How the Smoking Ban Reflects the Tories’ Drift from Core Values

Monday 27 October 2025 3:41 pm

Share

• 
  Share on Facebook
• 
  Share on Twitter
• 
  Share on LinkedIn
• 
  Share on WhatsApp
• 
  Share on Email

Tobacco Bill at the House of Lords. Photo by Matt Cardy/Getty Images

The generational smoking ban shows what happens when Conservatives go against their instincts, says Karl McCartney

When you are fortunate enough to be elected as an MP you have many issues that you might wish to pursue. In my and many of my former colleagues’ cases, these issues reflected basic Conservative values, encompassing a range of traditional and pragmatic ideas.

Unfortunately, my Party, the Conservative Party, spent our time in office poorly, passing some laws that were far from Conservative. Our failings emboldened those in the supporting casts of the Civil Service and quangos… also known as “The Establishment”.

This is important. The Labour Party has parked its tanks on our lawn; they have not needed too, but Reform has. Our Party imploded ideologically, having ceded many arguments to the left. Ministers consistently made galling ‘left-leaning’ announcements and policy judgements – all designed to win over ‘voters’ and the media who never supported us.

Many of those that joined or unduly influenced our Party’s leadership in the recent past, and present, were no true Conservatives. We all know some of our MPs just wanted to be an MP, rather than a Conservative MP. Only there for self-aggrandisement, talking a good game or saying what a Leader wants to hear. Regrettably, many seem to have made their way to the House of Lords or into the media and continue to snipe at those trying to fix the Conservative Party.

The Brexit Vote of 2016 was another missed opportunity due to the unwillingness of Remainers to accept the vote and act accordingly – most MPs (and Lords), including Conservative ones that made such a fuss of their anti-EU banner waving and chest beating at every safe-seat selection hustings, were culpable.

They ignored the popular vote and thwarted the benefits and opportunities the UK could have had. Instead, they chose to ensure that our country and the business sector, including farming, was saddled with red tape and more bureaucracy, when the opposite should have occurred. It is bonkers, and this Labour government is making it worse.

Labour are crippling UK small businesses with bureaucracy, burdensome taxes and unsuitable trading conditions. We have an under-qualified and over-promoted Chancellor and a Labour government that loves tax rises for the private sector.

Read more

Labour’s tobacco bill risks empowering black market, warns shadow minister

Labour has recently picked up the misjudged plan for a generational smoking ban that is age discriminatory, pure nonsensical overreach. It is a clear example of the wrongheaded, bureaucratic thinking that dominated our time in government, and it could now be law by Christmas.

It is a fundamentally un-Conservative idea and will pile more legislation on small businesses and retailers that do not want or need to be the enforcers of this un-enforceable new law. New Zealand rowed back pretty quickly on similar proposed legislation as they realised a few months in it was poorly-thought out, discriminatory and unworkable – and they did not have European markets where tobacco will remain freely available, nor constitutional arrangements in Northern Ireland to contend with. We do.

If Chris Whitty was the ‘bright-spark’ behind this proposed so-called ‘progressive smoking ban’ policy, then maybe he could explain how we see ourselves through the issues that such a policy would cause: the economic impacts to small retailers, tourism effects, and how anyone might justify a public policy that selectively treats some of its citizens in this way, because of their date of birth.

Unworkable

How will it be enforced, and why should retailers and their staff enforce such an unworkable ban?

Perhaps, finally, the real kicker in this whole saga of a truly ill-conceived policy is the Northern Ireland Question. The Windsor Framework is fragile; it has no sound basis and is inflexible at best. It is a sticking plaster that has long since worn out and the wound it was supposed to cover up is as fresh as ever. Northern Ireland remains aligned with certain EU single market rules, supposedly ensuring that no controls are required at the border with the Republic of Ireland. There are no similar bans on purchases, nor any ‘in the offing’ in the EU, so the UK ban proposals would contradict current EU rules and will almost certainly not be able to be applied in Northern Ireland.

This then creates a dichotomy that is surreal: someone born in 2009 will be able to legally buy cigarettes in Belfast, but not in Bristol or Birkenhead. If the UK government chooses to impose customs checks on travellers within the UK (itself a breach of the Windsor Framework and the promise made to Brexit voters on maintaining the integrity of the Union), anyone of a certain age from the UK mainland can go to Northern Ireland, stock up on their cigarettes and return. It will create yet more completely preventable friction in an already troubled relationship between Dublin, London and Brussels.

I am no defender of smoking, but I am in favour of personal choice and freedom. There are better ways to effectively and with a light-touch reduce smoking – as has been apparent in recent decades – but creating problems for small businesses, impairing personal freedoms and risking repercussions across the EU seems a bit over the top.

Read more

The Debate: Would a pact with Reform save the Conservative Party?

Similarly tagged content:

Sections

Categories

People & Organisations

How does the smoking ban challenge the traditional Conservative emphasis on individual liberty and personal duty?

The Past Conservative Stance on Liberty and Personal Responsibility

For decades, the conservative Party championed individual liberty and limited government intervention. This foundational principle, deeply rooted in classical liberalism, meant a reluctance to legislate morality or dictate personal choices. The “nanny state” was consistently decried by Tory figures, with a strong emphasis placed on personal responsibility.this stance extended to habits like smoking,viewed largely as a matter of individual choice,even acknowledging the associated risks. Think back to the debates surrounding public health campaigns in the 1980s – the emphasis was on data and education, not outright prohibition. Key terms associated with this era include conservative ideology, individual freedom, limited government, and personal autonomy.

The Shift Towards Paternalism: A Timeline of Restrictions

The introduction of the smoking ban in england and Wales in 2007,and afterward in Scotland,marked a meaningful departure from this traditional position. While framed as a public health measure, the ban represented a clear instance of state intervention in personal behavior.

Hear’s a breakdown of the escalating restrictions:

1. Early Restrictions (1990s-2000s): Initial steps focused on restricting smoking in government buildings and healthcare settings. These were frequently enough presented as reasonable accommodations for non-smokers.
2. The Voluntary Code (2004): A voluntary agreement between pub and restaurant owners to create smoke-free environments. This proved largely ineffective, paving the way for legislation.
3. The 2007 Smoking Ban: Comprehensive legislation prohibiting smoking in virtually all enclosed public places, including pubs, restaurants, and workplaces. This was a watershed moment.
4. Further Restrictions (Post-2007): Continued tightening of regulations, including restrictions on smoking in cars carrying children and outdoor public spaces.

This progression demonstrates a clear trend towards increased state control over lifestyle choices, a move increasingly at odds with core Tory principles.

The Justification: Public Health vs. Conservative Philosophy

Proponents of the ban, including manny within the Conservative Party, justified it on the grounds of protecting workers from second-hand smoke and improving public health. They argued that the economic benefits of a healthier workforce outweighed any infringement on individual liberties. This argument tapped into a growing societal concern for public health and a willingness to accept government intervention in areas previously considered private.

however, critics argued that the ban set a perilous precedent.If the state could dictate where people could smoke, what other personal choices could be similarly restricted? Concerns were raised about the “slippery slope” argument – that the ban could lead to further restrictions on freedoms in the name of public health. Related search terms include public health policy, lifestyle regulations, state intervention, and libertarian conservatism.

The Broader Context: A Changing Conservative Identity

The smoking ban wasn’t an isolated incident. It occurred within a broader context of the Conservative Party attempting to redefine its identity.Under leaders like David Cameron, the party sought to modernize its image and appeal to a wider electorate. This involved adopting more socially liberal positions on certain issues, while simultaneously embracing a more interventionist approach to others.

This shift can be seen in other policy areas:

* Environmental Regulations: Increased support for environmental regulations, ofen involving government mandates and restrictions.

* Social Welfare Policies: While advocating for austerity, the Conservatives also introduced policies aimed at addressing social inequality, such as the “living wage.”

* Public Health Campaigns: Continued investment in public health campaigns targeting obesity, alcohol consumption, and other lifestyle factors.

These policies, while potentially beneficial, represent a departure from the traditional Conservative emphasis on individual responsibility and limited government. The term one-nation conservatism is often used to describe this evolving ideology, but it arguably represents a significant deviation from the party’s historical roots.

The Impact on Pub Culture and the Economy

The smoking ban had a demonstrable impact on the UK’s pub culture. Many pubs, especially those in rural areas, experienced a decline in trade as smokers sought alternative venues or simply stayed home.While some pubs adapted by focusing on food and entertainment, others were forced to close.

Economic studies on the impact of the ban have yielded mixed results. Some studies suggest that the ban had a positive impact on the hospitality industry by attracting non-smokers, while others point to significant economic losses. The debate continues, but it’s clear that the ban had a complex and multifaceted impact on the UK economy. Keywords to explore further include hospitality industry, economic impact of smoking ban, pub closures, and business regulations.

The Rise of “Nudge” Politics and Behavioural Economics

The justification for the smoking ban, and subsequent lifestyle regulations, frequently enough draws on principles from behavioural economics and “nudge” politics. This approach, popularized by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, argues that individuals are often irrational and make suboptimal choices. Thus, governments can “nudge” people towards better decisions by subtly altering the choice architecture.

This philosophy, while seemingly benign, raises concerns about paternalism and the erosion of individual autonomy. If governments believe they know what’s best for people, where does