Sky News reports that the Leadbeater-Falconer bill will not be given more time. This means it will die at prorogation. It couldn't have happened to a worse piece of draft legislation.

well this is bad

Good

Politico Playbook on what will happen if the Leadbeater Bill returns next session: "Opposition campaign groups have proven themselves formidable, and will no doubt do whatever it takes to stop the plan passing".

Genuinely asking: what's Wormald meant to have done (or not done) to deserve this?

Starmer is firing the most senior civil servant, just as he was about to embark on overseeing compliance with the humble address requiring disclosure of lots of No 10 documents. If a Tory govt had done that we would be drowning in "we are on threshold of fascism" articles

This is increasingly unhinged. The Cabinet Secretary post has become a shortlived political appointment. It is supposed to be the single continuity on which the entire UK government machinery rests. Not saying Wormald is blameless. But if there is this much blame, there's a certain PM needing to go.

“I advised the prime minister to make that appointment and I take full responsibiiity for that advice” The inevitably question for Number 10 now is why the advice is a resigning matter but the actual decision isn’t. That’s a hard question to answer.

Not to overanalyse, but this pattern: send out ministers to defend bad decision in the morning media round, walk back bad decision in the afternoon is what ultimately killed Johnson's administration.

Advisers advise and ministers decide – now far harder for Starmer to argue he shouldn’t resign.

Both Erskine May and the PBL Guide to Making Legislation are clear about that a PMB which needs even just a single amendment in the Lords (Falconer has tabled several) will almost certainly not make it to RA If you can't get a square through a round hole, it's not the hole's fault!

Labour elites' idea that the Tories created something undefined called 'psychodrama', which could simply be switched off as a matter of preference, was always going to suffer a rude awakening

Lord Falconer says he is "not remotely embarrassed" by the Mandelson-Epstein scandal Falconer introduced Mandelson to the Lords and is close to Starmer

Once again, the Good Tsar Bad Boyar fallacy Advisers advice, Ministers decide Starmer should take the blame rather than McSweeney being a fall guy

The accusation that the Lords are “obstructing democracy” by supporters of the assisted dying bill is a ridiculous one that shows up the flaws in this process that have been there from the very beginning – which have repeatedly been covered up by heated rhetoric (1/?)

Not a big fan of Rachel - I think the issue is that she actively lied/manipulated/and gaslighted. Whereas afaik other traitors have only done so defensively. Feel that crossed a line #Traitors #TheTraitors

SPOILERS The deadly combination of the smartest ever traitors and the dumbest ever faithfuls Honestly, I give faithfuls *huge* leeway because it's *so* much harder in there than watching in full knowledge, and I can see how Stephen slithered out - but not getting Red Flag Rachel??? Jesus wept.

As someone who is generally supportive of the Bill - the Lords are doing what they are constitutionally supposed to do. You shouldn't expect to pass such a complicated piece of legislation on such a contentious issue with anything other than utmost, serious scrutiny.

Lots of people on this website accuse the Lords of fillibustering the assisted dying bill. But have they actually followed proceedings or just upset it's not going to pass? Charlotte Ivers (who is pro) went along and didn't see any fillibustering It's a complex bill and needs time

Some reasons people might apply for an assisted death, according to Kim Leadbeater and Lord Falconer: (Credit to Dan Hitchens for sourcing and compiling)

agreeing absolutely this is "our system at its absolute most dysfunctional", because it starts with poorly considered policy that doesn't engage with the realities of the legislative process

Fin de vie : le Sénat vote le principe « du droit opposable au soulagement »  #Senat

I honestly will never get over a Labour Lord (a) saying killing yourself out of poverty is okay and (b) telling Jewish and Muslim Labour women that their views weren’t valid cos they were grounded in their faith

The vast majority of PMBs don't complete their passage in parliament. No one thinks that's a problem If Starmer wanted this done he should have had the political courage to make it a govt Bill (could still be a free vote)

Thank you for a fair tweet that reflects what is actually happening ie the Lords are following their process and scrutinising

Big news from France where the Senate completely removed the assisted dying provisions from the Bill and replaced them with a right to receive adequate pain relief. I hope @houseoflords.parliament.uk follows their example

Very grateful for quite a few new followers Would highly recommend reading Ed Feser - he's a Catholic scholar with impeccable RW credentials and he's been highly critical of attempts by MAGA to claim the tradition supports Trump's actions firstthings.com/church-histo...

Carney is correct but that's why the Chagos handover makes no sense even on its own terms. If the Rules-based order is dead then we don't even get points within it for the handover So why do it?

Labour peer just let slip he thinks poor people should be allowed to use assisted dying When you're so determined to push through a bill that will kill so many, what's a few benefit scroungers anyway? @rachelcdailey.bsky.social looks at this latest horror www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/...

A Labour Peer, let that sink in, Labour, saying this. It needs to die as a organisation if it's deviated this far from what it was meant to be.

Our social care system is in crisis. ⚠️ Throughout the debate on assisted dying, we’ve repeatedly highlighted to politicians that greater attention must be given to properly and urgently reforming adult social care across the country. Watch our evidence being raised in parliament last week below.

Lord Falconer, sponsor of the Assisted Dying Bill, said people being too poor to live shouldn't stop them seeking an assisted death. Yes really Me for @thecanaryuk.bsky.social www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/...

Of course the Diego Garcia deal is rubbish. It is an imperial transfer of sovereignty from the UK to Mauritius and completely ignores the rights of the dispossessed Chagos Islanders, who were evicted by Harold Wilson's government in the 1960s.

When everything is revealed in 20 years time, there will be Whitehall submissions about draft WhatsApps to send to other world leaders

For those who want a broader perspective in their feed, a right-wing starter pack. Includes the six Tory MPs currently on BlueSky and a range of other think-tankers, ex-SpAds and journalists. go.bsky.app/JvKL6aE

Seeing a lot "Trump must be mentally ill" takes. That's not it As Feser put it, it's his hubris

Yet her Bill does not mention suffering and indeed she said she disagreed with @tomgordonld.bsky.social's amendment to widen eligibility. So why is she tweeting approvingly about calls for a Canada style law? The slippery slope is real

An underappreciated aspect of our politics is that (a) the permanent bureaucracy often asks the elected govt to spend political capital to protect it, and (b) more often than not the govt agrees Beautiful statecraft from Mi5/6 Starmer is bleeding capital on what should have been an easy win

De Gaulle would be absolutely insufferable if he could see what was happening today.

Very grateful for quite a few new followers Would highly recommend reading Ed Feser - he's a Catholic scholar with impeccable RW credentials and he's been highly critical of attempts by MAGA to claim the tradition supports Trump's actions firstthings.com/church-histo...

Yet again a minister is on the broadcast round having to wibble until the PM actually comes out and says the obvious. Why does this keep happening so much?

I have a few thoughts on the Stakeholder State and the piece by Paul Ovenden. I disagree with the extent of emphasis on stakeholders, but the more dismissive engagement on this app misses that a Strong Stakeholderism does exist, and has placed particular constraints on a govt that lacks direction 🧵

Harriet just described herself as A Secret Barrister

Here is the Joint Statement on ECHR and Immigration by the 27 countries (led by Denmark and Italy) Worth noting focus on Art 3 and reference to third country partnerships

So because everything can be a ~ teachable moment ~ if you're nerdy enough, let's learn about Speaker Denison's rule-- a convention established in the nineteenth by (you guessed it) a Speaker of the Commons called John Denison.

EXC - I've seen a leaked policy document from Labour in opposition which sets out how to approach assisted dying. The document sets out how it could be introduced as a private member’s bill, suggesting that would still allow “heavy influence” for the government in the process

This is explosive. It shows a deliberate move by Labour to circumvent the pre legislative checks and policy work that a normal (govt) Bill would have to go through

So chosen because of the way it will prompt those online to say "actually, that is two words". qed.

Prince Albert refuses Assent to a Bill legalising abortion. Goes further than Baudouin and Henri did in Belgium and Luxembourg (they didn't personally give Assent but didn't prevent enactment) Huge assertion of royal power Shifts things re Charles and the Assisted Dying Bill

Simon Jenkins claims in the Guardian that it would be a 'democratic outrage' if the House of Lords were to block the Terminally Ill Adults Bill: www.theguardian.com/commentisfre... That claim is constitutional nonsense, for the reasons I explain here: publiclawforeveryone.com/2025/06/20/w...