Much has been said and written about levelling up. I like the concept but what does it actually mean?
Everyone seems to have a different opinion but for me it means improving the quality of life of people living in our poorest areas, some of which are in the north and north east but far from exclusively.
For example, for locals who have been priced out of the local housing market and where non-seasonal jobs are in short supply, parts of Cornwall can be pretty grim too.
No-one in their right mind believes that any of these areas can enjoy Surrey-like prosperity but that's not to say that government shouldn't try to improve things in small ways, or put in place the conditions for people to raise their own living standards like Margaret Thatcher did when she enabled people to buy their council houses in the Eighties.
I accept that the policy had the knock-on effect of reducing the nation's stock of council-owned properties – and therefore cheaper accommodation for people who couldn’t afford to buy – but overall I think the policy was a success because it met the aspirations of hundreds of thousands of less well-off families who wanted to own their own homes and for many that was extremely important, psychologically as well as economically.
Giving council house residents the right to buy was a form of levelling up and having made levelling up a focal point of the 2019 Conservative manifesto the Government has a duty, I think, to find new ways to improve people's lives in hitherto ignored towns and rural areas.
The problem the Government has is that levelling up won't happen overnight. If it happens at all (and poverty is relative so it will always be with us) it will take the best part of a generation during which time several governments will have come and gone.
In fact, if there is no sign of progress before the next election – and two years have already been lost to Covid – the Tories can probably wave goodbye to most if not all of their Red Wall seats and their 80-seat majority.
That said, the real killer in election terms won't be a failure to level up but rising inflation, sky high energy bills and a sense that everyone, rich and poor, is worse off than they were in 2019.
However the reason I want to write about levelling up is because ministers – like public health campaigners – are increasingly obsessed with health inequalities which they often associate with a poor choice of lifestyle.
Smoking, obesity and alcohol are frequently mentioned in this context and there seems to be an unchallenged consensus that tackling all three should be part of the levelling up process.
I don't see it that way at all. Take smoking, for example. For me reducing smoking rates by forcing people to quit isn't levelling up it's dumbing down because it treats smokers – the majority of whom are from lower socio-economic groups – as if they're uneducated idiots for smoking in the first place.
I've said this before and I'll say it again. There is an element of Remainer-style arrogance about the public health lobby that goes something like this:
We know better than you and anyone who smokes is either stupid or ignorant. It's not a choice to smoke. Nicotine is addictive, you’ve been conned by evil Big Tobacco and we're here to help you quit. And if you don't stop we'll keep bullying you until you change your mind.
Remind you of anything?
My concern is that 'levelling up' and ‘health inequalities’ will be used to justify some of the more extreme measures in the Government's new Tobacco Control Plan and anyone who argues against it will be dismissed as a loony libertarian.
Take back control of our bodies? Not if government and the public health industry can help it.
In my view, instead of insulting people’s intelligence and curtailing their freedoms with further restrictions on the sale of tobacco and where you can light up, governments should focus less on 'helping' people stop smoking and concentrate instead on creating the conditions for them to make 'healthier' choices for themselves because it's clear that while many people smoke for pleasure, many also smoke to relieve the stress that may be caused by their circumstances or their environment.
In other words, instead of punishing adults who smoke with punitive taxation and other measures designed to force them to quit, often against their will, government should focus on the underlying reasons why a greater proportion of people from lower socio-economic backgrounds are smokers.
It may take substantially longer to achieve the Government’s ‘smoke free’ target but that’s a small price to pay if, in the meantime, ministers are addressing far more important issues like housing, jobs and poverty.
In fact, instead of spending public money on smoking cessation services and mass media anti-smoking campaigns, how about improving more important amenities like transport, local parks and shopping areas?
That, to me, is the essence of levelling up - improving people's lives not through coercion and prohibition but by tackling some of the factors that lead us to eat, drink and smoke to excess.
That said, if people still want to smoke - for pleasure or any other reason - that decision must be respected because freedom of choice and personal responsibility are paramount.
Without them we no longer live in a free society.