A Question of Free Choice

Where to draw the line in the balance between freedom of choice and enforcement of one option for the benefit of the majority?

This is an old debate. Two current government policies through, have made me question where I believe that line should be. In principal, like most Tories, I will always favour free choice rather than believing that the state should try and tell me what I should be doing for my own good.

One small detail from the forth coming ban on smoking, for example, makes me very uneasy. I am a non-smoker and am personally looking forward to smoke-free bars from July. However, I would have been satisfied with tougher rules on making smoke-free areas. What I had not realised until recently is that, as the ban extends to all places of work and company-owned cars are deemed places of work, that a person on their own in car will now not be allowed to smoke. Getting round the obvious difficulties of enforcing this, I cannot see that the individual smoker should be deprived of their choice to smoke when they are clearly not disadvantaging anyone else.

On the other hand, there are times when I think the benefits out weigh the gains. One policy that attracts my support in principle, again assumming that the resources are available, is to raise the age of compulsory education from 16 to 18. However, a critical part of making such a policy work must be the availablity of sufficeint choice in the range of courses available. Meaningful practical qualifications and skills training must be options for those not best suited to traditional academic courses.

There should be a simple guiding rule in the application of any deprivation of choice. Is substantially more benefit derived than lost. This is not the case in parts of the clumsy anti-smoking bill. It would be the case in raising the age of compulsory education.

Let us see if the Prime Minister-in-waiting, is brave enough to make the case for such changes.