Dorries suspended

So Nadine Dorries has been suspended from Parliament?

Nothing to do with some of her objectionable views as - well like it or not we're all entitled to our opinions even if we, and modern thinking people disagree.

Nothing to do with her conduct in the house either...

It's for failing to carry out the PRIMARY purpose of a MP - representing their constituents.

By joining I'm a celebrity she is choosing self image over that of the needs of the people she is working for, on top of that she is getting paid from the Public purse!

If she makes it to the final she won't be available until the 6th December which means she'll miss the Autumn statement and debates on Europe which, at this current time, could redefine the UKs relationship with the EU and even more importantly who is representing the people of mid Bedfordshire?

Recently I wrote about how Tracey Crouch was doing a good job representing Chatham & Aylesford constituents and being selflessly devoted which is what MPs are supposed to do. What Ms Dorries is doing completely goes against what I and I'm assuming her constituents think a democratically elected representative should be doing.

Could it be because her constituency may cease to exist in 2015? Well not if Nick stands his ground and the Boundary reform is delayed. Even still, if it is dissolved does that mean you get to behave so badly?

I personally welcome Sir George Young's announcement of her suspension today and not as a Liberal Democrat, but as a believer in parliamentary democracy and representation of constituents.

Tory Right are back; lowering abortion limit

So abortion is back in the limelight again with Maria Miller's comments in the Telegraph on lowering the limit from 24weeks to 20. Cue outrage!

Then in wades that paragon of ministerial etiquette Jeremy Hunt who commented he'd drop it to 12 weeks!!!!

Maria Miller MP, minister for women's health

Now, abortion is a sticky subject and everyone has an opinion. I believe it is the Woman's choice and she should not be pressured into either direction. I do however feel that they should be used as a last ditch form of contraception. My wife on the other hand agrees for the most part with me but would never have one herself.

Traditionally the Conservative right is against it or for lowering the limit. We had all of this last year with Nadine Dorries who, surprise surprise supports this. With a hasty retraction from Mr Hunt's comments it was stated that the Coalition has no plans to look at the limit and that Mr Hunt was voicing a personal opinion. Could it be that Jeremy should get back in his box? Or could this be show boating to their traditional voters to show they're still on the right and different from those filthy mud blood Liberal Democrats?

All supposition.

Let's look at the facts though. Most abortions occur around the 14 week mark and only 2% occur after 20 weeks. I agree with this article from the Guardian which points out the personal torment behind the latter's decision to abort the foetus.

On the flip side is the argument that states "define when life starts." It is a very grey area that on the one hand life is terminated and another baby born prematurely at the same point can be saved. Maybe it is a debate worth having but as long as the rights of the woman are kept solidly in mind. Though would it be fair that a group comprised of mostly middle aged + men are telling women everywhere what they can and can't do with their bodies?

Jeremy Hunt's 12 week limit seems ludicrous. It forces women to make a hastier decision with out the full facts available as tests for Down's syndrome may not have been completed by that point. Although he stated it was not down to any religious conviction there are many who believe that that is a factor. Personally I think that religious belief can be a good thing and as someone who does not have any I'm some what envious at times of their faith but I also do not want someone else's beliefs enforced upon me. What I do with my body is my business and I'm afraid that should be the bottom line with abortion.

There cannot be any impingement on Women's personal rights.

Yet some Tories are being Childish about abstention

As an unexpected Take II from yesterday's post. According to the I report (Lib Dems 'traitors' for not backing Hunt 14-6 p.7) there has been a bit of a furious outburst from the Conservative benches regarding the Liberal Democrat abstention yesterday.

Although the Government "won" by 290 votes to 252 last night there was a slash of majority from 80 to 38 and with some MPs being called back from honeymoon, from a funeral and even Conor Burns MP being pulled in from hospital (he stated that so our Coalition partners can polish their consciences)to make sure the Government would win.

This has, understandably, ruffled some feathers and there have been some minor ruptions within the Coalition but such was likely to happen when two parties come together, there will be things, like Europe, that we are diametrically opposed on. It is the nature of working together.

However some Conservatives have taken it more seriously than others.

It is hard to say how badly the Clegg-Cameron relationship has been damaged due to their heated and lengthy debates on the subject, only the two of them would be able to say that for certain. Lets be honest if there was a strain between them, they wouldn't show it as critics of the Coalition would flood the gap and tear it asunder.

However according to Andrew Grice's report "Rebel" Tory MPs will be voting against the Libdem's Lords reform proposals.
The Lords vote will be payback time apparently.

Nadine Dorries also commented that the Libdems were indeed Traitors and not proper members of the Government.

She also tweeted:

Lib Dems future involves falling off the edge of a political cliff. Today's cowardly behaviour will equate to a 'shove' by their own hands

It is hard to say how many disaffected Conservative members will attack the reform but senior Libdems aren't worried (though I am) and think that those that are sounding off are ones who would have voted against it anyway.

It is fair to say that Ms Dorries has been a strong critic of the Liberal Democrats in the Coalition and for her to state that the party aren't proper members of Government is just farcical considering the work that Libdem ministers have put in and the amount of times they have kept quiet over certain issues in the same way that the Tories have on others. It is, after all a marriage of ideas and how many marriages run with both parties agreeing on everything?

This was something we could not agree to nor could we agree with Labour on this issue. If anything, though, I'm sure others would want to vote with Labour on this, it was for the Coalition that we stayed silent and abstained. Sacrificing our beliefs but maintaining conscience. This is what Grown up politics is about.

Now, there is the threat of voting against greater democracy and legislation out of spite? I'm forced to ask, is this the sort of grown up behaviour and politics that adults indulge in or is this the playground?

There will be times where the parties don't agree and just because we have different opinions on things there and don't agree you shouldn't just throw your toys out the pram.

I would urge any Conservative MPs reading this to please look at the merits of the proposals and reform itself, what it will mean and then make your decision on this factors. Please do not turn this into a tit-for-tat party politics as its the electorate that will suffer for the game playing.

Party losing Liberalness over Gay Marriage?

I am hoping that what I have read recently turns out to be false, if it is not then we have some serious problems within the party.

I read that Lynne Featherstone MP, minister for equalities is pushing for the up coming vote in the Commons on Gay marriage to be whipped so MPs "Should" vote "Yes" rather than voting with their conscience.

Now I'm not a religious man, I lost my faith as a young man and my faith is in Liberty, Chivalry and democracy and I feel that whipping this vote is wrong.

I'm all for Gay marriage. If two people love each other and want to commit before their friends, family and their God then so be it - I think it is the only right thing to do and for me there is nothing more important than standing for love.

But people with religious views will disagree. The Bible and Qu'ran have clear cut views on Homosexuality and although many religious folk are accepting there are still those who feel strongly that it is an affront to God. You can label the Homophobes or Zealots as much as you will but each persons faith and belief is sacred to them and will not be changed just because You tell them its wrong.

My question is - who are we to tell people what to believe?

Now, I don't agree with Nadine Dorries, nor did I agree with the abortion clause that she wanted to add to the NHS bill but the vote on abortion was left as a vote of conscience. I know that Greg Mulholland who voted for it was labelled a religious pro-life zealot in some circles, I saw the tweets, but he stood by his beliefs, convictions and faith.

I really believe that this should be done with the Gay Marriage issue too. It is a matter of conscience not party and should be left as such and although I hope and trust that the motion will be passed I also hope that people will vote with their consciences and not because they are instructed to. If their belief's are being dictated by the Government then it flies in the face of everything this Party (and I) stands for and believes in - which is why I hope that the original statement is indeed false.

Libdems are "Insignificant" says Nadine Dorries

It appears that Nadine Dorries has won more friends in the Liberal Democrats with her latest statement.

As the Boundary commission looks at redrawing the map of British constituencies and politics some MPs are fighting losing wards and gaining others who tend to vote the other way and other MPs, like Nadine Dorries are fighting to keep their constituencies alive and themselves employed.

As this battle rages MPs are turning to those on the ground, local Councillors, who represent the individual wards that are being moved and urging them to help, to convince voters that it is in their best interests to stay in their current boundaries, to argue with their County party colleagues and local party to make representation to the Commission.
This is indeed what Nadine Dorries has done, sending off emails to local Councillors saying that she fears that Mid Bedfordshire will be split between North Bedfordshire, South West Bedfordshire, Bedford and Hitchin and Harpenden.

One such recipient was local Libdem Councillor Tim Hill. He was surprised that for the first time in his five years as a Councillor his local MP was finally communicating with him after his many attempts to try and contact her. Then again she needed help so it made some semblance of sense.
I think she's clutching at straws and is desperate to keep her job. She doesn't want the hassle of applying for a different seat.

He also says;
It seems ironic that after five years she chooses to contact me for the first time when we could have done so much together to improve the lives of people in my ward.

He politely replied saying he did not support the cause.

Now if the story ended there it would be all fine and dandy.... However Ms Dorries would not let it lie;

I make a point of not contacting the Liberal Democrat, Tim Hill. As the Lib Dems generally have no position, principles or beliefs and tend to make it up as they go, I have never felt the need to consult him, and I'm afraid I have to disabuse him of the notion that contacting him was a deliberate act.
I'm afraid his name just popped up in a mail shot of councillors. As I regard him as an irrelevance, I would have removed it had I spotted it.
(my emphasis)

Really?

What ever your political beliefs or agenda you have to respect that the people of the ward, in this case Wootton, Stewartby and Kempston Hardwick ward, voted for their representative. Mr Hill represents, and has done for five years with 39% of the votes in 2011, these people and knows what is going on in the ward and could assist.

It seems exceptionally arrogant to dismiss him for the capital crime of being a Libdem and an irrelevance...

Did the Rebellion refuse the help of the Ewoks because they were an irrelevant indigenous species that couldn't possibly defeat the Empire?

Did Britain and it's Empire refuse the help of Brazil during World War Two because they were irrelevant to the struggle?

Nope...

As for the party having no beliefs and "making it up as they go" those are obviously misinformed generalisations. Liberal Democrats as a whole are flexible and deal with issues, especially on a local level, as they arise and individually. Being held in a rigid party doctrine means that you are unable to react as well to situations. In fact the only doctrines we follow - Liberalism and Democracy mean that we do what is in the interest of people which can change regularly.

Maybe someone should send a copy of Mills On Liberty to Ms Dorries and then she will understand and see the Party's true guiding principle (a copy of which is passed down to each party President on the inauguration.) and I hate to point this out to her but... Liberals have began running Parliament with Lord Palmerston in 1855 and have successfully brought in many reforms including Old age pensions, helped form the NHS and the fact that we're still about and having an effect on British politics and still exist we are clearly not Insignificant.

The whole thing reeks of snobbery and personal dislike. The fact that she refused to call for help from Mr Hill just because he was a Libdem. Maybe I'm making a big deal out of this because I'm an irrelevance also... but then again these are my beliefs, as they are for quite a few other people and I've suddenly been labelled pointless. That and I cannot understand the arrogance behind it and the fact that an MP would disregard an entire ward that is in her care, full of voters who would may have voted in support of her in 2010 because they are in the wrong party. A councillor will help any one from their ward no matter what party they voted for yet Ms Dorries appears to not take an interest in a whole ward because a 6% majority voted for the wrong party, for at least five years!

Forget your party allegiance for a moment... If your Councillor was trying to raise your issue with the MP and they could get no answer on your behalf would you be annoyed?

Would you want your MP to take an interest in things happening in your ward and work with your elected representitive?

Lets be honest?

Cllr Hill says that he has made many strenuous and consistent efforts in trying to contact her office, each without success and receiving no feed back.

If this was my MP, I'd want something better and I'd want someone who would engage in grown up and engaging politics.

Greg Mulholland and the Dorries amendment.

In the aftermath of the Dorries Amendment last week there were many stunned Lib Dems who looked down the Hansrad list and saw Liberal Democrat's who had voted for it.

One such name was Greg Mulholland, MP for Leeds North West. How could a Liberal Democrat vote for such Illiberal policy? Surely it would be naturally abhorrent to any Liberal? These "Liberals" are the enemy of all we stand for right?

I'm not so certain. Firstly, I don't agree with Dorries, I believe that a woman should be allowed to decide what she wants to do with her body and should be free to decide either way without being forced into termination OR keeping a pregnancy. My main problem with this whole episode was the way she delivered the whole speech and the way she attacked those who were offering up constructive counter arguments and didn't even listen to co-sponsor Frank Field and plowed on regardless.

Right now that's out the way lets address the Illiberal Liberals. I was under the impression that Liberalism allowed for us to accept that others have a different view to our own and that we should be open to debate? Should we not accept that Greg Mulholland has a different vantage point over abortion, disagree if we do, but ultimately respect that?

But his point of view threatens the freedom of choice by the mother and her freedom of action.

What of the freedom of action and of life of the unborn child? (I'm playing Devil's advocate, my belief's on abortion are a little misty as it is something I've not really had to think about in my life since school until now.)

It could be argued that you cannot make a balanced decision until you have received arguments from BOTH sides of the pro life debate.

Another point is that the Dorries Amendment was not a whipped vote. Nor was it a party political vote. It was a vote based on the MP's conscience and beliefs. Are we going to pillory a man who has beliefs contrary to our own just because they are contrary? If anything we should be admiring a man with beliefs who is standing to be counted by them and not worrying about the consequences. I admire soldiers of the Wehrmacht who struggled to defend Berlin, not because they were Nazi's but because they stood by their beliefs and fought.

Greg Mulholland is an asset to the party and especially in parliament. I watched his impassioned speech before the Tuition fee vote intently as he argued for fellow Lib Dems not to be sucked into the Coalition's plan and to stand by their pledge as he did. He wrote in the Mirror on the same lines.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/opinion/2010/12/09/greg-mulholland-mp-on-why-he-s-voting-against-the-government-115875-22771018/

He also convened the Lib Dem Back bench Group back in February this year to help put across the new back bench as it were to party leadership and for them to stand united stating;

"We look forward to working constructively with Ministers and the Liberal Democrat leadership to make the government programme as positive as possible in these difficult times, as well as bringing a distinctively Liberal Democrat perspective to some debates"

Clearly marking that sometimes it seemed as if a LibDem voice was being lost. If you follow him, as I do, on Twitter you'll notice that his tweets are all about his constituency and the work he does for it. His entry on Libdems.org shows his local involvement and states that he is first and foremost a local MP, not a party MP. His hard work for the people of Leeds should be commended as should his voting record. He stood firm against Tuition fees, he also voted against the NHS reform. Should we be so quick to wash our hands of him over a difference of opinion?

I don't think so. I foresee a great future in the party for him.

The Shadow of Dr Evan Harris.

Amid the clashing of sabres and the heated arguments that resounded through the House of Commons today one name was thrown around a lot, a spectre of the past that, according to Nadine Dorries, controls the party politics and the direction of the Liberal Democrat party. A spectre so powerful that even after losing his seat in last year's general election continues to hold sway over Nick Clegg and even David Cameron using bully tactics and blackmail to enforce his beliefs and whims. His name is Dr Evan Harris.

Evan Harris, the former MP for Abingdon and Oxford West has always had strong secular views and has worked for pro-choice and open debate on assisted suicides - earning him the well known nickname, which out of respect for Dr Harris, I will not repeat here as it is indeed awful to compare a man with firm political and secular beliefs with a well known SS Surgeon who experimented on the vulnerable etc. These are difficult subjects, ones that take a lot of moral fibre to discuss with complex debate and they need to be had.

Since he lost his seat in 2010 Evan has been working hard and is very prominent on the Social Lib Dem forum, a place where left leaning LibDems go to discuss policy, voice concerns and opinions. He is also one of the vice chairs for creating Federal Lib Dem policy. He has indeed had issue with coalition policy, as have we all at times and is one of the key movers and shakers talking about the NHS reform and the Dorries amendment. He has been vocal, on Twitter and other mediums about his views and ideas - but what is wrong with that? I've spoken with Evan through the medium of Twitter and joined the Social liberal Forum because I believe in the work they are doing and what they believe. I've always found Evan to be intelligent and calm with his tweets - Nor does he try to brain wash, rather reason and produce evidence.

Part of Liberalism and indeed politics is about having views, voicing opinions and getting the opposition to account for their ideas and statements rather than just letting them off the hook. Evan is also well placed to voice the views and opinions on the Social Liberal Forum along with Tim Farron, with the Party leadership in private and at conference, which again is a good thing isn't it?

However to suggest that Evan is a devious mastermind who has blackmailed Nick Clegg and David Cameron into doing HIS bidding is preposterous! As he is not an MP, nor have any specific power how can he enforce his will upon them? Didn't Dorries accuse Nick Clegg of talking the Prime Minister into backing down on Tuesday? Didn't she also say that the Lib Dems were too much of an influence on parliament too? It seems to outrageous to claim that Evan Harris is controlling the party like some twisted puppet master, he is but one voice - one voice in many. It was also unfair of another member to accuse Dr Julian Huppert of being ;

"Evan Harris' vicar on Earth"

Afterall Dr Huppert was merely stating an opposing view to Dorries that she didn't agree with that coincided with Evan's arguments. Dr Julian Huppert is a educated grown man capable of making up his own mind and deciding what he believes in, so why make it seem like he is Evan's mouth piece?

It was an unfair and unfounded comment by Nadine Dorries. Dr Harris is doing what anyone with a strong interest and belief in politics does, voice his opinion and argue rationally to support it. He is not some kind of evil Sith lord controlling parliament from a bunker in Abingdon with a roller rack of files with which to black mail Members of Parliament and the DPM/ PM. I sincerely hope Evan Harris continues to speak up for Lib Dem members who feel their opinions and beliefs are being maligned by the coalition. He is an asset to the party not a shady voice from its past.

PMQs: Nadine Dorries Question.

I've done something that rarely happens. I have left PMQs halfway through to sit and write, and write cross. (arguably I've written some of my best work cross!)

Prime Minister's Questions is an open forum for the Prime minister to be questioned about policy and direct issues to do with constituencies and since is televisation, and I agree with Charles Kennedy on this one, that it has become more of an open circus with people making media statements and trying to get noticed.

Any way today, and I should I have since this coming considering my previous post; ( http://gingerliberal.blogspot.com/2011/09/covert-whipping-and-nadine-dorries.html) Nadine Dorries asked the Prime minister;

"Considering that the Liberal Democrats make up only 8% of parliament why do they have such a large impact on Government policy? When will the Prime Minister tell the Deputy Prime Minister who is boss?"

Or words to that affect.

Firstly, a quick stats check... There may only be 50 Lib Dem MPs but 25% of the vote across the country was for the Liberal Democrats, so we are pretty unrepresented.

Secondly, the issue of abortion is being discussed by the whole house this afternoon and it isn't just the Lib Dems who oppose her amendment, in fact large groups across the country are against it, we are merely voicing their concerns which is what you are supposed to do in the House.

As for the Lib Dem influence on the Coalition? Maybe we do have a large influence, however there is a lot of common ground between our two parties and so a lot of the Government policy is naturally agreed upon and tweaked where necessary by both sides. We've had to sign off on things that we've not agreed on, Tuition Fees for example or Trident... The coalition is a partnership and we both have to make sacrifices - That's how it works!

I know, as I said in the previously mentioned post, that Ms Dorries thinks that Nick Clegg has influenced the Prime Minister and the letter that was sent to all MPs but this is not the case. She is frustrated that her amendment is not getting support and is looking for someone to blame. 

Both parties are in this Coalition together, and lets not forget why we are doing this, for "Real change" to the country and to sort out the massive deficit that has befallen the nation.

Will we always agree? No!

Do we negotiate and talk before finding a common ground that we can agree on like adults? Yes.

If Ms Dorries has a problem with the way the Government is being run, she should talk to her party leader, Mr Cameron and voice her concerns properly, not on national television in front of the whole house like that. It makes valid concerns that some Conservatives have about the government look like spoilt children.

We do not throw our toys out of the pram at PMQs just because we think the other kids are deciding what games are played. It's school yard and infantile and not the kind of grown up politics that this nation needs.