Written By: - Date published: 1:40 pm, March 27th, 2008 - 72 comments
Categories: national, news -
Tags: national, news
Seems to me we need some consensus on what a “Nanny State” actually is.
Today the Nats have come out in opposition of some scholarships awarded for doctoral research by the Tertiary Education Commission – stuff like “children’s colour use and emotional wellbeing when drawing” being researched by Emily Crawford at Otago University. What could be more Nanny State or authoritarian than telling academics what they can and can’t research?
A few weeks back there were calls for legislation to ban the use of cellphones while driving in an effort to reduce crashes – despite the fact that we routinely participate in other equally risky activity while driving (neither was there any decent statistical analysis to shows that such a ban would even be likely to have an impact). No mention of the Nanny by the Granny though.
On the flip-side there was a public outcry from groups like Family First when the government moved to help stop people getting off beating their kids by repealing s59 – “Nanny state”. Similarly when the government moved to reduce our appalling rate of food poisoning by introducing stricter food hygiene regulations – “Nanny state”.
I don’t think you can have it both ways, National, The Herald, et al. At least not without a decent explanation.
PS. To any of the people who have had their research criticised by Paul Hutchinson feel free to get in touch if you’re reading this – perhaps we could discuss the possibility of a guest post by you in reply.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
What could be more Nanny State or authoritarian than telling academics what they can and can’t research?
Telling people what they can or cannot say during an election year.
What could be more Nanny State or authoritarian than telling academics what they can and can’t research?
Telling people what they can and cannot say in an election year.
Yawn. One of the oldest, most predictable populist targets in politics, guaranteed to get tabloid coverage in the media.
The rules of the game are as follows:
1. Be in favour of investing in research. Research is a Good Thing. Our best and our brightest, blah blah.
2. Be against wasting taxpayers’ money. Especially on academics, because “ivory towers” are a Bad Thing.
3. Be in favour of academic independence. Political interference is a Bad Thing.
4. Be against the results of this independence. The government is to blame, because the government is spending Our Money, which is a Bad Thing.
And so on.
Stand by for a vox pop on TV news: “We ask the Big Question: Twilight Golf or a Tax Cut?”
I demand to know why my post keeps dissappearing. It is non-sexist, contains no swear words, and gives no one personally a hard time. Post it you cowardly fucking wanker.
What could be more Nanny State or authoritarian than telling academics what they can and can’t research?
For the third time:
Telling people what they can and cannot say in an election year.
Oh, as for Nanny State, if you believe the media coverage lately, the government should be regulating the price of cheese. (That’s the government – not the bureaucrats. They are a Bad Thing).
oops sorry
Murray, you’re just caught in the Dad4Justice moderation trap, calm the fuck down, you sound you’re about to do yourself some damage.
I’ll go and see what I can do to get you out of it.
Murray
I think the computer network has performed indecencies on you.
It happened to me a while back – despite not agreeing very often with the views on this site they don’t tend to censor.
No worries Murray, as suspected you share an IP range with D4J. Hopefully you won’t get caught in moderation now.
National also has to recognise that fixing the housing problem will involve increasing the supply of residential land, through forcing reluctant local councils to re-zone land where they wouldn’t normally. I’m sure if Labour did this cries of “nanny state” would come flooding out of the National party. Once again, the Nats can’t have it both ways.
My favorite is:
“The government must get tough on crime”
quickly followed by:
“The government is wasting our money on prisons”
Basically the Nats will find a reason to attack anything and in doing so are running down our country and our achievements. I guess that’s why they’ve decided to run a “New Zealand sucks” campaign.
So back to Nanny State, does someone want to tell me what it means?
Murray:
“What could be more Nanny State or authoritarian than telling academics what they can and can’t research?
Telling people what they can or cannot say during an election year.”
The Natioanl Party’s 1993 Electoral Act restricted expression prior to elections. So according to your definition the National Party loves the “nanny state” as well. I’m glad we’re all in agreement about that.
ayb
http://www.amazon.com/Nanny-State-Teetotaling-Do-Gooders-Bureaucrats/dp/0767924320
“Nanny State” is a disparaging term, mostly used by conservatives or populists, for a Government that is viewed as telling people what to do too often, and not listening themselves.
I find this quite amusing, because National believes in a lot more “nannying” than Labour does- they want to tell us who we can marry, what we can research, what businesses we should run to be competitive, and they don’t want to listen when research tells them the environment needs some investment.
Would just like to say – I find the misogyny inherent in the word “nanny state” to be distasteful. Like the term “dykocracy”, also often used by the NZ right, it betrays their fear and hatred of women in power.
HS, linking to a book titled “Nanny State: How Food Fascists, Teetotaling Do-Gooders, Priggish Moralists, and other Boneheaded Bureaucrats are Turning America into a Nation of Children (Hardcover)” isn’t an argument, it’s an example of exactly the kind of meaningless rhetoric we’re talking about.
In your own words, what is a ‘nanny state’?
Murray
“Telling people what they can and cannot say in an election year”
Repeating this as often as you can doesn’t make it true. Any individual person can say whatever they think in any year in this country. There is no restriction at all on free speech.
There is no restriction at all on free speech
There is no restriction at all on free speech
There is no restriction at all on free speech
There is no restriction at all on free speech
There is no restriction at all on free speech
There is no restriction at all on free speech
Roger- totally agreed, but I have little hope of convincing National and their supporters that they’re being sexist and not simply funny. Maybe I’ll blog on that today… we’ll see
Oh, I totally forgot in my previous post- National really doesn’t seem to understand academic research. It’s not like corporate research- you don’t expect immediate gains from every project done, and you don’t scrap projects even if they provide no immediate benefit themselves. The point is to build up a body of work that’s all insightful, and most of the time people will build on that and make much more exciting work that WILL have some immediate gain.
We owe the real inspirations partially to the people who did the drudging evolutionary and analytical research that freed our excellent research to focus on the curious ideas that didn’t quite seem to make sense at first, instead of having to understand the basics themselves. You can’t have a grand unified theory without people making hundreds of throwaway papers on potential particles or forces or whatever.
Not to mention that being able to tell if a child is unhappy by the way they colour would be incredibly useful to help train parents who aren’t coping, or to help children who need some extra support.
I read the Herald editorial on the use of cellphones when driving. I found it very interesting, and highlighted many relevant passages. Only then I came to a roundabout so I had to put it down.
There seems to have been a lot less “Political Correctness gone mad” speak these days. Nanny state seems to be the catch-phrase de jour. Just another way to dumb down the population by giving them some emotive soundbite to replace real independent thought.
[Captcha: hangars diplomats - infiltrated by the US Air Force perhaps?]
Ari
Although a majority of National, NZ First and United Future did indeed vote against the Civil Union Act. I can’t recall the Opposition parties telling people what they can research or what businesses they should run to be competitive.
Roger
Yes clearly all men the politicians in the NZ right fear and hate women, especially the womne on the right of politics, those on the right with spouses etc etc.
Hey Billy, I’m glad to see you’ve regained your sense of humour.
Tane
I thought you would be amused as to what other culture thought Nanny State means.
In my own words – not that I’ve ever used the saying ‘Nanny State’
I guess I’d say it refers to excessive state control in public and private affairs.
As an example . perhaps our requirement prior to performing surgery where we now have to ask all patients whether they want to keep the tissue we remove from them (be it cancerous or whatever) in case it is a trewasure of their culture (you should see the looks on the patinets faces !)
HS – should I have said “often used by people on he NZ right? I agree – not all right wingers are misogynists.
Oh and yes, it is possible to be married to a women and be a misogynist Indeed it’s also possible to be a woman and be a misogynist. It’s about internalised notions of femininity and masculinity which effect people regardless of what group they belong to. But this is a whole other tangent….
I guess I’d say it refers to excessive state control in public and private affairs.
Isn’t that a very broad and subjective standard though? And surely in that case isn’t National and every other party equally guilty of nanny statism?
Heck, if I’m an anarchist I might call government enforcement of property rights nanny statism. Get your own damn police force and courts system!
perhaps our requirement prior to performing surgery where we now have to ask all patients whether they want to keep the tissue we remove from them (be it cancerous or whatever) in case it is a trewasure of their culture (you should see the looks on the patinets faces !)
That’s just cultural sensitivity, and it’s also about freedom of choice. People have a right to choose whether they keep tissue that’s been removed from them. Wouldn’t it be even more nannying to remove that choice entirely and instead decide for people whether or not they get to keep their tissue?
Tane
As I said it’s not a term I use. I think the key word for people is excessive and their own measure of what is or isn’t excessive.
I have no problems if someone wants to keep their tumour they can ask for it. For our staff members having to enquire of every patient (none of whom have ever taken up the offer) is patently absurd.
RN
Quite right
RN,
If you are married to “women” you are not a misogynist, you’re a polygamist.
‘sod,
Was that an olive branch? I am determined to be beastly to you for a slight the exact details of which I cannot now remember. Rest assured, I never lost my sense of humour and was being beastly in a self-deprecating and playful manner. I may even keep it up.
it is public money of course the scholarships should be vetted… no one is trying to tell someone what to research *if* they are privately funded.
Sorry AYB but this one falls flat
Billy:
While we’re nit-picking. More accurately, you would be a “polygenist”, which is gender specific. The term “Polygamist” isn’t.
Actually that should have been “polygynist”, not “polygenist”.
Murray
Mar 27th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
What could be more Nanny State or authoritarian than telling academics what they can and can’t research?
Telling people what they can or cannot say during an election year.
What could be more Nanny State or authoritarian than telling people what they can or cannon say during an election year?
Silencing journalists.
killinginthenameof,
Are you talking about Cullen telling the Herald to stop being so mean to him or he’d change the tax rules on them?
It’s simple. It is nanny state when you don’t agree with a law and common sense when you do. So, from National’s perspective when Parliament decides to regulate the ability of parties to buy elections it is nanny state, when it is a National voting block wanting to choose who can and cannot register a relationship with the state then it is common sense or worse – family values.
Those who use the term tend to be hypocrites.