When Prime Minister's start pointless fights...

12 ministers set to resign over Embryo bill

This article was covered by the Scotsman, now the Daily Mail and others have picked it up (regarding a potential 12 ministers resigning). As a Christian, yes, I am against this bill. I even suffer from an illness that can be cured by the Embryo treatement, but still, it is immoral. The idea of playing God is wrong.

Now, we may differ on our positions of this bill but we can all agree on one thing. Why start a civil war in your party if the bill is guaranteed a majority even if a rebellion takes place amongst religious MPs? It's madness!

Another thing, forcing ministers to ignore their conscience is wrong and in fact against the Human Rights Act (freedom of religious expression). Does Brown want to loose the next election? I'm starting to think he does!

reply to post by infinite


Whilst I don't share your view on the issue, I do agree that this should be put to a free vote because it is a matter of conscience (just like votes on the death penalty and so on). I also agree that Brown is daft if he wants to encourage 12 cabinet ministers to resign, for it could turn out to have very serious political consequences indeed.

it is all down to investment,

Brown needs to show these medical companies and scientific investment firms that the UK is the best place to call "home". He needs to silence any religious voices. Thats why the US is not home to these million dollar companies.

(Same reason why Brown does not like talking human rights to China, scared to damage investment opportunities.)

All the other parties are giving free votes, Tories, Liberals, SNP, etc...so I do not understand what the hell the Labour party is hoping to achieve by preventing one.

Originally posted by infinite
it is all down to investment,

Yep You got it in 1

Originally posted by infinite(Same reason why Brown does not like talking human rights to China, scared to damage investment opportunities.)

He dosent want to open a "can of worms"

Originally posted by infiniteAll the other parties are giving free votes, Tories, Liberals, SNP, etc...so I do not understand what the hell the Labour party is hoping to achieve by preventing one.

By preventing a vote he puts a STOP there and then, look at the supposed "referendum"....oh wait he put a STOP to that?
He along with his cohorts of a party are just "Gutless wonders" that do not want the "people they are supposed to represent" really have a say.

Seems like some have spoken too soon -

Gordon Brown to allow Labour MPs free vote

It might also help if the RC Church criticised what was in the Bill and not a distorted version of what it actually contains -

Lord Winston accuses RC Church of lying over embryo research Bill

reply to post by sminkeypinkey


Free vote on some parts, not the Bill itself.

Just watching Miliband in the Commons, he would of made a better Prime Minister than Brown

Originally posted by infinite
reply to post by sminkeypinkey

 

Free vote on some parts, not the Bill itself.

Just watching Miliband in the Commons, he would of made a better Prime Minister than Brown

- Given that the bits that are supposed to be so contentious relate to 3 sections alone in quite a large Bill I don't see the problem with this.

Clearly the Gov is, contrary to the claims of some, being sensibly practical and sensitive to the conscience of others - as well as setting aside a month for meeting and explaining what is actually in the Bill as opposed to the misinformation some are spreading about it.

Cameron's attempt to play both ends against the middle in this is typical and rather too predictable.

The LibDems seem happy to vote in favour (to their credit IMO).

Miliband?
Don't worry he's the next Labour PM after Brown.

reply to post by sminkeypinkey


In regards of the Tories, Cameron gave a free vote on the whole bill because it was an issue of conscience. Same with Clegg too, I do not know how you can spin this one and take swipes at other parties for doing the right thing

A month of chit chats and hugs with Gordon won't change anything. If religious groups and organisation are against it, then they will not be changing their mind any time soon.

He would of saved a lot of hassle if a free vote was given straight away.

Well that's not what I've seen recently.

Cameron wants to claim 'dithering' on the one hand and an uncaring brushing aside of people's concerns the next (as he and his shadow cabinet give no lead and say nothing of substance that anyone might discuss).
To me (and considering this is supposed to be the 'alternative Gov in waiting') that is about as cowardly, irresponsible, weak and shallow as it gets, IMO.
Sadly that's as per with Cameron & Co..
Sorry if you thought that was a silly & empty swipe.
I do not think Cameron & Co. have done the right thing at all.

I didn't bash at the LibDems at all.

Neither do I accept your description of a month's debate and access to Ministers & scientific experts as "chit chats and hugs with Gordon".
It's quite clear that there is a gulf between what the bill actually proposes and how it is being described by certain religious groups here in the UK.

I quite like the idea of my MP voting on an informed basis and in him or her being familiar with the truth of the matter as opposed to the distorted manipulated untruth/outright lie.

I just don't go along with the idea that main planks in the Gov's program can be held hostage to this sort of thing, that's all.

I can accept the claims about an individuals religious conscience but nevertheless we are a secular society and the individuals own personal religious beliefs are not the basis for running our country
(I had thought we had decided that by and large we were against this kind of thing.....or is it only when the label Muslim gets applied?).

From what I can see a highly complex Bill has been reduced to a distorted tabloid nonsense by those who would pursue their religious interests.

Scientists say RC Clergy inflaming embryo debate


[edit on 25-3-2008 by sminkeypinkey]

Britain is not a secular country, constitutionally speaking.

The Queen is Head of the State and the Church, she appoints (with advice from Gordon) the selection of Bishops, etc to the Church of England. Who then sit in the second legislative chamber (House of Lords).

Church of England too has a legislative branch, which the government has the power to amend but not veto anything they pass.

Church and State is one in the UK.

Problem can be solved if we lived in a Republic

I don't see what is "shallow" about Cameron, after he gave a free vote to his party and he criticised the Catholic Church for inflaming the debate as well. In the Times today, he spoke about his eldest son, who has a disability, which the bill can cure if passed. Is that wrong then in your eyes?

As he said, everyone is entitled to an opinion. Gordon was a strong leader in his first few weeks and handled crisis after crisis very well. But he needs to understand you cannot bully people against their will.