House of Lords reject The Adoption and Children Bill
The House of Lords has voted 196 to 162 to reject the amendment which would have permitted unmarried heterosexual couples and gay couples (male or female) to adopt jointly. The motive, according to Conservative spokesman Lord Howe, was to protect children.
It is expected the Bill will now return to the House of Commons where the Lords vote will be overturned, but probably too late for the Opening of Parliament on 13 November.
It is clear that the Conservative Party's pretence that it is now pursuing 'inclusive' policies is just so much hot air, designed to persuade voters that the party has reformed itself.
But it has not.
Blogging from the Highlands of Scotland
'From fanaticism to barbarism is only one step' - Diderot
Wednesday, 16 October 2002
Britain's House of Lords today debates The Adoption and Children Bill
I've posted a lengthy article about this today in my main website - click here to read it.
However, I noticed yesterday that Andrew Sullivan had posted a brief reference to an interesting story about a milk protest at an Aberdeen school, which he had noticed in one of the blogs written by Iain Murray.
The remarks about the milk protest were interesting in themselves, but what interested me more was what appears to be Iain Murray's extreme euro-scepticism (bordering on europhobia, I'd say) - fair enough, this appears to tie in with what I have gleaned in the past to be Andrew Sullivan's doubts about further European integration. Not a view I share, of course, but no matter. However, in one of Iain Murray's other blogs, called Conservative Revival, I was able to read with interest his intellectual gymnastics trying to explain why the Conservative Party policy, under its present leader Iain Duncan Smith, of opposing repeal of 'Section 28' is correct. Frankly, I am not convinced in any way by his arguments - unless he has some method of restraining the biological urges of adolescent boys and girls. His argument seems to be that sex education in schools should be avoided as much as possible. Restoration of Victorian values is all very well, but it does not strike me as particularly practical. Having gone to the same university college is no excuse for Andrew Sullivan, as a gay man, seeming to support this man's views!
I've posted a lengthy article about this today in my main website - click here to read it.
However, I noticed yesterday that Andrew Sullivan had posted a brief reference to an interesting story about a milk protest at an Aberdeen school, which he had noticed in one of the blogs written by Iain Murray.
The remarks about the milk protest were interesting in themselves, but what interested me more was what appears to be Iain Murray's extreme euro-scepticism (bordering on europhobia, I'd say) - fair enough, this appears to tie in with what I have gleaned in the past to be Andrew Sullivan's doubts about further European integration. Not a view I share, of course, but no matter. However, in one of Iain Murray's other blogs, called Conservative Revival, I was able to read with interest his intellectual gymnastics trying to explain why the Conservative Party policy, under its present leader Iain Duncan Smith, of opposing repeal of 'Section 28' is correct. Frankly, I am not convinced in any way by his arguments - unless he has some method of restraining the biological urges of adolescent boys and girls. His argument seems to be that sex education in schools should be avoided as much as possible. Restoration of Victorian values is all very well, but it does not strike me as particularly practical. Having gone to the same university college is no excuse for Andrew Sullivan, as a gay man, seeming to support this man's views!
Monday, 14 October 2002
British MP George Galloway reveals US and UK dastardly plot - alternatively he shows himself to be even more deluded than I had imagined
The Tehran Times carries a report of a speech made by Labour MP George Galloway to students at the American University of Beirut. Just a flavour of what he tells us is really going on: "American and British leaders are in the process of carrying out plans to break up Saudi Arabia and Sudan, and also expand Jordan's borders to areas in central Iraq." Personally I think the man is a deluded fool, but you make up your own mind.
The Tehran Times carries a report of a speech made by Labour MP George Galloway to students at the American University of Beirut. Just a flavour of what he tells us is really going on: "American and British leaders are in the process of carrying out plans to break up Saudi Arabia and Sudan, and also expand Jordan's borders to areas in central Iraq." Personally I think the man is a deluded fool, but you make up your own mind.
Thursday, 3 October 2002
Slick Willie at the Labour Party conference
Former US President Bill Clinton gave a keynote speech at the Labour Party conference in Blackpool today (2nd October), the British seaside resort on the Irish Sea coast that doesn't quite have the style of Atlantic City (irony alert!).
As with his speech some months ago for the 'Dimbleby Lecture', President Clinton gave a typically polished and wide-ranging speech; highly impressive, provided one refrains from subjecting its content to too much rigorous analysis. As a loyal American, he gave public support to President Bush in his efforts to combat terrorism, and called upon those at the conference (obviously mainly of a left-wing tendency) not to reject the policies of the US Administration in this regard because they have disagreements over the ideology of much of the rest of the Republican programme - Clinton said that he, too, has disagreements with much of the Bush administration's policies.
However, apart from this support (welcome as it no doubt is) his remarks about Bush, the Republicans and the British Conservatives were almost entirely negative; naturally, his remarks were received with some rapture in the hall. He cast strong doubt upon the validity of the election as President of George W Bush (alluding to the 5/4 Supreme Court vote and the fact that two of the four were Republicans who had "praise the Lord" voted against their Party); his allusions to his own predecessor as President, President Bush Sr, were equally double-edged. His remarks, too, about the Conservatives in this country were decidedly acerbic, no doubt at least partly as a result of the support given to Bush Sr by then Prime Minister John Major prior to the 1992 Presidential election (which I thought at the time was certainly not a wise move on Major's part); one assumes he will not soon be invited to speak at a Conservative Party conference. One hopes, too, that his effusive praise for Tony Blair and the 'third way' will not damage his apparent close relationship with the 43rd President - one can imagine that some in the Bush administration will be less than amused by the apparent continuing cosiness of Blair with Clinton.
Former US President Bill Clinton gave a keynote speech at the Labour Party conference in Blackpool today (2nd October), the British seaside resort on the Irish Sea coast that doesn't quite have the style of Atlantic City (irony alert!).
As with his speech some months ago for the 'Dimbleby Lecture', President Clinton gave a typically polished and wide-ranging speech; highly impressive, provided one refrains from subjecting its content to too much rigorous analysis. As a loyal American, he gave public support to President Bush in his efforts to combat terrorism, and called upon those at the conference (obviously mainly of a left-wing tendency) not to reject the policies of the US Administration in this regard because they have disagreements over the ideology of much of the rest of the Republican programme - Clinton said that he, too, has disagreements with much of the Bush administration's policies.
However, apart from this support (welcome as it no doubt is) his remarks about Bush, the Republicans and the British Conservatives were almost entirely negative; naturally, his remarks were received with some rapture in the hall. He cast strong doubt upon the validity of the election as President of George W Bush (alluding to the 5/4 Supreme Court vote and the fact that two of the four were Republicans who had "praise the Lord" voted against their Party); his allusions to his own predecessor as President, President Bush Sr, were equally double-edged. His remarks, too, about the Conservatives in this country were decidedly acerbic, no doubt at least partly as a result of the support given to Bush Sr by then Prime Minister John Major prior to the 1992 Presidential election (which I thought at the time was certainly not a wise move on Major's part); one assumes he will not soon be invited to speak at a Conservative Party conference. One hopes, too, that his effusive praise for Tony Blair and the 'third way' will not damage his apparent close relationship with the 43rd President - one can imagine that some in the Bush administration will be less than amused by the apparent continuing cosiness of Blair with Clinton.
Saturday, 28 September 2002
Honesty in government British-style
Part 1 - Estelle Morris dismisses Sir William Stubbs
Within one hour of the publication yesterday of Mike Tomlinson's report into the controversy surrounding A-level results in England and Wales this summer (allegations that grades had been manipulated in order to ensure that pass-levels remained consistent with earlier years), the chairman of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) Sir William Stubbs was dismissed by the Education Secretary Estelle Morris. Curiously, however, Sir William had been cleared of any wrong-doing by Mr Tomlinson's independent inquiry (as had Ms Morris herself).
It seems that Sir William's criticism of intervention by Ms Morris earlier this week, which he stated compromised the independence of Mr Tomlinson's inquiry, made Sir William's continuation in his role unacceptable to Ms Morris. Ms Morris opined the day following the allegations that they were in essence correct, but that she had not 'interfered', merely planned for a range of potential outcomes of Mr Tomlinson's report. That's all right then.
Part 2 - Curry (sic) causes Major upset
The above is not a reference to what dodgy food can do to you!
No, it seems that the Prime Minister who launched a 'back to basics' [personal morality and other such worthy things] campaign was himself a few years earlier an adulterer. Today it is revealed in excerpts published in 'The Times' newspaper of Edwina Currie's autobiography that she and John Major, then a fairly junior member of the Conservative government hierarchy, had an affair between 1984 and 1988. It is being said that he broke off the relationship when he was appointed to the Cabinet - career path, you know, mustn't risk that. It seems, from what I have heard so far, that Mrs Major has been aware of the affair for some years, but it is not entirely clear when she became aware of it, and how.
Something I haven't heard mentioned so far is the curious fact that it was also in 1988 that Mrs Currie herself resigned as a Junior Health Minister after having stated that defective animal husbandry in the poultry industry was a major contributory factor in the incidence of Salmonella in eggs; she was forced out on the pretext that she was a scare-monger, but it became clear subsequently that her remarks were in large part accurate. Could this have been some elaborate cover-up to ensure her just-ended (or about to end) relationship with Mr Major remain private. And why has she chosen to reveal this affair now, when it has so successfully been kept confidential to date?
Part 1 - Estelle Morris dismisses Sir William Stubbs
Within one hour of the publication yesterday of Mike Tomlinson's report into the controversy surrounding A-level results in England and Wales this summer (allegations that grades had been manipulated in order to ensure that pass-levels remained consistent with earlier years), the chairman of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) Sir William Stubbs was dismissed by the Education Secretary Estelle Morris. Curiously, however, Sir William had been cleared of any wrong-doing by Mr Tomlinson's independent inquiry (as had Ms Morris herself).
It seems that Sir William's criticism of intervention by Ms Morris earlier this week, which he stated compromised the independence of Mr Tomlinson's inquiry, made Sir William's continuation in his role unacceptable to Ms Morris. Ms Morris opined the day following the allegations that they were in essence correct, but that she had not 'interfered', merely planned for a range of potential outcomes of Mr Tomlinson's report. That's all right then.
Part 2 - Curry (sic) causes Major upset
The above is not a reference to what dodgy food can do to you!
No, it seems that the Prime Minister who launched a 'back to basics' [personal morality and other such worthy things] campaign was himself a few years earlier an adulterer. Today it is revealed in excerpts published in 'The Times' newspaper of Edwina Currie's autobiography that she and John Major, then a fairly junior member of the Conservative government hierarchy, had an affair between 1984 and 1988. It is being said that he broke off the relationship when he was appointed to the Cabinet - career path, you know, mustn't risk that. It seems, from what I have heard so far, that Mrs Major has been aware of the affair for some years, but it is not entirely clear when she became aware of it, and how.
Something I haven't heard mentioned so far is the curious fact that it was also in 1988 that Mrs Currie herself resigned as a Junior Health Minister after having stated that defective animal husbandry in the poultry industry was a major contributory factor in the incidence of Salmonella in eggs; she was forced out on the pretext that she was a scare-monger, but it became clear subsequently that her remarks were in large part accurate. Could this have been some elaborate cover-up to ensure her just-ended (or about to end) relationship with Mr Major remain private. And why has she chosen to reveal this affair now, when it has so successfully been kept confidential to date?
Wednesday, 25 September 2002
The British government publishes a document detailing what it believes to be the grave danger posed to world peace by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq
The full text of this dossier is available either at the Downing Street website, or at the BBC Radio 4 ‘Today’ website.
The document published 24th September provides a great deal of information, some of it quite alarming, about the imminent danger posed to world peace if Saddam Hussein’s regime is permitted to continue the development of chemical, biological and perhaps nuclear weapons. It seems clear that there is additional information which has not been included in the published document, in order to protect the intelligence operatives who most likely continue to require confidentiality for their safety.
I have written a much lengthier article about this matter in my main website, and you can read this if you wish by clicking here.
The full text of this dossier is available either at the Downing Street website, or at the BBC Radio 4 ‘Today’ website.
The document published 24th September provides a great deal of information, some of it quite alarming, about the imminent danger posed to world peace if Saddam Hussein’s regime is permitted to continue the development of chemical, biological and perhaps nuclear weapons. It seems clear that there is additional information which has not been included in the published document, in order to protect the intelligence operatives who most likely continue to require confidentiality for their safety.
I have written a much lengthier article about this matter in my main website, and you can read this if you wish by clicking here.
Monday, 23 September 2002
The clock is ticking for the Conservative Party and its blind obduracy over Section 28
There is an excellent article in this week's Spectator magazine, what one might call a laying on the line of the 'realpolitik' of the situation the Conservative Party finds itself in. Its popularity has been flatlining at around 30% for almost ten years. Its continuing determination to maintain its policies (retention of clause 28, support for so-called 'family values', opposition to unmarried couples and gays being considered as potential adoptive parents) in the face of what even it must be aware is a large swathe of opposition in the country - hence its dismal performance in the pollls - I suppose betokens an heroic stance. Heroic, but foolish and ultimately pointless. I have no desire to see British politics realigned with the Liberal Democrats as the other main component, with Labour, in our public life, but there is now a real danger of that happening.
The Conservative Party has proved very successful over two centuries in regularly renewing itself, sometimes putting in place radical policy changes to make it once more relevant to current conditions. I hope it can pull off this trick again, but unfortunately the bigoted pygmies who currently run the Party are likely to run their political ship aground (I'm on a roll with my poor symbolism, I'm afraid) unless they, or perhaps those who can supplant them, change course. Time is running out.
There is an excellent article in this week's Spectator magazine, what one might call a laying on the line of the 'realpolitik' of the situation the Conservative Party finds itself in. Its popularity has been flatlining at around 30% for almost ten years. Its continuing determination to maintain its policies (retention of clause 28, support for so-called 'family values', opposition to unmarried couples and gays being considered as potential adoptive parents) in the face of what even it must be aware is a large swathe of opposition in the country - hence its dismal performance in the pollls - I suppose betokens an heroic stance. Heroic, but foolish and ultimately pointless. I have no desire to see British politics realigned with the Liberal Democrats as the other main component, with Labour, in our public life, but there is now a real danger of that happening.
The Conservative Party has proved very successful over two centuries in regularly renewing itself, sometimes putting in place radical policy changes to make it once more relevant to current conditions. I hope it can pull off this trick again, but unfortunately the bigoted pygmies who currently run the Party are likely to run their political ship aground (I'm on a roll with my poor symbolism, I'm afraid) unless they, or perhaps those who can supplant them, change course. Time is running out.
Thursday, 19 September 2002
The UN may, as I feared, be about to fudge any action on Iraq
There is a worrying article in today's Independent newspaper, suggesting that Iraq will have upto 1 year of 'grace' once UN weapons insepctors go back in. This seems to confirm my worst fears that the appeasers want to delay, obfuscate and fudge any action to remove the threat to the region and the wider world from Saddam Hussein's thuggish Iraqi regime.
The Bush administration and our own Prime Minister, Tony Blair, must remain firm in the face of this diplomatic ambush.
There is a worrying article in today's Independent newspaper, suggesting that Iraq will have upto 1 year of 'grace' once UN weapons insepctors go back in. This seems to confirm my worst fears that the appeasers want to delay, obfuscate and fudge any action to remove the threat to the region and the wider world from Saddam Hussein's thuggish Iraqi regime.
The Bush administration and our own Prime Minister, Tony Blair, must remain firm in the face of this diplomatic ambush.
Monday, 16 September 2002
Speculation this evening that Iraq may allow weapons inspectors back into the country. But will they be given unfettered access?
The BBC reported this evening that there is growing speculation that Iraq may permit UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq. A 'senior Arab official' is the source, it seems, although he has said the 'tenor' of the announcement apparently to be made by Iraq is not yet known.
Of course, I would love to see it possible to avoid a war and for the UN weapons inspectors to be allowed to go about their legitimate business without interference from the Iraqi authorities, but I am not holding my breath. There have been too many cases in the past of Iraq seeming to permit something, then back-tracking. It could be just one more effort on their part to obfuscate and delay action to force change in that country. The US and its allies will need to maintain a steady nerve over coming days to ensure that efforts to embroil them in pointless delays, under the guise of diplomatic moves aimed at promoting peace, do not succeed in diverting them from the path reiterated last week by President Bush and by Prime Minister Tony Blair.
The BBC reported this evening that there is growing speculation that Iraq may permit UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq. A 'senior Arab official' is the source, it seems, although he has said the 'tenor' of the announcement apparently to be made by Iraq is not yet known.
Of course, I would love to see it possible to avoid a war and for the UN weapons inspectors to be allowed to go about their legitimate business without interference from the Iraqi authorities, but I am not holding my breath. There have been too many cases in the past of Iraq seeming to permit something, then back-tracking. It could be just one more effort on their part to obfuscate and delay action to force change in that country. The US and its allies will need to maintain a steady nerve over coming days to ensure that efforts to embroil them in pointless delays, under the guise of diplomatic moves aimed at promoting peace, do not succeed in diverting them from the path reiterated last week by President Bush and by Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Wednesday, 11 September 2002
United States Tragedy
2001 - 11 September - 2002
... one year already ...
My sincere condolences to all those who have lost family, friends and colleagues in the horrifying and incomprehensible acts of terrorism affecting four civilian aircraft, the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington D.C.
Rest in Peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)