Towards the preventative state?

Having read recently that Keir Starmer’s big idea is a focus on the ‘preventative state’, I got to thinking about how what we’ve seen in our recent research might align with this (or not). At Humankind we’re frequently exploring how people feel about proposed policy changes – whether building more council housing, reining in social media companies, increasing the legal smoking age, or regulating the marketing of unhealthy food. Starmer’s government’s proposed new policies include banning junk food and vape advertising to children; prohibiting the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks to under-16s; and empowering councils to block the opening of new fast food outlets near schools. What do the public think about all this? It’s true that the majority tend to support public health-driven bans (stopping the purchase of high caffeine energy drinks by under 16s was Labour’s most popular manifesto commitment). It’s also the case that people - especially teens, but this applies to everyone – tend consistently to over-estimate how much control they have over their own behaviour…nobody likes to believe they’re being influenced! So there are definitely many reasons to use the force of the law against unhealthy behaviours. But it is also the case that there is a strong libertarian strain to UK public opinion. This means that whilst the majority of the public typically support bans, the ‘nanny state’ critique – a favourite of the tobacco and other unhealthy industries – can fairly easily be activated by persuasive and powerful opponents of policy change. We see this in lots of our research: grudging support for policy changes, but niggling concern about the nanny state or a slippery slope to further restrictions. So what’s the solution to this potential pushback? As we see in so much of our work, the key for public health campaigners and the government is likely to be reducing the focus in comms on banning (even if this is the ultimate policy tool) and instead providing a positive vision of the future. In other words, if we do ban these things, what does society look like? What benefits can we reap from healthier lives? It’s this positive vision which typically gets people on side in a more meaningful and emotive way, and neutralises potential opposition.  It's also worth noting the role that certain unhealthy behaviours, though unwelcome, play in social cohesion, whether directly or indirectly. For example, with youth clubs closing at a staggering rate in the last decade, fast food outlets have become an important focus for young peoples’ social lives. So banning can’t be the only answer – to truly fulfil the potential of the preventative state, there is a need to think much more holistically about the kind of society we want to create and what is missing to help us get there.  

By Jess Lister

Founding Partner