Give me cigarettes or give me death

On a dying art form and anarcho-tyranny

Reader, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

In January of this year, before he became Prime Minister, Keir Starmer made a speech in which he promised ‘a politics which treads a little lighter on all our lives.’

Perhaps some entertained some vague hope that, after so many years of an increasing number of crises – housing, energy, healthcare, social care, local government, law and order, defence, higher education, prisons, public sector pay – exacerbated or created through lack of political will, Britain would get a government that would look to tackle the big challenges. To do the other things – not because they are easy, but because they are hard.

History has taught us not to be optimistic about Labour Governments. But there were signs – particularly in housing and healthcare – that Labour would take politics out of the small-minded realm it had occupied in the dying days of the last Tory government.

Bound by unpopularity and the marching of time, it focussed on invented ‘issues’ like banning smoking for u-16s, making maths compulsory until 18, or rolling out chess tables to parks across the country. They weren’t popular, weren’t salient and didn’t tackle people’s problem with the country, but ‘petty prohibitionism’ was something the Conservatives could deliver.

Some hoped that Labour, in the face of such massive pressing crises and armed with a huge majority, might move government out of the realm of what Simon Cooke calls ‘fussbucketry’ and put politics back into the business of ‘moving fast and fixing things’, as Transport secretary Louise Haigh put it.

But the arc of Labour governments is short, and it bends towards disappointment. Today, Starmer announced that his government is considering banning smoking outside in pub gardens, outdoor restaurants, outside hospitals and sports grounds. This is on top of his commitment, in the King’s Speech, to deliver the previous government’s plan to outlaw the sale of tobacco to anyone born on or after January 2009.

There is little justification for this ban on a dying art form. The number of smokers has been in long-term decline, yet banning them will still have hugely negative consequences for hospitality business and taxes. Frankly, the state capacity spent on the tiny moving of the needle it has been able to achieve is ludicrous – especially when you consider it is vapes that will probably bring about the fag end of real cigarettes (which Labour also intend to wage war on).

And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne!

But the justification on policy grounds is, frankly, of secondary importance. For decades, Britain has been governed by people more concerned with banning things they don’t like than fixing the things falling apart. It has led us to something approaching anarcho-tyranny.

Increasingly, the state seems willing to tread heavily on your life when it finds the going easy, but lightly when it is hard. Britain will soon be a land where you can be arrested for smoking outside a nighclub, but rampant public drug use will go on unhindered. As one Twitter user put it; ‘For everyone moaning about Smoking Ban II. Relax you'll still be allowed to smoke weed in Piccadilly Gardens, openly trade drugs, do lines of Ket off Wetherspoons tables. It's only the fags they'll nick you for.’

This is partially the result of the mindset of the people in Government (and by that I mean Civil Servants, not just politicians) who Sam Ashworth-Hayes described as; ‘Instinctive interventionists who think the entire purpose of government is to pass ever more regulations banning things they dislike, but not to jail criminals.’

And why aren’t we interested in jailing criminals? This isn’t just a mindset of what the state should be for, but about what it is able -or willing – to do. The state is impotent, and from this impotence it derives a principle. Starmer has released thousands of criminals and there are barely a hundred free prison places, yet makes a new law further criminalising smoking.

Why?

Because the people smoking weed in Piccadilly Gardens, openly trading drugs and doing lines of Ket off Wetherspoons tables are difficult problems. Jailing criminals requires complex solutions – more prison places, tougher and more active policing, tackling the drugs trade, tougher sentencing.

On the other hand, banning smoking is easy. Smokers are used to the state treading heavily on their lives, and so are easier to control. The majority of fussbucketry is aimed at marginally improving the lives or normal citizens through controls and restrictions because they are the people most likely to obey those controls and restrictions. The governable are governed increasingly harder; the ungovernable are increasingly ungoverned.

There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston!

What should Conservatives say to this ban?

It is, I believe, a useful issue. In opposition, we have no power to stop it; all we have is a voice to undo the folded lie.

We should use that voice to make it clear we no longer stand for further anarcho-tyranny; that we are a party that takes less interest in banning things and more in running the country properly.

We should make it clear that this tyranny is the result of incompetence rather than intention, and that the Conservatives, in contrast, no longer derive principles from impotence but, rather, that we stand to make the governable less governed, and the ungovernable governed properly.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me cigarettes or give me death!