How Different Voters View Public Health Policies
By Jules Walkden, Public First
Public First is a research and strategy consultancy specialising in public opinion. Commissioned by Action on Smoking and Health, the Alcohol Health Alliance and the Obesity Health Alliance, it conducted a nationally representative poll on attitudes toward government action on health, focusing on tobacco, alcohol, and unhealthy food. While its work often highlights divisions between voters, this research found broad agreement across political lines, suggesting a shared appetite for stronger government intervention on key health issues.
The quality of the NHS is the second most important issue facing the country at the moment, according to a survey of 2,010 adults conducted by Public First. It ranks behind only the cost of living, and ahead of issues like immigration and the state of the economy. Most respondents also link today’s NHS pressures to the widespread use of products that harm health.
Crucially, when we asked how people think about public health, party labels mattered less than expected. While supporters of different parties start from different instincts, backing for practical health measures frequently crosses the usual ideological divides - an important finding, given political concerns that such policies are unpopular or could risk losing votes.
Across a range of policies sometimes labelled as “intrusive” or part of a “nanny state”, we still see support from a majority of the public. While it’s often assumed these kinds of measures won’t appeal to voters who value personal freedom, the reality is more mixed.
Take policies often described as interventionist. Across a spectrum that includes Labour, Conservative and Reform voters, majorities still favour interventions such as tighter marketing controls on unhealthy food or higher tobacco duties.
Most adults say individuals are responsible for their own health, yet they also acknowledge that the government should step in to protect the public. These two views are often seen as conflicting, but in practice we find that they are not mutually exclusive.
Even among the minority who agree that “regulation should never restrict individuals’ choices”, a group that leans strongly towards Reform, two-thirds (67%) would ban baby foods high in sugar or salt, and 58% would raise tobacco taxes, with only small minorities opposed.
Why? A widespread scepticism about industry motives. Four in five adults (80%) believe companies put profit before health, and only a quarter (26%) think firms are honest about the harms their products cause. Protecting business growth therefore ranks lowly when voters weigh new rules, among left and right-leaning groups alike.
Context also shapes opinion. When taxes are discussed in the abstract, support is modest. When the same policy is presented in relation to a specific harm, such as smoking, approval climbs sharply. Among likely Reform voters, only 29% see taxes as effective in theory, yet 60% back higher tobacco duties; for Labour voters the figures are 56% and 74% respectively.
Overall, the data suggests that most adults, including those who prize personal freedoms, are open to well-designed public-health measures. Distrust of corporate motives and concern for the NHS outweigh a reflexive dislike of intervention, especially when the case for action is framed around clear health benefits. While there are some differences between voters, public health does not appear to be a divisive or polarising issue. Most people want to be healthier, and many see a clear role for government in making that easier, through practical support, regulation, and reducing strain on the NHS.