Conservatives did not defend freedom in power, but it is never too late to start

When Sir Keir Starmer stood outside Number 10 promising to “treat their lives more carefully”, it seemed like a promise he was absolutely certain to break. Now we learn that he is not only reviving Rishi Sunak’s smoking ban, but extending it to anyone lighting up in pub gardens. The smoking ban was, of course, a Labour policy that the Tories stole. To see both parties fighting for custody of such a bad idea shows one of the most interesting trends of our times: a shift from a liberal past to an illiberal future. All with minimal political debate.

Curiously, for a country regarded as the birthplace of the modern idea of ​​liberty, Britain does not have many political champions of that cause. The Liberal Democrats oppose both principles in their name and have spent years trying to overturn the result of the Brexit referendum while campaigning for press regulation.

The Conservatives talk about freedom, but once in power they rarely fail to limit it. The general debate is such that liberals (in the English sense of the word) are now dismissed as “libertarians”, of whom there are very few left in Parliament.

No country in the world, however repressive, has ever banned smoking. Even New Zealand had abandoned the idea that Sunak wanted to copy, saying it was unworkable. How could 15-year-olds today be banned from smoking at any age, while 16-year-olds could forever buy whatever they wanted? Who would enforce this law? How? Smoking is dying anyway. But even current laws don’t work (NHS research shows that most children have no problem buying cigarettes), so why on earth would this new law work? Why create a permanent caste of second-class consumers?

But the practical issues were barely discussed, due to the political consensus. A free vote in the House of Commons saw the gradual ban backed by 383 votes and only 67 against (of which only 21 survived the election). Not one Labour or Liberal Democrat MP voted against it. In the end, Sunak ran out of time and the law was never passed. But the vote suggests that we can expect this parliament to trample much more on our lives – lives that we might even be encouraged to end if we reach the age of legalisation and euthanasia is legalised.

More bans and restrictions are coming. Starmer’s logic is clear enough: if illness costs the NHS money, then diet becomes its problem. Obesity, of course, costs the NHS far more than tobacco. So there is not much that can stop restrictions on alcohol, soft drinks, bacon and life’s other guilty pleasures. If the principle of freedom, including the freedom to make bad health choices, is abandoned, it is hard to see where it all ends.

Crucially, this is not driven by the paternalistic statism of meddling politicians, but by public opinion. For decades, there has been a shift towards the need for government to ban more, to regulate more. The Starmer/Sunak smoking ban is backed by six in ten people. A survey by The Health Foundation found that a majority say alcohol should not be promoted at sporting events and that salty and sugary foods should be taxed more heavily. Another survey shows that a third of the population want smoking banned everywhere, immediately.

When COVID-19 hit, mass panic ensued and a Wuhan-style lockdown was demanded. Ministers had a choice: explain that there was no solid scientific basis behind this new theory and that it could make things worse? Or shatter their own pandemic plans, accept it and not ask too many questions about the damage it could cause? Leaders of all political parties opted for the latter.

Opinion might have been different if public health experts had taken more time to explain the lack of science behind the restrictions. Even last Christmas, an opinion poll by the group More in Common attempted to gauge support for lockdown restrictions. Around 45 per cent wanted masks to be made compulsory on public transport, while 29 per cent wanted nightclubs to be closed and 23 per cent wanted the “rule of six” reinstated. Surprisingly, young people were the most reluctant to take risks.

Legal scholar Jonathan Sumption has been pointing out for years that the rule of law is expanding rapidly, because the public seems to seek protection from the state against an ever-growing list of life’s everyday dangers and is willing to accept ever greater restrictions on its liberty to get it. This means more laws, more prohibitions and more aspects of our private lives judged by lawyers. A century ago, he says, there was one lawyer for every 3,000 citizens. Now, it is one for every 400 – a sevenfold increase.

The explosion of legislation is self-reinforcing. Ministers are struggling to make serious progress because changing anything in government means the threat of judicial reviews, appeals, etc. So prime ministers who have no more money to spend end up choosing the cheapest option: banning things and highlighting progress. Sunak talked up the smoking ban as one of his greatest achievements. Stealing these ideas from Labour, his allies argued, was just shrewd politics.

But was it so clever in the end? Or did it leave the Tories confused and senseless? The party abandoned the torch of liberty as an emblem some years ago, and then seemed to have abandoned the wider cause. From the smoking ban to the North Sea windfall tax, the experience of the Sunak years shows that it rarely pays to adopt your opponent’s strategy. It feels like you’re not really standing for anything. Reform UK was much clearer in its defence of individual liberty and was amply rewarded by the electorate.

Of the Conservative Party leadership candidates, only Kemi Badenoch and Robert Jenrick spoke out against the smoking ban. The principle of equality before the law is important, she said, as people born a day apart should not have different rights, and smoking is on the way out. Defending personal freedom, she said, entails a duty to “educate more and prohibit less.” Whoever ends up leading the party, the lesson from all this is clear: consistency matters. If the Conservative Party is pursuing a cause, defending freedom would not be a bad place to start.

Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 3 months with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.