They will say this was ‘parliament at its best'. And they will be lying
The portents this morning were grim. The Grim Leadreaper was doing her HR manager of Hades act, buzzing around with faux sincerity like a wasp that had discovered LGBT History Month. Jess Philips took a great huff on her vape in the lobby before walking into the chamber. Perhaps it was sulphur flavour.
Inside the House of Commons the obviously sham last-minute 'switcher' Jack Abbott from the bill committee, as spineless a backbench toady as you ever did see, was there being all chummy with the unparalleled toad Jake Richards. Were they bonding perhaps over their new-found enthusiasm for death? It was Brokeback Mountain meets The Zone of Interest.
Voting began on amendments. A glut of ambitious backbench MPs rejected a safeguard brought forward by a coalition of MPs as diverse as Dame Karen Bradley for the Tories, Jim Allister for the TUV and brave and doughty Labour MPs Rachel Maskell and Jonathan Davies. It was designed to stop people from killing themselves because they felt like a burden.
Then Leadbeater herself spoke. 'It's not often that we get to debate morality issues in parliament', she said; just three days after parliament voted to decriminalise abortion up to birth via a sneakily tacked-on amendment and a few minutes of debate. The Leisure Centre operative turned supreme arbiter of life and death likes to talk about how she and her bill represent 'parliament at its best'. The irony being that anyone who truly believes this would fail any reasonable capacity test. The concerns of the key royal colleges of experts, who'd made repeated interventions in opposition to the bill, were shrugged off as 'different views'.
Wera Hobhouse, the Lib Dem MP for Bath complained that some members of the public had suggested that the current crop of MPs were too stupid to discuss an issue of this magnitude. For all their faults sometimes the General Public really do hit the nail on the head. Not only were many demonstrably too stupid to engage properly, some of them couldn't even be bothered to stay awake. Wearing a pair of dark glasses, Lib Dem MP Tessa Munt openly dozed through several speeches.
Certain moments added to the general atmosphere of despair. Jake Richards rolled his eyes and performatively scoffed as Naz Shah explained the bill's failure to close the anorexia loophole. Labour MP Lewis Atkinson commended the work of the hospice movement in alleviating suffering at the end of life. His praise was treacly, sweet and insincere. Almost diabetes-inducing in its efforts – another disease which will no doubt qualify for state sanctioned death in due time. While scrutinising the bill on the committee, the same Lewis Atkinson also rejected conscience amendments that would have prevented hospices and care homes from being forced to provide assisted dying
The walking embodiment of the banality of evil, Lib Dem MP Luke Taylor said that voting in favour was a good way to 'bookend the week'. That's the level of import MPs gave to this issue of life and death: bump off the weak to bookend your week. Many impassioned MPs never got to speak at all; Rosie Duffield left the chamber in disgust after trying to catch the Deputy Speaker's eye for several hours, with no success.
There was some debate about whether the Prime Minister – a long term death enthusiast – would turn up to vote. In the end, he did. It was nice of Esther Rantzen to send her own personal proxy.
Bump off the weak to bookend your week
It's worth naming those Labour MPs who have gone above and beyond in their attempts to make their colleagues see sense. Those, like Rachael Maskell, who worked behind the scenes to try and put down amendments that would safeguard the vulnerable. Jess Asato, who made probably the best and most forensic speech of the debate. Diane Abbott who, despite obvious illness, rose to speak movingly about the risks of compulsion. And Adam Jogee, who left a dying relative's bedside to come and vote because the bill's 'compassionate' proposer refused to find him a supporter to pair with and so spend the last moments he had with a loved one. Do remember them: they have been principled exceptions to the otherwise disgraceful rule.
Given we are now a culture which embraces and promotes death, perhaps a post-script on political deaths. When the inevitable national inquiry delves into the abuse and shortcomings of this law – which it will – the Labour backbenchers and Tory grandees who made this possible, these back-slapping middle-management Molochs will have their names etched in history as the people who brought this about. They will achieve a sort of immortality; just not as the progressive liberators they vainly imagine themselves to be.
Secondly, while much has been written about the impending death of the Tory party, what seems to have gone unnoticed is the death of Labour as well. What once made claims to be the party of working people, a force in politics on the side of the needy and the vulnerable, has in just under a year become a death cult for comfortable progressives. The tragedy is that they will drag down the very people they purport to protect with them.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
39 minutes ago
- The Independent
Assisted dying: All you need to know following the crunch Commons vote
The assisted dying Bill cleared the House of Commons in a historic vote on Friday, with MPs backing moves to legalise it by a slim majority. Here, the PA news agency takes a look at the Bill and what happens next after a significant moment in its journey to become law. – What is in the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill? The proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death. This would be subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. The terminally ill person would take an approved substance, provided by a doctor but administered only by the person themselves. On Friday, MPs voted 314 to 291, majority 23, in favour of legalising assisted dying as they completed the mainstay of their work on the Bill. It will now face further debate in the House of Lords. – When would assisted dying be available if the Bill became law? The implementation period has been doubled to a maximum of four years from royal assent, the point it is rubber stamped into law, rather than the initially suggested two years. If the Bill was to pass later this year that would mean it might not be until 2029, potentially coinciding with the end of this Government's parliament, that assisted dying was being offered. Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who is the parliamentarian behind the Bill and put forward the extended timeframe, has insisted it is 'a backstop' rather than a target, as she pledged to 'hold the Government's feet to the fire' on implementing legislation should the Bill pass. The extended implementation period was one of a number of changes made since the Bill was first introduced to the Commons back in October. – What other changes have there been? On Friday, MPs bolstered the Bill so people with eating disorders are ruled out of falling into its scope. Another amendment, requiring ministers to report within a year of the Bill passing on how assisted dying could affect palliative care, was also approved by MPs. Previously, a High Court safeguard was dropped, with the oversight of judges in the assisted dying process replaced with expert panels. The change was much criticised by opponents, who said it weakened the Bill, but Ms Leadbeater has argued it strengthens it. At the end of a weeks-long committee process earlier this year to amend the Bill, Ms Leadbeater said rather than removing judges from the process, 'we are adding the expertise and experience of psychiatrists and social workers to provide extra protections in the areas of assessing mental capacity and detecting coercion while retaining judicial oversight'. Changes were also made to ensure the establishment of independent advocates to support people with learning disabilities, autism or mental health conditions and to set up a disability advisory board to advise on legal implementation and impact on disabled people. Amendments added earlier this month during report stage in the Commons will also see assisted dying adverts banned if the Bill becomes law, and a prohibition on medics being able to speak to under-18s about assisted dying. – Do we know much more about the potential impact of such a service coming in? A Government impact assessment, published earlier this month, estimated that between 164 and 647 assisted deaths could potentially take place in the first year of the service, rising to between 1,042 and 4,559 in year 10. The establishment of a Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner and three-member expert panels would cost an estimated average of between £10.9 million and £13.6 million per year, the document said. It had 'not been possible' to estimate the overall implementation costs at this stage of the process, it added. While noting that cutting end-of-life care costs 'is not stated as an objective of the policy', the assessment estimated that such costs could be reduced by as much as an estimated £10 million in the first year and almost £60 million after 10 years. – Do healthcare staff have to take part in assisted dying? It was already the case that doctors would not have to take part, but MPs have since voted to insert a new clause into the Bill extending that to anyone. The wording means 'no person', including social care workers and pharmacists, is obliged to take part in assisted dying and can now opt out. Amendments to the Bill were debated on care homes and hospices also being able to opt out but these were not voted on. Ms Leadbeater has previously said there is nothing in the Bill to say they have to, nor is there anything to say they do not have to, adding on the Parliament Matters podcast that this is 'the best position to be in' and that nobody should be 'dictating to hospices what they do and don't do around assisted dying'. – What will happen next? Friday's vote in the Commons makes it more likely for the assisted dying Bill to become law, now that it has the backing of a majority of MPs. But this is not guaranteed, and first it must continue on a journey through Parliament. The Bill now heads to the House of Lords, as both Houses of Parliament must agree its final text before it can be signed into law. During the next stages, peers are expected to put forward amendments to the Bill. If the Commons disagrees with these amendments, this will spark a process known as 'ping pong' which will continue until both Houses agree over its text. – Will the Bill definitely become law? There is a risk that the Bill could be stuck in a deadlock between the House of Commons and House of Lords, as it goes back and forth in disagreement. If this continues until the current session of Parliament ends, then the Bill would fall. Ms Leadbeater told journalists on Friday she hoped there were no attempts to purposefully wreck it by peers. 'I really hope there are no funny games, because the process has been extremely fair,' she said. The Spen Valley MP said she did not know when the current parliamentary session would end, but suggested it could stretch into late 2025, giving her Bill the best part of six months to complete the full parliamentary process. Speaking about the end of the session to reporters, Ms Leadbeater said: 'I am not imagining that is going to be imminently, but it could be before the end of the year.' One member of the House of Lords, Bishop of London Dame Sarah Mullally, has already indicated she is against it. The Church of England bishop said peers 'must oppose' the assisted dying Bill when it reaches them because of the 'mounting evidence that it is unworkable and unsafe'. – What about assisted dying in the rest of the UK and Crown Dependencies? The Isle of Man looks likely to become the first part of the British Isles to legalise assisted dying, after its proposed legislation passed through a final vote of the parliament's upper chamber in March. In what was hailed a 'landmark moment', members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) in May voted in favour of the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, backing its general principles. It will now go forward for further scrutiny and amendments but will become law only if MSPs approve it in a final vote, which should take place later this year. Any move to legalise assisted dying in Northern Ireland would have to be passed by politicians in the devolved Assembly at Stormont. Jersey's parliament is expected to debate a draft law for an assisted dying service on the island for terminally ill people later this year. With a likely 18-month implementation period if a law is approved, the earliest it could come into effect would be summer 2027.
North Wales Chronicle
39 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Assisted dying law closer but MPs' support narrows in historic vote
Kim Leadbeater described backing for her Bill in the Commons as 'a convincing majority', after the number was slashed from 55 in November to 23 on Friday. The Labour MP declared 'thank goodness' after the result, but hospices are among those warning of the 'seismic change' for end-of-life care. Staunch supporter Dame Esther Rantzen, who is terminally ill but has said a new law is unlikely to come in time for her, thanked MPs for doing their bit to protect terminally ill people from a 'bad death'. She told the PA news agency: 'This will make a huge positive difference, protecting millions of terminally ill patients and their families from the agony and loss of dignity created by a bad death. 'Thank you, Parliament.' While 314 MPs voted for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill at third reading, 291 voted against. Some 14 MPs switched from voting in favour to against, while only one MP – Labour's Jack Abbott – switched from voting no to voting yes. The proposed legislation will now move to the House of Lords for further debate and votes, although one peer has already urged her colleagues they 'must oppose a law that puts the vulnerable at risk'. Bishop of London Dame Sarah Mullally, a former chief nursing officer for England, said instead work is needed to better fund access to 'desperately needed palliative care services'. Her sentiment was echoed by a range of end-of-life care organisations including Marie Curie, which said legalising assisted dying will make it 'more crucial than ever' for governments across the UK 'ensure that there is palliative care available for anyone who needs it'. Ahead of the vote, MPs approved a change to the Bill, which will require ministers to assess within a year of any new law coming into effect the quality and distribution of palliative care services currently available and the impact of an assisted dying service on them. The charity said while it welcomed the change, 'this will not on its own make the improvements needed to guarantee everyone is able to access the palliative care they need'. Ms Leadbeater said the vote result was one that 'so many people need', insisting her Bill has enough safeguards and will 'give dying people choice'. Asked about the narrower gap between supporters and opponents, Ms Leadbeater said she knew there would be 'some movement both ways' but insisted the vote showed a 'convincing majority'. She told reporters: 'The will of the House (of Commons) will now be respected by the Lords, and the Bill will go through to its next stage.' Acknowledging those who remain opposed to the Bill, she said she is 'happy to work with them to provide any reassurance or if they've got any questions about the Bill that they want to talk through with me, my door has always been open and remains open'. Conservative MP Danny Kruger, who opposes the Bill, said support 'is ebbing away very fast', telling of his disappointment the Bill passed but adding: 'The fact is, their majority's been cut in half.' Campaigners wept, jumped and hugged each other outside Parliament as the vote result was announced, while some MPs appeared visibly emotional as they left the chamber. Others lined up to shake hands with Ms Leadbeater, the Bill's sponsor through the Commons, with some, including Home Office minister Jess Phillips, stopping to hug the Spen Valley MP. Before a Bill can be signed into law, both the Lords and the Commons must agree the final text. Thanks to the four-year implementation period, it could be 2029 – potentially coinciding with the end of this Government's parliament – before assisted dying is offered. Encouraging or assisting suicide is currently against the law in England and Wales, with a maximum jail sentence of 14 years. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer remained supportive of the Bill, voting yes on Friday as he had done last year. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, who had urged MPs to vote against the legislation, describing it as 'a bad Bill' despite being 'previously supportive of assisted suicide', voted no. During an hours-long date on Friday, MPs on both sides of the issue recalled personal stories of loved ones who had died. Conservative former minister Sir James Cleverly, who led the opposition to the Bill in the Commons, spoke of a close friend who died 'painfully' from cancer. He said he comes at the divisive issue 'not from a position of faith nor from a position of ignorance', and was driven in his opposition by 'concerns about the practicalities' of the Bill. MPs had a free vote on the Bill, meaning they decided according to their conscience rather than along party lines. The proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
It is time for the House of Lords to come to the rescue
For good or ill, Britain is on course to conquer what many saw as the twin peaks of liberal enlightenment: the right to have an abortion right up to the point of birth and the right to allow terminally ill people to take their own lives. Today's vote in the Commons on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill confirms that last year's general election result has changed Britain more radically than the new Government's official policy programme ever could. The vast majority of this cohort of Labour MPs have seen an opportunity to reshape society according to their own political preferences and they have grabbed that opportunity with enthusiasm. They could have paused and reflected, as perhaps older, more experienced parliamentarians would have done. They could have insisted on a Bill that had fewer flaws, more safeguards against the dangers that assisted dying will inevitably introduce. They could have had the patience to wait for another opportunity when an improved Bill might be presented, one that had none of the obvious flaws of Kim Leadbeater's Private Member's Bill. Instead, the enthusiasm with which they have discarded centuries of consensus on the dignity and value of human life has been unnerving. Their willingness to opt for the best available solution rather than insist that, on this occasion, only the perfect one would do has been disquieting. None of the reservations that opponents to the Bill have been properly addressed. Unless the Lords can force through radical changes, there will remain deep seated and justifiable fears that terminally ill people will face irresistible pressure from members of their own family to 'do the decent thing' and spare everyone even more misery. Their Lordships in the upper chamber still have an opportunity to improve the Bill and doubtless they will take it. They will take a mercilessly critical eye to Leadbeater's work and make some well-argued arguments to support their amendments. And then it's back to the Commons, where any changes made to the text of the Bill by the Lords will either be approved or overturned by MPs. The parliamentary ping-pong could take some time before one side or the other (usually the Lords) capitulates to the will of the other chamber. But if ever any topic was appropriate to a long debate and measured disagreement, it is this one. It's now over to our unelected, undemocratic House of Lords to do the job that we can no longer expect the Commons to do.
