Lord Falconer's selective constitutional memory
Good old Charlie Falconer. For more than 15 years now, the noble Lord has been trying, desperately, to ram assisted dying through parliament. Kim Leadbeater's Bill represents his eighth attempt at legalising suicide following previous efforts in 2009, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2019, 2022 and 2024. Now, with a narrow majority of just 23 MPs backing Leadbeater's legislation, Falconer clearly senses the victory that has eluded him for so long…
The New Labour grandee penned a piece in the Times last week headlined 'Assisted dying will end the anguish. We won't let wreckers derail it.' It concluded that MPs had 'decided the law must change. The Lords will scrutinise and improve but it will respect and give effect to that decision.' In short, what MPs say, goes. Appearing subsequently on Tuesday's edition of the Today programme, he was asked whether the role of the Lords was to 'ultimately uphold something that the directly elected members of the Commons have decided to go ahead with.' 'Correct', replied Falconer.
But has the good Lord himself stuck to this self-denying ordinance? A quick look at his voting record would certainly suggest not. For back in October 2011, he was one of 220 Peers, mostly Labour, who tried to vote down the Coalition's Health and Social Care Bill – despite it having passed the Commons with a majority of 65 MPs at Third Reading. He subsequently tried to delay Tory changes to tax credits in October 2015, despite it passing the Commons with a majority of 22. And, more recently, he voted against the 2023 Illegal Migration Bill – despite a Commons majority of 59.
The point here is *not* that the Lords cannot vote down legislation passed by MPs. It is that those supporting assisted dying ought to recognise the rights and responsibilities of the Upper House – and be honest about their own voting records in parliament. Otherwise there will be inevitable talk of rules for thee but not for me…
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
6 hours ago
- The Guardian
Disabled Labour MP says welfare U-turn would create ‘unethical two-tier system'
A disabled Labour MP has said Keir Starmer's chaotic U-turn on welfare reform will create an 'unethical two-tier system', in a damning intervention which will put further pressure on the prime minister to change course. Olivia Blake, one of only nine MPs in parliament who has a disclosed disability, said the proposed changes to the welfare bill have been 'plucked from the air' by ministers scrambling to secure support for the bill in Tuesday's crunch vote in the Commons. 'The first thing I thought when I heard the concessions was, wait, we've not taken the step back that's needed here, we're working to improve a bill which is really harmful,' she said. 'This could form an unethical two-tier system that treats two people with the exact same injury or illness differently.' Blake, who has genetic pain disorders and is neurodivergent, said she has repeatedly warned ministers and whips for months about the inadequacy of the plans, but described the process of trying to communicate with government as like 'shouting at a brick wall'. 'They will meet you and chat with you but not respond. They need to learn lessons from that.' She added: 'I'm disappointed that something has been plucked from the air without engaging disabled people.' There have been after several days of frantic negotiations by the government as ministers tried to quell a rebellion of 120-plus Labour MPs over next week's welfare bill. Under the original plans, the personal independence payments (Pip) system would have its eligibility significantly tightened while out of work sickness benefits would be cut. The work and pensions secretary, Liz Kendall, has now promised to exempt current disability claimants from the changes, and to increase the health element of universal credit in line with inflation. Blake is adamant this is not enough. 'There are other ways forward and concessions made on this bill can't lead to future claimants suffering consequences that today's claimants may be able to avoid,' she said. 'We can't kick the can down the road. We certainly can't take away the already limited support disabled people rely on, condemning many to a life of poverty and deteriorating health.' The government has promised that the entire criteria system will be reviewed in conjunction with disabled people, but there is growing resentment among disability advocates that this was not done sooner. Blake said she agrees with their anger. 'I think the government needs to listen to disabled people, starting with its own backbenchers because it's clear our voices are still locked out,' she added. Vicky Foxcroft, who has rheumatoid arthritis, resigned as a whip in protest over the bill. With so few MPs in the party having a disclosed disability, Blake is disappointed the leadership has sidelined their input. 'It's hugely frustrating especially when colleagues have been going on the media day after day [incorrectly] calling Pip an out of work benefit,' she said. 'I've tried to flag that.' Blake is also one of the few MPs who has direct experience with the disability benefits system. In 2023, she applied for Pip herself, in part to understand what her constituents are facing. 'I'm in daily pain. I have to plan around flare-ups, hospital visits, and treatments that wipe me out for days,' she said. 'Even getting to work can mean pushing through fatigue and discomfort most people never experience. Sitting in the chamber is often excruciating.' Despite this, she was rejected for Pip, scoring just 2 points overall. She said: 'I found it staggering that the only one of my conditions that scored a point was my dyslexia. 'Even though I'd sent off reams of reports, test results, appointment notes and letters, correspondence with consultants. I thought there was a deep irony that the accessible form I had requested [for my dyslexia] arrived after their own deadlines.' Blake recalls there were multiple factual errors in the report but didn't feel confident enough to appeal. 'It made me question myself, as if I'd done something wrong.' The experience left her with an understanding of what other disabled people who rely on benefits are going through. 'This is not a system designed to support, it is a system that is toxic and makes people more ill.' This is the first time Blake, who was elected in 2019, has spoken publicly about her physical disabilities. 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 She said that she has not done so lightly. 'I worry people will think it means I can't do my job effectively or as a weakness,' she said. 'But I think it makes me a better representative because I get it.' Now, that means making a plea to her colleagues: 'This isn't about us. It's not about the games in Westminster. This is about the lives of disabled people that have continuously been undervalued.'
Spectator
7 hours ago
- Spectator
Lord Falconer's selective constitutional memory
Good old Charlie Falconer. For more than 15 years now, the noble Lord has been trying, desperately, to ram assisted dying through parliament. Kim Leadbeater's Bill represents his eighth attempt at legalising suicide following previous efforts in 2009, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2019, 2022 and 2024. Now, with a narrow majority of just 23 MPs backing Leadbeater's legislation, Falconer clearly senses the victory that has eluded him for so long… The New Labour grandee penned a piece in the Times last week headlined 'Assisted dying will end the anguish. We won't let wreckers derail it.' It concluded that MPs had 'decided the law must change. The Lords will scrutinise and improve but it will respect and give effect to that decision.' In short, what MPs say, goes. Appearing subsequently on Tuesday's edition of the Today programme, he was asked whether the role of the Lords was to 'ultimately uphold something that the directly elected members of the Commons have decided to go ahead with.' 'Correct', replied Falconer. But has the good Lord himself stuck to this self-denying ordinance? A quick look at his voting record would certainly suggest not. For back in October 2011, he was one of 220 Peers, mostly Labour, who tried to vote down the Coalition's Health and Social Care Bill – despite it having passed the Commons with a majority of 65 MPs at Third Reading. He subsequently tried to delay Tory changes to tax credits in October 2015, despite it passing the Commons with a majority of 22. And, more recently, he voted against the 2023 Illegal Migration Bill – despite a Commons majority of 59. The point here is *not* that the Lords cannot vote down legislation passed by MPs. It is that those supporting assisted dying ought to recognise the rights and responsibilities of the Upper House – and be honest about their own voting records in parliament. Otherwise there will be inevitable talk of rules for thee but not for me…
Spectator
a day ago
- Spectator
Tories fume at council by-election results
It seems that all is not well with the once-mighty Tory ground game. After a thumping set of election defeats last month, a worrying new trend has developed for the Conservatives. They are not only losing more wards in council by-elections; they now seem unable to field candidates, even in seats still represented at Westminster by the surviving 120 Tory MPs. Hardly a healthy sign… Three weeks ago, the party was unable to field candidates for two by-elections in King's Lynn and West Norfolk – a seat still held in the Commons by the Tory James Wild. Then, this week, the party could not find someone to stand for a vacant ward in Mel Stride's patch on Mid Devon District Council. Even when the party does field a candidate in Tory-held constituencies, it seems that there are very few wards that could now be considered truly safe territory. A devastating example of that was offered last night in Essex. Reform UK won its first seat on Basildon Council after polling 922 votes in the Wickford Park ward, ahead of the Tories on 840. It prompted a late-night ding-dong on the official Tory MPs' WhatsApp group between local MP Mark Francois and Nigel Huddleston, the party's co-chairman. Shortly after the count, amid some crowing on the group about a seat held in South Staffordshire, Francois wrote at 00:56 that: We lost in Wickford.. by 82 votes. Despite absolutely knocking ourselves out, for the best part of six weeks. The fault didn't lie with the front line troops – it was back at the Chateau. It prompted Huddleston to reply: 'Sorry Mark. Know how hard team worked.' Francois responded 'No you don't – you've no idea.' Ouch. One MP told Mr S tonight: 'It's hard to say what's more embarrassing: not fielding a candidate – or losing supposedly safe wards. No change, no chance.' Let's hope the renewal programme starts soon eh?
