeing.

And the so-called ‘nanny state’ isn’t solely in the business of taking our joys away. It can also help create the conditions for health to flourish. Take the extremely popular Parkrun: when local and national government maintain the parks we all use and enjoy, this non-state initiative can thrive.

Reframing the term in this light could help us see these interventions not as intrusions but as investments in collective wellbeing, a social contract of sorts. And like any contract, it has two sides. If the state works to make healthier choices easier, then we, as individuals, have a responsibility to make them.

Let me be clear. The goal isn’t to curtail freedom, the goal is about giving people better choices so they can live a longer, happier and healthier life. It’s time to retire the caricature of the ‘nanny state’ and embrace a more nuanced conversation about care, responsibility and trust. One in which we all think a bit more like a nanny.

____________________

Sarah Woolnough is the Chief Executive of The King’s Fund, an independent charity working to improve people’s health.

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk