You will have noticed a lot of coverage recently about splits in the Labour Party over the Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill, and Gordon Brown's decision to place a three line whip on what the opposition parties say should be a free conscience vote.

Labour divisions over the Counter Terrorism Bill are also well known it looks as if there are enough rebels to stymie the plans to extend detention before charge for terror suspects to 42 days.

Just don't expect either of these crucial parliamentary votes to take place anytime soon. Gordon Brown announced at lunchtime today that the Embryology vote is "at least 3 months away". Government sources say don't expect the terror vote until "at least late May".

When it does come the Prime Minister has watered down the chances of defeat. His latest position is that there is a free vote on he specific issues worrying the Catholic church: more IVF research, hybrid embryos of animals and humans, and growing so-called saviour sibling cells.

Gordon Brown doesn't need any more troubles right now. Proactive pPolitics are effectively on hold as MPs hold their breath and keep their fingers crossed for the local and London elections on Mayday.

Comments

[Bruce Hulmes 28 Mar 2008 10:04:53]

Carol Ann.
Another dilema, which God.

[carol-ann liverpool 26 Mar 2008 19:21:19]

Bruce

you pose some very difficult dilemas there. On the one hand what you say about MPs being elected to represent the people, not religion makes sense, until you think about the fact that, whatever you think of religion, many people still do believe in a God...... BTW in passing, there seems to be a big thing for Buddhism at the present time, with pictures and statues of Buddha everywhere...and an obesssion with Yoga... wonder what sparked that off?
Anyway, I respect the fact that you do not believe in religion, but what about those who do, aren't they entitled to representation?

What if they are right and you are wrong about God?

[Bruce Hulmes 26 Mar 2008 14:03:04]

Carol Ann.
I have no arguement with you on most of what you say, I do not wish any harm or have any predudice against anyone adult or child who suffers from a disabilty, we all hang by a thin thread when it comes to health. What I was saying is that in nature which is harsh adults or babies would not survive and from a economical stand point countries could not survive if the balance between the disabled and the able bodied was out of step.
That is why I have problems with MPs and their so called ethical/religous morals, MPs are not employed to serve their consceince or their chosen religion, priests and laymen may live their lives by the religous doctrine but not people who freely stand for office, would the moral/Ethical code of the Moonie sect be accepted I think not. If research can help overcome illness and desease then no politician as the right on so called personal ethical grounds to deny it. The Catholic church once condemned people for saying the earth was round and that it revolved around the sun and I think they were proven wrong on both counts.
On the subject of eugenics I think you will find that Hitlers Germany was not the only or the first country to consider this option, it was a quite widely accepted view by many so called intelectuals
and politicians from Norway/Sweden/America and of course Great Britain through the 1920s and 1930s.
And much of the research into trans plant surgery was actually taken from the medical records captured from the Germans after the war, but for obvious reasons covered up by ethical politicians on both sides of the Atlantic!!!.

[Elizabeth Davies Cape Town 26 Mar 2008 13:20:05]

Carol Ann
The TV networks have really only ever covered the two main parties in Britain, as TV time is expensive. In America candidates pay big money to get on TV, most of their budgets are spent on it.
That is why debates are a good thing but Mr Brown would not enjoy it, but let's hope it happens, then everyone would get equal airtime.
I think the London Mayoral election is a two horse race, and will probably be very close. I don't think even Vince Cable would be of much use to the Lib Dems.

[Victor, NW Kent 26 Mar 2008 12:48:34]

Meanwhile it seems that Brown has backed down and will allow all of his MPs a free vote on this issue.

[carol-ann liverpool 26 Mar 2008 12:37:29]

Bruce

I disagree with you on disabled babies. These children have the right to life just as any other child. If they were to die in the womb or shortly after birth because of their diabilties then that is fair enough that is as result of nature, but many can live fruitful lives as myself and my DH can prove.

There are thousands of disabled people who have made valuable contributions like Tanni Grey Thompson, the disabled athletic champion.

In the past when we didn't have tests to reveal disability in the womb, nature DID take its course but, now that we have means of showing these disabilities, disabled babies are often aborted.
How can that be moral?

We condemn Hitler for his policy of eugenics for certain groups including the disabled - the UK is, in effect, practising eugenics in THIS country and it is because of the prejudice that people have in regard to disabled people.

If you are AGAINST abortion then you should be against the abortion of ALL foetuses, not just some. Even the church allows for abortion of disabled foetuses and that is discrimination that no-one even recognises.
Whatever you think about the fate of disabled babies the moral argument does not stack up in this instance.

[seb/uk 26 Mar 2008 11:23:32]

Its about time Labour ditched Brown,no-one needs to be dictated by someone with such a mioptic vision of what Britain should be.

[Bruce Hulmes 26 Mar 2008 09:34:15]

Carol Ann.
This may seem cruel but able bodied babies are more important then disabled babies.
In the natural order these children with disabilities would die anyway it is an hard world.

That is why no politician should vote to suit their own agenda they are servents of the people, if sceince can improve the lot of the people then individuals employed by the people should not be allowed to interfer for their own dudious morals. I am an atheist what right as any person who believes in fairy stories got to possibley affect my or my families health now or in the future, they have none. I would suggest these very moral individuals think about their religion when filling in their expenses sheets, religion goes out the door when money is involved, funny morals funny religion, corrupt people including your Labour heros.

[carol-ann liverpool 25 Mar 2008 19:29:44]

Elizabeth,

I asked Adam that question because I respect his opinion on these matters, which is often more of a reasoned response than some other politicos on here... no names, no pack drill. lol.

I was thinking of the fact that when it comes to general elections all three main parties are supposed to be given equal air-time or maybe it is according to how many MPs they have (?) Anyway, someone mentioned the possibility of putting Vince Cable up for the mayoral election because the nominations haven't closed yet.... which seemed to me a daft idea if they already have someone standing already. Also, what would the gay lobby have to say if Vince Cable was put up as a replacement for Paddick, unless, of course, Paddick agreed with such a notion.

[Victor, NW Kent 25 Mar 2008 18:46:09]

Craig

Why should the Conservatives take any party position on this bill? Whether an MP will wish to support it or not will depend on his/her particular view point. If that includes a particular religious, moral or ethical view than so be it.

It it is not necessary for the Conservatives to oppose en masse every government initiative. Even Labour must be right sometimes - it is the law of averages.

My view, and it is hardly mine alone, is that MPs should be allowed a free vote on this as they have always on such matters which affect the very essence of society. Such considerations should not be decided along party divisions as otherwise there is both imperative and logic for such bills to be repealed or amended when governments change.

We already have seen, very recently, at least 40 Labour MPs, including 5 Ministers, who campaigned against Post Office closures but abstained or voted in favour when the matter was put to the vote.

That is not a way to run a country.

[Craig 25 Mar 2008 18:12:33]

Neither/Niether

Would someone mind telling me why we need, or should allow three line whips in modern politics?

Yes, of course. It is all about having collective responsibility in our democratic system. By doing so, the public can be fairly sure that the Govt will put forward a programme and seek to deliver it. By doing so they can be held accountable for their actions. By having free votes/referendums on everything, as you, and it appears Cameron wants, you might as well do away with Parliament as we know it. We might as well just pluck items out of thin air such as 'Should we have red lights' and try to prevent people going the wrong way up one-way streets' and just let everyone have a vote, according to their conscience 0f course. Which way do you think Cammers would vote.

The reality is that many would seek to make whipping a dirty word when it is essential to our democracy. Hope this helps!!

[neither/niether 25 Mar 2008 17:55:55]

Would someone mind telling me why we need, or should allow three line whips in modern politics?
The electorate nowdays, expect to have more of a say about how their MP votes, on main issues. They expect their MPs to fight their! cause, not just follow party policy.
If MPs are serious about modernising our political system, Whips should no longer have a place in it. It is not democratic in this modern age. I have been like an ostrich with my head in the sand, regarding representational voting, but as our politics modernise, I find it difficult to see, how in one form or another, it won't come about.

[carol-ann liverpool 25 Mar 2008 17:46:03]

What is immoral is that people are so bothered about this issue yet don't bat an eyelid at the fact that a disabled foetus can be aborted up to term, before labour starts.
Why is no-one making an issue of that, it is far more immoral in my view, than doing research that harms no-one but may prove valuable to people suffering from painful lifelong illnesses, myself and my DH included.
My best friend has recently lost her daughter aged 17 with Cystic Fibrosis - tell her it is immoral to do this research!

What sort of message does that send out to disabled people? It is like saying able bodied babies are more valuable than disabled babies.
It is an absolutely disgraceful state of affairs, if you are talking about morals and actions that should be stopped, then aborted 7 or 8 month foetuses that are disabled is a demonstartion of the poverty of morals in this area.

[Craig 25 Mar 2008 17:13:39]

Victor

It is not undemocratic to have whipping. It is a right and necessary part of our parliamentary system adopted by all parties. We can't have a system where Govts put everything to free votes and referendums which Cameron seems so fond off. Brown has given a little and it shouldn't be seen to be 'losing face' as you put it. Surely, you can reach a proper compromise without losing face. The bill is a flagship policy and Brown is saying correctly 'vote with your conscience' on some of the important issues but thereafter all MP's should accept the result and ensure that they adhere to collective responsibility. That is a proper position which safeguards th interests of everyone. Cameron simply says that his MP's are to decide what they want at all times. Do the Tories not have a preferred position on the bill. I find that strange for a party that aspitres to lead. They may have an alternative position to that of the Govt but someone needs to put it forward otherwise their ship is rudderless. As usual, we don't know what the Tories feel about anything, they shift in the sand so much.

[T. England 25 Mar 2008 17:03:52]

Just another example of religion getting in the way of modern living!
If these MPs want to run my life, I don’t want to think that their delusion of a god & his rules are clouding their views when it comes to making their decisions!
I’m secular!
How can I trust members of the government to act in my best interests, if they really want their gods views influencing my life?
Religion in politics! As in life causes nothing but division!

[Bruce Hulmes 25 Mar 2008 16:59:52]

MPs are employed to do the best for the people(I know they don,t but they should)if any have any consciense problems well surely they should not just refrain from voting on a subject but resign anyone with such problems should not contemplate becoming an MP.
An MPs consciense is similer to their morals generally selective. How many Catholic MPs voted for invading Iraq, supported the IRA etc, "thou shalt not kill" is still in the bible I take it and that includes incitment to kill.
If this new technology can help to cure illness or desease then no MP as the right to stop others benefiting from it. Would they refuse any benefits from this research in the future either for themselves or their family members I think not.

[Victor, NW Kent 25 Mar 2008 16:57:40]

Craig

Whipping support for any Bill is playing politics. Allowing a free vote is the absolute reverse. It is therefore quite absurd for you to accuse Cameron and Clegg of playing politics over this particular Bill.

You may care to look back to the original Bill, which this is designed to supercede. That was under Thatcher and all parties had a free vote.

Brown has a self-inflicted injury here as it was inevitable that the Bill would pass, probably with a few amendments, despite contrary conscience votes. He did not need this row any more than Cameron needed the grammar school row. Both are examples of poor reading of a situation.

Brown also is on the horns of a dilemma as he started by whipping the Labour peers. He would now lose face by allowing his MPs more latitude.

[Craig 25 Mar 2008 16:34:36]

Labour are right to whip what is a flagship policy in my view. Brown has given them a free vote on three important areas and he should give no more! Cameron plays politics as does Clegg with free votes. There is a clear case for supporting this bill and they should do so. You can make a moral case for any form of legislation and you could argue, if you wanted, that everything is a matter of conscience for some, dependent on their beliefs. Labour are on the right side of the argument, have bent to accomodate those who nay have a moral issue with aspects of the bill, and MP's should now get behind the Govt. Otherwise, they can face everyone with Parkinsons Disease and other diseases and tell them why they should die without hope! I can live with my conscience!

[Elizabeth Davies Cape Town 25 Mar 2008 15:56:01]

Gordon's motto:
Follow my leader.
Labour placed Mr Brown into Downing Street, he believes himself to be their supreme leader, no one else would do...now suffer the consequences. Mr Brown is living his dream, everyone is is living the nightmare!

[Peter Chuah, Birmingham 25 Mar 2008 15:20:17]

Using three line whips is anti-democratic and is equivalent to dictatorship, using undue influence/duress or even blackmail. Why should there be so much MPs if they are told how to vote on various issues? This is an affront to democracy, as well as a waste taxpayers' money.

[Pantherman 25 Mar 2008 14:43:32]

Three line whips should be outlawed except for reasons of national emergency. It is an anathema to the meaning of democracy.

[neither/niether 25 Mar 2008 14:42:43]

Decide in haste, repent at leisure.

Peter,
You obviously! can't be talking about our great leader Gordon Brown... Because he can't make a decision!!

[Merv. Beszant, Dubai 25 Mar 2008 14:41:10]

Adam,
Obviously the winners in the elections will be delighted, and will enjoy 'May Poll' dancing, but the losers will probably feel more like taking up the Morris variety where they can release their frustration by bashing people with sticks!

[neither/niether 25 Mar 2008 14:34:47]

This prime minister is totaly unbelievable!!!! He just cannot make a decision and see it through. We all know why! because most decisions he does make are lousy, OR ILL THOUGHT OUT. .. Even the Labour supporters must see that, he is WEAK. and a BOTTLER. Also a liar, especialy about inflation figs. Manipulated to show low inflation, but we know how much things we have to use, or bills we pay, have increased over this year alone, way, way, way, above the 2% he tells us. Maybe it is the fault of oil etc. But then he shouldn't lie!! and tell us inflation is low, because we can all see it's not!!!!

[Sue B Sheffield UK 25 Mar 2008 14:21:01]

At the end of the day, the sheep (followers of Brown) will do his bidding in one way or another, however long that takes.

It has been on the news today that contesters of the bill can vote on three aspects. Is this another way of rewording the exact same bill, just like with the promised referendum (then we were told the new EU treaty was exactly the same, just reworded!).

Utter tush!! Brown will get his way, just like he usually does, by bullying and issuing ultimatums if necessary.

Politics today are just another way of wielding the stick over a peolple without a voice (well not one that is being listened to anyway!)

[Khalid 25 Mar 2008 14:00:20]

Well when things are [Hanging On A String] it is only natural that [Loose Ends] are tied to ensure they never appear again so as notto cause the boat to rock. Quality is after all the order of the may!

[Peter, Fife 25 Mar 2008 13:50:04]

Decide in haste, repent at leisure.

[david wood green 25 Mar 2008 13:38:49]

Again what took Brown so long to make up his mind

[Elizabeth Davies Cape Town 25 Mar 2008 13:18:01]

Carol Ann
I can't believe you just asked Adam that question! After the LibDems recent behaviour in the house I would think Mr Paddick won't get a "look-in".

[carol-ann liverpool 25 Mar 2008 12:44:22]

Adam,
Are the LibDems more active on the ground with regards to Brian Paddick - their candidate in the Mayoral elections - than they are on national TV? I have only seen him on TV twice in the last year and one of those appearances was less than a minute.
Do you think the LibDems have any chance of giving any other parties a fright?