Why the ‘individual conscience vote' of MPs had its own assisted death last week

Two votes in the Commons split by four days laid the ground for a seismic shift in British social policy making last week one of the most significant in the modern history of Parliament.
But while the votes on abortion (Tuesday) and assisted dying (Friday) were officially matters of individual conscience the evidence from both suggests that the UK is now closer than ever to a US-style party politicisation of moral issues.
If you vote Labour or Lib Dem you are much more likely to get a pro-choice MP, if you vote Conservative or Reform you are more likely to get a pro-life MP. This is not an accident, it is increasingly by design.
How parties voted on life and death
On Tuesday the decriminalisation of abortion up to birth amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill laid down by Labour Gower MP Tonia Antoniazzi won by 379 to 137.
Of this 291 Labour MPs voted in favour and just 25 against while 63 Lib Dems were in favour and just two against.
On the other side 92 Tory MPs voted against and just four in favour. Another four abstained by voting in both lobbies. No Reform MPs supported and four voted against.
The split is not as stark on Friday's assisted dying vote but nevertheless reveals a trend.
Kim Leadbeater 's bill had the support of 224 fellow Labour MPs with 160 against and 56 Lib Dems with 15 against.
On the other side the Tories split 92 against to 20 in favour while Reform were three against and two in favour.
Kemi Badenoch put a two line whip on the abortion vote rather than allowing a completely free vote. This indicated a party position without the threat of disciplinary action which would come with a three line whip. But, remarkably, after the abortion vote senior Tories were complaining that Ms Badenoch had not withdrawn the whip of the four MPs who voted for decriminalisation.
It was different in 1967
The last time the UK saw Parliament vote on such seismic social change was back in 1967 with Liberal MP David Steel 's abortion legislation and Labour MP Leo Abse's Sexual Offences Act which decriminalised homosexuality.
In both those cases parties split down the middle on conscience votes which saw the odd alliance of rightwing Tory MP Enoch Powell and leftwing Labour MP Tony Benn coming together to support legalising homosexuality.
The Ed Miliband effect
The erosion of the conscience vote in the UK has actually come more from a hardening of positions from progressive leftwing parties in Britain and exacerbated by the so-called culture wars.
In 2012 Ed Miliband imposed a three-line whip on gay marriage on Labour MPs. LGBTQ+ matters ended there as something of individual conscience for the first time.
Then in 2019 former MP Roger Godsiff was dropped as a Labour candidate for supporting parents in his Birmingham constituency who were protesting over primary school children being taught about same-sex relationships.
This year we see Reform UK banning LGBTQ+ flags from county halls where they have taken control of the council and attempting to purge councils of diversity, equity and inclusion officers and policies.
While abortion officially remained a matter of conscience a comment by the now home secretary Yvette Cooper in 2017 about Jacob Rees-Mogg being unfit to be a party leader because of his views on abortion was enlightening.
What has happened over a number of years is that the majority of socially conservative, mostly Catholic tradition in Labour has been removed through selection processes.
David Campanale versus the Lib Dems
An ongoing legal case involving the Liberal Democrats and one of its former candidates has highlighted an apparent major shift in British politics to the party politicisation of conscience issues.
Former BBC journalist David Campanale was kicked out as the candidate for Sutton ahead of the last election because, he claims, of his Christian beliefs.
According to documents presented in the case, Luke Taylor, who replaced him as the candidate, is alleged to have claimed that 'the party of past prominent Liberal Democrats with Christian beliefs, such as Shirley Williams and Charles Kennedy, was 'over', and that he and others were building a 'secular party' which would have no place for Christians expecting to 'hold to their religious or conscientious opinions'.
Mr Taylor was the teller for the votes in favour of the abortion amendment on Tuesday, who also described the assisted dying vote, which he supported, as a good way to 'neatly bookend the week.'
If Mr Campanale wins his case it will for the first time provide evidence that selection is taking place on conscience issues as well as other matters.
The Lib Dems have denied the claims and pointed out that their leader Sr Ed Davey goes to church. But the Christian Lib Dems including former deputy leader Simon Hughes have voiced concerns and the party has been condemned by two bishops. and a former Archbishop of Canterbury. Added to that Tim Farron, who voted against abortion and assisted dying last week, was ousted as leader over his Christian beliefs in 2017.
During the assisted dying vote a number of supporters of the bill suggested that religious belief had no place in deciding such issues. A real departure from conscience.
But a brand of conservatism is emerging in the UK which openly embraces traditional Christian values.
Reflecting on the assisted dying vote, Tory MP Danny Kruger, a leading opponent of the bill, said: 'If we are to withstand our enemies, bring our society together, and tame the technium (somehow ensure that human values govern the new age of machines), we are going to need values that are up to the job.
'I don't think humanist atheism or progressive liberalism or whatever the new religion should be called, is up to it. Christianity is. Only Christianity is.'
A warning from America
In America, the conscience vote rapidly became more party-politicised as a result of the Roe vs Wade abortion ruling in in 1973. Social conservatives gradually began to take over the Republicans on the right and social progressives the Democrats.
It has played out ferociously in the selection of Supreme Court justices, who recently in effect overturned Roe v Wade with a conservative majority.
The most interesting US development is the way that a man like Donald Trump, previously ambiguous over abortion, has adopted a strong anti-abortion line to please his base.
This played out in the 2022 midterms to the detriment of the Republicans with the Democrats using the threat to abortion rights to great effect. But it did little to help Kamala Harris in 2024.
What that shows though is that parties with very strong views one way or the other can be elected largely on economic grounds but bring with them a great deal of baggage on conscience issues. After this week some would argue the same thing has happened in the opposite direction in the UK.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Times

39 minutes ago

• Times

The small boats crisis is out of control. This plan could solve it

In December 2018, Sajid Javid, then home secretary, cut short his holiday and declared a 'major incident' after 78 migrants crossed the Channel in small boats in four days. Since then six more home secretaries, and four prime ministers, have struggled with the same problem: how to stop the boats. All have failed. A record 17,000 have crossed so far this year. More than 900 crossed in a single day this month. There are some who argue that this proves, once again, that irregular migration can't be stopped and there is no point trying. This is wrong: the premise is false and the counsel unwise. Irregular migration can be controlled. There are plenty of examples of countries stopping or significantly reducing it. Australia has reduced it to almost zero: not once, but twice. It did so in 2001, and again in 2013, by shipping 'boat people' off to Nauru, a tiny Pacific island. Israel did the same in 2012 by building a fence and pushing migrants from Africa back across its border with Egypt. And, in the United States, President Trump is making a pretty good fist of it now: by strengthening border patrols and denying asylum applications at America's southern border, he has reduced encounters with irregular migrants to 12,000 in April this year, compared with 240,000 in April 2023. All these policies have three things in common: they are cruel and they violate people's rights. But they are also popular; or voters are at least prepared to put up with them if nothing else appears to work. In Australia, the 'Pacific solution' is now backed by both main parties. Trump is polling steadily on migration, even if the expansion of his deportation policy has dented support in recent weeks. None of this is lost on Nigel Farage, or his equivalents on the Continent. Seeing all else fail, voters are warming to Reform's promise to leave the European Convention on Human Rights and turn boats back at sea, using the navy if necessary. It is doubtful whether this very dangerous policy could work: you still need a place to push boats back to, and France is unlikely to be obliging. But it sounds simple and radical enough to tempt both voters and, it seems, the Conservative Party. This is a big problem for a Labour government that has promised to reduce migration but is reluctant to follow that path. Sir Keir Starmer's government desperately needs a humane, lawful, effective alternative. Is there one? More law enforcement is definitely not the answer. Close to £1 billion has been spent on boosting patrols in France; even more won't make much difference. A 'safe third-country agreement', with another faraway country that will admit and process asylum seekers, is perhaps an option. There is a version of this policy that could work, and could be lawful. The Supreme Court was clear on this, even as it scotched the previous government's half-baked Rwanda plan. But Labour criticised this policy so vehemently in opposition it would struggle to revive it now. • 1,378 migrants tried to cross the Channel in one day. France stopped 184 There is still one thing worth trying, however. It's also a safe third-country agreement, but not with Rwanda or some far-flung country. The deal the UK needs is with countries much closer to home: countries in the EU. From an agreed day onwards, the UK would agree with a group of EU countries, ideally including both France and Germany, to swiftly return almost all migrants who arrive irregularly across the Channel. This would reduce crossings to zero within a few weeks. As soon as it became clear that there was no prospect of success, the incentive to undertake a dangerous, costly journey would evaporate. After a few weeks, therefore, the number of transfers back to participating states would also fall to zero. The agreement would not be with the EU itself and would not replicate the unwieldy and unworkable system for intra-EU transfers known as the Dublin system, under which hardly anyone ever got sent anywhere. Anything that resembled this would fail — it is essential that asylum seekers do not suspect that there is a good chance of remaining in Britain anyway. Instead, it would be an ad hoc, one-off agreement with a coalition of interested EU countries, designed to ensure fast, efficient transfer for almost everyone within three or four weeks, with very occasional exceptions for people with the strongest family ties. The idea is not to turn boats around at sea. Intercepted migrants would be brought to British shores. They would be held securely and processed fairly. They would get a hearing, but unless they could present a credible other ground to remain here their claims would be declared inadmissible because there was a safe country to which they could be sent. There is no question that Germany and France — or Denmark, or Austria or the Netherlands for that matter — are safe. Their asylum systems are no worse, arguably better, than ours. Transfers would, therefore, be perfectly legal. There is an obvious question about such a deal. Why would European countries go for it? France and Germany have both had significantly higher numbers of asylum seekers per capita than the UK in recent years. They could not possibly agree to any arrangement in which the traffic was all one way. For this reason the UK would have to offer something in return: to take in, through organised legal channels, a fixed number of asylum seekers from the EU a year for the next few years: say 20,000 a year for four years, after which the scheme could be reviewed. A capped scheme similar to the Homes for Ukraine visa scheme would be set up to achieve this. This would be a good deal for Britain. Admitting 20,000 asylum seekers a year would be 30,000 less than are likely to arrive this year if nothing changes. Some would see this as an admission of failure, but a sharp reduction in numbers and, crucially, the restoration of control would quickly bring political dividends. A scheme such as this would almost entirely eliminate illegal migration. In comparison, the Darwinian lottery of the UK's current protection system, where over half of those securing it must have the strength and resources to undertake deeply hazardous journeys, is surely unsatisfactory. But what's in it for a Macron, or a Merz? Ultimately, something similar. Mainstream parties in Europe are leaching support to populists promising much more radical solutions to irregular migration. Right now, they have no policies of their own that credibly offer control. Nor are uglier ones that they are already endorsing (pushbacks at external borders from Greece to Poland, and deals with Tunisia and Libya to intercept boats and take them back before they even get there) working particularly well. This deal offers the outline of such a policy. Western European countries have every interest in showing their voters that migration can be controlled lawfully and humanely through safe third-country agreements. If they agreed this policy with Britain, EU countries would then need to invest in similar arrangements of its own, with partners it can find. For EU countries, finding (genuinely) safe third countries to transfer migrants to will be harder and will take time. But it is not impossible. Short of legalising the abuses occurring at their own borders, this is the only policy option they have. Developing this plan with the UK could quickly show that the model, control through co-operation, works. They would have a narrative and plan: two things sorely lacking right now. Like all good agreements, this one appeals to interests on both sides. It won't appeal to everyone. Participating states would be criticised from all sides: too generous for some, not generous enough for others. But if even closely allied, rights-respecting countries such as Britain and Germany cannot reach civilised migration control agreements, there is little hope for such agreements being reached anywhere. And little hope, therefore, for humane border control — meaning cruel ones will prevail. John Dalhuisen is a senior fellow at the European Stability Initiative. The ESI helped to broker the EU-Turkey deal in 2016, to address the migrant crisis caused by the Syrian civil war

Sky News

2 hours ago

• Sky News

US warplanes transit through UK: Here's what the flight tracking data shows

Flight tracking data shows extensive movement of US military aircraft towards the Middle East in recent days, including via the UK. Fifty-two US military planes were spotted flying over the eastern Mediterranean towards the Middle East between Monday and Thursday. That includes at least 25 that passed through Chania airport, on the Greek island of Crete - an eight-fold increase in the rate of arrivals compared to the first half of June. The movement of military equipment comes as the US considers whether to assist Israel in its conflict with Iran. Of the 52 planes spotted over the eastern Mediterranean, 32 are used for transporting troops or cargo, 18 are used for mid-air refuelling and two are reconnaissance planes. Forbes McKenzie, founder of McKenzie Intelligence, says that this indicates "the build-up of warfighting capability, which was not [in the region] before". Sky's data does not include fighter jets, which typically fly without publicly revealing their location. An air traffic control recording from Wednesday suggests that F-22 Raptors are among the planes being sent across the Atlantic, while 12 F-35 fighter jets were photographed travelling from the UK to the Middle East on Wednesday. Many US military planes are passing through UK A growing number of US Air Force planes have been passing through the UK in recent days. Analysis of flight tracking data at three key air bases in the UK shows 63 US military flights landing between 16 and 19 June - more than double the rate of arrivals earlier in June. On Thursday, Sky News filmed three US military C-17A Globemaster III transport aircraft and a C-130 Hercules military cargo plane arriving at Glasgow's Prestwick Airport. Flight tracking data shows that one of the planes arrived from an air base in Jordan, having earlier travelled there from Germany. What does Israel need from US? Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on 15 March that his country's aim is to remove "two existential threats - the nuclear threat and the ballistic missile threat". Israel says that Iran is attempting to develop a nuclear bomb, though Iran says its nuclear facilities are only for civilian energy purposes. A US intelligence assessment in March concluded that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon. President Trump dismissed the assessment on Tuesday, saying: "I think they were very close to having one." Forbes McKenzie says the Americans have a "very similar inventory of weapons systems" to the Israelis, "but of course, they also have the much-talked-about GBU-57". The GBU-57 is a 30,000lb bomb - the largest non-nuclear bomb in existence. Mr McKenzie explains that it is "specifically designed to destroy targets which are very deep underground". Experts say it is the only weapon with any chance of destroying Iran's main enrichment site, which is located underneath a mountain at Fordow. Air-to-air refuelling could allow Israel to carry larger bombs Among the dozens of US aircraft that Sky News tracked over the eastern Mediterranean in recent days, more than a third (18 planes) were designed for air-to-air refuelling. "These are crucial because Israel is the best part of a thousand miles away from Iran," says Sky News military analyst Sean Bell. "Most military fighter jets would struggle to do those 2,000-mile round trips and have enough combat fuel." The ability to refuel mid-flight would also allow Israeli planes to carry heavier munitions, including bunker-buster bombs necessary to destroy the tunnels and silos where Iran stores many of its missiles. Satellite imagery captured on 15 June shows the aftermath of Israeli strikes on a missile facility near the western city of Kermanshah, which destroyed at least 12 buildings at the site. At least four tunnel entrances were also damaged in the strikes, two of which can be seen in the image below. Writing for Jane's Defence Weekly, military analyst Jeremy Binnie says it looked like the tunnels were "targeted using guided munitions coming in at angles, not destroyed from above using penetrator bombs, raising the possibility that the damage can be cleared, enabling any [missile launchers] trapped inside to deploy". "This might reflect the limited payloads that Israeli aircraft can carry to Iran," he adds. Penetrator bombs, also known as bunker-busters, are much heavier than other types of munitions and as a result require more fuel to transport. Israel does not have the latest generation of refuelling aircraft, Mr Binnie says, meaning it is likely to struggle to deploy a significant number of penetrator bombs. Israel has struck most of Iran's western missile bases Even without direct US assistance, the Israeli air force has managed to inflict significant damage on Iran's missile launch capacity. Sky News has confirmed Israeli strikes on at least five of Iran's six known missile bases in the west of the country. On Monday, the IDF said that its strategy of targeting western launch sites had forced Iran to rely on its bases in the centre of the country, such as Isfahan - around 1,500km (930 miles) from Israel. Among Iran's most advanced weapons are three types of solid-fuelled rockets fitted with highly manoeuvrable warheads: Fattah-1, Kheibar Shekan and Haj Qassam. The use of solid fuel makes these missiles easy to transport and fast to launch, while their manoeuvrable warheads make them better at evading Israeli air defences. However, none of them are capable of striking Israel from such a distance. Iran is known to possess five types of missile capable of travelling more than 1,500km, but only one of these uses solid fuel - the Sijjil-1. On 18 June, Iran claimed to have used this missile against Israel for the first time. Iran's missiles have caused significant damage Iran's missile attacks have killed at least 24 people in Israel and wounded hundreds, according to the Israeli foreign ministry. The number of air raid alerts in Israel has topped 1,000 every day since the start of hostilities, reaching a peak of 3,024 on 15 June. Iran has managed to strike some government buildings, including one in the city of Haifa on Friday. And on 13 June, in Iran's most notable targeting success so far, an Iranian missile impacted on or near the headquarters of Israel's defence ministry in Tel Aviv. Most of the Iranian strikes verified by Sky News, however, have hit civilian targets. These include residential buildings, a school and a university. On Thursday, one missile hit the Soroka Medical Center in Beersheba, southern Israel's main hospital. More than 70 people were injured, according to Israel's health ministry. Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said that Iran had struck a nearby technology park containing an IDF cyber defence training centre, and that the "blast wave caused superficial damage to a small section" of the hospital. However, the technology park is in fact 1.2km away from where the missile struck. Photos of the hospital show evidence of a direct hit, with a large section of one building's roof completely destroyed. Iran successfully struck the technology park on Friday, though its missile fell in an open area, causing damage to a nearby residential building but no casualties. Israel has killed much of Iran's military leadership It's not clear exactly how many people Israel's strikes in Iran have killed, or how many are civilians. Estimates by human rights groups of the total number of fatalities exceed 600. What is clear is that among the military personnel killed are many key figures in the Iranian armed forces, including the military's chief of staff, deputy head of intelligence and deputy head of operations. Key figures in the powerful Revolutionary Guard have also been killed, including the militia's commander-in-chief, its aerospace force commander and its air defences commander. On Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that US assistance was not necessary for Israel to win the war. "We will achieve all our objectives and hit all of their nuclear facilities," he said. "We have the capability to do that." 3:49 Forbes McKenzie says that while Israel has secured significant victories in the war so far, "they only have so much fuel, they only have so many munitions". "The Americans have an ability to keep up the pace of operations that the Israelis have started, and they're able to do it for an indefinite period of time." Additional reporting by data journalist Joely Santa Cruz and OSINT producers Freya Gibson, Lina-Sirine Zitout and Sam Doak.

Times

2 hours ago

• Times

MPs treated HS2 as a test of virility. No wonder it's been a flop

L ast week brought shocking news. HS2, the nation's flagship infrastructure project, will be further delayed. A damning report found that the project has been comprehensively mismanaged, and needs to be completely reset to stop costs ballooning further. The secretary of state blasted the appalling failures to date, but promised that Whitehall would now finally get a grip. Well, I say shocking news. At this point such stories are as traditional a part of the news calendar as the Boat Race. HS2 has become the fiasco of fiascos, the disaster of disasters, a painfully on-the-nose metaphor for a country that can't get anything built, or anything done. Yet it might all have been so different. In 2005 Alistair Darling commissioned Sir Rod Eddington, former head of British Airways, to review the transport network. Eddington argued for expanding our big international gateways, such as Heathrow and the container ports; upgrading the roads, by introducing pay-as-you-go pricing; fixing our godawful planning system; and tackling the worst pinch points, not least the commuter routes into the big cities. But he warned that many of the proposals for high-speed rail were solutions looking for a problem — boys wanting to play with toys.