The assisted dying Bill is going through as a Private Members’ Bill. It hasn’t had the usual Green Paper, pre-legislative scrutiny or policy development that a government bill would be afforded. A Bill that is literally a matter of life and death should be given maximum possible scrutiny. Not waived through by MPs.
Without the scrutinising work of the Lords, seemingly robust legislation – even that which we were assured was the strongest of its kind in the world – comes unravelled. In some cases, the cost is administrative; in this Bill, the cost would be human lives.
Perhaps the reason Starmer never boasted about the Act was that he didn’t want to rush this into legislation, or intended much of it to go into the long grass. The feeling is that the Burnham camp very much welcomed this Act and are even keener to ingratiate themselves to the Unions.
The Church of England has adopted a kind of ecclesiastical Starmerism – doing much to win over those with little interest in it, and little to keep those who have been its demographic. As a shadow for Starmer’s 12 per cent approval, the Church enjoys its 2 per cent attendance.
Trust in public life is not an entitlement. It is earned. As the New Labour project fades into history, the first step toward restoring confidence would be to completely withdraw the Assisted Dying Bill.
She says Labour has strengthened its vetting procedures in light of the Mandelson and Doyle cases.
As another premiership falters, it is worth thinking of why we end up in this situation so often, and the wider costs it brings. If tenures are shrinking, it is a sign not of constitutional weakness but of repeated political misjudgement.
Protecting children is a primary duty of the state, especially when parents are up against global corporations with resources and influence far beyond their own.
Whatever one’s view on the principle, this Bill requires careful, unhurried scrutiny. Lord Falconer – if he has confidence in his case – should welcome that process but not a month of Sundays, nor any number of Fridays, can make a bad bill good.
We need a team full of courage, experience, and ideological clarity who will stand up for Conservative values no matter what. That’s the team I’m building.
This is a Bill that prioritises bodily autonomy over best interests. And this is a Bill that will ensure assisted suicide is fully funded, whilst palliative care still isn’t. So, any illusion it gives patients a proper choice at the end of their life is a fallacy.
The fact that the new archbishop is a woman is not the issue – her controversial liberal views are.
Not only does this legislation lack adequate safeguards for our society’s most vulnerable, but it also could allow for an unjustifiable delegation of power to Government ministers, setting a troubling precedent.
I can’t help feeling that would be a more equitable solution, one that would give Labour its majority while retaining both the civility of the House and the link back to the council of bishops and barons called into being by Magna Carta.
We already know, from experience elsewhere, that these laws are not safe. We can be certain that they will lead to avoidable tragedies because of the deficiencies in the legislation. We also know that ignoring these rash attempts to change the law are neither clever nor wise.
The assisted dying Bill is going through as a Private Members’ Bill. It hasn’t had the usual Green Paper, pre-legislative scrutiny or policy development that a government bill would be afforded. A Bill that is literally a matter of life and death should be given maximum possible scrutiny. Not waived through by MPs.