Alle recent debate over the government’s consideration of a ban on smoking in pub gardens has, to my surprise, reminded me of Margaret Thatcher. A divisive figure, of course, but taking her to task feels a bit like a millennium ago. These days, most people tend to say more: “Give her credit”. “I may not agree with what she did, but she clearly did did agreed with what she did and did what she did, so fair play.” “She followed her convictions, which is admirable” – although Hitler did that too and, in his case, it’s not admirable. So it’s a flawed principle, the whole “fight for what you believe in and it should be respected” approach. It’s just a rule of thumb – you still have to check your work.
Moving on from the insulting juxtaposition of Thatcher and Hitler in the same paragraph – and now the same sentence in a completely different paragraph – let me return to the explanation of why the proposed ban on smoking in pub gardens reminded me of the Iron Lady. It was because I was reminded that, while she was undoubtedly a committed politician, she was not averse to the occasional spate of political nonsense of the sort we tend to think of as a 21st century phenomenon. I think of the day she became Prime Minister, quoting St Francis of Assisi outside 10 Downing Street. “Where there is discord, may we bring harmony,” she said.
It’s a lovely line, but it’s also pretty close to the opposite of her approach. I think she meant: “Where there is disagreement, may my side of the disagreement prevail and my defeated enemies learn to live with it.” The whole Assisi vibe seemed astonishingly disingenuous. Similarly, this ban on pub gardens took me back to the current Prime Minister’s own words outside 10 Downing Street on his first day in office, when he promised a government that would be “more careful with your lives”.
I thought that was brilliant. It was exactly what I wanted to hear and wasn’t expecting. Not only was it a deft dig at the noisy misery of the Johnson-Truss-Sunak era, it also allayed the fear that many people have about left-wing governments: that they are bossy and meddlesome. They think they know best and try to get you to do what they want. The Tories are relentless in accusing Labour of secretly planning tax rises, but I don’t think that’s what worries swing voters the most. The Tories are obsessed with money and assume everyone else is – but some things are more important. The Iron Curtain was demonstrably richer and more prosperous in the West than in the Soviet era, but that wasn’t the reason most of us were afraid of Communism. It was the lack of freedom in the Eastern Bloc, not money, that scared Westerners.
That’s why I thought it was a clever promise for Starmer to make, but if he goes ahead with a ban on smoking in pub gardens it will be reduced to the level of Thatcher’s promise of holy harmony. For smokers and pub owners that will be a heavy blow – an unexpected stamp – of far greater significance than the likely increase in capital gains tax that will have the Conservatives squealing and clutching their pearls.
The indoor smoking ban was bad enough. I know it has been successful in reducing smoking and, all things considered, I wouldn’t do it again now. However, I do believe that this is not the kind of law that governments should be making. Smoking is a stupid thing to do, but in a free society we should be allowed to do stupid things unless they infringe on the freedom of others. But the proponents of the ban tried to argue that it was not an attack on freedom by citing the health impact of passive smoking.
Are they really going to make the same claim when it happens outside? That smoking in pub gardens significantly shortens the lives of a large number of non-smokers? More than driving non-electric vehicles or smelting steel or lighting bonfires on 5th November, activities the government has no intention of banning?
However weak that argument may be, I am concerned that Keir Starmer is not prepared to justify the ban in this way. His reasoning is more radical. He thinks it should be done to “reduce the burden on the NHS and the burden on the taxpayer”. So he proposes to impose legal restrictions on unhealthy behaviour to reduce the cost to the state of providing healthcare. “That’s why I talked before the election about moving to a preventative model when it comes to health,” he explained.
This is chilling. I assumed that the “preventative model” meant things like offering regular check-ups, screening for cancer and encouraging healthy lifestyles, not putting up legal barriers to unhealthy lifestyles. That sets quite a precedent: the state will stop you from doing things that are bad for you in order to reduce hospital spending. With that principle established, what freedoms could not be curtailed: fatty foods, contact sports, sexual promiscuity, motorbikes, stressful jobs? All of these things could put a burden on the NHS and the taxpayer. Is a welfare state, according to Starmer, only affordable if the population is forced to be careful?
I don’t really think he’s considering taking it that far. Smoking has been demonised to the point where it can no longer be placed in the same category as other freedoms. Furthermore, Rishi Sunak’s proposal to ban the sale of tobacco to anyone born after 2008 – which was clearly a desperate attempt by a hapless mediocrity to regain control of the political agenda, but a policy now adopted by Labour – has effectively given the green light to more restrictions. It’s much safer politically for Starmer to restrict smokers’ rights in a way that Stalin himself would never dare than to say what he really thinks about Brexit, for example. I’m relieved the Tories lost the election, but our political system remains ridiculous.
-
David Mitchell’s new book, Unmanageableis now available in paperback (Penguin, £10.99)