Last week a small group of Tory MPs stood up in Parliament and made a bold stand for the right of children across the UK to smoke tobacco. Although the British Medical Association has made it quite clear that the habit has a ‘devastating effect’ on individual health, these Tory MPs felt that limiting future generations’ access to cigarettes was unfair, unconservative, and thoroughly un-Churchillian.
A ridiculous intervention to most of the public, it is not a new one. Similar arguments were used in 1983 when seat belts were made mandatory (a regulation which brought down car-related fatalities by 30% within a year). The same voices resisted the 2007 ban on smoking in public places which would be the death knell of the UK hospitality industry.
The good news is that whilst such antics may fuel headlines, they have limited effect on the public. Research by YouGov showed that 71% support the smoking ban – something that remains consistent across both of the major parties (73% Lab vs 72% Tory support). If smokers’ rights are to be the next chapter in the winding history of British social progress, then the libertarians certainly have their work cut out.
The latest edition of the Unchecked UK’s review of public opinion and regulation shows that smoking is just one high profile example of the disconnect between ordinary voters and these vocal libertarians. Research by the King’s Fund, for instance, recently showed that 67% of British adults agree that the government should require companies to reduce the amount of fat, salt and sugar they put in their products (only 5% disagreed). Alongside this, 65% said they wanted to see tough new restrictions imposed on the advertising of unhealthy food and drink.
And it’s not just in public health that the public supports stronger protections. Earlier this month, More in Common polling found that 64% of people now think that a ban on selling smartphones to under-16s would be a good idea, compared with 20% who said it was a bad idea.
The myth of British libertarianism
The truth is that Britain doesn’t actually have a strong libertarian streak, it has a libertarian problem. This was outlined earlier in the year by James Kirup in the Spectator:
Most [libertarians] know that their views are supported by only a tiny minority of the electorate, but they can generally use media platforms and political office to amplify their voices to make their movement sound much bigger than it really is.
This disconnect between libertarians and the electorate relates not just to individual issues like smoking or junk food, but to how Brits understand concepts like ‘freedom’ and the role of government. Frank Luntz, former advisor to the US Republicans and now a fellow of the centre-right Centre for Policy Studies think tank, recently found that 65% of British voters think the government’s job is to ‘protect most people against risks’. The same number also said they interpret regulation as meaning ‘public safety and security’, compared to 35% who think it means ‘limits and hassles’. Regulations, concluded Luntz, are understood as providing protection from harm, rather than as limits on personal freedom.
Conservative politicians, like the ones who stood up for our kids’ ‘right to smoke’, tend to be far more extreme than the average Tory voter when it comes to regulation. Conservative Peer Lord Ashcroft’s polling has found that regulations on business are largely understood by both Conservative and Labour voters as being a force for good (see below image). In fact, 69% of Conservative voters think that the economy currently needs more regulation (only a few percentage points fewer than Labour voters).
Winning hearts and minds
Despite these levels of public support, our political discourse is dominated by deregulatory rhetoric. Whether it’s bonfires, bulldozers, or smoking rights for kids, the century old libertarian narrative is a domineering klaxon call against the role which government can play in protecting us from harm. But these ideas are anything but the mainstream.
In the run up to the election, politicians would do well to remember two things. Firstly, Britain is not a nation of libertarians and the promise of a stand aside government is not going to win the hearts and minds of voters. Voters want a government that has their back and is willing to use the levers of the state to address everyday issues that cause harm across communities. John Curtice summed up this outlook perfectly when he said;
‘the public is increasingly looking for the government to step in and fix things in Britain, rather than standing back and hoping that the economy will fix things for us’.
Secondly, there is still scope to meet the demand for radical change despite the tight financial constraints facing an incoming government. As Andrew Rawnsley recently put it, ‘history shows that you don’t have to be a chequebook government to be a reforming government’. Overhauling water and utility regulation, bolstering workers rights, banning no-fault evictions and enhancing consumer protections would all be valuable (and affordable) interventions if Labour were to be elected, he argues.
Whilst public cynicism is at record highs, the prospect of an election inevitably will bring hope of long-awaited change. Politicians must now show they are ready to listen to their voices and are prepared to put to bed the lazy and outdated agendas that are supported by a rare few. A new narrative on regulation would be a good place to start for those who are serious about change.