‘Conversation ends' about assisted dying if bill voted down, says MP
Speaking at a press conference organised by supporters of the bill, which has its third reading on 25 April when MPs will vote on amendments, Kim Leadbeater said her colleagues in the Commons have a 'duty as parliamentarians to change the law now'.
The Labour MP dismissed the idea that if the bill was defeated, the subject could return as government legislation or a royal commission, noting the long gap between the last time assisted dying was debated in the Commons, in 2015, and her efforts.
'What worries me is, if the bill doesn't pass, the conversation ends, and that would be really dreadful for so many people, for so many reasons,' she said.
A lengthy and sometimes gruelling committee stage in which a group of MPs considered amendments to the bill has already brought significant changes, including scrapping the requirement for a high court judge to scrutinise every case in favour of an expert panel.
In a last-minute concession just before the committee stage ended, Leadbeater proposed pushing back the earliest implementation of the law to 2029, two years later than envisaged.
But the main element of eligibility remains the same, with assisted dying only available to terminally ill adults in England and Wales with fewer than six months to live.
The third reading vote on 25 April carries some uncertainty, although the second reading vote in November passed with a majority of 25, prompting opponents of the bill to claim some MPs have changed their minds.
Speaking at the same press conference in parliament with Leadbeater, Sir Max Hill, a former director of public prosecutions who backs the bill, said the 'dial has turned' in terms of public opinion as he warned MPs against seeking more delay.
He said: 'There is time for anyone on receipt of the republished bill to really consider it carefully – kicking this can down the road really is no solution for anybody.'
Leadbeater said criticism that scrutiny of the bill had been rushed was 'utter nonsense'.
Sign up to First Edition
Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters
after newsletter promotion
Another Labour MP, Marie Tidball, who was on the bill scrutiny committee and is a disability rights advocate, said she had been happy with an amendment to guarantee independent advocates to support people with learning disabilities, autism or mental health conditions, and that she would support it at third reading.
Tidball said: 'I can say, as someone who has looked at legislative scrutiny over the course of the last 20 years, this is the most extraordinary, deliberative cross-party process I've ever seen.'
Some MPs, however, remain opposed. In a statement released by opponents of the bill in response to the press conference, Labour MP James Frith called the bill 'a mess, with significant issues of concern where there had been promises of scrutiny and improvement'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
Can Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves escape the economic doom loop?
Rachel Reeves has a new joke. When she greets Labour MPs at Downing Street receptions, the chancellor flashes a smile and says: 'You're only invited because you've not signed one of those nasty open letters.' She's referring to the damaging habit in recent months of restive backbenchers criticising the government's policies in long, petition-like missives, then dispatching them to the newspapers. Since those very rebel MPs stymied her attempts to get through the government's welfare reforms, Reeves has been mired in grim news about the state of the country's finances and a damaging, loud drumbeat about the urgent need for big tax rises. The U-turn they forced on her over disability payments alone has left her with perhaps £3 billion more spending to cover. 'It's been hugely frustrating, and Rachel is furious at them,' says a Reeves ally on the backbenches. 'Frankly … the problems we've got ourselves in are their f***ing fault. They've added to her lack of headroom by listening to pressure groups and giving her more problems to solve.' The National Institute for Economic and Social Research shockingly declared last week that anaemic economic growth has left Britain £50 billion in the red — far worse than the £20 billion previously thought. Hemmed in by her petition-signing backbenchers, Reeves has found herself unable to stem the outpouring of negative sentiment about the tax sledgehammer coming in her autumn budget. With MPs away from parliament, the news vacuum from Westminster has been filled by daily speculation about new tax rises. Last week alone saw blanket coverage of Angela Rayner's idea of higher council taxes and Gordon Brown's call for increased taxes on online casinos to cover the cost of scrapping the two-child cap on benefits. Nobody knows where the tax hikes are going to fall, or who they're going to hit the worst, but everyone is aware they're there, in the distance, coming our way. Britain is in a fiscal sniper's alley. Dangerously for the economy, with the budget not likely until November, the alley is a long one. Adam Smith, chief of staff to Jeremy Hunt during his time as chancellor, is a veteran of two budgets and two autumn statements. He says all this speculation so early in the tax announcement cycle is seriously troubling. 'There is a real danger to confidence of constant speculation about what is and what isn't going to be in. The government is in a jam. They want to rule out some of the wilder speculation, but if they get into that game, everyone assumes if they don't rule something out, they're going to do it,' he says. The result is drift and uncertainty. It's a drift that could end up with the same kind of economic 'doom loop' the government plunged the economy into in the months after last July's election. Then, ministers constantly talked down the economy with claims of a £22 billion 'black hole' left by the Conservatives — scaring the country rigid about a potential budget bloodbath. The result was a crimp on economic growth that did not need to happen, as consumers and businesses put a lid on their spending plans. Worse still, Reeves kept the country waiting nearly four months for the budget to bring us some clarity. It's only natural that the parallels should be drawn between then and now, but this time, Labour is not controlling the narrative. Reeves cannot talk up the economy too much because it is so fragile she may end up eating her words by the autumn. Nor can she rule out any tax rises, because she might have to rule them back in. Amid all this uncertainty, consumer confidence, measured by the GfK market research group, is at its worst state since December. Neil Bellamy, GfK's consumer insights director, cites people's fear of 'stormy conditions ahead' for their taxes. Business leaders talk darkly of the public's willingness to spend 'falling off a cliff'. Those high street barometers of the country's spending power — Domino's Pizza and Greggs — have both rattled investors with warnings of a consumer slowdown. For employers, the lack of clarity around the tax situation feels deadly, from family-run restaurants to major shop chains. Most are still struggling to absorb the shock to their finances of the employers' national insurance hike, which came into effect in April. Labour's workers' rights reforms only make them more jittery. Andrew Murphy, chief executive of The Entertainer, Britain's biggest independent toyshop chain, says the employers' national insurance increase alone will cost his business £3.2 million this year — nearly 40 per cent of his profits. 'We've had to cut 63 roles in our head office in Amersham,' he says. 'And it's the same across every business I speak to. All they're investing in is technology that can save labour, or offshoring jobs to cheaper countries abroad. It's as brutal as that.' He adds that planning future investment in the business — the kind of investment that drives economic growth — is all on hold. 'You just don't know if the government is going to jump out from behind a hedge and hit you with some surprise new tax like they did last time,' he says. 'There is just zero confidence among businesses that the government will come up with anything creative, confidence-inspiring or visionary to boost the economy … It will be just more tax.' Lower investment from businesses means less employment. The rise of employers' national insurance has particularly hit companies that rely on high numbers of workers on modest pay. Restaurants and hotels, which employ about 8 per cent of the UK workforce, look particularly vulnerable, even though it's not quite visible yet. The increase came just as they were going into the busy spring-summer season when the warm weather and sport boosted sales. The question is, what happens when the summer is over? Tim Martin, chief executive of Wetherspoons, says his business can weather the storm but 'there has got to be substantial vulnerability out there because of the scale of the cost rises'. What most frustrates businesses — and centrist Labour MPs — is that Reeves and Sir Keir Starmer appear unable to rein in welfare spending. Even some Starmer allies in parliament express concern at his apparent inability to herd his turbulent party. One says: 'We need to get backbenchers to understand they are part of the government. The way you get things done in a functional government is by quietly and privately talking to ministers and explaining the implications of what they are planning. Not by shouting from the outside.' He still remains more frustrated at his backbench colleagues than the leadership, though: 'Of course, some of that's on Keir, it's up to him to lead. But it can't all come from the same two people who are insanely busy at the centre.' This, some close to Starmer say, is part of the problem. With the rapidly developing situations in Ukraine and Gaza to contend with, plus protests over immigration (by far the biggest concern on constituents' doorsteps), the PM has lacked the 'bandwidth' to focus on the nitty-gritty politicking of bringing discipline to his party. But one former Labour adviser, who knows him well, warns that this is not a good enough excuse. 'He is a lovely guy, but where's the leadership? How did he think he could get the party to rally behind an attack on the poorest in society? The whips were warning them the party was going to blow up over the welfare reforms but they didn't listen.' Those in the Reeves camp say she is working to create a more 'Labour' narrative for the measures that will come in the autumn budget. 'She's not going to get into a Whac-A-Mole about what precise measures we are or aren't going to take, but she is talking about the principles that will be behind the budget,' says one. 'What the economic 'story' will be.' Expect, then, to hear plenty of noises about 'contribution' — meaning rewards for 'hard-working people who pay their way' (as opposed to rich non-doms and wealthy bankers with children at private school). We will also be hearing more about those old favourites, 'productivity and growth', rather than just tax and spend. Those close to Reeves cite as examples the new pension reforms, the go-ahead for an extra terminal at Heathrow and faster planning to get building work started. 'She is constantly pushing officials: 'Is there more we can do on growth?',' one adviser says. Unlike after the election, Reeves is not talking down the economy. She has been out on what her team calls a 'summer tour' since the recess, putting on hi-vis and hard hats, meeting businesses. Her message is that the economy is not broken, but it has been stuck for years, exacerbated by Covid and bad Conservative stewardship. She feels business confidence is fairly strong and that the UK is seen internationally as a safe place to invest. Last week's interest rate cut from the Bank of England was, she says, a testimony to the stability she has brought to the economy. That positivity will chime with Steven Fine, chief executive of the stockbroker Peel Hunt, who says he is fed up with businesses talking down the UK: 'I think we've got a massive domestic lack of self-esteem, and it's just not warranted,' he says. 'We need to take a step back and think how resilient our economy has been: [since 2020] we've had three prime ministers, five chancellors, a cost of living crisis, a U-turn on the welfare state reforms. But we've not had a recession, we've been remarkably resilient given all the s**t that's been thrown at the economy. The rest of Europe's far more unstable than we are, and we've got a government with a decent majority.' The shadow chancellor Mel Stride has been trying to make hay from the government's economic travails. He says: 'When people ask me what I'd do to get out of this mess, I say that's like passing someone the steering wheel after the car's been smashed into a wall at 100 mph by a reckless driver and being asked: 'What would you do now?' The answer is, I wouldn't have crashed the car in the first place. 'I would not have destroyed growth by taxing the living daylights out of business; I would not have spent and borrowed hundreds of billions extra to stoke inflation and kept interest rates higher for longer; I would not have given in to the pay demands of train drivers and junior doctors without productivity strings attached. And I would have done much, much more to bring the welfare budget firmly under control.' Bizarrely enough, though, it's as easy to hear such fervour from Starmer's own backbenchers as the official opposition. Take this nautical message one sent to me on Saturday night: 'We're adrift in choppy seas with a skipper and first mate that can't navigate, and even if they could, they don't know where they're heading. Some of those they've thrown overboard for disciplinary matters have now found their own life raft and are attempting to ram us hard to port. All the while the SS Farage looms on the horizon to our stern — constantly menacing.' It's not only Nigel Farage who's menacing. Asked if his metaphorical meanderings were off the record, the MP who sent it responded: 'For now, yes. The time is fast approaching when it won't be, though.' With friends like these …
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
Why ‘grifter' has become the go-to political insult of 2025
Our world is full of grifters. Or so it seems, considering how often that word is thrown around in public life these days. This year alone, Zarah Sultana, the former Labour MP and founder of a new left party with Jeremy Corbyn, called the Reform UK leader, Nigel Farage, a 'billionaire-backed grifter' (perhaps borrowing from the language of Coutts staff who referred to him as a 'disingenuous grifter' when his bank account was closed two years ago). Sultana, in turn, was accused of being a 'grifter' duping 'honest socialists' by the journalist Paul Mason. When giving evidence at the Covid inquiry, the Spectator editor and former cabinet minister, Michael Gove, called the lawyer Jolyon Maugham, whose Good Law Project campaign group pursued PPE contract cases, a 'politically motivated grifter'. Meanwhile, the journalist and author James Ball accused the New York University history professor Ruth Ben-Ghiat of 'resistance grift' for suggesting the US health secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr, is trying to control the population by spreading disease. In a recent podcast, the Atlantic writer David Frum called Donald Trump's presidency the 'grift machine', while the US president was also called 'grifter-in-chief' by Florida congressman Maxwell Frost. Two years ago, it was the Sussexes who were memorably called 'fucking grifters' by Spotify's head of podcast innovation, Bill Simmons, after their multiyear deal with the platform ended after just 12 episodes. From 2017-24, the written use of the word 'grifter' has more than doubled, according to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED). But over the past few months in particular, it has been striking how often the term – both grifter and grift – is cropping up in our political discourse. In April this year, it made its debut in parliament: it was used in a House of Commons debate on the impact of digital platforms on democracy by the Liberal Democrat MP for Cheltenham, Max Wilkinson. 'You find a mad and hateful narrative. You tell everyone it is free speech, and before you know it, you might be lucky enough to become a successful online grifter with your top off,' he said. 'Perhaps you will be an MP, or maybe even the president of America.' 'Grifter', according to the OED, is a variant of the US slang 'grafter': someone who 'makes money by shady or dishonest means; a thief; a swindler' – or 'one who practises 'graft', especially in public life; a politician, official, etc, who misuses his or her position in order to reap dishonest gain or advantage'. That second meaning has clearly captured the political zeitgeist. 'It's a kind of shorthand for inviting suspicion about the methods and motivations of someone with an opposing viewpoint,' Fiona McPherson, an executive editor at the OED, told me. Why is it that we're not only disagreeing with our political opponents, but assuming they are con artists somehow profiting from what we deem to be their bad opinions, policies and rhetorical style? Spivs who are in it for nefarious ends rather than simply wrong-headed? When you search the term 'grifter' on sites such as Reddit and TikTok, it is often used in relation to influencers – wellness gurus, pickup artists, life coaches, crypto bros. So many online subcultures now dabble in essentially the same business model: sowing insecurity and then charging people with the promise to rid them of it. Wherever the algorithm leads you, from sleep coaches for knackered new mums to gym rats for lonely boys, you are likely being exposed, day in, day out, to some form of grift. When politicians themselves mimic such influencers – Farage and the shadow justice secretary, Robert Jenrick, for example, now trade in to-camera vertical videos that gain millions of views – it is hard to ignore the similarities. Suspicions of British politicians' motives in general are high, sparked by the 2009 expenses scandal and intensifying over the past few years of crony Covid contracts and ministers bagging freebies. The rise of the 'true scam' genre also reveals our morbid fascination with grift. From the Tinder Swindler to Fyre festival, and Theranos to the Captain Tom Foundation, stories of the hubris and humiliation of people perceived to be on the make with our money dominate TV documentaries, long-form journalism and investigative podcasts. All this and you can barely open your banking app today without warnings about the nefarious means used by scammers to winkle money out of you. Fraud is the most common crime in England and Wales, with the highest number of cases recorded last year. In the resulting atmosphere of ambient paranoia, perhaps it's little wonder we're on the lookout for 'grifters' – and why the insult appears to resonate. So welcome to the Age of Grift: if you're not spotting it, you're probably on the end of it. Anoosh Chakelian is Britain editor of the New Statesman
Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Telegraph
Labour develops AI to predict parliamentary rebellions
Labour is developing a computer model to predict future rebellions after Sir Keir Starmer was humbled by his own backbenchers over welfare reforms. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is funding an Artificial Intelligence (AI) programme to scour debate records for signs of MPs who will vote against the Government. The move comes amid concern that the Prime Minister is being pushed around by his party following a series of mutinies. Parlex is billed as software that can 'forecast parliamentary reaction' by analysing records of past debates in the Commons. It will allow civil servants to draw up dossiers for Cabinet ministers saying which MPs, including those in their own ranks, are likely to oppose specific policies. A project page on the government website said: 'By analysing years of parliamentary debate contributions from MPs and Peers, Parlex offers insights into how Parliament might react to a new policy if it were debated tomorrow. 'This tool helps policy professionals gauge parliamentary sentiment towards specific issues, determining whether a policy will be well-received or face significant opposition. 'This allows policy teams to understand the political climate and anticipate potential challenges or support for a policy before it is formally proposed and to build a parliamentary handling strategy.' Sir Keir faced the biggest crisis of his premiership in July when more than 120 Labour MPs threatened to revolt against changes to sickness benefits. The Prime Minister was eventually forced to abandon the reforms, which would have saved £5bn a year, after a significant blow to his authority. It was not the first time that he had been humbled by a backbench rebellion. In 2023, while he was leader of the opposition, he was defied by 56 of his MPs who broke the party whip to vote for a ceasefire in Gaza. This month, Sir Keir announced he planned to recognise a Palestinian state after again coming under heavy pressure from backbenchers and the Cabinet. With many Labour MPs sitting on wafer-thin majorities and fearing defeat at the next election, there are expectations that party discipline could break down further. The science ministry announced that it was developing Parlex earlier this year as part of a new suite of AI tools known as Humphrey. It has been named after Sir Humphrey Appleby, the permanent secretary at the 'Department of Administrative Affairs' in the 1980s TV satire Yes, Minister. Ministers said that the system was 'still in early-stage user testing' but had already cut the amount of time it took officials to research an MP.
