Diane Abbott giving way then utterly ignoring — not even acknowledging the point made — is not an example of the height of debate I suggested.

This early in a debate we must be careful about drawing conclusions but I think this vote is doomed to fail.

I note also that religiosity is massively overrepresented in the House, which may be a significant factor.

Had to miss an hour for a work call, but the debate so far is very good. Still many folks just reading pre-prepared lines that have already been addressed, but on the whole much more reasonable a discussion than is to be expected of a Chamber including Tories and Reform. I am thankful the SNP have chosen not to be present.

Ministers are notionally neutral so I'm not expecting my MP, Stephen Doughty, to speak, but I haven't seen a speaking order and he may yet.

Free votes and PMBs are so strange in that they drive Tories to sometimes act respectfully.

Alicia Kearns of all people rightly defending the bill and pointing out it'll face vastly more scrutiny than most bills that pass the House — including the Police, Crime, Courts, and Sentencing Act.

She also called out the religiosity and the gall of imposing moral conviction on others in favour of freedom of choice. Fair dues.

Jake Richards highlighting that some members may be grasping at procedural straws as an excuse to oppose the bill rather than properly focusing on the *principle* of the bill as they constitutionally should.

I think he's right, especially when seeing Tories using the state of palliative care — utterly wrecked as much of the NHS has been by 14 years of Tory rule — as a reason to oppose the bill.

Robert Jenrick utterly debasing himself by suggesting the reasonable bill would be warped by "activist judges in the court in Strasbourg," making it less a slippery slope and more a cliff edge.

Such an utterly loathsome man. It is no wonder to me that he came so close to becoming Tory leader.

That's an interesting point from one speaker I didn't see the name of. He points out that there's a provision to allow So-Called Alternative Medicine (SCAM) practitioners to serve as the two doctors required to sign off on assisted death.

I'm very much not in favour of that. That should be worked out in the committee stage, and I hope secular/rationalist orgs campaign heavily through that phase.

I think this is what he meant. A 'registered medical practitioner' may make the first referral to a doctor, and may serve as the independent second assessor if these conditions are met. The language is left open for the Secretary of State to determine who counts as suitably qualified.

So no explicit requirement that SCAM artists be allowed to act this way, but that power being deferred the executive rather than to the House. That'll certainly be amended my the House if not the bill committee.

Ayes to the right, 330, Noes to the left 275. It passed!

Holy shit, something good happened!

#UKPolitics #UKPol