Timed out
Although some Labour backbenchers appeared distinctly unimpressed by the move, the government secured a comfortable 322 to 157 majority for its procedural motion on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. The motion pushed all amendments dealing with abortion to the back of the queue. Diane Abbott called it a shabby manouvre. Amidst some cat calls, Jeffrey Donaldson denied the DUP had done a deal with the government on the matter.
There is talk at Westminster of a private members' bill on abortion in the next session of parliament. But by then, presuming the DUP and Sinn Fein overcome their terminological dispute about what "at all times" means, justice should have been devolved.
Pro choice campaigners are consoling themselves that at least they raised the profile of their case. But with only 2 MLAs declaring themselves openly in the pro-choice camp today may very well have been - as both Anna Lo and Diane Abbott themselves acknowledged - the last chance to change the abortion law here.
P.S. A couple of Westminster "big beasts" weighed into the debate. Ann Widdecombe backed the government. Ken Clarke did not and produced a good one liner on what he saw as the cynicism of ministers' tactics. "Cynicism would take my breath away" he argued "if I was not becoming ever more accustomed to this process on the part of a control freak Government that regards the House of Commons as an embarrassing nuisance to be silenced on all suitable occasions."
. ,
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~35~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Watching Jeffrey Donaldson's attempted denial that this was part of the deal arising from the 42 day debacle was as embarrassing as it was unconvincing.
Then again embarrassing and unconvincing is a good description for many elected representatives on the hill. A description that will be reinforced when it transpires over the next few months that a number of MLA's are in danger of overspending their "office allowances" before the end of March.
Complain about this comment
Bushmill 1608,
You said "Then again embarrassing and unconvincing is a good description for many elected representatives on the hill. A description that will be reinforced when it transpires over the next few months that a number of MLA's are in danger of overspending their "office allowances" before the end of March."
Who are the culprits? I am fed up with these MLA's. Money grabbing lazy good for nothings.
Complain about this comment
#2
A freedom of information request asking for details of expenses claimed from 6/4/2008 to date should help you start the process of gaining enlightenment.
http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/foi/freedom.htm
However not until there is proper automatic public disclosure along the lines operated by the Scottish Parliament:
http://mspallowances.scottish.parliament.uk/MSPAllowances/
Additional information can also be found at
www.theyworkforyou.com
This site highlights the gravy train our dual mandated elected representatives are on.
If you can think of a dual mandated husband and wife team who also employ members of the family you will see it turns into quite a "substantial business" with no issues on cashflow.
Others may have better ideas how to "winkle" out the details....
Complain about this comment
#3
Thank you for highlighting FOI in the Assembly. Can you name or indicate who these MLA's are?
I looked through MSP allowances and that system should be brought in here straight away. It is excellent as it is very transparent. This would show which MLA's are effective and efficient at a time when Government asks us to do so.
I have been a big fan of www.theyworkforyou.com for a while. It details clearly where some people's interests lie. It is clear that all political parties are intent on making efficiency savings and implementing new ideas when the old ones are clearly a failure. That website also shows what MP's in England think of us lot.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS