Recently, John Healey, the relatively new defence secretary, made a personal confession. He told how his son’s current military service “plays on his mind when deciding to commit British soldiers to areas of risk”. He confessed that “it makes me lose sleep” and helps him “understand the gravity of military action overseas”.

We can only sympathise, and some might perhaps be thankful that such human responses weigh on decisions being made on our behalf.

But should they? The recent argument over assisted dying led to one of the most emotional debates ever heard in the House of Commons. Kim Leadbeater’s private member’s bill was passed with one MP after another rising to recount the loss of a relative or friend. They told of deaths in agony, screaming in pain, gasping for breath, and the traumas of loved ones. Commentators listened in awe. Sketchwriters laid down cynical pens and declared that never had they heard such a moving and impressive debate.

Laws are for everyone. Legislators pass them not for themselves but in the interest of the nation. If they stand to benefit financially or professionally, they must declare it. But if the interest is personal, we assume the reverse. We see them as bringing their own suffering to inform debate. I am not sure it does.

The current proposal to impose inheritance tax on farms was challenged by the Northern Ireland MP Carla Lockhart. She spoke of her “deeply personal” reaction to the tax, to her feelings of “uncertainty, disappointment, apprehension, dread and heartbreak” at the chancellor’s policy.........

© The Guardian