If, as seems likely, the Irish vote Yes in their approaching second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, what will the Tories do? If Lisbon has not been ratified by the next election, they say, a Conservative government will hold a referendum on it. But if it has been, the Tory position is of the vague, ‘will not stand idly by’ variety. I have just discovered exactly how anxious the party is to avoid this discussion. As part of the Daily Telegraph’s series on Europe this week, the Euroenthusiastic John Gummer had happily agreed to do an email dialogue with me, but when he received my first message, which raised the referendum question, he suddenly decided not to. Then Michael Heseltine agreed to take part, but exactly the same thing happened, presumably because of party advice. It will be strange if the next Conservative government begins with the bad faith over Europe which would bring back the divisions of the 1990s.
One of the consequences of our growing disrespect for parliament is that judges and lawyers feel ever freer to make up policies and impose them on the rest of us. Last week, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the ‘president of the Supreme Court’, as he is now renamed, said that he supported assisted suicide. He admitted that this was ‘simply my personal view’, but when the top judge expresses his ‘personal view’ on a matter which currently comes before him professionally, he is close to turning that view into law. Sure enough, in the summer, Lord Phillips led the Law Lords (as they then were) in allowing Debbie Purdy’s appeal and instructing the Director of Public Prosecutions to produce a ‘custom-built’ policy about what would happen to her husband if they ever felt like going to Switzerland so that she could be killed. The Law Lords seemed dissatisfied with the law which exists on the subject, and so ordered the DPP to act as legislator, and clear it up.
Indeed, it looks as though officialdom in general has decided that euthanasia should be imposed, though the law continues to forbid it. A policy grimly entitled the Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient (‘Liverpool’ makes it sound so much worse than, say, ‘Wootton Bassett’ or ‘Little Gidding’) now dominates the National Health Service’s approach to dying. According to Max Pemberton, the brilliant young doctor who writes a column in the Telegraph, this reduces palliative care to a ‘tick-box’ formula, encouraging medical staff to ignore the possibility that someone might not, in fact, be about to die, and to speed them down their ‘pathway’ regardless. His own grandfather, written off by the authorities, recently sat up, started eating some custard, and got better. I looked up the Liverpool Care Pathway on the NHS website. ‘The key methodology used for this national infrastructure is based,’ it drones, ‘on a robust 10-step implementation programme together with a comprehensive research and evaluation programme. This supports clinically based educational programmes, sustaining interest in the clinical workforce and attention to cultural organisational changes to ensure achievement of objectives and outcomes.’ One just loses the will to live.
The truth is that no ‘pathway’ can be proof against moral imbecility. Joan Bakewell, the old people’s ‘Tsar’, writes this week that ‘I know of an 80-year-old woman with terminal cancer who stated that she wanted to die but whose attempted suicide was considered a sign of depression… How confusing is that?’ If Joan Bakewell cannot see any difference between wanting to die and trying to kill yourself, she has failed to notice the basis of the age-old ethical questions which she has spent about 50 years debating on television.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (where the crime rate, I imagine, is low) also has strong views on prison. He is against it. ‘I regard the ever-rising numbers of people in prison with dismay,’ he said in the same interview. ‘I think everyone who is concerned sees things in the same way as I do.’ There is much to be said for his criticism of prison, but what shocks me is his assertion that ‘everyone who is concerned’ agrees with him. Are the public not concerned, and does President Phillips really, truly think that they all agree with him? We may despise the people we elect, but we shall suffer greater oppression if we are ruled by unelected people who barely have to acknowledge that we exist.
Last month, we flew on a day-trip to Le Touquet from Lydd Airport. It was lovely — no queue, no semi-compulsory shopping, just coffee in the ‘Biggles’ bar and then up, over the Channel in less than 20 minutes, in a propeller nine-seater plane. There is no better way of seeing the difference that those 22 miles of sea have made to history. What was funny, though, is that Lydd now calls itself ‘London Ashford Airport’. It takes two hours to drive from Lydd to the capital, at the best of times. Is the concept of ‘London’ capable of infinite extension, or should Mayor Johnson take control of it, as the Queen controls the word ‘Royal’, and police its use?
This column has recently complained about the endless events in Trafalgar Square. But if there are to be events at all, it will be good if Peter Hutley gets his way. He is a remarkable old gentleman whose Life of Christ, performed outdoors at Wintershall, his Surrey estate, has become internationally famous, especially with children. It is simply orthodox, and realistic — charmingly so when a real white dove is released above the Jordan when Jesus is baptised, terrifyingly so as Jesus is scourged and crucified. Now Mr Hutley has applied to perform the Passion section of his drama in Trafalgar Square on Good Friday. He has to get past four ‘political committees’ before it can be approved. In his publicity material, Mr Hutley declares his purpose directly. It is ‘to revive and spread our faith through religious drama’, so presumably the political committees will dislike it. Again, I hope Boris will help.
The internet is buzzing with speculation about the state of Gordon Brown’s health. I have no idea whether any of it is true, but it is interesting to learn the word ‘Bruxism’ from my online researches. It is the medical term for the condition which makes people, including Mr Brown, clench their jaws involuntarily. The word suits Mr Brown’s style of leadership: write a book called Courage, promise to make ‘tough choices’, and then vanish when those choices have to be made. Clench your jaw, but clench it without meaning. Mr Brown is not alone in using this style of politics. It is typical of all would-be populism. Bruxism, in fact, is the only remaining ‘-ism’ of our time.
Comments