Back down Brown
Peter Hoskin 4:34pm
And so Gordon Brown has backed-down over the Embryology Bill. Now he won't be forcing Labour MPs to vote in favour of the Bill outright - instead, they'll get a free vote on three of its particularly controversial parts.
Andrew Porter gets it spot-on over at Three Line Whip - it's a great shame that Brown ignored the wishes of so many in his party for so long, only to buckle as soon as it looked like there'd be a wholesale rebellion. In this light, I doubt too many Labour MPs will be that grateful to Brown, even if the outcome was the one they wanted. Once again, our Prime Minister has been damaged by his own dithering.
Previous
Comments
David Lindsay
March 25th, 2008 5:25pmHow did something that threatended to require 30 Ministers to resign ever become a Government Bill in the first place? Why not than to rub the noses of mostly non-metropolitan, mostly non-posh, mostly non-secular Britain in it.
The Laughing Cavalier
March 25th, 2008 5:55pmBut it isn't a real climb down. After voting against the three clauses they dislike, when it comes to the final vote Labour Ministers will have to vote for the Bill in its entirety, bad clauses included. The position is, effectively, unchanged.
C Powell
March 25th, 2008 6:22pmThe Laughing Cavalier is right. This is not a true free vote as was allowed, for instance, over hunting. What is depressing is that the Government values human life, embryos and a child's right to life less than foxes, that it seeks to bully those who disagree with it - even when those have sound reasons of personal conscience to disagree - and, most depressingly of all, that it looks as if the 3 Cabinet ministers will agree to this shabby non-compromise. Shame on them on all.
sean
March 25th, 2008 9:37pmYes, and I will have as much contempt for them if they change their vote, (what happened to principles?) as I do for their leader and his handling of it.
David Muldowney
March 26th, 2008 1:48amOf course you're all right. This is a crazy way to vote. Either something is right - or wrong. The usual cynicism, they obviously think they have the votes in toto. - I can't see it working though. How can you, for deeply held faith reasons vote against and then, just because the majority want it, vote for?