Not every MP will have a strong view on social issues. Matters relating to the economy, public services and the country’s place in the world are more likely to motivate an aspiring politician. They will then join a party, made up of others who are broadly (sometimes very broadly) of the same mind set and values. That party then obtains most of its votes from those who are sympathetic to its values. Once in parliament, an MP can safely follow the party line, unless they actively choose to go their own way.
Then along comes an issue such as assisted dying. It is unlikely that it is an issue that drew an individual MP into politics; it does not divide down party lines either in Westminster or the country; MPs are left to make up their own minds.
It is no wonder that some MPs feel uncomfortable and uncertain about Friday’s vote on the Second Reading of Kim Leadbeater’s private members’ bill on assisted dying. Many will see both sides of the argument, even if they lean in one particular direction. They are being lobbied from both sides, including from constituents who would normally be their natural supporters. Perhaps the temptation to spend the day in the constituency will prove irresistible.
I know the feeling. The last time the Commons debated a similar bill was on 11 September 2015. I was an MP at the time and mildly supportive of reform but appreciated the counter-arguments. It was clear that the private members’ bill was going to be defeated and I had a number of longstanding constituency engagements in the diary. I decided to stick with my pre-existing plans. It was a decision I now deeply regret.
In part, this is because I have become more convinced that the current arrangements are cruel and need to be reformed. People are taking matters into their own hands, taking (or attempting to take) their own lives in desperate circumstances. Some (with the resources) travel to Switzerland while they can when – if we reformed the law – a decision could be made later. Not only does the current law deny individuals a degree of control over their own death, that individual also fears that they will put their loved ones at risk of criminal prosecution if the slightest help is provided to end the suffering.
Much of the rest of the world has moved to reform this area of law and there is no sign that any jurisdiction regrets it. Countries that permit assisted dying for those terminally ill tend to leave the law alone but the “slippery slope” argument is unintentionally revealing. Those who deploy it do not expect that a future parliament will regret liberalisation but conclude that the Leadbeater bill is too restrictive.
So, on the merits, I have moved from mildly sympathetic to strongly supportive of reform. In addition, when I look back at my parliamentary career, I have a better appreciation of how much social reform matters. Granting people more autonomy over their lives is hard to reverse, meaning that social reform has a lasting impact. And because these reforms depend upon individual choices by MPs, how one votes matters more. I look back at my personal choice on gay marriage, for example, with a degree of pride in being part of something important, just as I view my abstention on assisted dying with regret.
It is all too easy to find reasons to duck making a decision. You can tell yourself that one vote either way might not make much difference (a stronger argument in 2015 than today). One could object to the parliamentary mechanism, even though private members’ bills have delivered major social reforms in the past. One could complain that the process is too rushed, even though this debate has been active for decades. One can keep asking for more evidence, but sometimes that is just an excuse for not making a decision. But not making a decision is a decision in itself; maintaining the status quo is not a neutral choice. Defeat for the bill on Friday will mean that reform is unlikely for a generation.
There is a further consideration for Labour MPs who are torn over whether to back the Bill or stay at home, even if it is – in the circumstances – a second order issue.
Much of the country perceives this government as one that lacks much of a sense of purpose and direction. But assisted dying is a substantial reform that has widespread support and was expected to be delivered by this government.
To the extent that the 1964-70 government of Harold Wilson is remembered positively, it is because of reforms on homosexuality, abortion and the death penalty. The introduction of civil partnerships and gay marriage by the Blair and Cameron governments respectively are undoubted highlights of both administrations. Assisted dying reform (even though not a party political matter) could play a similar role for the Starmer government.
If the reform fails, however, this will be seen as a failure of the government and the Prime Minister. This will not influence Labour MPs with principled objections against assisted dying, but for those not in that situation tempted to think that the easy option is to abstain, they should be aware of the political costs.
It is true that some MPs will find Friday challenging but if they believe in these reforms they should accept responsibility and vote for it. If not – and I speak from experience – it will always be something they regret.
Content from our partners
Related
