It seems political consensus isn’t dead. It’s simply been hibernating, waiting for a kind of crackdown on personal liberty that is so popular that it brings everyone together. That moment came this evening, when MPs voted on the second reading of the government’s Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which will not only ban whatever flavoured vapes ministers deem too fun, but will also ban anyone born after January 2009 from ever legally buying cigarettes and other tobacco-based products in the UK.

How did the Tory party find itself leading this charge against personal freedom?

A total of 383 voted in favour of the Bill, with 67 voting against. (The Spectator has the full list here). The overwhelming consensus for the Bill is set to usher in a new system of consumer rights in Britain: adults, born days apart, will not be allowed to be sold the same products. Aged 18, 48, or 98, some adults will be able to purchase tobacco based products, while their peers will not.

The UK is now the first, and only, to push forward with this system of tiered rights, after New Zealand’s Conservative coalition abandoned the policy almost immediately after winning office. Still, there’s no denying that this absurd policy is a popular one. According to the latest Telegraph-Savanta poll, 59 per cent of the public back the ban, compared to 20 per cent of the public who oppose it. As we discovered during the pandemic, banning the activities of other people tends to hit a certain sweet spot. In the case of the smoking ban, the numbers look particularly impressive, surely bolstered by the fact that no one affected by the ban is being polled yet.

If the public likes something, politicians tend to like it too – not least a Tory government which has received no love for its National Insurance cuts or even for overseeing a dramatic slowdown in inflation.

Not every Tory, it must be said. Some of today’s 59 Conservative rebels delivered impassioned speeches in the chamber earlier today, making not just pragmatic but principled cases against the ban. (The Tories allowed for a free vote; it seemed the Labour party, which has not been shy about its nanny state ambitions, was less keen to discover who in their party might take issue with further crackdowns on liberty). ‘There is one addiction in this country that I’m even more concerned about than people who are addicted to nicotine,’ Jake Berry told his colleagues in the Commons. ‘It is the addiction of the government to telling people what to do. I want to live in a free society, where people are free to make good and bad decisions.’

Their rebellion was bolstered by the decision of Business Secretary Kemi Badencoch to also cast her vote against the Bill (Katy Balls writes on Coffee House about a range of potential motives around this vote). Writing on X before the vote, Badenoch explained that the guiding principle behind her decision is equality under the law: ‘we should not treat legally competent adults differently in this way,’ she wrote, ‘where people born a day apart will have permanently different rights.’

Credit where it’s due to the rebels, these are not easy arguments to make. As I wrote for the magazine earlier this year, defending freedom often means defending decisions that you wouldn’t make, and that you would not wish others to make. The right to offend, to drink, to eat badly, to smoke – this must be defended in a free society.

Of course, despite its popularity, it’s hard to make the argument for this Bill, too. This difficulty was also on show in the Commons today, as questions about slippery slopes and unequal rights under the law were deflected by the Bill’s supporters, who frequently misframed who the new rules actually apply to. Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting repeatedly referred to the Bill’s detractors as people who would see ‘children’ suffer from nicotine and tobacco abuse – despite this bill having nothing to do with extending smoking rights to children (absolutely no one is calling for this), but rather rescinding their rights once they become legal adults.

How did the Tory party find itself leading this charge against personal freedom? It hasn’t happened overnight: the sugar tax, a myriad of proposals to crackdown on adverts and even two-for-one deals in supermarkets – this has led to a slow and steady erosion of principles.

Has it been worth it? Smoking rates have been plummeting without any kind of generational ban, with children less likely than ever to even try a cigarette. The eradication of smoking was on its way to becoming a public policy success story: until the government decided to take down the principles of personal liberty with it.