Labour peer's assisted-dying remark sparks backlash over population and climate debate

A Labour peer drew gasps in the House of Lords and online alike as he floated an extraordinary line of reasoning about assisted dying, population growth and climate change during a debate on the Assisted Dying Bill. Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, a former union leader who sits in the Lords as a Labour peer, mused that the world’s population has swelled from about 6.1 billion to 8.2 billion in roughly 25 years and suggested that the legalization of abortion and broader societal changes had tempered future numbers.

"But just think what the numbers would be if abortion had not been legalised," he said, before adding that the growth of homosexuality in society had reduced the number of children people might have had if churches had their way. He concluded: "We would’ve had a very much bigger population than we presently have facing the difficulties we have with climate change." The remarks prompted audible gasps in the chamber and were swiftly criticized by some as grotesque and out of step with policy aims.

Anthony Horan of the Scottish Bishops Conference branded the intervention as "utterly grotesque and quite terrifying." Campaigners from Humanists UK and My Death My Decision were present in force at rallies supporting the Assisted Dying Bill, holding banners in what observers described as a deeply charged atmosphere surrounding the debate.

Living in Clem’s shadow, The Earl Attlee, grandson of post-war Labour prime minister Clement Attlee, is stepping down before Labour’s hereditary peer cull. In an interview last week, the Tory peer was asked what he would do if he faced a scandal. "I’d go to Latin America instantly," he said. "I would never do anything that would get me into trouble because that would let the side down. [I’m] the grandson of… one of the two greatest post-war prime ministers, and possibly the greatest. It’s a hell of a lot to live up to."

Mark flies on mute: For his 60th, Mark Francois MP was treated by local activists to a flight in a Spitfire. The former Territorial Army officer admitted he was—for once—"speechless." A light moment amid a week of sharp political rhetoric.

After strategy chief Paul Ovenden quit Downing Street over controversial remarks about Labour MP Diane Abbott, a colleague quipped that the post for director of strategy had likely been vacant since the election, underscoring the ongoing churn in party communications operations.

Overheard in the Commons: A Tory researcher quipped that "All those voters who punished us at the election must now feel they’ve stood on a garden rake"—a reflection of how the party is navigating post-election sentiment.

Ministers were instructed to lavish praise on Donald Trump during his visit, a requirement that recalled earlier tensions when eight current Cabinet members tried to bar him from addressing Parliament during his first state visit in 2019, including Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper, Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy and Health Secretary Wes Streeting.

Treasury figures show Labour officials spent £59,200 on flights, hotels and travel between April and June, including business-class trips to Riyadh and Washington. By comparison, under the Tory government in the same quarter in 2024, the figure was less than £1,600, a point of contention in a year of high living costs.

SNP Dundee MP Chris Law drew fire last week for a now-deleted tweet claiming that attending a Windsor Castle banquet signalled support for genocide in Gaza, a post that swirled amid the presence of SNP leader John Swinney among the diners.

Trump’s visit to the country also drew scrutiny, with the King’s lord-in-waiting, Viscount Hood, presenting him at an event in an unbuttoned jacket and unpolished shoes, a visual detail that commentators described as emblematic of a softer royal reception than some had anticipated. The visit followed a broader wave of transatlantic coverage that has kept Westminster in the crosshairs of partisan debate.

Overall, the remarks surrounding the Assisted Dying Bill highlighted the volatility of discussions at Westminster on matters tied to life, death and policy tools that would intersect with demographic and climate concerns. Critics argued that linking assisted dying to population management risks normalizing eugenic or coercive policy rationales, while supporters said the bill should be considered on its own terms, with safeguards in place. As the debate continues, MPs and peers alike are watching closely to see how lawmakers balance ethical considerations with evolving social and environmental pressures.