It occurred to me the other day that the last time the Tories succumbed to a crashing general election defeat (in 1997, to Tony Blair’s Labour Party) the doctrinal and dogmatic obsession with climate change had barely stirred, and in those days the mantra – from all three main parties – was about the need to facilitate personal choice. Nobody was telling us we had to put up with renewables infrastructure (solar farms, wind farms, BESS, pylons) next door to our homes whether we liked it or not; nobody was telling us we had to have “smart” meters, whether we liked it or not; nobody was telling motor manufacturers that they had to sell cars that their customers didn’t want, or else they would have to pay fines; nobody was telling landlords and home-owners that they should install heat pumps, and nobody was considering fining boiler manufacturers for selling the gas boilers that people want and for selling insufficient numbers of heat pumps that people don’t want.

The interesting thing is that a generation ago, in 1997, I don’t remember the population at large sharing the obsession of the political class with choice. A generation later, and I don’t believe the population is happy with being dictated to by a political class that is fixated on climate change and net zero. And yet, without any popular demand at all, the narrative has changed. Choice is out; compulsion is in. Although there has been no shortage of publicity (propaganda or brain-washing might be more appropriate terminology) about climate change and net zero, nobody in the political class has articulated the U-turn that has taken place. There has been no fanfare, no explanation, and (ironically enough) no choice has been offered to the electorate with regard to this policy change. The Uniparty has simply changed direction, and whereas in 1997 we were all supposed to embrace choice as a good thing, now we are supposed to accept that the politicians and the “experts” know best, and we must do as we are told.

I think the point can be made quite simply by taking a quick look at the 1997 election manifestos of the three main parties, and then comparing them with their 2024 equivalents.

Conservative Party – 1997

The 1997 Tory Party manifesto can be found here. The word “choice” appears 27 times, though in fairness, not all are entirely relevant. For example, this paragraph contains the word “choice” three times, but it doesn’t precisely illustrate the point I seek to make:

That choice – between stagnation and dynamism – is the choice which faces Britain at this election. It is a stark choice between the British way – of trusting the people and unleashing enterprise – and the failing social model, practised on the continent, which the Labour Party wants to impose on us here under the guise of “stakeholding”.

Having said that, it does demonstrate a desire to allow people to get on with their lives, and not to tell them what they must do. Other references to “choice” are perhaps more explicit:

We have strengthened choice and personal ownership for families, and rolled back the state from areas where it was interfering unnecessarily in our lives….We need also to widen choice in areas where state bureaucracy has constrained it.

Imagine them saying that now! The next reference to choice is to a choice between spending wholesale or prudent and cutting taxes. That doesn’t sound much like the Conservative government that left office last year.

Then we got a section on families, with stuff like this:

Self-reliance underpins freedom and choice….We believe that families who use social services should be able to exercise choice wherever practicable…We also want new ways of reinforcing individual choice where possible.

There’s even a whole section devoted to choice and diversity (though I suspect that in 1997 something different was meant by “diversity” to the way the word is used by politicians now):

Since 1979 we have created a rich diversity of schools, to serve the varied talents of all children and give parents choice within that diversity, because we believe that parents know what is best for their children….The high standards, real choice and genuine diversity which we have introduced will produce the best results for all our children.

The same was true with regard to healthcare:

We will publish more information on how successfully hospitals are treating patients so that they and their GPs can make more informed choices between services in different hospitals and help stimulate better performance.

Looking back almost 30 years, some of it seems surreal, given the state of Britain today. One thing hasn’t changed – the levels of delusion and self-congratulation seemingly shared by all politicians:

Old style public services were centrally planned with little information or choice for the public who used the service….We have made public services genuinely accountable, with useful information and real choices for the people who use them.

Given recent developments, this bit feels as though we then lived through halcyon days:

We will use the planning system to ensure that more new homes are built on reclaimed sites in our towns and cities. We will aim for more than 60 per cent of all new homes to be built on derelict sites.

This will reduce the pressure to build in our countryside and expand choice where it is needed most.

There are also fairly random references to choice, it was obviously viewed as such a good thing:

Wherever possible, we are widening competition and choice in public services.

The concluding section then reiterates the references to choice that appeared in the main body of the manifesto. Let’s see how things have changed.

Conservative Party – 2024

The 2024 Conservative Party manifesto can be found here. This time, the word “choice” appears just ten times. When you do read the word, you can readily understand why they lost the election:

Give young people the skills and opportunities they deserve by introducing mandatory National Service for all school leavers at 18, with the choice between a competitive placement in the military or civic service roles.

Mandatory national service, but with a choice as to how it is served. How things have changed! And words like decarbonisation (or variants on the theme) are now liberally scattered around in some fairly incoherent and inconsequential parts of the document:

We will back our maritime sector, including shipping and ports, as it decarbonises. Recognising the current challenges with cross-Solent transport, we will establish a review to explore all options to provide more choice and drive down fares…

When the word “choice” appears now, it’s in a context where disapproval is apparent:

We introduced the household beneft [sic] cap and the two-child limit to make the system fairer to the taxpayers who pay for it and ensure benefts [sic] are always a safety net, not a lifestyle choice….to make sure that being on benefts [sic] remains a safety net, not a lifestyle choice, we will [get tough, basically].

There is a solitary reference to old-fashioned choice of which the Tories apparently continued to approve:

We will further protect parents’ choice on where to send their child to school, including preserving the rights of independent and grammar schools…

But once more, the choice that people are to have is to make the right choice, the one mandated by the state:

We will continue to tackle childhood and adult obesity and will legislate to restrict the advertising of products high in fat, salt and sugar. We will gather new evidence on the impact of ultraprocessed food to support people to make healthier choices.

In the context of energy, I love the choice that isn’t a choice:

Giving households the choice of smart energy tarifs [sic], which can save them £900 a year.

Their energy policy is about as literate as the person who wrote the manifesto, it seems. You will have a smart meter, and you can then choose between a tariff reflective of the bills you used to pay, or else you can have high bills. Actually, regardless, we all now have high bills, thanks to net zero.

There’s another token reference to choice in the context of a failing railway system:

We will task GBR with growing the role of the private sector, including supporting the expansion of open access services to bring greater choice for passengers...

And there’s a nod to continuing choice within the health sector, though this isn’t so much about allowing you to be seen by the doctor or surgeon of your choice; rather it’s about allowing you to try to see someone sooner rather than waiting for years to be seen:

We will assess options to promote choice in NHS services across the UK, whether provided by the NHS or independent sector and improve interoperability between the NHS in diferent [sic] parts of the UK, cross-border healthcare processes and joint working to tackle waiting lists.

And that’s it. How times have changed. Next up – the Labour Party.

Labour Party – 1997

Labour’s 1997 manifesto can be read here. It contains only eight references to choice, in fairness, but apart from the first two, which don’t make my point (“The purpose of new Labour is to give Britain a different political choice: the choice between a failed Conservative government, exhausted and divided in everything other than its desire to cling on to power, and a new and revitalised Labour Party that has been resolute in transforming itself into a party of the future”) it’s much more pro-choice than anything you’ll see now:

…all parents should be offered real choice through good quality schools…We will also support efficiently run social and private rented sectors offering quality and choice…We also support effective schemes to deploy private finance to improve the public housing stock and to introduce greater diversity and choice…Labour will promote choice in pension provision…A sustainable environment requires above all an effective and integrated transport policy at national, regional and local level that will provide genuine choice to meet people’s transport needs….

I suppose for those who were looking, the early signs of what was to follow might have been apparent:

A new environmental internationalism

Labour believes that the threats to the global climate should push environmental concerns higher up the international agenda. A Labour government will strengthen co-operation in the European Union on environmental issues, including climate change and ozone depletion. We will lead the fight against global warming, through our target of a 20 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2010.

Labour believes the international environment should be safeguarded in negotiations over international trade. We will also work for the successful negotiation of a new protocol on climate change to be completed in Japan in 1997.

Labour Party – 2024

Labour’s 2024 manifesto can be found here. It contains only five references to choice, and the first is simply a reference to the electoral choice between Labour and the Conservatives, while the second reference is to the wrong choices made by the Conservative government. In the context of health, patients aren’t so much to be given greater choice, but are to be helped to understand what choices they have:

Patients will be able to see the medical guidelines for the treatment they should get, to hold health services to account and understand what their choices are.

With regard to mental health:

Labour will modernise legislation to give [mental health] patients greater choice, autonomy, enhanced rights and support, and ensure everyone is treated with dignity and respect throughout treatment.

Labour’s internationalist outlook was made clear by the last reference to choice:

Britain is a proud trading nation and flourishing international business is a vital part of our plan for growth. Openness to trade allows our firms to grow and delivers greater choice and value for consumers.

And that’s it. Lots more about energy, net zero etc than the token couple of paragraphs that appeared 27 years earlier.

Liberal Democrats – 1997

The 1997 Lib Dem manifesto can be found here. It contains nine references to choice, though the first is with regard to the choice facing the electorate at the election. Nevertheless, they were keen on choice:

Provide choice in early years education….Patients should have more choice over their type of treatment, who delivers it and when….We will strengthen the Patients’ Charter and include rights to treatment within a specified time, a choice of GP, information about the options for treatment, guaranteed access to health records and better redress….Give people choice in the services they use and the way they are provided [with regard to community care]….We will expand occupational and personal pension schemes by giving all employees an entitlement to participate in a pension scheme of their choice, funded by contributions from employers and employees….

The final reference doesn’t help my argument: “We do not duck the choices that have to be faced in this election.” Nevertheless, choice was clearly regarded as important and was to be offered in the areas of education, health, community care, pensions.

Liberal Democrats 2024

The Lib Dems’ most recent election manifesto can be found here. It doesn’t contain a single reference to choice. But it does contain a chunky section on climate change and energy, including a mad commitment to achieve net zero by 2045. As the most extreme of the main parties with regard to net zero, I suppose it’s not surprising that choice no longer features in their thinking.

Conclusion

If a week is a long time in politics, then 27 years is certainly long enough to witness generational change. Britain is a very different place today from the country that it was in 1997, in so many ways. However, the key difference for me is that choice is out and compulsion is in. Nobody asked us – we weren’t given that choice.