Newsletter #5: Vile thug Mike Amesbury MP slugs constituent

PLUS: Euthanasia; Chris Kaba; and some pre-budget analysis and speculation

Good morning.

Today, the main event will be looking at what we should expect from Rachel Reeves’ first budget. But first: Keir Starmer’s euthanasia bill, and then Mike Amesbury MP’s vicious attack on a constituent (I thought naming the newsletter after this was funnier than trying to wring humour out of the budget, since I wanted a tabloid-style title). It’s a long newsletter — I hope it’s worth it!

This newsletter’s agenda: Euthanasia: no Cabinet united front (free); Vile thug Mike Amesbury MP slugs constituent (free); The impossible job: some pre-budget analysis and speculation (paid); Chris Kaba: two-tier prosecutions? (paid).

The first and second sections are free. Upgrade to a paid subscription — normally £8/month (or £80/year), but ten percent off for one year until the end of October, click here! — to read rest of this newsletter.

Euthanasia: no Cabinet united front

I don’t know who this woman is.

On 9 October, Transport Secretary Louise Haigh called P&O Ferries a ‘rogue operator’ who needed ‘cracking down on’. She was rebuked by both Jonathan Reynolds, the Business Secretary, and Keir Starmer himself, who expressed in strong terms that she was not speaking for the Government. Soon after, it was rumoured that Starmer wanted to sack Haigh. Obviously, Starmer wants to run a tight ship, and move away from the very public Cabinet rows that marked the final, dismal years of the previous Tory Government. He will be concerned that cracks already seem to be appearing — both on matters of principle and because of people simply misspeaking — so early on.

This week, Starmer’s desire for the Cabinet to present a united front to the public has been put under further strain owing to his decision — seemingly not discussed at all prior to the election and, by his own account, influenced by a private discussion he had with a minor celebrity (Esther Rantzen; yes, me neither) — to allow another vote on euthanasia (i.e., ‘assisted dying’, the slimy, non-neutral euphemism that the media has inexplicably allowed to become the standard term). Yet again, it appears that everything turns on the personal whims of Keir. The Bill is being put forward by Labour backbencher Kim Leadbeater. This seems like a curious choice, given the headaches that her Muslim constituents have already very visibly caused her. Many MPs, both Labour and Tory, are said to be angry at how little time will be given for debate on the Bill — just five hours.

In the Cabinet, so far, we know that Energy Secretary Ed Miliband and Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy will be voting in favour of the Bill. It also seems certain that Starmer himself will vote in favour of the Bill, though he has not (technically) announced this publicly. Lord Chancellor Shabana Mahmood and Health Secretary Wes Streeting will be voting against. Mahmood’s decision to vote against is perhaps expected, given that she is a Muslim. Streeting’s decision is much more interesting, as he previously voted in favour of ‘assisted dying’. Apparently, he has changed his mind because he is not satisfied with the palliative care currently available on the NHS. It also seems likely that Jonathan Reynolds will vote against the Bill, as he is already known to be an opponent of euthanasia. Outside of the Cabinet, we know that Ed Davey will vote against, but the idea of many other Liberal Democrats following his lead seems doubtful.

Will the Bill will pass? That remains unclear. The last vote on the issue, which took place in 2015, saw the euthanasia lobby comprehensively defeated. The Commons has changed a lot since then, but for whatever reason, on this specific issue (and seemingly this issue alone), MPs have remained considerably more ‘conservative’ than the public, who usually say they back legalising euthanasia when polled. Moreover, since 2015, opponents of euthanasia have been gathering more and more evidence from foreign countries, particularly Canada, in order to provide backing for their claim that any change to the law is dangerous; a ‘slippery slope’. A few days ago, the Senedd voted against backing the principle (since power over the issue is reserved for Westminster) of assisted dying, and by a reasonable margin. I think that there is a good chance that the outcome of the vote may surprise us, especially given the typically under-handed way in which Starmer seems to be trying to force it through. That said, the newly-elected Starmtroopers, who would probably march off a cliff if Starmer told them to, might just seal the deal for Esther Rantzen and friends.

We should be clear in saying that, in theory, Starmer has said that Ministers are completely free to support or oppose the Bill: there is no ‘cabinet collective responsibility’ being invoked on this issue. However, if the Bill passes, the notion that the Cabinet Minister responsible for actually implementing euthanasia — a change supported (and everyone can tell that this is the case) by the Prime Minister — will be opposed to it is completely bizarre. Obviously, this is a matter for Streeting himself, and no-one else, but it seems logical that he should probably resign if the Bill ends up going through.

I don’t think Streeting will actually resign if this happens — he’s just too ambitious to let something like this get in his way — but there is at least a possibility. If this happens, this will be yet another huge, unforced error by Starmer. It will be extremely embarrassing to have such an important minister forced out for no good reason within months of the election. But even beyond this, speaking more in practical rather than political terms, it seems clear enough to me that Starmer is relying a lot on Streeting to sort out the NHS without having to pour too much more money into it. Whether or not he succeeds is another question, but there aren’t that many people in the Labour Party of 2024 other than Streeting who will be willing to do anything like what is necessary, given the state of the internal party culture.

Vile thug Mike Amesbury MP slugs constituent

‘You’re a big guy.’ ‘For you.’

A few days ago, a video was released of Mike Amesbury, the Labour MP for Runcorn and Helsby, in a late-night physical confrontation with a man in his constituency. The original footage, however, wasn’t necessarily completely damning of Amesbury. How could we possibly know what happened immediately prior? Perhaps he was physically attacked, and responded in kind.

But yesterday, we finally got to see the full CCTV footage of the incident. Now — granted — we don’t know much of anything about what was being said. But it is far from exculpatory of Amesbury. From his body language, the man who the CCTV shows him speaking to is not behaving in a threatening manner whatsoever. He does not appear to be at all interested in engaging in a physical confrontation. He does not touch Amesbury at all, and nor does he look like he is about to: certainly, his hands stay completely down (perhaps even in his pockets, though the video is not really high enough quality to say for sure) throughout. All we see is Amesbury sucker-punch him to the ground. Amesbury then tries to punch him — while he’s on the ground — six more times in the face for good measure. Amesbury has already lost the whip and has been suspended from the Labour Party. I think it is highly likely he is forced to stand down as an MP, leading to a by-election, and that it is also very likely that he is handed a criminal record (if not actual jail time).

Mike Amesbury MP — we are told by Wikipedia — graduated from the University of Bradford with a BA in ‘Community Studies’ (presumably Sociology, but more stupid), and then ‘completed a diploma’ at the ‘University of Central England’ (now Birmingham City University; as we know, always a good thing when a university changes its name). After this, he became a ‘careers advisor’ (some venomous satire on Wikipedia, I must conclude), and later became a director of an ‘award-winning social enterprise providing affordable housing’ (‘high-status’, for sure) in Manchester.

Oh well: at least Amesbury, even if he is forced to step down as an MP, hasn’t destroyed his career. After all, we all know that he must have taken a massive pay cut to become an MP on a mere £91k per annum (plus generous expenses). I’m sure that the directorships will be rolling in any second now, for those Contacts, that Experience at the Heart of Government. Like most of our talented Members of Parliament, I’m sure he could easily be earning triple what he is, if he was just a little less civically-minded (this, we are told by many superstar policy wonks, is why we need to raise their salaries, so they don’t all tragically leave us for greener pastures). There’s no way Labour could have possibly found anyone better for this seat.

If Amesbury ends up standing down as an MP, we could have an interesting by-election on our hands: another chance — albeit probably a slim one, so long as both the Tories and Reform are standing, with no agreement between them made — to humiliate Starmer. In 2019, Amesbury (who was first elected in 2017) kept his seat by a mere 562 votes. In both 2010 and 2015, the seat went Conservative. There were major boundary changes in 2024, which seem to have made Amesbury’s Cheshire seat substantially more favourable to Labour. Even if we combine the Tory and Reform vote at the last election, he still had a majority of nearly 8,000 (without doing this, he has a majority of over 14,000). Regardless, even if an upset is probably unlikely, at an absolute minimum, a by-election here would enable us to see how the two main right-wing parties are performing since the General Election.

The impossible job: some pre-budget analysis and speculation

Rachel Thieves 🚬