Latest news with #JessPhillips
Spectator
a day ago
- Politics
- Spectator
Diane Abbott's masterful Assisted Dying speech will come back to haunt us
If yours is a sentimental bent, you'll have been terrifically moved by the spectacle of Jess Phillips MP giving Kim Leadbeater a big hug after the Assisted Dying Bill was passed. Ms Leadbeater has a tendency to look agonised at the best of times. When MPs paid tribute to her in the course of the debate for her compassion, she looked as if she was on the verge of bursting into tears. Now, it'll be tears of joy – at least for her. I should right now retract all the unkind things I have ever said about Diane Abbott Quite how this reaction, and the hugs, can be elicited by a measure which will mean people can be given lethal drugs courtesy of the state is beyond me – because that's actually what it entails – but you can dignify almost anything in our politics if you designate it as being motivated by compassion. There was one contribution to the debate which will stay with me. It was made by Dr Neil Hudson, one of those Tory MPs who looks as if he'll never rouse a rabble; he was in his previous incarnation, a vet. Almost apologetically, he declared that he had been involved in participating in euthanising various animals, large and small, in that job, and while he absolutely wasn't comparing human beings with animals, he wanted to make the point that the substances and procedures were very similar to those used for humans. 'The final act,' he said, 'doesn't always go smoothly'. What a vista that conjures up. All very different from the talk in the chamber, which was all about dignity. Hudson isn't the first person to make this point. Several months ago, I talked at some length to parliament's premier palliative care practitioner, Professor Ilora Finlay. Her verdict? Assisted suicide 'was not a Hollywood death'. Not clean, not quick. Or as she observed, the length it takes actually for the drugs to work – from the experience of those countries which have euthanasia – varies enormously, from under half an hour to over a day. The debate has glossed over this kind of gritty stuff. In the Lords at least, where the bill goes to next, Finlay will have the chance of pointing out how the thing works in practice. She can also say that the agonising deaths that pro-euthanasia MPs described graphically, as a sort of clincher, during the debate are not necessary with proper palliative care. It took the daughter of a male hospice nurse, Labour's Lola McEvoy, to point out that this choice, between dying with hospice provision or without it is not universally available. Making assisted suicide a ready option will, she said, 'deprioritise good palliative care'. Masterly understatement there. It was, moreover, the odd philosophical basis of Leadbeater's speech as the bill's sponsor which was most striking. Passing over her insistence that this bill wouldn't mean more deaths (yes, Kim, we all know that everyone must die eventually, one way or another), she waxed lyrical about the way some patients could already, all by themselves, without any supervision, opt to have their life support or ventilation turned of. Yet, she suggested, MPs were making a fuss about euthanising people who did have the benefit of a supervisory panel. Look, if we can't tell the difference between not doing something (like not opting for artificial life support), and actually – and actively – giving someone drugs that would kill them, it's hard to know how to argue about these things at all. But the MPs who really undermined the cant about choice were those who talked about coercion. I should right now retract all the unkind things I have ever said about Diane Abbott, Mother of the House. She was brilliant, even though she was panicking a bit when she couldn't read her speech on her phone (go for paper!). She was utterly convincing when she dismissed witheringly the notion that, in approved cases of assisted suicide, there would have to be no police evidence of coercion. 'There wouldn't be!' she said. 'In the family the most powerful coercion is silent.' Abbott went on to observe that 'if the police can't spot coercion dealing with domestic violence, why should they spot it in assisted dying?' Her most powerful point was to look at the assembled parliamentarians and observe that every single one of them was 'confident in dealing with authority and institutions. But what about choice for all those who all their lives have lacked agency, particularly in a family situation?' That needed saying. It's one thing for Esther Rantzen to say that she'll die in a fashion of her choosing; quite another for some poor put upon individual being made to feel that they're selfishly taking up other people's time and money (if we're sinking to the level of emotional anecdote, my mother, with Parkinson's, said just that about herself). But it's the wretched Rantzens who dominate this debate, people who've never been pressurised by anyone. There was another unexpectedly brilliant contribution on coercion, Labour's Jess Asato, who works with victims of domestic abuse. She declared that coercion was 'a certainty' – it would be 'the most vulnerable people who will experience wrongful death…as a self-perceived burden'. As she pointed out, other family members will only find out about these deaths when it's too late. She warned that 'there can be no room for doubt, and no room for error'. Except there will be errors, but who'll be complaining, and how? On a Ouija board? It's been quite the week in parliament for life and death. The vote earlier this week – for Tonia Antoniazzi's amendment to allow mothers to abort unborn babies up to birth without criminal sanction – was to do with one end of the life spectrum; the victims being the foetuses who will die. Today's vote was about the end, rather than the beginning of life. But allowing doctors to give drugs to ill people to bring about their death is a similarly warped notion of choice. It's been a good week though for the hooded man with the scythe.
The Independent
a day ago
- Health
- The Independent
Historic vote brings assisted dying closer to becoming law in England and Wales
Assisted dying is a step closer to being made legal in England and Wales after the proposed legislation cleared the House of Commons in a historic vote – albeit with a narrower majority. More than 300 MPs backed a Bill that would allow terminally ill adults with a life expectancy of less than six months to end their lives. Yes campaigners wept, jumped and hugged each other outside parliament as the vote result was announced, while some MPs appeared visibly emotional as they left the chamber. Others lined up to shake hands with Kim Leadbeater, the Bill's sponsor through the Commons, with some, including Home Office minister Jess Phillips, stopping to hug the Spen Valley MP. Despite warnings from opponents around the safety of a Bill they argued has been rushed through, the proposed legislation has taken another step in the parliamentary process. MPs voted 314 to 291, majority 23, to approve Ms Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill at third reading. This means the Bill has completed its first stages in the Commons and will move to the House of Lords for further debate and scrutiny. Both Houses must agree the final text of the Bill before it can be signed into law. Due to the four-year implementation period, it could be 2029 – potentially coinciding with the end of this Government's Parliament – before assisted dying is offered. Encouraging or assisting suicide is currently against the law in England and Wales, with a maximum jail sentence of 14 years. Supporters of assisted dying have described the current law as not being fit for purpose, with desperate terminally ill people feeling the need to end their lives in secret or go abroad to Dignitas alone, for fear loved ones will be prosecuted for helping them. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer remained supportive of the Bill, voting yes on Friday as he had done last year. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, who had urged MPs to vote against the legislation, describing it as 'a bad Bill' despite being 'previously supportive of assisted suicide', voted no. Friday was the first time the Bill was debated and voted on in its entirety since last year's historic yes vote, when MPs supported the principle of assisted dying for England and Wales by a majority of 55 at second reading. Labour MP Ms Leadbeater has argued her Bill will 'correct the profound injustices of the status quo and to offer a compassionate and safe choice to terminally ill people who want to make it'. During an hours-long date on Friday, MPs on both sides of the issue recalled personal stories of loved ones who had died. Conservative former minister Sir James Cleverly, who led the opposition to the Bill in the Commons, spoke of a close friend who died 'painfully' from cancer. He said he comes at the divisive issue 'not from a position of faith nor from a position of ignorance', and was driven in his opposition by 'concerns about the practicalities' of the Bill. MPs had a free vote on the Bill, meaning they decided according to their conscience rather than along party lines. The proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. Public support for a change in the law remains high, according to a YouGov poll published on the eve of the vote. The survey of 2,003 adults in Great Britain, suggested 73% of those asked last month were supportive of the Bill, while the proportion of people who feel assisted dying should be legal in principle stood at 75%.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Liz Truss Hits Back After Jess Phillips Says She Started 'Far-Right Bandwagon' Over Grooming Gangs
Liz Truss has rejected claims from minister Jess Phillips that she started the 'far-right bandwagon' over a grooming gangs probe. The government suddenly decided to hold a national inquiry into the grooming gangs scandal over the weekend. The announcement was a shock, considering prime minister Keir Starmer accused any politicians calling for such a probe of 'jumping onto a far-right bandwagon' back in January. The grooming gangs scandal went viral at the start of the year when tech magnate and then-Donald Trump ally Elon Musk called safeguarding minister Phillips a 'rape genocide apologist' for not ordering a national inquiry into the historic abuse. While defending her boss's past remarks last night, Phillips claimed former Tory prime minister Truss actually 'started' that far-right bandwagon. The minister told BBC Newsnight: 'I think that what the prime minister was saying – this was in the wake of Elon Musk furore – was that the Conservative politicians, Kemi Badenoch, the shadow home secretary Chris Philp, he was saying they were 'jumping on the bandwagon of Elon Musk.' Phillips then interrupted herself, noting: 'I think it was actually Liz Truss, she gets forgotten in all this story, Liz Truss who started it and then Elon Musk carried it on.' On Tuesday morning, Truss replied on X: 'I accused Jess Phillips of excusing masked Islamist thugs – which she did. 'And of rejecting Oldham's calls for a government inquiry into grooming gangs – which she did. 'It was not a 'far-right bandwagon'. 'It was about holding her to account for her complete dereliction of duty.' I accused @jessphillips of excusing masked Islamist thugs - which she of rejecting Oldham's calls for a Government inquiry into grooming gangs - which she was not a "far-right bandwagon".It was about holding her to account for her complete dereliction of… — Liz Truss (@trussliz) June 17, 2025 Labour insisted in January that a fresh inquiry was not needed as they were still implementing the recommendations from a 2022 report into the scandal, despite substantial backlash. The prime minister has now U-turned, and claims to be following the recommendations of the new independent review from Baroness Casey into child sexual exploitation. The Conservatives have subsequently called on Starmer to apologise for his 'far-right' accusations. But Phillips told the BBC that Starmer was essentially just asking the Tories: 'Where have you been?' She pointed out that Badenoch was the children's minister and Chris Philp was the policing minister under the last Tory government. Phillips also rejected claims that the 'far-right bandwagon' accusation was a 'knee-jerk reaction' to their opponents on the right. She said: 'I think it was because they're politicians who have never cared and thought it was political expedient.' 'We Have Lost More Than A Decade': Labour Unveils 'Damning' Results Of Grooming Gang Review Top Tory's 'Excuse' As To Why Party Didn't Call Grooming Gangs Inquiry In Office Torn Apart Keir Starmer Performs Major U-Turn As He Backs National Inquiry Into Groomings Gangs
The Sun
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Sun
Keir's long-overdue grooming gang inquiry does NOT go far enough – Labour won't get us justice, slam survivors' families
GROOMING gang survivors and their families said Sir Keir Starmer's long-overdue inquiry does not go far enough - and warned they' have got no trust in Labour to deliver justice. They told how they were ignored, blamed and even punished by professionals who were supposed to protect them. 3 And said only a fully independent probe will expose the truth and hold people to account. Their comments came after the PM finally agreed to a national inquiry, months after dismissing calls as a 'far-Right bandwagon'. He was forced into a U-turn after a devastating report by Baroness Casey, which revealed that police and council leaders deliberately covered up the abuse - predominantly by men of Pakistani origin - because they feared being called racist. The review also found that asylum seekers and foreign nationals are involved in a 'significant proportion' of live investigations into grooming gangs across the UK. At a press conference hosted by Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, survivors and campaigners said the abuse is still happening and warned the system that failed them must now be held to account. Marlon West, whose daughter Scarlett was groomed and trafficked from the age of 14, said his main concern is that the inquiry will be locally led - and warned councils should not be 'answering their own homework'. He later added: 'I've met with Jess Phillips [Labour's safeguarding minister], I've been campaigning for this for the last years and I've just had the door closed on my face. 'I do not trust them, so they still need challenging. Like I said, there's more questions and answers.' Fiona Goddard, a survivor who bravely waived her anonymity, said she was repeatedly blamed and labelled a 'brothel-runner' at 16 by those who should have protected her. She called for survivor-led education in schools to help children spot signs of grooming and abuse. Teresa, whose son was abused aged 13 and later died before he could finish giving evidence, said she was warned not to dig for answers or her son 'would suffer the consequences'. She criticised the inquiry's narrow scope, saying: 'It's not just girls. Boys are being abused too, and they need to know it's not their fault.' Lucia, a campaigner who has supported survivors for years, said: 'We're hoping this inquiry will give regular updates to restore the public trust and survivors' trust more importantly because we do believe that is at an all-time low.' Ms Badenoch, who first called for a national inquiry in January, said: 'What we need right now is the moral courage to do the right thing, rather than continually finding reasons to kick stuff into the long grass.' Asked why the Tories did not hold a specific inquiry during their years in power, she insisted the party 'did a lot' and set up a taskforce under Rishi Sunak that identified hundreds of perpetrators. She said her previous apology to victims still stood, but added: 'Apologies are easy. What we need is action.' On whether the crisis had become a border issue, the Tory leader replied: 'Yes, I think this does go into borders beyond criminal justice.' Appearing alongside her, Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said: 'The lack of control at the border is fuelling the risk here.' Mr Philp also said the Conservatives wanted the inquiry to take two years, focus on 'all 50 towns affected' and 'look at the role of ethnicity in the cover-up'. But appearing in front of the Commons Home Affairs Committee on Tuesday morning, Baroness Casey urged people to 'keep calm' on the subject of ethnicity. Pointing out that her report had said data on the ethnicity of perpetrators was 'incomplete and unreliable', she said: 'If you look at the data on child sexual exploitation, suspects and offenders, it's disproportionately Asian heritage. 'If you look at the data for child abuse, it is not disproportionate, and it is white men. 'So again, just (a) note to everybody really, outside here rather than in here, let's just keep calm here about how you interrogate data and what you draw from it.' Baroness Casey's report, published on Monday, found the ethnicity of perpetrators had been 'shied away from', with data not recorded for two-thirds of offenders. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper told MPs that officials had dodged the issue of ethnicity among groups of sex offenders for fear of being called racist, and called for 'much more robust national data'. Baroness Casey also told the Home Affairs Committee that a national inquiry should be done within three years, rather than the two called for by the Conservatives. She believed three years would be 'achievable' to carry out the national and local inquiries. The crossbench peer also urged for local areas to 'think carefully' about not being open to scrutiny and to change. On the five local inquiries announced in January, she said 'only Oldham bit the bullet', adding: 'My understanding is nobody else volunteered for that. So that tells you something, doesn't it? It tells you something, and it doesn't tell you something I certainly would want to hear if I was a victim.' A Downing Street spokesman said the format and chairperson of the inquiry would be set out at a later date, adding that it would have the power to compel people to give evidence. The spokesman said: 'We want to get on with this, but we must take the time to sort out exactly how that works and get the process right. 'But to be absolutely clear, the grooming scandal was one of the greatest failures in our country's history, with vulnerable people let down time and again, and the Prime Minister is determined to finally get them justice.' He added that the Government had accepted all of Baroness Casey's recommendations, including making it mandatory for the police to collect data on the ethnicity of suspects.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Gen Z worker reveals $4,732 cost-of-living drain facing millions: 'Not needed'
A young Australian has revealed the glaring cost-of-living problem she has noticed working as a delivery driver on DoorDash. The price of rent and mortgage payments, groceries and household bills have been rising, but Aussies are continuing to spend money on 'luxuries' like food delivery. Mackenzie Mathews has been working as a delivery driver for the past three months, alongside running her own social media marketing business. The 21-year-old Brisbane woman told Yahoo Finance she has noticed many of the orders she delivers are less than two minutes down the road from the restaurant. 'I understand there are so many different reasons to deliver food. But literally a lot of the time it's about two minutes that I'm driving from the restaurant to the person's house,' she said. 'It genuinely is crazy to me. I understand people probably think it's only an extra $2 for the delivery, but every single item is priced up.' RELATED Grim $215 revelation exposes bleak cost-of-living reality for millions in Australia ATO, Centrelink, superannuation: All the money changes coming from July 1 FIFO worker on $250,000 reveals how Aussies can get into mining industry Mathews posted a video about her experience online and questioned whether some Australians were truly in a cost-of-living crisis if they could afford to spend money on such a short delivery. It's something mortgage broker Jess Phillips also previously questioned, after she noticed some clients were coming in spending $500 a month on takeaway food. 'I understand things have skyrocketed and that's 100 per cent true, but people are spending on luxuries,' Mathews said. While she isn't trying to tell people how they should spend their own money, Mathews said she wanted to talk about the issue because she had previously been 'stuck in a loop' of overspending herself.'I was that person who was overspending. I was spending $2,000 a fortnight on Afterpay while I was working my 9 to 5 job and I was using delivery services,' she said. 'There are so many luxuries that are really not needed once you confront your spending habits. 'Part of having a 9 to 5 is you're going to be exhausted when you come home. I wasn't wanting to cook, I was getting fast food deliveries.' Mathews said it wasn't until she left her full-time job to pursue her business that she reassessed her money habits and started living more frugally and meal planning ahead. Finder research found 61 per cent of Australians were spending money on food delivery or takeaway services each week in May. While this was down from 68 per cent of people recorded three years ago, Finder found spending had reached a record high, with the average person reporting spending $91 per week, up 40 per cent from $65 per week. That works out to $394 per month and $4,732 per year. 'Despite the fact that the cost of living has gone through the roof, people often continue to spend on so-called 'luxuries' like food delivery for a mix of reasons,' Finder personal finance expert Sarah Megginson told Yahoo Finance. 'For some, they're not very price-sensitive and it's about convenience and saving time. If you have a two-income household, busy jobs and enough disposable income, then indulging in delivered food a few times a week doesn't break the bank, and is a habit you're not looking to end. 'For others, between demanding jobs, long commutes, and family commitments, cooking from scratch every night can feel like an impossible task.' It's something Commonwealth Bank has noticed too, with the bank finding food delivery spend had climbed 6 per cent among its 7 million customers in the year to September. While food delivery can be incredibly convenient, Megginson said this came at a cost, with apps often 30 per cent more expensive than buying directly. Mathews received hundreds of comments on her video. Some Aussies pointed out they used delivery services because they were single parents, lived with a disability or physically weren't able to leave their home to get food. But others admitted they used delivery apps purely for convenience's sake. "Yeah I'll admit I'm lazy, that's literally my only reason. I have a car, Woolies is a street away and I have a Maccas and other takeaway shops 5 minutes down the road but I'm guilty of this big time,' one wrote. 'I feel personally attacked because I have zero excuse other than laziness. It's so cold I don't want to leave my home,' another said. 'A $2.99 delivery fee is worth not having to leave the house,' a third said. Mathews said she doesn't blame people for ordering food delivery and thinks consumer psychology means Aussies are drawn to the convenience. 'Having food delivered two minutes down the road is convenient, but most of the time I'm picking up multiple orders before I even drop that order off because that's just how it works,' she told Yahoo Finance. "So you may be spending extra money, but you're getting lower quality food because it's cold by the time you get it." Finder found Gen Z were spending the most on food delivery and takeaway at $119 per week, followed by Gen Y at $100. Gen X were lower at $63 per week, followed by Baby Boomers at $44. For those looking to save money, Megginson said you don't have to cut out takeaway and delivery completely. 'If you currently order multiple times a week, try limiting it to once a week or if you can, a couple of times a month,' she said. 'By making it less common, each time you order takeaways it feels more like a special treat and helps in managing your overall food spending.' It might also be worth checking if the delivery platform or restaurants offer promotions, discounts, loyalty programs or special deals on certain days. 'Check for available coupons in the restaurant's own app, looking for meal deals or family bundles, or signing up for memberships like the Entertainment App can lead to some really big savings over time too,' she said. 'The goal is to make your occasional takeout more budget-friendly, rather than cutting out on this habit altogether.'Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data
