Assisted dying debate showed why we need more free votes in Parliament - Yorkshire Post Letters

Parliament has just staged a debate on assisted dying. The debate was extraordinary. It was grown-up and thoughtful, searching but polite. It was positively focused on the issue itself and a properly democratic outcome.

Why was this? Because it was a free vote. MPs debated and voted according to their conscience and understanding, not according to directives from party whips. And why was that? Because it was said to be “too important for politics”, a remark which gives the game away.

MPs are usually obliged to vote according to the dictates of their party. Truths are mangled, and understandings ignored. It’s all controlled by the whips, for the parties.

The debate and vote on assisted dying was different, though; an example of how it can be otherwise when parliament is allowed to work collectively towards a democratic goal based on facts and real-world understandings. When the issue is said to be too important for politics. When Parliament is free.

Climate change is an existential threat. It’s too big for party politics, spin, misinformation and disinformation. If Parliament was allowed to consider climate collectively and freely, might it be different – and better?

The last time we faced an existential threat was in WWII. Parliament put party politics aside for the duration and got the job done. It was too important for politics.

Isn’t it time Parliament also debated climate change collectively and freely? It’s too important for politics, after all.