The radical left in Great Britain is hell-bent on its project to kill off Britons they think are too expensive to take care of in their oh-so-compassionate “free” health care system.
After much debate, the House of Commons passed a horrific bill by a tiny margin—just 23 votes out of the 605 who voted on the bill, which is 200 fewer than the Labour Party can claim in the body. In other words, the bill is extremely controversial and widely opposed by the very people who will be tasked with implementing it.
Whatever you think about the principle, the law is about the power words written by Parliament give. This is what the experts think of those words written in the Assisted Dying Bill. https://t.co/Kuj5vVP0XV
— Tom Tugendhat (@TomTugendhat) November 20, 2025
The bill must go through the House of Lords, which, by convention, is generally expected to pass bills that clear the Commons, although it has the power to amend the bill, and doing so does not violate conventions. And since Labour did not run and win on a platform of killing off the elderly and infirm, it has greater latitude than usual to reject the bill.
The following representatives of vulnerable people likely to be put at risk by the Bill also expressed concerns at the select committee:
British Geriatrics Society
Hospice UK
Age UK
The Children’s Commissioner
Mind charity
Disability rights campaigner & former Paralympian Tanni…— Right To Life UK (@RightToLifeUK) November 19, 2025
The left is outraged that the House of Lords is not just rubber-stamping a bill that would institutionalize the murder of Britons who the left believes are too expensive to keep alive.
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: https://t.co/tuot2lzV7U
That claim is constitutional nonsense, for the reasons I explain here: https://t.co/pvr04VhyZn
— Mark Elliott (@ProfMarkElliott) November 20, 2025
The fight is getting really nasty, with the left now claiming that the British Constitution itself—which is not exactly a thing, but a set of traditions built up over the centuries—will be fatally hurt if the body that exists to be a check on the Commons being too hasty actually does its job.
The US Senate was designed to perform much the same function as the Lords, and we should hope that the Lords actually perform the function for which they exist.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (or the Assisted Dying Bill as it is more often referred to) has now completed its passage through the House of Commons. 314 MPs voted in favour while 291 voted against, yielding a majority of 23. Under the process whereby Bills become Acts of Parliament, the Bill will now move to the House of Lords, where it will go through a process similar to that which it underwent in the House of Commons.
Normally, a Bill can only become an Act (and hence an enforceable law) if it is approved by both the Commons and the Lords (as well as going through the purely formal process of being granted Royal Assent). If a Bill (like the Assisted Dying Bill) that starts off in the Commons is amended by the Lords, it returns to the Commons, which has to decide whether to approve or reverse the amendments. If the amendments are reversed, the Bill must go back to the Lords, which itself must decide whether to approve the Bill in its latest form. That process, informally known as ‘legislative ping-pong’, continues until both Houses agree on the same version of the Bill. Only at that point can it go for Royal Assent and become an Act. If the two Houses cannot agree, the Bill cannot go for Royal Assent and cannot become law (subject to an important exception explained below).
The Lords are expected to assent to bills that were part of the electoral manifesto, although they do get some input. That’s why we don’t tend to think of the Lords as a political factor. But the medical murder bill isn’t covered under this convention.
Is there, however, any possibility of the Lords simply refusing to approve the Bill at all — whether by voting it down or, if does not take that step, by producing a deadlock situation if, at the ping-pong stage, the Commons (say) refuses to approve additional safeguards the Lords have inserted by way of amendments? In constitutional terms, nothing would prevent the Lords from doing such things. Sometimes, an objection to legislative obstinacy in the House of Lords is the ‘Salisbury convention’, according to which the Lords should not vote down government bills that give effect to government manifesto commitments — a norm that is intended to prevent a government lacking a majority in the Lords from being thwarted in the enactment of its legislative programme. But the Salisbury convention can have no application to the Assisted Dying Bill, which is a private members’ bill rather than a government bill, and which, in any event, does not reflect any government manifesto commitment.
The left is outraged that the murder regime is being delayed, and is now threatening to weaken the power of the Lords, and there are mechanisms to do so. Think of it as making a similarly radical step as eliminating the filibuster in the US Senate, although the mechanisms are different.
Simon Jenkins of The Guardian is now floating the idea that the Lords should essentially be replaced, in its own assisted murder. Not so much because it should be reformed, which may indeed be arguable, but rather because it is an obstacle to the very important project of using the Grim Reaper’s scythe to begin mowing down the inconvenient.
In 2016, the House of Lords’ constitution unit boldly declared the house would reform itself, starting with reducing its size. In the subsequent decade, it did nothing. This comedy is surely over. If Britain needs a second chamber of parliament – and I think it does – an outside commission should be formed and report at once. Meanwhile, the government should legislate to permit assisted dying.
The left is in love with death, whether it is through abortion, sterilizing and mutilating children, anti-natalism, or medical murder. They are willing to go to great lengths—even changing the foundation of their system of government— to further that agenda.
Join Hot Air VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
