When a newly elected Keir Starmer stood outside No. 10 promising a politics that would “tread more lightly on your lives”, it was a promise he seemed certain to break, said Fraser Nelson in The Daily Telegraph. It didn’t take long: the PM has now unveiled plans not just to revive Rishi Sunak’s age-phased smoking ban – but to extend it, as soon as possible, to anyone lighting up in outdoor spaces such as pub gardens and small parks.
It’s an illiberal and unnecessary move, and politically an “unforced error”, said Sam Leith in The Spectator. There are no real health or fiscal benefits; it will harm the hospitality sector; and there “isn’t a great constituency of people out there who have been passionately campaigning for it to be illegal to stand outside a pub having a fag”. It will also only burnish Starmer’s reputation as a joyless, “finger-wagging bossy-boots”.
I’m normally a fan of the “nanny state”, said Martha Gill in The Observer. I support the incremental smoking ban, and want tougher laws on gambling and junk food. But for goodness’ sake, let’s leave outdoor smokers to “puff away in peace”. Britain’s tough anti-smoking tactics – indoor bans and sky-high taxes – are working well; smoking rates have plummeted to historic lows. There’s no need now to tip over into “neurosis”. The whole point of pubs is to provide people with “somewhere comfortable to gather and nurse unhealthy habits” – booze as well as fags, said Kuba Shand-Baptiste in The i Paper. Ejecting smokers completely, by stopping them nipping outside for a cigarette, would be like banning the sale of fizzy drinks at fried-chicken shops: it’s pointless and nonsensical.
Yet it’s popular, said Simon Kelner in the same paper. The “commentariat” may be largely united in disapproval, but the public is supportive: YouGov’s snap poll shows a 58% to 35% split in favour. And that’s not surprising, when smoking causes some 75,000 annual deaths in the UK. Adults should be free to partake in whatever legal activity they choose, but the state can also use its powers to nudge us into looking after ourselves better.
This seems to be Starmer’s big idea, said George Eaton in The New Statesman: not that old cliché the “nanny state”, but “the preventative state”. Whether it’s blocking junk food outlets outside schools or offering “health MOTs” to curb obesity, Labour is planning interventions designed to prevent ill health and save money in the long run. It’s a laudable mission, but it might help Starmer if he supplemented these “negative interventions” with a few “positive ones”.