Russell Taylor: Down with the bag tax

“People will get used to it and support it,” says Nick Clegg. No, not his odious presence in government, but the so-called bag tax, which will require supermarkets in England to charge five pence for carrier bags from 2015. That’s right: after a few years away, the crunch issue of what you put your groceries in is back on the agenda. Never mind Syria, Europe or the economy; this is something everyone can get behind.

There is no doubt that plastic bags are a menace to the environment. They harm wildlife, choke up our waterways, and take centuries to degrade. If you only examine their costs then measures to reduce their number appear logical and necessary. Wales and Northern Ireland already have similar legislation in place and they have reduced bag usage by up to 80%. It certainly sounds like a no-brainer, but (unlike Nick Clegg), there’s more to this than meets the eye.

People have always had the option of using fewer carrier bags, but, on the whole, they haven’t taken it, suggesting there is little enthusiasm for a bag tax. Perhaps pollsters could drum up evidence to the contrary, but what would that prove? There is often a disparity between what we claim to want when the nice lady with a clipboard asks us and what our actions reveal. When push comes to shove, it seems that we are willing to trade a little environmental damage for a little convenience.

Sadly, the days of the benighted citizenry getting its way are long over (assuming they ever existed at all). “We’re trying to change people’s behaviour,” says Energy Secretary Ed ‘Bagpuss’ Davey, clearly disappointed at the conduct of his unruly flock. A little authoritarian ‘nudging’ is what we need to get us back on track. We’re all eager to kick the carrier bag habit, really, you see; we’re just too weak and lazy to do anything about it. We’re junkies, hooked on the handouts of checkout pushers. We had our chance to go cold turkey, but we blew it, and now it’s time for an intervention. We’re going to do the right thing whether we like it or not.

But what is the ‘right thing’ and who gets to choose what it looks like? Was it already decided? Did I miss a meeting? If you’re old-fashioned enough to believe the public should have a say in these things, then the status quo works just fine. Allow supermarkets to give away free bags and if customers use them, they’ve expressed their preference. If public distaste for carrier bags is real, there will be an appetite for a new type of biodegradable bag. Supermarkets are unlikely to ignore this demand if they think it will give them an edge over the competition, making more eco-friendly bags an inevitability, with or without a bag tax.

Some will say that this market-based analysis is unreliable, because people don’t adapt their behaviour to achieve their preferred outcomes if it requires others to do the same. They’ll leave it to everyone else to make the change, with the effect that no one does. Thus, government action is required to coax us into doing what we wanted to do anyway. But even if we are feckless sheep who need an occasional nip from the government collie, how do we know we’re being herded in the right direction? It’s all very well the eco-worriers announcing that the public wants carrier bags to be eradicated, but that’s really just their opinion. Why should we trust a third-party assessment of what we want over our freely-expressed preferences?

Perhaps there is a higher truth, which is only appreciated by the magnificos of the political establishment, who have a duty to impose it on the rest of us. This is a perfectly reasonable position to hold, so long as you’re happy to give up any pretence of caring about freedom, democracy or the rest of the fogeyish nonsense that gets in the way of doing the ‘right thing’. Suffice to say that those who are of this mind tend to identify with the movers and shakers of the paternalistic crowd, rather than the sorry bozos they have to shepherd through life. I imagine they would see things rather differently if they were the ones being hounded – as they will doubtless discover one day, when the other shoe drops.

I’m not much consoled by the knowledge that bag tax revenue will be given to charities, either. Charity is one of those hooray words that radiates virtue, but, in reality, the people who are committed to saving fluffy critters and feeding starving Africans are often anti-capitalist thugs or bumbling naïfs whose efforts do more harm than good. I don’t want my shopping bill financing wind turbines or bolstering the Mercedes collection of an African kleptocrat. There are good charities out there, worthy of support, but their funding should be received voluntarily, not as the result of government arm-twisting.

When you agree in principle to legislate against people’s free will, you set a dangerous precedent. Or rather, it would be a precedent if we hadn’t made the same mistake before. This time it’s carrier bags, next time it will be a law against patio heaters, or Page 3 girls, or smoking in public. Whoops, too late on that last one. Everyone was so relaxed about it, they let it ride and here we are, five years later, faced with latest item on the meddlers’ to-do list – a list that turns out to have no end. There’ll be no point complaining when it’s something you feel strongly about in the crosshairs. You’ll just have to suck it up, because you consented to the logic of nanny-knows-best a long time ago.

The tax-and-ban culture invariably throws up ‘solutions’ that appear trivial when examined in isolation, which is precisely why they get waved through with so little opposition. Five pence for a carrier bag looks like a small price to pay for ridding us of their scourge, but this issue is just one snowflake in a blizzard. Unless we consider the broader perspective, it’s easy to get lost in the detail. We find ourselves focusing on each concession without taking in the bigger picture, dismissing it as harmless and counting the benefits without appreciating the costs. Eventually, you step back and discover you’re not in Kansas anymore. Everything has changed and the authority to make decisions has been ceded to those who claim to know best.

When life is lived one day at a time like this, it seems petty and churlish to oppose change. It’s just one little rule or one little tax, and look at the good it will do. It’s only in hindsight that you realise the gnarly old timber the wrecking crew took its axes to was one the pillars of civilisation. Its fall might not be enough to bring everything crashing down at once, but societies are rarely killed with one fell blow. Death by a thousand cuts is the more likely outcome.

On the face of things, the bag tax is such a footling issue that it’s not worth arguing about. But in as far as it is symptomatic of modern politics, it has wider significance, and is as good an issue as any on which to make a stand for core Western liberties. The modern state doesn’t always bully and coerce; more often it nudges and obstructs: it makes your chosen journey so uncomfortable that you abandon it and take the route of the government’s choosing. There is something deeply sinister about this tactic, precisely because it forces the individual to make the final decision. You don’t want to make it; in the absence of deliberate hindrances you wouldn’t make it; but eventually you do, and in doing so you betray yourself and surrender to the wishes of the ruling elite. Enough is enough. Down with the bag tax!