Coffee House Shots

The assisted dying bill has stalled in the House of Lords – but is it dead, or merely delayed?
After weeks of fraught debate, multiple amendments and accusations of filibuster, supporters of the bill are considering whether it could return to the Commons – and whether the Parliament Act might ultimately be used to force it through. Lord Falconer, who has long championed assisted dying, argues that a small group of peers used procedure to block the will of the elected House. Lord Moore disagrees, warning that the bill was deeply flawed, that the Lords was simply doing its job of scrutiny, and that using the Parliament Act on a matter of conscience would be ‘horrendously divisive’.
In this special Coffee House Shots conversation, Charles Moore and Charlie Falconer debate where the bill went wrong, whether the Lords overreached, and whether assisted dying can ever be safely introduced into the NHS.
Produced by Oscar Edmondson and Patrick Gibbons.
Become a Spectator subscriber today to access this podcast without adverts. Go to spectator.co.uk/adfree to find out more.

For more Spectator podcasts, go to spectator.co.uk/podcasts.

Contact us: [email protected]

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hereditary peers have left their red leather benches for the final time. The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act became law earlier this year, which removes all hereditary peers' right to speak and vote in Parliament by virtue of their family ties. Critics have described their role as indefensible, but others accuse Labour of political point-scoring and vandalising the upper house – removing a 'living part of Britain's constitutional inheritance'.

James Heale and Megan McElroy discuss – joined by Lord Strathclyde and Lord Courtenay.
Become a Spectator subscriber today to access this podcast without adverts. Go to spectator.co.uk/adfree to find out more.

For more Spectator podcasts, go to spectator.co.uk/podcasts.

Contact us: [email protected]

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Does Keir Starmer have confidence in Rachel Reeves? Kemi Badenoch pressed the Prime Minister on his Chancellor’s future at PMQs – and he declined to answer, twice. Westminster (and Twitter) is now awash with reshuffle rumours.

No 10 has since issued a denial, but the damage may already be done, raising a familiar question: is Keir Starmer just bad at politics?

With recess looming and Labour braced for a battering at the local elections, Tim Shipman and Noa Hoffman join Megan McElroy to discuss.

Become a Spectator subscriber today to access this podcast without adverts. Go to spectator.co.uk/adfree to find out more.

For more Spectator podcasts, go to spectator.co.uk/podcasts.

Contact us: [email protected]

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It’s a blockbuster day in parliament today. To kick things off, we had Philip Barton pleading ignorance; to close the proceedings tonight we have a vote on a possible Privileges Committee probe. But in between we have Morgan McSweeney, the longtime bete noire of the Labour party left, giving testimony on the appointment of Peter Mandelson as British ambassador. McSweeney pushed hard for Mandy to be given the gig: a decision which he said in his opening statement to the Foreign Affairs Committee was a ‘serious error’. However, Keir Starmer’s former chief of staff denied pressuring Foreign Office officials to clear the appointment ‘at all costs’.
It wasn’t as explosive as Olly Robbins last week and there seemed to be a more personal subplot running between McSweeney and chair Emily Thornberry – who was denied her frontbench role by Keir Starmer. Is the Prime Minister more or less secure after this latest testimony?
Noa Hoffman speaks to Tim Shipman.
Produced by Megan McElroy and Oscar Edmondson.
Become a Spectator subscriber today to access this podcast without adverts. Go to spectator.co.uk/adfree to find out more.

For more Spectator podcasts, go to spectator.co.uk/podcasts.

Contact us: [email protected]

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

King Charles is about to travel to Washington to visit President Trump. The brief? Fix the strained relationship. No pressure!

Can royal diplomacy steady relations? Will the trip be awkward given Trump's recent words on Starmer, Chagos, The Falklands, and Canada? Does the King have what it takes to navigate such a diplomatic minefield?

Elsewhere, Morgan McSweeney will appear before MPs tomorrow to explain his actions relating to the appointment of Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. Given he's already said he doesn't recognise portrayals of himself in the media, is he going to come out swinging?

Tim Shipman and James Heale discuss.
Become a Spectator subscriber today to access this podcast without adverts. Go to spectator.co.uk/adfree to find out more.

For more Spectator podcasts, go to spectator.co.uk/podcasts.

Contact us: [email protected]

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.