Opponents of assisted dying vow to fight on as MPs back Bill
The Spen Valley MP declared 'thank goodness' after the result while Rebecca Wilcox, daughter of campaigner Dame Esther Rantzen, said it was 'wonderful' the result had come ahead of her mother's birthday.
But opponents vowed to fight on against what they called a 'deeply flawed Bill'.
A group of 27 Labour MPs who voted against the legislation said: 'We were elected to represent both of those groups and are still deeply concerned about the risks in this Bill of coercion of the old and discrimination against the disabled, people with anorexia and black, Asian and minority ethnic people, who we know do not receive equitable health care.
'As the Bill moves to the House of Lords it must receive the scrutiny that it needs. Not about the principles of assisted dying but its application in this deeply flawed Bill.'
But Ms Leadbeater told the PA news agency she hoped there would be no 'funny games' in the Lords, as her Bill faces further tough hurdles in the upper chamber.
She added: 'I would be upset to think that anybody was playing games with such an important and such an emotional issue.'
Meanwhile, one of the leading opponents of the Bill, Conservative Danny Kruger, described its supporters as 'enemies', saying he felt 'like Evelyn Waugh at the time of the Nazi-Soviet Pact in 1939'.
In a series of tweets on Friday night, the East Wiltshire MP accused assisted dying campaigners of being 'militant anti-Christians' who had failed to 'engage with the detail of the Bill'.
He added: 'It's the revenge of the middle-aged against their dependents.'
Ms Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End Of Life) Bill will now proceed to the House of Lords, where it will undergo further scrutiny before becoming law, should peers decide to back the legislation.
But some peers have already spoken out against the legislation, with the Bishop of London, Dame Sarah Mullally, saying they 'must oppose' the Bill as 'unworkable and unsafe'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
23 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Will Keir Starmer recognise Palestine?
Photo byThe image stays with you: this week it has covered the front pages of the world's newspapers. A mother, herself worn down and bruised by 21 months of conflict, cradles her child, who is swaddled in a bin bag. The child has lost a third of its body weight, it now weighs 6kg. Such images are not unique in Gaza, where starvation is general to a community after the blockade of humanitarian aid. The international community is looking on in horror, pleading with Israel to reconsider. On Sunday, the Israeli government issued a temporary reprieve allowing deliveries of aid into parts of Gaza. In the UK, there is pressure on the government to officially recognise the state of Palestine. This pressure originally mounted from the backbenches, but now, even members of the cabinet (Shabana Mahmood, Wes Streeting and Hilary Benn) are ramping up their private calls for Starmer to recognise Palestinian statehood. Over the weekend, 220 MPs from nine political parties – including 131 Labour MPs – signed a letter calling for the immediate recognition of Palestine. In the run up to the 2024 general election, the party's manifesto included a pledge to recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution towards a renewed peace process which results in a two-state solution, but a year on, and both Starmer and his Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, are yet to make good on this promise. The government's current position is that the UK will acknowledge Palestinian statehood as part of a peace process, but only at the point of 'maximum impact'. On Saturday, Starmer doubled down, rejecting renewed calls for the UK to reconsider and immediately recognise a Palestinian state, reasserting the UK's alignment with the US on this issue (a move which one cabinet minister told The Times was 'deeply inadequate'). The opportunity for Starmer to recognise the Palestinian state has presented itself more than once. Most recently, it was thought that Starmer might wait to go ahead with recognition alongside the French President, Emmanuel Macron. The UK and France argue a historical responsibility for the continuation of a Palestinian community in the Middle East, and so plenty suspected the countries would make a dual statement. But the opportunity for joint Franco-UK recognition has now passed. On Thursday 24 July, Macron announced France's intention to recognise Palestine at the upcoming UN general assembly. (Starmer, on the other hand, almost simultaneously released a statement sticking to the government line). Backbench MPs are losing their patience. Rachael Maskell, who lost the Labour whip last week following her involvement in the welfare rebellion, believes 'time is running out' for any governmental recognition of Palestine to have its desired effect. 'We should have recognised Palestine many, many years ago,' she said, 'it's been Labour party policy since 2014'. Maskell was one of 60 MPs to sign a letter to the Foreign Secretary in July calling for Palestine's immediate recognition. Ian Byrne, the Labour MP for Liverpool West Derby agreed: 'We had a vote over a decade ago about Palestine. [Recognition] was in the manifesto. What we're seeing now with the genocide, there's the political will now from all sides of the house to do something.' Byrne said now is the time for the UK to step up and take international responsibility. 'The UK has the opportunity to do the right thing. We are one of the world leaders and sometimes you need a leader to take the lead.' He criticised the government for acting 'extremely slowly' on Gaza. Even more moderate back-bench Labour MPs are ramping up the pressure on the government. One member of the 2024 intake told me, 'It's beyond horrific, we have to seriously consider our relationship with Israel.' Israel has now offered a brief cessation of its full scale aid blockade, and Lammy has said the channelling of aid into the Gaza strip must be 'urgently accelerated'. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe No country is likely to get involved in this conflict militarily (unless a UN peacekeeping force is assembled), instead, more substantial diplomatic levers could be pulled such as suspending the UK-Israel trade agreement and imposing sanctions not only on the most outspoken ministers (as the UK has already done with Smotrich and Ben Gvir) but all Israeli political and military leaders involved in the conflict. Many Labour MPs would agree with this. Byrne called for an 'arms embargo, military cooperation to be ended, and comprehensive sanctions'. And it is not just Labour. Kit Malthouse, the Conservative MP for North West Hertfordshire said Lammy could end up in the Hague over his inaction on Gaza as he called on the government to press for an immediate ceasefire. This week the Daily Express carried a front page bearing the face of an emaciated Palestinian child crying 'enough is enough': concern over the plight of Palestinians now transcends party politics. This is unlikely to be an electoral downfall for Keir Starmer. But, with the pro-Gaza independent MPs taking seats last summer otherwise ordained for Labour, it is obvious that this is damaging to the party on its left flank. The Prime Minister may continue to prevaricate. But were we at the polls tomorrow, votes would be shed because of it. [See more: The abomination of Obama's nation] Related
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Angela Rayner on lessons learned from Labour's first year
Pippa Crerar and Kiran Stacey speak to Angela Rayner about Labour's first year in government and the challenges ahead. The deputy prime minister reveals the issue that keeps her awake at night, reflects on why voters are frustrated with Labour, what she thinks the party can do about it, and how it's planning to take the fight to Reform
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
It's hard to see new left party cutting through in Scotland
The first thing to say is that if it is able to break out of the factions and abbreviations which abound in the terrain to the left of Labour – and with 300,000 claimed sign-ups and a poll rating of 10% it just might – then it marks a very big change in socialist thinking. For more than a century, socialists who wanted to change capitalism have rubbed along in the Labour Party with those who just wanted a bit more from it. Now large sections of the Labour left look set to give up the ghost. For me, that ship sailed long ago. It's more than two decades since I became convinced that using the powers that Scotland would get with political independence offered a much better prospect of changing the world than trying to reform a British state run by people still steeped in the mindset of empire. READ MORE: Man arrested for 'carrying a placard calling Donald Trump an offensive word' Nonetheless it's an important debate. The political character of England should matter greatly to Scotland and this new party might even play a role here. In one sense the Labour left has nowhere to go. Those now in control of the party have made it perfectly clear radical views are no longer welcome within it. They have been demonised and purged. Labour is manifesting every bit as much intolerance and authoritarianism in its internal structures as it does in government. But how did it come to this? A short time ago the Labour left had more power than at any point in the party's history. Corbyn was leader and commanded the considerable resources provided to the parliamentary opposition by the state. The left controlled the conference and the NEC. And the mobilisation of the grassroots through Momentum was impressive in its day. Yet within a few short years it had all evaporated. Corbyn and others left or were expelled, policy was abandoned wholesale, and the Labour conference would sing the national anthem with no visible dissent. It has been a remarkable transition both in speed and scale. In part this is because the Corbyn project failed abjectly (Image: Getty) in its own terms. Jeremy became leader by accident. And he wasn't very good at it. I watched for years in the House of Commons the breathtaking disloyalty of the right-wing Labour parliamentarians towards the Corbyn front bench. It was embarrassing. Never have I seen such hostility and hate between political parties, never mind within one. But no-one got suspended, or expelled or deselected. They were ignored, left alone to operate as a party within a party. Despite his strength in the wider party organisation, Corbyn never moved against his enemy within. Too naïve, or too nice. Either way, a fatal mistake. Corbyn also never got out of his silo, unwilling or incapable of moving beyond his natural support. He should have developed a narrative about Brexit or constitutional reform that would have galvanised a wider alliance which the left could lead. He didn't. Once defeated, his opponents lost no time in eradicating any possible legacy. These right-wing parliamentarians had been busy making plans. There were organised by a ruthless and clever Irishman called Morgan McSweeney under the banner Labour Together. McSweeney built a strategy for power inspired by Odysseus. Seeing the popularity of left policies in the party, and among the electorate, he argued for 'Corbynism without Corbyn'. But he needed someone to front it who couldn't immediately be outed as a right-wing hack. Step forward the hapless Keir Starmer. You'll cringe to look now at the ten-point platform McSweeney drew up for Starmer's leadership bid. Common ownership, higher income tax on top earners, improving welfare, and more. It worked at the time. Those Labour members who hadn't left after their leader fell lapped it up. Once in position, McSweeney and his acolytes didn't show any hesitation that might have come from wanting to be nice or fair. At breakneck speed and with ruthless efficiency they brushed aside anyone in their way, including many on the soft left, which they saw as a gateway for extremists. They won through deceit, but at the price of the party itself. Which is why we've got a new one. So, what does this mean for us? We've just got used to Scotland being a plurality in which six parties compete. Are we now to have seven? It's hard to see. Certainly, there's plenty of discontent within Labour ranks, but not nearly as much as in places like London. Besides, there's already plenty of options where the disenchanted could escape to. And across it all lies the independence question. Not really something you can avoid. Is it plausible, or possible, for a new party to say we're really radical and want a complete overhaul of the system, but we are agnostic on whether Scotland should be an independent country or remain in the UK? Especially when they would, by definition, be living proof of the failure of the latter option.
