Fighting big tobacco: now for the endgame

One of Britain’s most successful campaigns still has work to do

In my years reporting and conducting opinion polls, I have never seen such a clear and consistent story as in attitudes to smoking.

Time and again the same thing has happened. A Controversy over health and freedom ignites public debate; campaigning tilts opinion away from big tobacco; MPs get the message and vote for change; the new law comes into force; voters overwhelmingly approve of it; the controversy goes away. It happened over tobacco advertising, health warnings on cigarette packages, smoking on public transport and in offices, bars and restaurants, displaying tobacco products in shops, and plain packaging.

Has this changed? Now that far fewer people smoke than in the past, do voters think that enough is enough? Should victory should be declared in the war on tobacco and nothing more be done? Would further reform provoke Now that far fewer people amoke than in the past, do voters think that enough is enough? Should victory should be declared in the war on tobacco and nothing more be done? Would further reform provoke a backlash in favour of the minority who still wish to exercise their right to smoke?

Above all, should big tobacco be comforted by the popularity of Reform UK? Its leader, Nigel Farage, is a chain smoker who says smokers deserve to be hailed as “heroes of the nation” because of their amount of tax they pay in tobacco duty.

The short answer to all these questions is no. Research by YouGov for ASH, Action on Smoking and Health, shows clear majority support for further measures to reduce smoking. It asked more than 11,000 people across England if they supported or opposed further reforms. The results for three of these are shown below.* The first of these is set to become law in 2027; the other two have so far been resisted by both Labour and Conservative governments

Those figures are clear-cut. The debate should not be characterised as a dispute between smokers and non-smokers, or between Reform voters and those who back mainstream parties. Support for further action extends to many smokers and Reform voters.

During my years at YouGov I would warn clients that people’s views are not always set in stone. They can change. Moreover, the strength of opinion matters. The anger of a minority who lose out from a change in the law can matter more politically than the approval of those who benefit. Of the three proposals shown above, the one that has the most obvious and direct effect on smokers – and has become the latest battleground in the war against big tobacco – is the proposal to extend the ban on smoking outdoors in cafes, bars and restaurants. Smokers comprise 13 per cent of YouGov’s sample. In this group, just 34 per cent strongly oppose this idea. That is four per cent of all British adults.

In contrast, a similar percentage of former smokers – 31 per cent – strongly support the proposal. And as there are far more former smokers (33 per cent) than current smokers, this means that among the public as a whole there are many more former smokers who strongly favour extending the ban than current supporters who hate the idea. And not surprisingly, there is strong support for the ban among the 55 per cent of adults who have never smoked.

In short, there remains a group of people who strongly oppose the outdoor extension of the ban, but they are in a small minority. Even among Reform voters, only 20 per cent share their leader’s passion on the subject.

Last September, Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, told Labour’s annual conference he was considering a ban on smoking outside pubs. A few weeks later he abandoned the idea. His argument was that he was acting to support the hospitality industry.

Whether pubs would have been threatened is a moot point. To be sure, many pubs closed after the indoor ban was imposed in 2007. But many other factors were involved, notably a marked decline in beer drinking and a sharp rise in alcohol duty. What is more, the world of hospitality was changing. People went to fewer traditional pubs but more wine bars, clubs, restaurants and other places where they could drink but not smoke. In the year after the smoking ban was introduced, the number of licences issued to premises allowed to serve alcohol increased by 1,800.

Given that there are now fewer smokers than 18 years ago, the risk of serious damage being done to the hospitality industry seems – how shall we put this? – uncertain. Business might even improve. Indeed, that is what YouGov’s data suggest. Asked if they would be more likely or less likely to visit pubs if smoking were banned outside as well as inside, 38 per cent say more likely, twice as many as the 18 per cent who say less likely. It looks as if Streeting’s decision to drop his plan flows more from a desire to avoid yet another battle with vested interests, rather than from any hard evidence that pubs would go out of business.

Two other points are worth noting. First, the most radical proposal, initiated by Rishi Sunak but being implemented by Keir Starmer’s government, is extremely popular. By five to one, the public backs the ban of the sale of cigarettes to anyone born after 2009. Smokers agree by two-to-one. The prospect of an eventual end of legal smoking is extremely attractive.

Second, the figures for Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Green voters are pretty similar, as they are for all age groups. Sometimes it is necessary to ask MPs to have courage to do the right thing. This is not one of them. They can back anti-smoking measures safe in the knowledge that they are not expending any political capital to do so. For once they can do what’s right and what’s popular without having to choose between them.

Full disclosure. I am a former trustee of ASH and former President of YouGov

* YouGov tested views on a range measures regarding nicotine control. Big majorities supported all of them