First They Came for the Smokers...

...Then They Came For...Thatcher's Painting & Coca-Cola!

These words may or may not actually be pertinent.

Comedian David Baddiel is…on the fence about that:

Others criticised her post for equating a smoking ban to the murder of six million Jews.

Tory MP Esther McVey has retorted that she won’t be bullied into deleting the post, and that this was merely an analogy to show that ‘those who restrict freedoms start with easy targets then expand their reach’.

What is not up for debate is that Starmer is making his mark on the country. And - some would say - doing it in the pettiest way imaginable.

As regular readers know, I am concerned about the authoritarian measures in his first weeks in office. Most egregious are his wild attacks on the so-called Far Right, who seem not to exist in any profound way in the UK. Despite evidence suggesting the Far Left is more dangerous, vocal and drunk on righteousness, Starmer plays to their gallery by name-checking their invisible enemy at every opportunity.

Perhaps even more worrying is the humourless pettiness of this grey apparatchik. Hell may have no fury like a woman scorned, but there's nothing so dangerous as a small and rancorous man.

After weeks of fuelling the UK’s fiercest division in modern times (article below), his next move was to remove a portrait of former Tory Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. That a Labour PM—Gordon Brown—commissioned it in the first place shows how far we've fallen.

Thatcher’s Removal

The keys to No. 10 have fallen to - I'll repeat it - a very small man indeed. One who couldn't bear to work in the presence of a portrait of a strong woman with whom he disagreed. Given Labour's inherent sexism (they've had zero female leaders compared to the Tory's three and have consistently supported misogyny through trans and Islam), this does not bode well for women.

His action of removing the portrait speaks not of a man intent on uniting the country, nor does it evoke a sense of courage or conviction. It is the behaviour of a petty ideologue.

The Thatcher Painting in Question

This brings us to smoking, an indulgence - primarily of the working class (who, on average, spend more time working outdoors) - that will be squashed and demonised by our dear leader.

My Nightclub Pet Peeve

I'm biased about smoking because - since I was young - I've never been able to stand the smell of cigarettes. I won’t soon forget the clouds of fag smoke that ruined my first nights out in London clubs as an adolescent. It stung my eyes and seemed to affect me more than others. I'd itch to leave, finally returning home and throwing off clothes that reeked of stale ash with relief. You couldn't get it out of your hair, though.

It's not just the smell but also the risk of ill health through second-hand smoke. The libertarian ideal of doing whatever the hell you want, providing it doesn't negatively impact others, doesn't hold up here. Smoking does hurt (and, at the least, annoy) those around you.

That said, I must confess that I don't remember the last time that the smoke of another individual interfered with my nostrils in any meaningful way. I was 18 in 2007 when the indoor ban took hold. Many people were made up about the ban - others were distraught.

Looking back, there is a general consensus that we got this right. Now, Starmer intends to ban smoking outside pubs and restaurants before doing away with it entirely next year.

This is no longer about people like me who despise smoking. If my friends want to smoke outside, that's their prerogative. It doesn’t affect me. The hospitality industry relies on its smoking spaces for business, and for many, it is a sole respite from the mania and drudgery of our working lives.

Sorry, that does sound a bit bleak, doesn't it?

I hate smoking as much as anyone.

New Coke & The Scarcity Principle

And yet, I feel no craving to prohibit others from partaking. Starmer points out rightly that smoking kills 80,000 a year. But poor diet also kills 80,000 a year. Are we to ban Mr. Kipling's cakes? Alcohol consumption kills 30,000 - when might that prohibition come into effect? Even a lack of physical activity is said to kill 50,000 (you might recall how Beijing introduced mandatory exercise for its people).

Perhaps people will reflect positively on this novel smoking ban in generations to come. Its real victims are those already addicted to a habit that might (keyword: might) kill them.

Are we saving them from themselves? Or is that patronising and authoritarian?

Read About Smoking & the Biggest Marketing Failure in History Below

One thing we know is that smokers will have their vision clouded by their own smoke. That's in part due to the nicotine running through their veins. But it is also due to an intriguing psychological principle.

Sign up to paid membership to read what New Coke and the scarcity principle tell us about smokers. You can get a free trial!