OU blog

Personal Blogs

Leon Spence

A letter to my MP on assisted dying

Visible to anyone in the world

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...

Permalink Add your comment
Share post
Leon Spence

School partnerships - they're about discovering and delivering what we have in common

Visible to anyone in the world

Yesterday I was a guest in a webinar 'The New Educational Landscape' hosted by the School Partnerships Alliance in which a number of respected luminaries from the education sector (and me) talked about the potential for partnerships between schools across the world of education, and other organisations, to improve outcomes for children.

At these type of events there is always an understanding that independent and maintained schools are different, an outside observer might uncharitably suggest that there is an element of "them and us", but what becomes clear when you start talking is that there is common conviction that everyone working in education is fundamentally working for a common goal. Progress. A better world for our children.

Whilst there are differences amongst us, as the late MP Jo Cox said during her maiden speech "we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us." 

Isn't exploring those things that we have in common and turning them into something productive what partnerships is, ultimately, all about?

One of the largest challenges in delivering partnerships is being able to quantify whether they are worthwhile. In a world of ticking boxes we are always urged to measure outcomes, and simply put, when a partnership is just one aspect of a child's life quantifying success is often impossible.

But sometimes success isn't about a grade or a check box. It's about a feeling or a memory that can swerve outcomes, even if sometimes in only a small way.

It's about the qualitative, and not always the quantitative.

I'm sure there is another truism at work here too. It doesn't matter whether you work in the independent or state education sector you understand that experiences often matter as much as the measurable. We have that in common.

Collectively what we must do is get better at explaining that to a wider audience. And that very much includes policy and decision makers.

Permalink
Share post
Leon Spence

There's always someone crazier for whom leaving the ECHR isn't the answer

Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Leon Spence, Tuesday, 15 Oct 2024, 09:19

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.

Permalink Add your comment
Share post
Leon Spence

It's not the policy that gets you. It's the hypocrisy.

Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Leon Spence, Thursday, 10 Oct 2024, 15:33

Last Saturday Bridget Phillipson, the Secretary of State for Education, posted this tweet (I'm still not sure what an individual post is called) to the social media platform X:

Bridget Phillipson tweet

Despite misgivings from many who understand the long held political beliefs of many Labour Party members, to this point the Labour Government have maintained that the policy to add VAT on to independent school fees isn't about harming that sector, but purely about raising revenue for state school spending.

With over 6 millions views Ms Phillipson's post has caused some to question that stance.

But, once again, it is the accusation of hypocrisy that is levelled at Labour - who in opposition maintained that they would be different from the last Tory government.

It has taken the Daily Telegraph just four days to uncover that only five hours before posting her tweet the Secretary of State was playing hockey on an AstroTurf pitch at a local indendent school. The irony has not been lost that hockey is a sport that in many ways relies upon access to private school pitches for its growth, and its players benefit from. Will Ms Phillipson choose not to make use of those facilities in future?

Ms Phillipson also criticises independent schools for the use of embossed stationery yet anyone with a cursory knowledge of parliament will know that MPs personalised office stationery is always embossed, and now as a minister, departmental stationery too.

In her 14 years as an MP has Ms Phillipson ever made use of parliamentary embossed stationery? Will she be calling for its use to be ended and any savings made used to recruit more teachers?

It will be laudable if she does. But she find some ministerial colleagues are not particularly pleased with the idea.

It's becoming increasingly clear that in a social media world, and particularly with this Labour government, the media will always find a way to highlight perceived hypocrisy.

Permalink
Share post
Leon Spence

Badenoch or Jenrick - there are choppy waters ahead

Visible to anyone in the world

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.

Permalink
Share post
Leon Spence

The Prime Minister's probity and thin skin were already in question. Now his judgement is too.

Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Leon Spence, Tuesday, 8 Oct 2024, 10:49

In their report 'Strong and Stable' the think tank Make Votes Matter, an organisation promoting a proportionally representative electoral system, note that in the parliamentary term following the 2019 general election the average period of time a newly appointed cabinet minister spent in office was just eight months.

Whilst that figure was undoubtedly impacted and made lower by mass resignations and two changes of Prime Minister it is nevertheless eye-catching. An average eight months tenure points to turmoil, it points to a government running out of both ideas and talent, it suggests an administration more intent on fighting internal battles than serving the public.

8 months also happens to be an historically low figure too. According to Make Votes Matter 'ministers appointed between the 1970s and 2005 generally remained in one office for between two and three years.' Indeed the United Kingdom was already at the lower end amongst comparable countries when it comes to ministerial tenure. Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany all average a length of term around three years in office, Switzerland over six.

At this year's general election one of the principle selling points of the Labour Party was that they would bring stability and, yes, decency back to a broken political system. Even if he never claimed it publicly Sir Keir Starmer made a virtue of his moral superiority.

In less than 100 days however, that fabled milestone for all viewers of The West Wing, we have seen a spate of entirely appropriate questions on the acceptance of gifts, we have witnessed first hand the Prime Minister's disdain at having his decisions scrutinised, and now, in the wake of his Chief of Staff, Sue Gray's enforced resignation, the final component of competence is rightly being reviewed.

Of course, Ms Gray, is not a minister. In many respects as Chief of Staff for the Prime Minister she was even more important. The nature and timing of her appointment, in most people's eyes, already looked a little shady.

But sacking her after 93 days? A fraction of the time most ministers are in office? That brings the Prime Minister's judgement into question more than anything than has gone before.


Permalink
Share post
Leon Spence

The Chagos Islands - it really is OK not to have an opinion

Visible to anyone in the world

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.  

Permalink
Share post
Leon Spence

Not everyone is so lucky

Visible to anyone in the world

On Saturday I took my youngest son to visit Warwick University for an open day, doing very much the same thing as my parents did with me 35 years ago. Coming from a mining area and very, very working class stock - even though I would have liked to attend - at the time university was not for me. What we now describe as the barriers to education were as high as they could have been for anyone. 

My mum would tell me "you don't need education, get a job in the hosiery factory", my dad would tell me "you can't afford education, get a job in the hosiery factory".

Within a decade, of course, all of the hosiery factories had gone. Just like the impact of the pit closures that came before them too many young lads who left school at the same time as me had little in the way of a future.

I didn't go to university, but I was relatively fortunate that I learned from an early age that if you could talk a good game and, more importantly, understand the meaning of the word 'nuance' doors would open for you.

I went from working in a butchers, to working at the council, in IT, education, journalism, politics and now public affairs.

Last week I flew to Belfast to chair a panel at a conference of headteachers of some of the world's leading schools. It amazes me that in thirty years that I've gone from plucking turkeys to that.

But, you know what?

More than anything I've learnt for all their good intentions my parents were wrong. There is nothing more important than education. I have been incredibly lucky in taking an irregular route, so many are not so fortunate.

Sadly, there are still far too many white working-class households who don't value education and with each passing generation they, and the outcomes they experience, keep falling behind.

There is nothing more important in Britain today than addressing the cultural challenge of improving educational outcomes amongst the white working-class. Until that happens the inequality gap will only ever become wider.

Permalink
Share post
Leon Spence

Passing the Sunday lunch test

Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Leon Spence, Monday, 7 Oct 2024, 09:12

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.


Permalink
Share post
Leon Spence

New blog post

Visible to anyone in the world

This morning The Daily Telegraph reported that almost 100% of last week's A Levels were passed after the Government's u-turn on using an algorithm that included standardisation against a school's past performance to determine grades.

The u-turn was, of course, brought about by the very simple fact that it was patently unfair to judge a child's future based on how other, previous cohorts had performed. In hindsight such injustice should have been obvious to everyone - politicians, educationalists, unions and teachers alike - but in truth most of them missed it.

The algorithm was introduced for the very best of reasons, to maintain the integrity of the examination system, and whether we like it or not the u-turn has brought the integrity of this year's results into doubt.

Of 718,226 A Levels taken this year only 2,155 were failed, 99.7% of candidates passed. There were 18,418 failures last year.

Astonishingly, according to The Daily Telegraph, not one single candidate failed German, Spanish, Classical subjects or performing / expressive arts.

A failure to have failures matters because by its very nature it devalues the attainments of those who have passed.

U-turning on grades last week was the politic and immediately expedient move, but those who benefitted may come to regret it yet. 

There is a distinct possibility that 2020 will become known as the year that grades didn't mean what their certificates proclaimed them to be. That an A, B or C this year never did mean quite as much as it did in 2019 or 2021.

Of course, for most, A Levels will be a stepping stone to another stage of education and in time the anomaly of 2020 will be forgotten; but for some it will forever be an albatross that hovers over their academic careers.

Permalink
Share post
Leon Spence

GCSE results

Visible to anyone in the world

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.

Permalink
Share post
Leon Spence

Avidly reading text books

Visible to anyone in the world

After tearing open my exceedingly heavy textbook package last week I've spent every spare moment since reading through 'Reputations'.

Being from a traditional working class background I never really had the chance to go to university and thirty years later I can't believe how excited I am about the prospect of formal learning once more, this time not because I need it for a job but because I genuinely want to broaden my mind.

I'm lucky to have a job which I enjoy tremendously and an employer who seems as excited about me returning to study as I am - he's already told me he wants an update each week!

So, as I continue to read I keep refreshing on the link to access to module website in the hope that it will appear before the stipulated date.

It feels like being a child on Christmas Eve wishing for the morning to arrive.

It's the first time I've felt like that in some time.

Permalink
Share post

This blog might contain posts that are only visible to logged-in users, or where only logged-in users can comment. If you have an account on the system, please log in for full access.

Total visits to this blog: 23817