How much trouble is Gord in over the embryo bill?
March 23rd, 2008
What could the row mean for his future in the job?
The issue that’s dominating the UK political news this Easter is the threatened revolt by Labour MPs, including ministers, over the the Embryo bill that would allow the creation of part-human, part-animal embryos for research.
According to the Observer three Cabinet minsters - Ruth Kelly, Des Browne and Paul Murphy - are “struggling to accept” parts of the bill’s provisions while there are some reports suggesting that upto twelve minster could be forced to resign.
The Observer says it has become “….a direct challenge to the Prime Minister’s authority. Brown now faces a choice between surrendering to demands for a free vote, which could see the bill defeated, or risking ministerial resignations on conscience grounds.”
At a time when the party’s poll ratings are at a twenty year low such a split could have a major impact both on Labour and Brown’s future. On the other hand going back on his decision to make this a whipped vote would be a hard pill to swallow.
It’s been interesting that in recent weeks David Cameron has spotted Gord’s vulnerability and pressed him twice on the free vote issue at PMQs - forcing responses that will make it even harder for the PM to back-track.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Today’s so called “Catholics” do not have quite the same degree of courage as those who were prepared to face hanging, drawing and quartering rather than renounce the Faith. Today’s sorry lot will turn their backs on their beliefs rather than take their snouts out of the trough.
When Brown was appointed Prime Minister, he promised a return to Cabinet government. As others have noted on previous threads, the remarkable thing is that Gordon Brown, the whips and/or the Cabinet did not see this coming a mile off. The obvious conclusion is that the collegiate approach is a sham.
mirthios @ 1 — were Roman Catholics ever hanged, drawn and quartered for not renouncing their faith?
John L - 2 - Yes:
An act against Jesuits and seminary priests, passed in 1585, made it treason for any Englishman ordained a Catholic priest abroad after 1559 to come into or remain in England and felony for anyone to shelter or assist such a priest.
This Act was the culmination of the Elizabethan penal legislation and rendered most of the previous laws obsolete. Henceforth once it was shown that a man was a Catholic priest ordained after the specified date, he was ipso facto guilty of treason and likewise lay people who assisted such a priest were ipso facto guilty of felony.
Treason and felony both incurred the death penalty, treason by the process of hanging, drawing and quartering, and felony by hanging only. 75 martyrs during the English persecution were condemned under this Act; sixty-one priests and fourteen laymen.
The latest report from the BBC is quite bizarre in some respects.
It quotes a senior government source saying “the prime minister accepts that a number MPs, thought to include several prominent ministers, oppose aspects of the bill on grounds of conscience.”
It then goes on to say that “Gordon Brown is said to be prepared to sanction them voting against parts of government legislation - but only if the government would not be defeated.”???
Then the whole article ends with this comment, “Mr Brown has said a decision on a free vote for his MPs would be taken “in due course”.”
What on earth is going on? Someone on an earlier thread pointed out that Brown had left himself room to manoeuvre on the decision to impose the whip for this bill, is he suddenly going to give the third reading a free vote? If so, hasn’t this whole debate been marred by the previous intransigence of Brown over an issue which should always have been a free vote?
I don’t think Brown’s political antennae is anywhere as astute as it should be, I also don’t think he is capable of backing down and making the kinds of concessions his predecessor saw as politically expedient in the long term. He runs the risk of forcing ministers onto the backbenches unnecessarily, never a good omen for a PM who is in trouble.
Mike - interesting excerpt from Sunday Telegraph interview with Livingstone:
Ken Livingstone: “I’ll let you know on 2 May. Look, there’s only been two months in eight years when my popularity rating wasn’t positive. Often it’s quite narrow, because you’re getting people to do things they wouldn’t necessarily do. Or they don’t necessarily want to. And I think broadly, the biggest chunk of voters think: well we don’t like it, but it’s got to be done. After the Congestion Charge my popularity went up by about 10 per cent.”
Must Livingstone now publish the details of this private polling?
5 re Ken’s polls — even if Ken is talking about private rather than public polls, and that is not clear, the congestion charge was introduced fully five years ago.
4. I originally thought in response to Mike’s question ‘virtually no trouble at all’, given that this is not an important bill and if the government loses it, it’s no big deal in the greater scheme of things. Given the choice, he’d rather let the bill die (or more realistically, be amended) than lose a dozen ministers. Of course, to lose the vote, the Tories and Lib Dems and others will have to vote against it in a virtually unanimous block - if there is such a demand for a free vote on Labour’s side, I don’t think we can expect anything different elsewhere and consequently, there won’t be a solid opposition vote.
Even so, John L and ChrisD make the point I was missing - Brown has to both read the situation correctly and react appropriately to that situation, and so do the whips. Why he and they didn’t see this coming is a mystery. His floundering this way and that on how Labour MP’s will be instructed or allowed to vote doesn’t give for much hope that the right decision, from his point of view, will be reached. There could easily be resignations over this.
Ultimately, that still won’t be fatal, or at least not in the short term: Blair survived more damaging resignations over a more serious matter - though he had a majority of over 150 at the time and was ahead in the polls. What it could do is add to the sense that the government has lost its direction and doesn’t know what it’s doing; the sense of tiredness. Brown won’t fall whatever happens over embryo research; he can’t be forced out, he’ll want to stay and there’s no-one obviously better anyway.
I still maintain that the greatest favour Blair ever did Brown was leaving parliament immediately after stepping down as PM.
Mike, you say “… there are some reports suggesting that up to twelve minster could be forced to resign.”
In fact, that is not quite what Jenny Percival and Eddie Barnes of the Scotland on Sunday actually report. Apparently, rather than simply resigning, some ministers may actually be prepared to go the whole hog, throw down the gauntlet, and be publicly sacked by the Prime Minister!!
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/latestnews/12-ministers-39to-quit39-over.3906490.jp
Apart from Ruth Kelly, Des Browne and Paul Murphy, the other ministers named in the article are Paul Goggins, Frank Roy, Tommy McAvoy, Stephen Timms, David Cairns, Mike O’Brien, Pat McFadden and Jim Murphy. Note that a huge percentage of these ministers are Scottish MPs (Browne, Roy, McAvoy, Cairns and Murphy)! And Pat McFadden is a Scot representing an English constituency. This episode is pure dynamite within the already decimated ranks of the Scottish Labour Party. And pretty catastrophic for the Welsh Labour Party too.
The leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, Cardinal O’Brien, Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, looks to the rest of the world for inspiration and support:
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2140418.0.the_embryo_debate.php
Apparently the Bishop of Paisley, Philip Tartaglia, had written to Gordon Brown about the issue but “hadn’t even had the courtesy of an acknowledgment”.
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2140418.0.the_embryo_debate.php
Sorry, wrong link for Cardinal Keith O’Brien’s quote. Here is the correct link:
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2140437.0.the_embryo_debate.php
I just don’t get why Broon has made such an issue of this - it is clearly such a matter of conscience that a free vote is the only way to go - in the same way that abortion bills or capital punishment are.
DC’s team have worked well to push him into a tight corner on this.
Was there ever any sort of manifesto pledge on this? Not that that amounts to much anyway…
1, 2 & 3 - mirthios and John L
“List of Catholic martyrs of the English Reformation”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_martyrs_of_the_English_Reformation
“Elizabethan Religious Settlement”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabethan_Religious_Settlement
Mirthios, you forgot to mention that from 1585 to 1604 Spain and England were at war and the chief English Jesuit was in Madrid affirming that Phillip 11 was the rightful ruler of England. Pious Catholics were caught up in big political manoeuvrings and were ill-served by leaders who forced the faithful to chose between their faith and their ruler.
I don’t know if there are any lessons to learn from the seventeenth century. GB has made an error of judgement, which revives all the old concerns about his intolerance of dissent and insensitivity. However, the Catholic hierarchy is in danger of over-reacting and needs to avoid appearing anti-Labour. After all, this is a predominately secular society and, just as people are willing to allow freedom of conscience to those with strong religious convictions, they don’t like religious leaders telling them whom to vote for.
Has the date for the 2008 EU Parliament elections been set?
My answer to the question posed by the thread is that Gord is in a”no win” situation.
This extract from the Daily Telegraph ums his predicament up better that I ever could.
Obviously, it worries Mr Brown greatly that there might be a Conservative Mayor of London in a little over a month - a victory that would be a huge fillip to Tory morale and give David Cameron (not to mention Boris) the Big Mo. But another worry niggles at Gordon. How could a Scottish Prime Minister, who had made “Britishness” the heart of his message, govern the United Kingdom successfully if his party had been kicked out of power in both Edinburgh and London?
At Holyrood, Alex Salmond, the First Minister, continues to run rings round Labour and its Scottish leader, Wendy Alexander. Keep an eye on the SNP’s campaign to close the nuclear base at Faslane on the Clyde and make Scotland “Trident-free”. It is hard to see how they could actually succeed in expelling the submarines. But they will cause Mr Brown some serious grief along the way, with this and other guerrilla strategies they are planning.
Imagine the impact upon the PM’s credibility if First Minister Salmond was tormenting him daily in Edinburgh, while Mayor Johnson, newly-installed in City Hall, urged London to turn against the sombre creed of Brownism and look to a brighter future. A cross-border insurgency, led by two politicians - one SNP, one Tory - both possessed of high intellect and great charisma. Two great cities, colonised by the PM’s enemies, mighty symbols of his waning power. More than ever, Number 10 would resemble a bunker and the Brown administration reek of obsolescence.
No wonder Gordon said Ken was “inspirational” last week. With so little time left to turn round Labour’s prospects in London, the PM would say just about anything. When Boris announced his candidacy, Labour’s preening oligarchs laughed. They are not laughing now.
I am contemplating the odds on Q.3
13. Dave B
No. But it is not this year!! It is next June: 2009.
@ Mr Smithson / Webmaster
The ‘departure date betting here’ link goes to the Guardian website.
15
Doh!
13. Dave B
Whoops, I was wrong: a date has now been set: Thursday 11 June 2009.
14
“I am contemplating the odds on Q.3″
What do you think would provoke Mr Brown to call a 2008 election?
Fernando - 12. Thank you for the further background. One comment you make stands out - “people are willing to allow freedom of conscience to those with strong religious convictions”.
I think the current debate is not about the rights or wrongs of the legislation itself, but about the refusal by some members of the Cabinet to allow freedom of conscience to those of their colleagues who have strong religious convictions.
It is the strength of those convictions that I beg leave to doubt.
18. Has it been decided yet whether the local elections will be on the same day, as they were in 2004?
The Scotland on Sunday story link supplied by Mr Dickinson [8], has the little gem:
“The Catholic Church in Scotland continued to pile pressure on Brown, saying it would name and shame MPs who supported the plans, and urged Catholics to campaign against them.”
Not the sort of thing the Labour MPs want to have to consider with their current polls.
Mirthios, I agree entirely on your second paragraph, which is why I can’t understand GB’s error of judgement and insensitivity on a matter which should be a free vote. I also find it interesting to observe the dynamics of how this government works. There must have been those who saw that this policy was wrong but no-one, apparently, was willing to say anything. Has GB created an atmosphere where principled criticism is seen an disloyalty?
4. ChrisD
The BBC is being “quite bizarre” in some other respects of its behavoiur today. It is now acting as the de facto in-house publisher for the Scottish Labour Party; a role once reserved for that bastion of high quality, impartial reporting, The Daily Record.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/21_03_08_wendy.pdf
(NOTE: this is an official Labour Party document being published verbatim by the BBC. For free. Go figure!)
Is the United Kingdom a ‘federal country’, composed of ‘members’? It is being likened to one by Wendy Alexander (and being “bizarrely” published today by the BBC). Last time I looked the Unionists were claiming that, constitutionally, the UK was something called a ‘unitary state’.
There is also a fascinating change in strategic direction. Labour are, apparently, going to stop arguing the Scotland only benefits (financially) from the Union. Apparently Scots also contribute more than our fair share:
So, are we no longer going to hear inane Labour MPs telling us “ye cannae dae it”? Aye right!
And here is a fascinating insight into how Gordon Brown sees England: as ripe for partition! ‘Divide and Rule’ has always been a mainstay of imperialists the world over. Welcome to the Scottish Raj:
Note that the English question is one for “UK” colleagues to consider, not for English colleagues. So, while Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling signed the Scottish Claim of Right, declaring the Scottish people to be ’sovereign’ and the sole determiners of Scotland’s constitutional future, that same right of self-determination must be denied the people of England, at all costs.
Just a footnote, but apparently Wendy has a new job title: “Leader of Scottish Labour in the Scottish Parliament”. Last time I looked she was being heavily promoted as “Leader of the Scottish Labour Party”. Not quite the same thing now, is it?
Score:
Scottish Labour MPs: 1 - Wendy Alexander: 0
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7307371.stm
Surely, a free vote on all sides - and if the science and the safeguards make sense, the Bill passes? Or did I wake up in a Theocray this morning?
Maybe some of these Ministers are looking for an honourable way to disentangle themselves from Gordon. They will be delighted to resign for “conscience” reasons - and have a chance for a renewed career under Brown’s successor. When he quits in late June….
20 Brown’s problem is that this is Government legislation under collective responsibility. Murphy, Kelly & Browne should have (may have?) made their case in Cabinet. Once it is in Queen’s Speech then either they resign from collective responsibility (and their jobs) or back it.
However there is a precedent in this Parliament for a Cabinet minister not only voting against Government Legislation, breaking that collective responsibility, but against her own Department’s legislation - and for the Government granting a free vote on matter of conscience on its own legislation. Patricia Hewitt as Health Secretary voted against the Smoking Ban Bill she introduced, supporting a total rather than partial ban. In fact the Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Home Secretary joined her in opposing their own legislation. None of them resigned over it, unfortunately
re 16. The link has been fixed.
It’s like old times… The catholic church trying to produce a blocking vote in the English Parliament. Not good.
re 5. The detailed data of private polls has only to be revealed if the pollster is identified by the client and this enters the public domain. In this case that hasn’t happened.
Ken is still holding onto the congestion charge polling data that is subject to the current BPC investigation. My understanding is that that will soon be complete.
A very happy Easter to one and all! Although I am slightly annoyed that a post-Mass detour for a Cadbury Creme Egg at the corner shop this morning did not bear fruit as they were sold out.
Off-topic, an article on the Liberal Party of Australia’s navel-gazing on where to next (with reference to David Cameron)…
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mikesteketee/index.php/theaustralian/comments/a_caring_sort_of_chameleon/
29. Mike - “My understanding is that that will soon be complete.”
Do I sense a pb.com “Exclusive” on its way?
30 Genius!
A caring sort of chameleonu
BRENDAN Nelson has been having a close look at Britain’s Conservative leader David Cameron and he mostly likes what he sees.
“It’s quite impressive what he’s been doing,” the Opposition Leader tells Inquirer. “I don’t intend to take our party as far to the Left as that but I am looking very closely at what he is doing.”
Losing Paul Murphy would be a particular blow, as he would make a good replacement for Jacqui Smith should she forced to resign over a future crisis.
The whole thing is utterly ridiculous - it’s plainly a matter of conscience which warrants a free vote. This is the sort of totally avoidable mess, crossing the road in search of a banana skin to slip on, which reminds me of the Major government.
Jonathon - 28 - “The catholic church trying to produce a blocking vote in the English Parliament. Not good.”
Why not? It is clear that the druids of the English Church have no influence, nor any desire to have. Why shouldn’t the catholic (universal) church have a go.
33. I agree.
The thought of losing both Paul Murphy (Secretary of State for Wales, and former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland) and Des Browne (Secretary of State for Defence and Secretary of State for Scotland) would be sending a shiver up Gordon Brown’s spine… if he had one
However, I very much doubt that Broon would lose much sleep if he lost Mr Lightweight himself: Jim Murphy… Lord preserve us…
34 Because they should get their own house in order first. If they had a moral position on the use of condoms I might believe they have genuine concern for human life. They should form a Christian Democratic Party if they want to run the country.
I would be very surprised if Kelly could support the bill as doesn’t she belong to Opus Dei?
Stuart/ChrisD. Would there be any marginal Labour seats in Scotland more vulnerable to a ‘wedge’ by a pro-conscience vote party (presumably SNP, Con, maybe LD) because of this issue? Presumably a blue collar Catholic seat in the west of Scotland?
Does UK census data or Westminster/Holyrood parliamentary research notes make publicly available which constituencies are more “Catholic” than others? Like this one we have: http://tinyurl.com/24dran
38. North Sydney Correspondent
No, I do not think that you should be trying to make any kind of individual constituency/MP predictions based on this one event. What you must look at is the long term narrative: the long, slow, incremental breakage of the once powerful bond between the Scottish Labour Party and the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland.
Personally, I have always sincerely doubted that ordinary Scottish Catholics were any more inclined to be Labour voters than the Scottish general public at large. Any polling evidence I have ever seen always tended to show that Catholics tended to support each political party in roughly the same proportions as everybody else. However, there is no doubt that Labour did try to claim that other political parties (ie. usually the Scottish National Party) were “anti-Catholic”, at least in their local, on-the-ground propaganda wars. Not sure that anybody, beyond a few half-wits, every really believed their nonsense though.
75 martyrs during the English persecution were condemned under this Act; sixty-one priests and fourteen laymen
Most of these ‘martyrs’ would have gleefully condemned thousands of their fellow countrymen to torture and the stake to restore their beloved ‘faith’, favoured the assassination of their own monarch, and were happy to consort with a hostile foreign power.
It’s laughable to refer to them as martyrs - they were traitors.
Is Opus Dei in league behind the scenes with Opus Dave?
36- France is a million times more secular than Britain and yet has (as all major European countries) have banned this kind of research.
Sometimes, supporting something just because the Catholic Church opposses it is a bit weak as an analysis…
Here is something you don’t see every day: a Labour MP publicly admitting that they lied to parliament:
http://www.scottishsundayexpress.co.uk./posts/view/38943/MP-in-bother-over-kitchen-joke
A wee piece of advice: when you have your snout deep in the trough, do not rub voters’ faces in your slurry.
42 I am a scientist. I took my PhD in the Royal Marsden. I think this kind of research could be extremely valuable and moral. The geocentric catholic church should exercise a little more humility IMO.
To be honest, after the rather underwhelming fish-tomato from the boffins in Nottingham, the chance to create a real live Minotaur is quite exciting!
Bagsy I get to be Theseus… now, who to play my Ariadne? I’m already casting Kiera Knightly in the role…
Makes you wonder why we bothered fighting the Armada doesn’t it?
My mother suffered from senile dementia for eight years prior to her death. Anything that could prevent her fate from happening to anybody else I support.
Is the problem not that the House of Commons might defeat it, but that the House of Lords might?
“What Do The English Really Think Of The Scots?” is on BBC1 Scotland on Tuesday at 10.35pm.
Will it be shown on BBC1 England? Oh, I forgot, there is no “BBC1 England”. Divide and Rule, again.
Mind yer twisted knickers now Jackie!
(Note that highly misleading job title again: “Labour Party leader Wendy Alexander”.)
http://www.scottishsundayexpress.co.uk./posts/view/38828/We-don-t-care-if-Scotland-breaks-free-says-Paxman-England-won-t-beg-you-to-Stay
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/newsfeed/2008/03/22/paxman-we-don-t-care-about-scots-86908-20358783/
The country’s leading left-wing columnist, Iain Macwhirter, who was formerly a big fan of the Labour Party, is trying his hand at poetry this week:
http://www.sundayherald.com/oped/opinion/display.var.2140399.0.another_crisis_another_disappearing_act_from_brown.php
My problem with the Catholic Church, Mirthios, is that they seem to be in favour of a free vote on this issue, as do most of the posters to this blog, but would that be the case if they were in the majority? In somewhere like Poland would MPs be allowed a free vote. The suspicion with these ‘ideological blocs’ is that they champion liberty of conscious when in a minority but practice intolerance when in control. But then I’m attracted to the benign confusion of the local druids, as you depict them.
49. they champion liberty of conscience when in a minority but practice intolerance when in control
Indeed, indeed. Well put.
Having just written a dissertation on it, this whole thing reminds me of IDS and his refusal to allow the Tories a free vote on gay adoption. Brown would probably look like a fool if he allowed a free vote now, but that would be preferable than allowing a full-blown crisis that would see him carelessly lose Cabinet Ministers over an issue where (despite its importance), the future of the country is hardly at stake. You could argue that after the gay adoption row IDS’s leadership never recovered, you have to wonder whether it’ll be curtains for Gordon as well if he needlessly carries on like this.
Barack Obama likely to sign up his TWO MILLIONTH individual donor later today:
https://donate.barackobama.com/page/smartproxy/my.barackobama.com/page/contribute_c/sofar08_lp/graphic
39. I’m not talking about actual predictions, but rather the scope for that sort of campaigning. If not Scotland, then would be scope for the Conservatives to try it in a heavily Catholic, blue collar area in England where they have nothing to lose - parts of Manchester or Liverpool perhaps?
Note that I am not urging anyone to try this - I’m trying to work out whether in particular seats, a particular statistical variation makes a party more vulnerable to specific local campaigns. Comments this weekend about London seats and districts with a high Jewish vote re: Livingstone also spring to mind.
I think this is part of a larger general observation on what scope there is for fighting a GE as a collection of local by-elections held simultaneously, rather than as a whole.
Marginally O/T
This aricle should help to “tighten” the price available about Boris.
From the Sunday Telegraph
Secret council tax database penalises homes with a view
Patrick Hennessy and Ben Leapman
Last Updated: 2:05am GMT 23/03/2008
Millions of homes face higher council tax bills after being logged as having off-street parking or a pleasant view, The Sunday Telegraph can disclose.
Ministers have admitted that Government inspectors are building a secret database that will eventually cover all 23 million homes in England.
The revelations follow a week when council tax bills for 2008-09 have been landing on doormats all over the country. This week, the Government will confirm that some will have rises this year of up to 11 per cent, more than four times the rate of inflation.
…../
Every home is being sized up, and every home improvement or sign of a nice neighbourhood is slowly being photographed, catalogued and taxed by Gordon Brown’s inspectors.
“Families face soaring bills for the crime of living in a nice neighbourhood. Only Labour would think of taxing people for looking out of their windows.”
…/
4 times the rate of inflation? That will be about 24% then.
Whatever Broon is doing in secret will come to light the more his economic miracle crumbles. His latest tax hike proposal is reminiscent of the window tax much hated in the Georgian period of our history.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I think Broon has long passed his sell-by date.
Perhaps Brown is just trying to smoke out opponents of his leadership. If he does remain firm on the free vote status then it will be interesting to see if any non-Catholics vote against the Government…
34. “Why not? It is clear that the druids of the English Church have no influence, nor any desire to have. Why shouldn’t the catholic (universal) church have a go.”
Because religion should have no place in a liberal democracy. Religion - when genuinely meant rather than a sort of cultural tack-on - is not about debate, free thinking, innovation and the development of solutions to ideas; it provides the answers and requires people to follow them. Religious belief is just that: the necessary acceptance of a set of doctrinal positions without supporting evidence but as a matter of faith. For this reason, religions seek to close down debate, stifle education where the content is not pre-approved, and oppose developments in science.
This is to separate religion from morality. I do believe the various religions often offer useful views of ethics and morality and provided that these can be debated freely, they contribute to a healthy society in these areas. But stepping into the political realm is a move too far and should be resisted. Both science and politics require solutions based on evidence; in short, they require rationality. Religion, by contrast, cannot tolerate rationality as it is inimicable to faith and belief.
Happy Easter.
55. alex
So are you saying that Gordon Brown, the trumpeted ’son of the manse’, is in effect trying to smoke Catholics out of the UK government? Why on earth would he do that?
55. Going to be an awful lot of smoke then - Mount St.Helens-style…
57 - No you didn’t read what i wrote.
53. North Sydney Correspondent
There will be no “campaigning” on this issue. No politician in their right mind would intentionally raise these tremendously difficult issues on the doorstep, in a leaflet or in a village hall hustings. Come the UK general election in 2010, you will not hear a peep about this entire ethics arena (despite the best efforts of some Christians).
This’ll upset Cardinal Paddy O’Thick and his mates.
How the Daily Mash sees Easter.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/weekend/review/holiday-greetings-20080321813/
Catholics voting against a three-line whip - prisoners of their conscience and beliefs.
Non-Catholics voting against…
55 - So only Catholics have a right to vote against the creation of mutated embryos? Surely a matter of conscience is the same for everyone.
57. alex
Yes I did. You said that he may be trying “to smoke out opponents of his leadership”. But, de facto, in effect he would be “smoking out” Catholics from the UK government. It is lunacy.
Just a thought: I wonder how Brown would have handled it had Blair still been in the Commons?
44 That it can be extremely valuable I don’t doubt, that it can be moral is questionable. Historical precedent on scientific experimentation doesn’t provide huge comfort on it’s morality - Sarin gas and LSD tests on unsuspecting squaddies (and IIRC a cleaner) at Porton Down were no doubt valuable, the exposure of UK and Australian forces to Atomic & Hydrogen Bomb tests must have given lots of data on the effects of radiation and fallout.
Whether you believe its ethical and I don’t isn’t the point though - the point is that the Government shouldn’t be imposing the judgement reached by those experts in ethics Gordon Brown, Geoff Hoon and Ben Bradshaw and co on MPs. Let MPs do their job, free to decide on their judgements, guided by science, religion or whatever they choose.
I would be surprised, though pleased, if the legislation failed - the HoL refused to ban such experiments previously - but it is so obviously a matter of conscience you have to question why the Government is making it a matter of policy and confidence.
65. What’s Blair’s personal position too, now that he has become a papist?
Perhaps I’ll try one more time. It wasn’t a totally serious argument anyway.
This issue and its handling represents the perfect opportunity for opponents of Gordon Brown’s leadership to cause some trouble. Whilst undoubtedly there are many who are genuinely opposed to the bill, there may be others who can take the opportunity of the cover that “conscience” offers, to further their agenda. The dogmatic view on the bill is more likely to be found among the Catholic MPs. Ergo it will be interesting to discern whether the motives of non-Catholics voting against are genuine.
This argument ONLY applies in the circumstances where Gordon Brown refuses to grant a free vote.
Two things spring to mind here - firstly that there are some pretty strong supporters of this bill on both the Labour and LibDem benches, though probably not many pro-science Tories. A free vote might well be won.
Secondly that very strong opposition by the Catholic Church, which doesn’t exactly enjoy a great progressive reputation, probably makes it more likely that MPs and indeed voters will support it
68. alex
Ah! Now I get what you are saying. Sorry! And thank you for taking the time to ram it into my thick skull
70 - no problem
At the end of the second world war, there was a rush by the allies to find the files and notes taken by doctors who worked in concentration camps.
The experiments that were done in those hideous places, advanced medical knowledge dramatically. As far as I’m aware nobody said the allies should have burned those files and notes.
66 What a daft argument!
69. Jon - “A free vote might well be won.”
Which begs the obvious question: why on earth in Gordon Brown imposing a 3-line Whip when he would win a free vote anyway?
73 - I assume that was addressed to 68…
74 - I think it is debateable whether the Parliament Act can be used on free vote issues.
74 Probably because he thinks it’s something the govt should take responsibility for.
77 - Yep probably a better argument. It’s Government policy so the Government should support it. Probably the most logical and principled solution would be for the Government to be whipped, but the Labour backbenches to have a free vote.
Whether that’s the best solution is another matter.
74 I’m inclined to agree.
Ted - 66 - One almost hesitates to add to your compelling list the attitude of those politicians and scientists in Germany in the early 1940’s who honestly felt that it was valuable to test the human reaction to severe decompression or exposure in freezing water by using sub-humans for the tests.
In fairness, they were not encouraged to have a free vote, either.
54. 4 times the rate of inflation? That will be about 24% then.
.. and the rest. CPI at 2.5%, RPIX at 4.1%. Nonsense. Food and all fuel are up at least 20%.
Are they using the value of Labour votes to counter this and keep inflation down?
73 Your presumably undaft argument is that because you have a PhD (wow) and dislike the Church’s position on birth control your views and those who agree with you are paramount and must be moral and MPs should bloody well do what they are told.
I’ve got an interest in this as I’m planning to put down some amendments myself. But some technical notes may be helpful for those of you who aren’t involved in Parliamentary minutiae. It’ll be a bit long, sorry.
1. The Bill is about fertility, and technically intended only to regulate and improve current research practice. That’s why it got through Select Committee and Lords scrutiny without too much trouble. However, because of the subject, it opens the possibility of amendments about abortion.
2. The Second Reading will be after the recess (which runs to April 20). This is likely to sail through without difficulty. Anti-abortion campaigners want it to get a Second Reading, so they can put down their amendments. The Government can give a free vote on that or not, it really doesn’t matter.
3. Amendments can only be put down after that. They can be considered in Committee (but only by Committee members) or held for Report (whole house but might not have time to be debated). Ministers never sit on the Committee apart from the ones responsible for the Bill. Amendments already voted on in Committee are not revisited at Report. So there are tactical considerations for all sides - do they press amendments in Committee (and maybe lose and never get the chance for the whole House to vote at Report)? However, it’s usually possible to reintroduce a theme at Report using different wording. The crucial votes are therefore likely to come at Report, some months from now.
4. After Report there is a Third Reading and a vote on whether to accept the whole Bill, as amended. It’s unusual to have a big revolt there, since lots of good things would go down together with anything controversial. But if the stem cells stuff has gone through and the anti-abortion groups haven’t got helpful amendments, there could be pressure on Catholic MPs in particular at that point too.
The Conservative position is a tactical alliance with the Catholic campaigners. They can agree on pressing for a free vote - it’s no skin off an Opposition’s nose and it always sounds good. However, I will be surprised if the alliance lasts into the actual votes. I expect Cameron and many other Tories to vote with the Government on the stem cells issue, to avoid completely blowing their credibility as being interested in British medical research. MPs who (like me) aren’t very religious are generally not much bothered by the stem cell issue, because an embryo certainly has unique DNA but has no more nervous system or detectable brain activity than, say, a fingernail - the key issue is whether you think it has a soul and a God-given right to life. So I’d think that in practice there is a majority even with a free vote, but the whips like to check these things out. I agree it would politically be sensible to reach a conclusion as soon as possible.
My own main amendment, in case anyone is curious, is likely to be on late-term abortion, where I’d like to reduce the current option to abort up to 40 weeks for things like club foot and cleft palate (I’ve got the latter myself) - I think that reflects a striving for physical perfection that we exaggerate in our society, and I’d like to put in a stronger test of very severe disability. The other one is an extension of the time frozen embryos are kept - I have a constituent who had her embryos frozen while she struggled with cancer, and now she’s recovered faces them being destroyed because of the 5-year time limit. The Bill will extend it for future cases anyway but to help her I want to make it apply to embryos currently in storage.
[56] David, if the religion I belong to did any of those things I wouldn’t belong to it.
More generally, any government that seeks to apply a whipped vote to such an issue is clearly past its sell-by date. The comparison between Labour to-day and the Tories in 1995 is overwhelming.
81
This has seriously puzzled me how they manage to come up with these figs. My personal inflation is certainly in double figures, yesterday I bought a bottle of spatlese (revolting sweet german wine… but the Mrs likes it), In Oct last yr it was 2.75 now its 3.49, bread was 64 p now its 99p. …. butter was 53p (tesco’s own) now its 85p…. never mind thats its costing an extra £12 to fill the car up (diesel 114.9p v 88.9p)
Oh and my personal marginal tax rate will double next month from 10p to 20p
I could go on and on and on… but on limited (low) income , I’ts really hurting
Happy Easter everyone.
OK, so why doesn’t Brown just give a free vote on this? Its not rocket science. If something is going to be controversial, but isn’t an issue where by the governments fortunes rise or fall, then just give a free vote.
Why does Godron Brown have to make a drama out of a crisis all the time?
82 Stop digging
56
Excellent post David!!
83. Nick, thanks for that interesting and helpful contribution.
84. IA - I noticed that my first sentance doesn’t quite read how I meant it. It’s not that I believe religion has no place in a country that is a liberal democracy, it’s that I can’t see how it can credibly intervene in the politics of such a country.
There is obviously a cross-over between the ethical and the political and it’s as fair for a church or other religious grouping to put their case on the ethics of a particular policy as for anyone else to do so. However, to move from there to (ab)using their influence to intervene in party politics by championing or condemning individuals seems to me wrong.
49. But that is the characteristic of every single cultural and religous minority, with the exception of modern white secular protestants.
88. Thank you.
[89] Yes, I too found Nick Palmer’s contribution valuable.
David, I agree with your second paragraph entirely. (The chairman of the governing body of my own denomination is an MP - the trouble is that in our denominational affairs he sounds like one!)
As to your first para, I think you would have to agree that the presence of religious leaders has strengthened, rather than weakened, sundry anti-war campaigning over the years.
90 Of course that should read ‘modern white secular protestant based societies’.
83 - So this is a bill that originated in the Lords? Might further explain why the Govt aren’t particularly interested in taking the chance on a free vote. Parliament Act doesn’t even apply.
Meanwhile …. In the Annual Jurassic Park Easter Egg Hunt T-Rex takes an early lead :
http://www.funny-potato.com/images/easter/easter.jpg
87. Ted isn’t digging, you are. His post at 82. sums up your attitude pretty well I think.
A lot of ’scientists’ (successful or otherwise) have a tendency to consider themselves part of a superior caste whose judgements may not be questioned by mere mortals - rather like the Catholic priesthood in fact.
94 - yes, it got through the Lords without much trouble. It had extensive pre-legislative scrutiny, which the Lords always appreciate, and scientists are very well-represented there and could explain effectively why they think the Bill is important for medical research.
I’m religious - kinda. But I support this bill.
I know that isn’t the most exciting post in history but I am in Ireland and I am just recovering from a full “Irish fry” breakfast. Takes a while.
Slainte to all, and happy Easter, too.
92. That would depend which years you’re speaking of. The Christian churches are two thousand years old and for most of that time don’t seem to acted as much of a brake on warlike behaviour. At various points they were a positive accelerant.
It is true that in recent decades the churches have been prominent members of anti-war alliances (as they jolly well should be given Christ’s teaching on that sort of thing) but I’d argue that the causality is that that is an effect of the move to a society that has learnt to separate government from religion and has broken free from received ‘Truths’.
There are various problems with any attempt to apply deep religious conviction to government, but the main one is that once anyone starts believing that any course of action other than the prescribed ‘correct’ one will lead a person to eternal damnation, it becomes difficult to engage in the compromise and coalition-building that are the building blocks of practical politics (and one reason why churches are prone to schism). It also becomes difficult to enter into reasoned debate.
Still, once the church had its hands prised away from direct secular power, it didn’t have much left but to try to go back on message and try to persuade as it didn’t have the means to physically enforce what it used to be able to.
89 David, don’t quite know if I agree as I don’t quite see what you are saying on (ab)using their influence; in a liberal democracy any organisation, faith or otherwise, has a part to play in shaping policy and politics. A church is no different in this from a Trade Union, from Greenpeace, from Marie Stokes or Planned Parenthood or the BMA. The difference a church or faith claim is in matters of conscience, in the rights of an individual to differ.
In stem cell research the Church is opposing the policy; no different from Friends of the Earth opposing new coal fired power stations. Why is it more credible in a liberal democracy for FoE to intervene that the CoE or RC.
The further step the Church has taken is to ask that in this case - which is viewed by the Church as a matter of faith and conscience - that the Government extend the free vote, already being offered in this Bill on the clauses on Abortion, to stem cell research. There has long been a recognition that MPs should not be whipped on matters of conscience. The Government is free to refuse but the Church is equally free to ask its members who are MPs to examine their consciences and decide whether support of the Government outweighs the teachings of their Church. Ruth Kelly has a choice, Paul Murphy has a choice, Des Browne has a choice - it’s just stupid politics for Brown & Hon to force that choice.
Nick’s useful post at 83 seems to provide some clue as to why its being whipped. That it is viewed as vital to British medical research that this is made legal - the same argument Blair used for GM in terms of agricultural research but perhaps in this case with more foundation. So the reason for a three line whip is based in commerce - the commercial advantage of such research to the UK - rather than in ethics. That commercial advantage arises from the unwillingness of the USA (currently), France & Germany and others to go down this route for ethical reasons.
I think the proponents could and probably will win on basis of outcomes; that the greater good delivered finding treatments for severe illnesses especially Alzheimers and Parkinsons outweighs the harm.
So why does Brown make a crisis so unnecessarily?
Re Brown’s departure date - let’s apply a little simple logic here:
Prospect of a coup to remove him before next General Election - virtually nil.
Prospect of him resigning before next GE “to spend more time with his family” - virtually nil.
Prospect of Labour winning next GE - virtually nil.
Prospect of Brown calling next GE prior to May 2010 (Turkeys & Christmas) - virtually nil.
Prospect of GE between April 2010 - June 2010 - virtual certainty.
Prospect of Brown surviving GE defeat - virtually nil.
Prospect of Brown’s departure date being between April 2010 - June 2010 - virtual certainty.
[99] I think we’re basically on the same side of the argument.
The role of religion is to tell truth to power, not to seek to wield power (Acton’s law applies). Neither Luther nor Calvin saw that clearly, alas. As for Catholics, I just try to find out who their favourite (dead) Pope was - John XXIII = good, John Paul II = not so good, Pius IX = mental health issue.
101. I hope you are right, I have a nice little lump at 12/1 on a 2010 election so it would be a good time to see this miserable government thrown out!
98. Sean T. Thank you for that Easter message of affirmation, goodwill and indigestion from your Catholic retreat.
I gather the Pope will be doing something similar later today.
[101] Peter from Putney wrote Prospect of a coup to remove Brown before next General Election - virtually nil. Prospect of him resigning before next GE “to spend more time with his family” - virtually nil.
I’m not so sure. In the aftermath of a Boris landslide and six more moths of polls with Labour 10-20% behind (which is what we all expect to see) Labour Conference will be pretty stormy. A lot depends on whether the TUs think a Cameron government will be significantly worse for their members than this one. Not for the first time I lament the fact that no one here has their ear to the ground in Congress House…
97 - it is true that times like this tend to make a bit of a mockery of pre-legislative scrutiny, however effective it should be.
You can bet that however impassioned the views when debated in the HoC few will pay much attention to what occurred before
101,
If it is such a certainty why is the current betting, to win the next election.
3/4 Conservative
5/4 Labour
125-1 Lib Dem.
If you are so certain let us see your betting slip, with the value of your house on it!
98 - I’m religious - kinda.
Quote of the year
107 Dez - even my very friendly bookmaker isn’t that accommodating!
105. The trade unions and the Catholic church being discussed together…two absurdly anachronistic institutions side by side.
105
Is there really a serious heavyweight to take over from Gordon??
Gordon is hopeless, but I think Cameron would make mincemeat of any of the prospective Labour leaders bar Jack Straw… and would the electorate accept a second Prime Minister post Blair without a General Election. I think not, it would just make the end game even worse. They are stuck with Gordon.. they should have remembered the old adage ..beware what you wish for..you might get it.
109 , I agree,
Nevertheless if you are correct 3/4 seems a good bet for a certainty.
Before the last election Labour to win the most seats was 18-1 on, now that was a certainty in bookies terms.
108. It certainly was a quality and wide ranging post, succinctly covering the great issues of faith, individual conscience and morality; deftly alluding to Malthus hierarchy of Needs and concluding with a simple heartfelt message of goodwill to all humanity.
I am a confirmed atheist but I find this bill morally repugnant, as to recent plans to start testing untested drugs on terminally ill cancer patients, and animal testing.
It is when I hear things like this that I despise my own species.
101- peter from putney- I am hoping that Gordon will make his own decision to walk. I think his pride will not allow him to wait for May 2nd 2010, and a triumphant Cameron taking over his home.
111, If GB fell under the bus Alan Johnson would be my prefered choice.
He has a personable quality which might unnerve Cameron, especially when the obvious comparisons would be aired a lot through a campaign.
115: But are people just anti Brown or have they, as I suspect, just got sick of a Labour government?
115 Tyson - I just don’t see Brown as a “walker” - he’d craved this job for well over a decade. Neither do I see him as someone wishing to spend more time with his family.
114: Tyson, note that one argument for stem cell research is that it reduces the perceived need for animal testing. Arguably it’s better to have an experiment on an embryo which appears to have neither a nervous system nor any kind of thought process to an experiment on, for instance, a fully-grown chimpanzee which is clearly capable of feeling pain and fear. Add to that the fact that tests including human material are likely to be more relevant to understanding human illnesses, and there seems a strong case to me.
115. I don’t think he will go this year Peter but I am happy with my 16/1 voucher that says he will. Sustained dire poll ratings for Labour and Brown personally could change things around.
Blatantly Brown is trying to make a pitch for Lib Dem votes with this bill, attempting to show he is strong enough to stand up to the catholic church.
I suspect that any working class catholic votes he may be putting at risk will stick with Labour no matter what and thats the calculation he has made.
Labour MPs wont dare risk causing too big a division over this, not with the opinion polls the way they are.
120
Assuming that there were dire ratings and Brown did go, would the successor have to call an immediate General Election, on the basis as previously posted that a second PM without a poll would be untenable? Or is it tenable?
118,Peter, nothing in life is a virtual certainty thats why bookies usualy end up overall in credit.
Family dynamics are difficult to predict.
GB has been at the top of his party and government since 92, a weariness can set in, he has achieved the ultimate goal, if he can`t win an election in 2009, he just might decide its time.
101/123 Dez - OK, hands up, I perhaps overdid it somewhat on the “virtual certainty” bit - I was just trying to get my point across.
Suffice it to say that I feel it is reasonably likely that Brown will leave Downing Street in Q2 - now then, how’s that?
I don’t think Brown will stand down. He’s waited too long to just give it up and I bet his every waking moment is spent thinking about at least winning one election. He’ll hang around and hope that something turns up. He’ll hope that his friends at The Mirror can get something really bad on Cameron (probably drugs related) and he’ll throw out one scare story after another about how a Tory government will cause all mannor to catatastrophe’s. It won’t do any good, and by the time it dawns on him that the polls aren’t going to turn around it’ll be too late - He and Labour will have to face their fate.
Of course the one unknown is what happens if Browns health or mental stabaility fails. Then he may just go, but otherwise I think he’ll brazen it out and hope that something turns up.
122. MTF. I think it is tenable. If Labour called a GE in the context of dire poll ratings then they would surely lose. The only point of replacing Brown before the GE would be to give the party an opportunity to refresh itself in the eyes of the electorate.
124 That’s Q2 2010 of course.
Peter,
I am with you on that, thats where my money is.
I got it right about Blair going after 10 years in June 07.
Does anyone really believe the British people has the appetite to see Gordon Brown as PM for another seven years?
127. Peter. Well done with your Newcastle bet. Talking of dire things, Villa lost again yesterday at home to Sunderland! We are off to Old Trafford next weekend to spring a surprise om Man Utd. I’ve never been there before.
125. Roy Hattersly once described the Blair/Brown relationship thus:
Blair is a psychopath. Brown is a sociopath.
A psychopath believes 2+2=5. A sociopath knows 2+2=4 but hates it.
I think Brown knows what’s going on, i think he knows he’s going to lose the next election, or at best be a John Major with a small majority and a rebellious party. I don’t think he’s very happy about it though.
Neither do I see him as someone wishing to spend more time with his family
why ever not ?
By the way, just to clarify a point Ted made - virtually all the things under discussion *are* currently legal, because there isn’t much of a legal framework on these new areas of research. The main purpose of the Bill is to provide a clear legal framework so researchers know what they can and can’t do.
The problem I have with the leader exit date is the same as was said about the ‘Blair Switch Project’ bets.
There doesn’t need to be a GE until June 2010. If Brown clings on until then, loses, resigns . . . but the next leader is only elected and takes charge in July, then is that a Q2 or Q3 victory?
131. I don’t think he’d have accepted his defeat yet. He’ll know he’s in trouble, but he’ll still believe it can be turned around. If only he can keep the economy going long enough. If only the Mirror can turn up something meaningfully bad on David Cameron (not something as trivial of Bikegate, which was really scrapping the barrel) If only the British people can be scared enough to give him one my turn. That will basically be his plan. Tough it out, try and rake up as much dirt as possible on CMD and put the fear of god into people about how awful a Tory government would be.
At this point, I expect he’ll believe this strategy will work. There will come a point when the realisation hits him that it won’t work, but I doubt Brown has reached that point yet.
“49. they champion liberty of conscience when in a minority but practice intolerance when in control”
That is true of almost every minority group.
130 Villa lost again yesterday at home to Sunderland
stjohn - I was sort of aware of that