For all the continuing furore around Lib Dem MP Greg Mulholland calling health minister Ivan Lewis an arsehole, he is not of course the first politician to utter the a-word in the course of parliamentary business.
The word was used by the Scottish Tory maverick Sir Nicholas Fairbairn when he intervened on Tony Blair during a 1994 debate on equalising the age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual acts. On this occasion, Hansard actually allowed it through rather than placing the word in asterisks, and the full exchange can be read HERE.
Friday, February 01, 2008
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Question Time Review
Tonight's Question Time was predictably dominated by the Derek Conway affair, but there was also a great question from the audience on whether the most revolutionary outcome of the US election would be the election of the first black president, the first woman president, or the oldest president.
Here's my verdict on the how the panel performed.
Shaun Woodward – Quietly impressive, though at times almost too smooth. Said MPs should publish details of staff salaries, and backed Hillary Clinton for the White House. It was not clear whether he was speaking for Gordon Brown on either question. Daringly suggested at the end that both Philip Green and Richard Branson should emulate the Sainsbury family by giving more to charity.
Ken Clarke – A class act, showed once again what a great Prime Minister he would have been. Came out with the best line of the night on the US presidency question – “Ming Campbell and I are going for John McCain" - prompting Amanda Platell to ask whether he was mounting another leadership bid.
John Sessions – Amusing in parts but inconsequential. Looked as if he was reading out his answers.
Amanda Platell – The only one to directly call for Conway’s sacking. Was she settling old Tory scores?
Bonnie Greer – Appeared to be a makeweight but came good on the US question, giving a compelling justification of why as a black woman she was for Hillary and not Obama.
I will be endeavouring to make this review a regular feature of the blog over the coming year.
Here's my verdict on the how the panel performed.
Shaun Woodward – Quietly impressive, though at times almost too smooth. Said MPs should publish details of staff salaries, and backed Hillary Clinton for the White House. It was not clear whether he was speaking for Gordon Brown on either question. Daringly suggested at the end that both Philip Green and Richard Branson should emulate the Sainsbury family by giving more to charity.
Ken Clarke – A class act, showed once again what a great Prime Minister he would have been. Came out with the best line of the night on the US presidency question – “Ming Campbell and I are going for John McCain" - prompting Amanda Platell to ask whether he was mounting another leadership bid.
John Sessions – Amusing in parts but inconsequential. Looked as if he was reading out his answers.
Amanda Platell – The only one to directly call for Conway’s sacking. Was she settling old Tory scores?
Bonnie Greer – Appeared to be a makeweight but came good on the US question, giving a compelling justification of why as a black woman she was for Hillary and not Obama.
I will be endeavouring to make this review a regular feature of the blog over the coming year.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Liberal Conspiracy and God
As someone who badly wants to see a really successful liberal-left blog to counter the right's contunued dominance of the political blogosphere, I was delighted to be asked to join the Liberal Conspiracy group blog when it started up last year. But I always feared that as a Christian I would find myself in a distinct minority when it came to issues such as abortion and embryology.
I accept this, much in the way that pro-life Labour MPs have always accepted their party's majority position on such issues, in the interests of building a broader coalition on the kind of society they would like to see.
I do however take the view that when it comes to faith-related matters, people should be careful not to use inflammatory language and to try to respect the other's sincerely-held point of view. Up until now, this has by and large been the case on LC.
However yesterday I was finally moved to protest following an intemperate post by Kate Belgrave entitled Jesus H. Christ Rides Again which referred to Christians as "Jesus freaks" and "Holyrollers" and likened Christ to "a made-up figure like Big Bird and Po."
As you will see from the comments thread, the consensus on the site appears to be that LC bloggers should feel free to make such attacks on the grounds of "free speech," which is, after all, a perfectly respectable liberal point of view. After sleeping on it for a night, I've decided to go along with that and let it lie for now.
But if the general verdict is indeed that freedom of speech is king, I will of course expect the same degree of licence to be shown to anyone who criticises the adherents of any other faith in similar terms. Not that I have any particular intention of doing so.
Jan 31 Update: Mike Ion has now written this excellent piece on LC explaining much more eloquently than I ever could why so-called "progressives" need to be more ready to engage with people of faith.
I accept this, much in the way that pro-life Labour MPs have always accepted their party's majority position on such issues, in the interests of building a broader coalition on the kind of society they would like to see.
I do however take the view that when it comes to faith-related matters, people should be careful not to use inflammatory language and to try to respect the other's sincerely-held point of view. Up until now, this has by and large been the case on LC.
However yesterday I was finally moved to protest following an intemperate post by Kate Belgrave entitled Jesus H. Christ Rides Again which referred to Christians as "Jesus freaks" and "Holyrollers" and likened Christ to "a made-up figure like Big Bird and Po."
As you will see from the comments thread, the consensus on the site appears to be that LC bloggers should feel free to make such attacks on the grounds of "free speech," which is, after all, a perfectly respectable liberal point of view. After sleeping on it for a night, I've decided to go along with that and let it lie for now.
But if the general verdict is indeed that freedom of speech is king, I will of course expect the same degree of licence to be shown to anyone who criticises the adherents of any other faith in similar terms. Not that I have any particular intention of doing so.
Jan 31 Update: Mike Ion has now written this excellent piece on LC explaining much more eloquently than I ever could why so-called "progressives" need to be more ready to engage with people of faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)