RICHARD ORD: When a Nanny State can be a canny state

The NHS have 'ad' enough of TV peddling fast food to kids.

All hail the Nanny State, it’s better than the Dithering State we’ve endured in recent years.

Sometimes the government has to step in and look after those who can’t look after themselves for the greater good.

If smokers are a drain on the NHS, then make life a little harder for them to smoke among those who understand and pay for the dangers.

If obesity is being driven by fast food and processed scran, then step in and make it harder to tempt kids into eating the stuff.

If it seems wasteful to give a heating allowance to pensioners who can afford to pay their heating bills, then step in and stop it.

The latest government idea is to ban fast food advertising before the 9pm watershed. To be honest, I thought it was already banned. Turns out successive governments have debated the merits of the ban, but failed to act. That dithering has repercussions.

Those people who can’t recognise that stuffing their faces - and the faces of their kids - with fat-saturated burgers and full-fat cokes will make them fat need a prod. So why shouldn’t the government help, particularly when this ignorance is creating problems for our health service?

Same with smoking. Rishi Sunak puffed out his chest and revealed a seriously flawed, but right-thinking long-term strategy to ban the sale of cigarettes. He then left it on the shelf as he faded out of power. The government stepping in to nudge the smokers into thinking again, is not a bad deal.

And the whining from some self-centred individuals over the winter heating allowance must have the parents of those pensioners who struggled through the war years spinning in their graves. While they battled doodlebugs and rationing many of their offspring have enjoyed full salary pensions in an age of plenty. Removing the one-off allowance that starts at £200 as pensions are to rise by more than £400 a year is not the ‘horror’ being portrayed. As long as those OAPs most in need are protected, denying millionaire pensioners a £300 hand-out makes absolute sense. If a Nanny State means making life a little uncomfortable for the wealthy and ignorant while protecting the poorest and supporting the NHS, why not bring it on?