Personal Blogs

Below is the text of an email I have sent to my MP on Kim Leadbeater's proposed assisted dying bill:

Dear Amanda,

As far as I can remember this is the first time I have written a policy email to my MP. It feels a little bit odd to be on the writing end of the transaction and not the reading end. I say that because, in general, I've always believed policy emails to MPs do very little to influence minds, especially the ones generated from campaign websites.

It's with that in mind that I feel driven to write to you about Kim Leadbeater's Private Member's Bill on assisted dying, which having been drawn  as No. 1 in the ballot, and being given sufficient parliamentary time, it is almost certain that on this occassion the proposed legislation will either pass, or fall as a result of objections.

When Kim announced that assisted dying would be the subject of her bill I was incredibly pleased. I am genuinely sympathetic to the aims of the proposed legislation. It seems abhorrent to me that a terminally ill person cannot seek help - if that is their true wish - in choosing to die a dignified death. I try to put myself in their position and know the humane choice would be to have someone: a professional or loved one help me out of my pain.

I've always believed, however, that there must be appropriate safeguards to prevent either a slippery slope situation, or the right to die becoming a duty to die.

I've listened to an awful lot of contributions in the debate and have been particularly persuaded by the reported words of Wes Streeting.

Wes is right. We should not be allowing assisted dying if palliative care is not adequate. There may well be any number of reasons for that, including funding of palliative care, but we should not legislate to allow a good death where it is possible that healthcare is failing in providing appropriate care for the ill to live a good life. Not one person should have to choose to die if there is a chance that they are doing so because the quality of their medical care is not the best available.

Similarly, and as much as I would like it not be true, it is difficult if not impossible to see how a right to die could not be influenced by a person's relatives. Whether that would be in the hopefully relatively rare cases of pressure, or in the likely much more common, situation of a sick person not wanting to be 'a burden'.

Finally, whilst the proposed legislation appears to be clear that it would apply solely to the terminally ill, we must be very mindful of that evolving into those with chronic physical conditions or the mentally ill. Whilst some advocates might argue that is desirable, it should only ever come as a result of the express will of parliament.

Of course, Kim's bill will, as a matter of conscience, be a free vote. I am certain you will deliberate on this matter a great deal, the decision to legislate to allow assisted dying will undoubtedly be the biggest matter of conscience you will vote on in your parliamentary career and will have far reaching implications. I know you won't take the decision lightly and certainly won't question your motivations whichever way you decide to vote.

But I would respectfully ask you to consider two important points:

1. Can you be certain that there are adequate safeguards to ensure no one will choose assisted dying out of necessity (whether that is failings of healthcare or pressure)?

2. May I suggest that on this occassion a private member's bill will not afford adequate scrutiny of such an important issue and would suggest that in order to provide this the legislation should be considered on government time and with a minister driving it. Whilst acknowledging that these sort of conscience issues have historically been legislated for in this manner it does seem a wholly inadequate approach for something so important.

I remain pleased that Kim has chosen to use her bill for this purpose, it is a hugely important one. I really am sympathetic but am just not certain there are adequate safeguards and, on this issue, a failure to provide them really does mean the difference between life and death.

With warm regards...

As a Conservative party member, Association Chairman and member of the National Conservative Convention I've always believed there is nothing more important than the rule of law. If, as an increasingly global society, we don't have a set of rules to abide by, then what do we become?

It's for that reason I warmly welcome the words of Labour's new attorney-general, Lord Hermer KC who has called on the new government to take "immediate steps to restore the UK's reputation by abiding by international conventions, courts and championing international institutions."

There has been a tendency amongst some in Britain in recent years to distance ourselves away from the supranational bodies that for the most part sprang out of the global wars of the first half of the twentieth century, because we don't like some of the decisions they arrive at. "We want our sovereignty." "We want to take back control from these shady, non accountable organisations."

For some that step away from international cooperation came with Brexit, for others the mad conspiracy theories about both our path into and out of the pandemic. But the truth is that each step away from international working and towards national insularity will never be enough for the subscribers of isolationism.

With the Conservative leadership election underway we hear - from one of the candidates at least - that the answer to 'stopping the small boats' is leaving the European Convention on Human Rights.

Of course it won't be. Instead we will take another step away from the international norm - and internationally agreed human rights - to being at risk of becoming a petty outlier.

And when leaving the ECHR doesn't happen, what then?

There will always be someone a little more extreme, and with an audience of similarly desperate like-minded folk, to say this time its the Commonwealth, the IMF, NATO, or maybe the United Nations.  

For the most part, for the better part of a century, supranational bodies have been drivers of peace, security and economic growth around the world.

With cooperation comes a degree of giving up ones sovereignty, it's the price that we pay for the benefits we receive.

And, no matter what a Tory leadership contender says to you, we will never have sovereignty unless we leave every one of those supranational bodies because there will always be decisions we don't like, and leaving will always be the answer given to those out of step with the complexities of reality.

We've seen the difficulties that leaving just one of those bodies has brought, why would we think leaving more would make things better?

Instead it will leave Britain alone and isolated, away from international partnership. 

Thank heavens, at least when it comes to the Government's law officers we appear to have a grown up in charge.

Today saw the final round of voting amongst MPs in the Conservative leadership election, and in something of a shock result yesterday's first placed leader, James Cleverly, slipped into third place and was eliminated from the contest.

The final results were:

- Kemi Badenoch - 42 votes

- James Cleverly 37 votes

- Robert Jenrick - 41 votes

There's already rumours that a vote lending operation from Cleverly to Jenrick went wrong, but we will never know if that is true or not.

But what we do know without doubt is that Badenoch and Jenrick in getting 42 and 41 votes respectively only managed to secure around one third each of the votes of Conservative MPs. That is a similar amount to the proportion earned by Liz Truss in 2022.

And whilst it is significantly more than the 16% of available votes secured by Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour leadership election of 2015 (albeit under a very different process) it does point towards troubled waters ahead for whoever wins the Conservative contest.

For the leadership of any party (or any organisation for that matter) it is vitally important that the boss has the support of the majority of people who work closest with them.

In 2015 Jeremy Corbyn didn't have the support of his fellow Labour MPs, in 2022 Liz Truss fell short of majority support of her colleagues by some way. 

Whatever happens now to Kemi Badenoch or Rob Jenrick they will be starting their stint of leadership knowing that two thirds of their closest colleagues didn't support them, and in the very near future they are likely to be more than happy to let journalists know that was the case.

Inevitably there are choppy waters ahead in the Conservative Party leadership - probably long before the next General Election.

I've worked in parliament and public affairs for many years now. I like to think I am not particularly ignorant when it comes political matters. But I don't claim to be an expert either (except on the topics where I am) there are many people in Westminster far more qualified than me.

But my point is this. I would assert - with a great deal of justification - that I know how politics works more than most people. In fact, I would go as far as to assert more than the overwhelming majority of people.

So when I say that up to a few days ago I only had a passing knowledge of the Chagos Islands, I mean that I have no expertise at all. I'm sure I'm not alone in getting Diego Garcia mixed up with Carmen Sandiego. That's the level of knowledge I have.

But even with that admission I would go as far as to say my knowledge goes more than most people who are now offering a view on the future of the Chagos Islands, and the Government's supposed treachery in making arrangements for their transfer to the Government of Mauritius.

There are so many issues where Government actions are so complex that we can't offer a constructive, or even knowledgeable, viewpoint. But it doesn't stop countless accounts on social media giving theirs.

It seems to me that solving a diplomatic issue and guaranteeing the islands as an airbase for the next 100 years seems quite sensible step to take. After all it appears to allow the return of Chagossian natives and makes provision for a base until a time when bases are, potentially, no longer needed.

But I don't really know.

And the chances are, neither do you.

Those of us that are interested in politics don't have to have an opinion about everything.

Sometimes, especially when it comes to international diplomacy, it's OK to say that.

It really is OK not to have an opinion.  

With the final parliamentary rounds of the Conservative leadership election getting under way this week it was interesting to listen to Beth Rigby's Electoral Dysfunction podcast reflecting on last week's Tory party conference.

Former Labour MP Harriet Harman suggested that this interminably long recruitment process had become something of a beauty contest and that it was important that the remaining candidates go away to think about what it is they stand for.

Of course, Ms Harman is right, ideology is important for any candidate. Where do they stand on the economy? On immigration? Where are they on the political spectrum?

But ideology isn't the beginning and end.

How you look and how you communicate is just as important when it comes to being entrusted by the public with political power. You may have the best set of principles in the world (or to counter that, truely hateful ones) but you will never gain office if you do not communicate them in a way that resonates with a sizeable portion of the electorate.

Take this year's general election as an example. Few people would understand the intricacies of Sir Keir Starmer's personal ideology but in the years that preceded him entering office - and the short campaign itself - he communicated an approach of dignity and service (albeit, arguably, that approach may have crumbled fairly quickly).

There is much that can be said in another post about governments losing power, rather than oppositions winning it, but broadly in July enough of the electorate saw Sir Keir as a decent, competent pair of hands.

It can be argued that this year's Labour manifesto was the thinnest in history in terms of policy platform, it wasn't an epic ideological tome - what you may expect from a party that has been out of power for a decade and a half - but rather a document that in four or five years time cannot be held by Labour's opponents as some sort of 'sausage to fortune' scenario. (See what I did there?)

The Times last week reported on comments made by Baroness Morgan of Cotes that the next Labour leader must appeal to people from "Cheltenham High Street to Loughborough Market". She said when it comes to finding the best leadership candidate she has a "Sunday lunch test... If the new leader turned up in your house for Sunday lunch could you ask them to open a bottle of wine and serve the guest and chat to people?"

I've always followed a similar rule when voting for leadership candidates- and yes, I do have a vote in the Conservative contest. Would I be happy to have a pint at the pub with them?

Invariably most successful Prime Ministers have always passed those tests whether it was Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair or David Cameron. Your backgrounds may differ but you wouldn't be stuck for conversation - it's the chat not the alcohol that is important, you see? 

Even those most divisive of politicians Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson or Dennis Skinner pass the test. You may disagree with them, but they have a depth more than just ideology.

So my advice for the next Conservative leader (or any politician) is yes, understand your ideology but remember it counts for nothing if your potential voters cannot empathise with you.

In the real world of politics what you look like and what you sound like are ust as important as your views on Adam Smith.

My daughter received her GCSE results this morning.

After losing a huge chunk of Year 10 suffering from meningitis the aim for her was never to get across the board 7,8 and 9s but to scrabble by enough to allow her to get into sixth form and reset her aims and objectives.

She managed that with room to spare and obviously I'm very proud of her.

But it does drive home that there are many different reasons for education. Sometimes it can be purely transactional  - getting enough good grades to get onto the next stage of a plan.

Sometimes it can be for the pure enjoyment of personal challenge and fulfilment.

A couple of weeks ago I was watching a documentary, Outside the City, following the lives of the Trappist monks at Mount St Bernard Abbey in Leicestershire.

There is a lovely scene in which the monks are sitting on the floor as they shell broad beans in silent contemplation; lost in the moment.

It seems to me that as we get older education moves very much from the transactional to helping us become absorbed in the subjects that we have a passion for.

I'm very grateful for that.