I thought his legacy was letting gang rapists walk free with a warning letter when he was the nation's chief prosecutor but he probably thinks the 'assisted dying' thing is preferable as something to be remembered for.
From The Times of London, February 24:
A prime minister short on signature successes should free up parliamentary time to stop peers talking out the bill
The creation of the Open University. Whenever Harold Wilson was asked to identify his greatest achievement in office, it was the Open University he would always cite.
It is notable that when prime ministers look back on the mark that they have left, the things they are really proud of, the things that made it all worthwhile, they rarely mention the issues that were the stuff of great party dispute. Tony Blair talks of the Good Friday agreement, David Cameron of gay marriage, Theresa May of the Modern Slavery Act. In other words, concrete initiatives which made the world a better place for identifiable groups of people.
And also things that they personally believed in and championed. Things that wouldn’t have happened without them. Wilson could have named the abolition of capital punishment, the decriminalisation of homosexuality or the legalisation of abortion. But these simply happened on his watch: he let them happen. The creation of the Open University wasn’t as momentous but Wilson was the driving force. He often intervened to stop others — his chancellor, his education secretary — from frustrating his intent.
So what will it be for Keir Starmer? He won’t want to be sitting there in retirement citing briefings against Wes Streeting as his signature achievement. Or announcing how proud he is of his turnover of chiefs of staff. And it may all be over soon, so he should settle on something better and get it done before it is too late.
There’s one obvious candidate: assisted dying. I appreciate that some readers don’t agree with it (though most do). My point is that there is one reader who certainly agrees with it. And that is Starmer. He’s very opaque, our prime minister. He leaves us guessing on most topics. But on this we can confidently say he believes in reforming the law on assisted dying.
He has done so at least since the moment, as director of public prosecutions, when he first had to make a decision about prosecuting the parents of Daniel James. They had taken their quadriplegic son to Switzerland to die in 2008, after Daniel had insistently pressed his will upon them. Starmer chose not to proceed against them. He was moved when he studied the transcripts of police interviews, reading of a grieving mother accused of committing a crime for carrying out her son’s wishes.
Later in his term, complying with a court judgment, Starmer developed a protocol that made clear when he would prosecute and when he would not. As a result he understands the crucial point about assisted dying that others often miss. Britain already has an assisted dying law. One made by the prosecuting authorities and the courts rather than parliament. This law allows people to assist the death of others, without becoming criminals. We have legalised assisted dying, already. Just very badly.
Again, what matters is not whether this is true (though I think it is). What matters is that he thinks it is true. That is why he pledged, if elected as prime minister, to provide government time for a new law. A better law. And then, when he won, he voted for the resulting private member’s bill....
....MUCH MORE
