HFEB Day 1 - Government majority in today's votes

Hybrid embryos

Admixed embryos - Govt wins 336 - 176 Maj 160 (3 Cabinet members vote against).

True hybrids - Govt wins 286-223 Maj 63

Saviour siblings - votes as they happen

Tissue tying and sex selection - Govt wins 318-149 majority against amendment of 169.

Outright ban on tissue typing - Govt wins 342-163 majority against of 179

Restriction to use of regenerative tissue Govt wins 293-200 majority of 93

BBC report


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Today's newspapers included a number of articles including a good one by Jackie Ashley in the Guardian This fight really matters, and lays bare the big party divide :

Here's the bad news. Normal people can't afford to look away. This is too big. On abortion, and much else, it is a fight between conservatives and liberals that truly matters.

Lose 100-plus Labour MPs next year, or in 2010, and you will get a much more reactionary Commons. Lose votes like the ones coming up this week and you have it already.

I don't want to live in a Britain dominated by religious teaching. I want to live in a pro-science, liberal and progressive country where real people's real suffering can be relieved by medical advances and where minority groups are not abused. Behind the tactical smoke, that's the choice before parliament this week.

HFEB - good BBC Summary and the bishops bash back

Good BBC summary of the issues and timetable for the relevant votes.

I hope to put up a summary of events on the blog for Day One (Monday) as well as live blogging on tuesday when the 'need for a father' and the time limit for abortion are debated.

Meanwhile - Bishops Bash Back (article in the Times - that isn't the actual title of the article...)

Some quotes to let you know we're in the same old territory:

Tom wright, Bishop of Durham

We would like to make it plain that as people from other Christian
traditions we are completely opposed to the creation of animal-human hybrids,
saviour siblings and the removal of the obligation on IVF clinics to consider
the child's need for a father. This is not a narrowly Roman Catholic issue, nor
is it a narrowly Christian issue nor indeed is it a narrowly religious issue. It
is a human issue. We need to fight to uphold and protect our humanity
[That's told 'em]

Ian Lucas, Passion for Life (?)

Mr Brown [is] not respecting the conscience of his MPs

[in spite of his MPs ~ and Cabinet Ministers - all having a free vote?]

Josephine Quintavallem, Comment on Reproductive Ethics (?)

They devoted 700 hours to debate fox hunting and they’re going to give three
hours to debate whether you should kill the unborn child

[rather gives the game away that attempts to reduce the time limit are really fuelled by religiously motivated anti-abortion campaigners]

Finally we are told about the Islamic Medical Association which we are told "represents over two million British Muslims"

[two million doctors?]

Should be an interesting two days ...

.

A nice bit of trade union history

Have just been rummaging around the web and come across the most amazing and wonderful site and just had to do a link.

3 articles on the (what can only be called) COHSE blog about Lesbian and Gay issues within COHSE. COHSE was of course one of the 3 unions that merged to form UNISON in 1993 (alongside NUPE and NALGO).

Includes a great article about a Conference motion carried at the 1987 COHSE Conference in support of Lesbian and Gay Rights and agreeing to affiliate to the Labour Campaign for Lesbian and Gay Rights, now LGBT Labour. (Text of motion reproduced below). Also references COHSE's campaigning against section 28.

I can only congratulate the authors of the blog on maintaining these historical references.


Text of the motion

Lesbian & Gay Rights

Resolution 90 COHSE Conference 1987

That this Conference opposes all discrimination against Lesbian and gay men and recognises that this discrimination is institutionalised in society as it is in the National Health Service.

Conference therefore welcomes and reaffirms COHSE's support for the lesbian and gay resolutions passed at the 1985 and1986 TUC and Labour Party Conferences and calls on the National Executive Committee to:

(i) oppose all discrimination against lesbian and gay men in the Health Service and in the trade union and Labour movement;
(ii) support the Labour councils' introduction of comprehensive equal opportunities policies including 'positive images' of lesbian and gay men such as in Ealing and Haringey Council;
(iii) support for district health authorities who have introduced comprehensive equal opportunities with union support;
(iv) campaign for all District Health Authorities to include in their equal opportunities policy opposition to discrimination against lesbian and gay men;
(v) support the awareness of lesbian and gay issues within COHSE and the trade union and Labour movement;
(vi) affiliate to the Labour Campaign for Lesbian and Gay Rights and support theLCLGR Charter.

COHSE 618 HILLINGDON AND DISTRICT BRANCH
CARRIED

Are Christians facing discrimination?

Excellent article form Jonathan Bartley, Ekklesia

Are Christians facing discrimination?

It is not well known, but it is often the same people who are fuelling the
scare stories of Christian marginalisation that appear in the papers. A small
collection of lobby groups, these usual suspects are actively seeking out
potential cases of discrimination which they can then publicise, make a
political campaign out of, or pursue in the courts. They are also drawing advice
and training from the US, where similar strategies have been pursued.

What is behind their zeal? Their agenda is a desperate attempt to win
back, or at least try to maintain, many of the special privileges and exemptions
that Christianity has previously enjoyed, but which society is no longer willing
to grant. Their argument is that since Britain is a 'Christian country', their
faith, and its adherents, should have special recognition and dispensation.

But they are faced with an internal contradiction which virtually
guarantees their failure - and helps to explain why their have had so little
success.

.

1890's recording from Walt Whitman

Taken from Andrew Sullivan's blog Daily Dish from gay American poet Walt Whitman

Also the link here on You Tube.


"America

Centre of equal daughters, equal sons,
All, all alike endear'd, grown, ungrown, young or old,
Strong, ample, fair, enduring, capable, rich,
Perennial with the Earth, with Freedom, Law and Love..."

.

From today's papers

Quite a lot in the papers about the HFEB votes.

Simon Jenkins is excellent and rightly robust in the Times Family planning is one area in which we don't need MP's help

Some quotes:

The Commons will have a chance to stamp the medieval demand of the Catholic Church that MPs obey its edicts rather than their judgments.

Those who regard women as involuntary incubators of God’s souls treat all abortion as murder and therefore seek to ban it by law. I cannot see how this entitles them also to draw fine distinctions as between 24 weeks and 20, 18 or 13. Abortion should be a matter for women, couples, doctors and medical advance to resolve. Each case will be personal and unique. Parliament, having decided to interfere, should at least leave in place a limit validated by experience.

The opposition is like that to Queen Victoria’s use of chloroform in childbirth as “defying God’s labour”.

As for the Commons debate over whether an IVF baby needs a father, words almost fail me. Of course babies are better off with fathers, but whose business is that? We do not enforce abortions on pregnant schoolgirls for lacking a husband, despite the near-certainty of such a child being born into a dysfunctional home. What are we doing about families ruined by rotten fathers? In my experience women seeking IVF, whether gay or not, are self-selected as responsible parents by virtue of being prepared to go through this uncomfortable process.

However, anyone who thinks that parliament will do the job better should look at this week’s whipping list, with its ludicrous distinction between “government” clauses and “conscience” clauses. Every law should be on MPs’ consciences. For the most part MPs should stop meddling in how people choose to plan and protect their families. They have enough trouble with their own.

Very well and succinctly put.

Also in the Observer:

Gordon Brown Why I believe stem cell researchers deserve our backing

Should scientists be given the legal framework they say they need to pursue new cures and treatments through stem cell research or will we turn our back on these potential advances?

Should children who face death or critical illness find new hope in scientific advances that would allow their new brother or sister to be not just a blessing to their family, but also a saviour sibling to them?

And should people be able to approach IVF clinics without fear of discrimination on the grounds of their sexual orientation?

My answer to all those questions is an unequivocal yes.

Mary Warnock Women, not the unborn deserve our protection

For law cannot be based on what is largely a religious belief and, this apart, we know that abortions would continue to be carried out, only more dangerously, by dodgy doctors or unqualified backstreet abortionists. For those too young to remember, trust me, this is never to be wished for.

The truth, as it always has been, is that we should turn our attention instead to their mothers and consider why they are seeking to abort their babies at so late a stage of pregnancy.

We ought to pay less attention to the destruction of life by abortion than to the quality of life of those who are allowed to live. Life, after all, is not an abstract shared by everyone who is alive - there is no human life that is not lived by somebody. And it is these living people to whom we should attach value and whom we should, if necessary, protect.

Some Italian stuff

Louise has already posted about In Veglia.

Have navigated around and found some great sites. Really good for learning Italian (that is to say not say easy to read if you don't speak Italian, great if you want to start learning - heck why not)

Main link here at Gionata seems from what I can tell to be an Italian LGBT Christian site with an incredible amount of content already - as well as links to In Veglia.

It's a great site and I hope to pop in and out as my Italian (...) improves.

Faith bodies should end discrimination

Recent Employment Tribunal case of constructive dismissal on the grounds of religious belief by a charity with a supposedly Christian ethos.

Reports in:

Thinking Anglicans
Ekklesia
British Humanists Association


Ekklesia has a correct view here in that the Christian values of the gospel leave no space for discrimination.

Idaho

I prefer Idahobit (International Day Against Homophobia Biphobia and Transphobia).

We are getting to the point where there are so many days (Pride, LGBT History Month and Idaho/Idahobit) it gets a bit difficult to mark each one.

Idaho as the mark of the 17th May 1992 when homosexuality was no longer classified as a mental disorder by the World Health Organisation is an important date to mark and also a goo dday to focus our thoughts on the many countries where homosexuality is outlawed and where there is no protection on the gounds of sexual orientation.

Another reason that we must, in Europe, have a 'horizontal directive outlawing discrimination across all major grounds (including sexual orientation) and we need to be engaging (via governments, international NGO's and so on) against the criminalisation of homosexuality and in favour of protections against hate crime and discrimination against LGBT people.

In this context a link from ILGA-Europe from Thomas Hammarberg, Commissioner for Human Rights for the Council of Europe (also refers to the Yogyakarta Principles).

See also in today's Comment is Free (CiF) Love is a Human Right.

Also from the Council of Europe the revised Convention on adoption which is now inclusive of the ability of same sex couples to adopt. Hopefully all states will ratify the Convention.

Women still need safe, legal abortions

Early next week sees the controversial votes on the Human Embryology and Fertilisation Bill.

The Bill itself has had extensive scrutiny already (considered by a Joint Committee) and already passed throught the Lords.

On top of the 3 so-called controversial areas (need for a father, hybrid embryos and 'savious siblings') there will the tabling of motions to reduce the time limit on abortion.

Personally I support 'abortion rights' for women i.e. access to safe and legal abortions where a woman decides she needs it. This is not the same as saying that aboriton is right or wrong only that it the individual woman's own choices over her own body and reproductive rights rather than society defining it.

In that sense our abortion laws are imperfect. They lay out all sorts of conditions to be met for the abortion to be lawful. I would allow only one condition, that a woman decides after all options are explained to have an abortion and there is no compulsion or coercion (i.e. it's a free and informed decision - the usual standard for important medical procedures.)

Whilst I have no problem whatever for different groups believing different things (abortion is wrong under all or some circumstances/after a certain time limit) I tend to take a more rigorous position about where the law should be.

The right of a woman to choose is the woman's and hers alone in this matter.

Link to Abortion Rights

It is not too late to contact your MP ahead of these votes. The best way is through writetothem.com.

I do not object to the decision to grant free votes in the Bill (it's a bit misleading as no-one would be forced against their will to vote and so in that sense the votes are always free) but I think it's odd to allow a 'free' vote on the 'need for a father' when it's Governement policy to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and to support same sex parenting.

Children born to lesbian parents are of course going to meet boys and men in their immediate family, school, community and wider society and in any case it is far more important for children to have good, loving and balanced role models of either gender than having strong role models but bad ones.

For more extensive coverage see Lou's Blog

.

Why I'm against referendums and why Brown should take heart

I only partly agree with Martin Kettle on referendums/?referenda.

I am a firm believer in representative democracy. It's a good thing. It works and I don't believe in diluting it by having referendums all of the time.

Practice between countries varies considerably. Germany has no referendums as they are not permitted under their Constitution. Ireland has them all of the time. De Gaulle introduced them in France as a means of bolstering the power of the President as against the Assemblee and the government. The record of referendums in France is not that great and seems to point to what we know - they are often used as a means of registering disapproval of the sitting government of the day (often mid-term).

Britain held a referendum on EU membership (it seems to have the opppsite to any intended effect of 'settling' what was already settled by our Acsession to the EU). The referendum was held because Wilson's government was rent asunder and could only hold itself together by holding a neverendum (and then only just).

That's the only UK wide referendum we've ever had and so I'd only have referendums where:

• the governing party can't maintain a parliamentary majority on an issue
• a government decides as part of its policy to put something to a referendum because it's contentious and it prefers to deal with it in that way
• there's a convention that is virtually assured that devolution measures be put to a referendum in the area directly affected (seems reasonable given that the status quo of a unified state should only be departed from if there is a substantial demand for it from voters). I think the 'bring it on' pov from Wendy Alexander is a bit odd - I think that Scotalnd votes on independence every two to three years - they only have to vote by a majority for the SNP in one of these and the deal is done - negotiations start immediately on making Scotland independent.

My thinking on this tells me what I want Gordon Brown to do with his remaining two years.

To have the power for two years of being the leader of a parliamentary majority is a great thing (more is usually considered better ...) and you can achieve great things with that political space. And some small things as well.

Governments that proceed steadlily, doing the things it wants to do, achieving real change, even though they're behind in the polls - these are the exception rather than the rule. And these rarities are, I believe, recognised by voters.

Come election time we have the ultimate referendum in our system of government. I think it's perhaps a bit of a contrast that under Blair we had a lot of electioneering but not that much governance, maybe in this respect Brown is the ying to Blair's yang. Or vice versa.

.

Same sex marriage in California

Very significant news from California that that the Supreme Court has declared that same sex marriage is required by the Californian State Constitution by a 4-3 ruling.

Of particular interest is the application by the majority of Justices of the principle of 'strict scrutiny', not usually used in cases of sexual orientation.

So this is a massive landmark case, following the adoption by the Legislature (Senate and House) of a marriage bill (though not passed into the law by Schwarzenegger, the Governor - who has though said he will abide by the ruling and not support a proposed constitutional amendment with the intention of reversing this ruling.

The ruling makes California the second US State (alongside Masachussets) which will have same sex marriage along side countries such as Canada, South Africa, Belgium, Netherlands and Spain.

I gather the ruling will come into effect in 30 days time. It will however be subject to review by the electorate in November when a constitutional amendment is voted on.

When the Campaign starts it will of course not be the first jurisdiction to have done this (whether by legislative or judicial means or a combination of both) . It will be supported by the view of the elected legislature (Schwarzenegger has said he would sign into law if allowed to under the Constitution), the support of the Republican Governor.

If the vote is successful it will have had the support of elected Legislature, Judiciary and General Electorate in a referendum and will therefore be of the highest kind of support and legitimacy possible, rendering it more difficult for the US to enact a Constitutional Amendment whose rationale is to protect voters from so called 'activist judges'.

Of course the vote could go the other way. That is always an option and one would have very big consequences in other US States, though again rendering rather otiose the proposed US Constitutional Amendment, given the ability of voters in the States to amend State constitutions by referendum.

Equality California
BBC
365gay
Pink News
Guardian
Washington Post
Andrew Sullivan
New York Times
Human Rights Campaign

The ruling (172 pages including dissents)

Having been voted by the Legislature, having been found in favour by the Supreme Court, following Massachusetts and Canada it lies entirely in the hands of the voters in California this November.

I do not personally think that this will have quite so much of a negative impact on other States that some fear. Most of the most 'promising' (from a right wing point of view) have already enacted such bans, the more States they go after as same sex marriage becomes more widely practised in the US and its neighbour Canada the greater the chance that it will fail in the popular vote in one or more States. And where such a ban is passed it can only be passed once, limiting its political pay off.

P.S. The Campaign

Now California (and US) lgbt folk are in THE campaign of their lives. If the initiative is defeated 10% of the US will be able to marry equitably and many of those in other states may be able to marry there - with differing levels of recognition.

The ones to watch will be:

• fundraising - the religious right will pour all of their resources into this fight - they are right to as if they fail here they fail utterly and have nowhere else to go. If you're rich and LGBT and live in America donate and make a difference. Otherwise the campaign will be massively underspent.
• the unions - if memory serves most of them have robust pro equality positions - they can make a real difference. See also link to Pride at Work.
• faith groups - really important to mobilise supportive faith voices in order to win the fight
• the Democratic Party - California usually votes Dem in any case (and if they don't the election's lost anyway) so using the Democratic Party to mobilise a 'No' vote will be crucial. See link to California Democratic Party Platform and also the immediate and supportive reaction of Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives from San Fansisco.

.

Pre-Queen's Speech

List of measures announced:

• Banking
  
• savings
  
• housing
  
• welfare reform
• patients, parents and citizens
• education bill,
• apprenticeship - right to
• second chance in education - workplace rights to time off to train
• welfare reform - skills needs
• benefit traps
• right to flexible working
• NHS reform bill, including a constitution and patient satisfaction
• further action on antisocial behaviour
• directly elected representatives
• police - cutting paperwork
• serious crime
• managing migration
• citizenship - emphasis on speaking English
• constitutional renewal ill
• reform of the House of Lords
• Bill of Rights and duties
• agency workers
• equality bill

Text of statement on No10 website.

.

Ping pong in process

From what I can tell the Lords amendment to the incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation is being moved.

I say 'is being moved' because Hansard is 3 hours behind...

The results of the Lords vote should be up soon...

It will then have to go to the Commons

LATEST

Lords insist on their original amendment 178 - 164

In response to this the Government (somewhat regrettably) accepted the Lords amendment so as to get Royal Assent ahead of tomorrow.

Notwithstanding this disappointment there is much that is positive. We now have, finally, the outlawing (albeit with a high hurdle of proof) of the incitement of hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation.

We also have, through this debate, reached some agreements about examples of overzealous policing (albeit no doubt well intentioned, but ended up making things a whole lot worse) and, hopefully achieved progress in this area while at the same time taking into some account the expressed fears of different sections of the community.

It's over for Hilary

Out of cash, out of delegates and out of time - I think that she's coming to the end of the road.

Looking at the two 'victory' speeches last night there was a huge difference between the two candidates.

Obama striking and confident, giving his first speech of the General Election.

Hilary with bits and bobs all over the place but with pointed references to working with the Party's nominee..... She was unsure and unsteady and toward the end looked like she was reading out the words without meaning them.

The look on Bill and Chelsea's faces was an even clearer indicator. The reaction of her crowd of supporters was also an indicator they knew the end was close at hand.

Hilary has proved herself an able and dogged fighter with far more political skills than most thought she had. It's just that Obama is as well and has the edge in the campaign in terms of popular vote and more importantly delegates.

Hilary pulling out or at the least avoiding the use of her 'kitchen sink' /scorched earth approach for the next win or two would be good for the party, allow Hilary her role as Party No2 (but not probably running mate to Obama) and maximise the chances of Obama winning now that the Party has given him the advantage.

This would also settle the problem of the seating of Florida and Michigan. If Obama is designated as the Democratic Candidate the two delegations can be seated and vote for Hilary in the proportions that voted for her in that contest (hence I think the emphasis in Hilary's speech on seating the two delegations at the Convention).

Good coverage from Andrew Sullivan in his blog "The Daily Dish"

"Hilary, the time has come" from Kevin Naff of Washington Blade, previously a Clinton supporter.

From the BBC 'Clinton heading for the exit' by John Zogby (independent pollster)

.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill

The next piece of controversial legislation once the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill (incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation) has been resolved (Ping Pong taking place today) is the HFEB where the religious right get to have another outing (after the blasphemy debate when they could only muster 57 votes in a lost cause I think they are starting to enjoy this).

Debates here will include a number of free votes in the Commons on controversial issues in that Bill such as hybrid embryo's and the removal of the 'need for a father' with supportive parenthood in its place (which has already passed the Lords) as well as a big campaign to lower the abortion limit from 24 to 20 weeks - a move I oppose.

For the fullest reporting of the issues anywhere on the web I've seen go to Lou's blog where it is all covered in detail.

Ping Pong debates on the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

Very interesting debates in the House of Commons last night on Lords amendments to aforementioned Bill.

These concerned Lords amendment to the very important provision covering the incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation.

The reference to Hansard is here.

The Government majority (to disagree with the Lords amendment) was 202. Reports on how individual MP's voted here (Public Whip).

The next big debate with a lot of interesting and quite illuminating interventions from Conservative benches (much more than I expected) was on the repeal of the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel (I blogged previously on the debate on this in the Lords).

Hansard here.

The Lords amendment was carried by 321.

In both cases the Government majorities were very large. The ping pong now goes to the Lords where they have a chance to reinstate their earlier amendment. If they do so it will return again to the Commons and so on.

.

Evangelicals - where do they fit in?

This post is prompted by moves afoot to protest the appointment of Joel Edwards to the post of Commissioner with the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

At the time of his appointment there was a big and predictable broohaha, especially from the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement who produced this diatribe against his appointment. I say diatribe (defined as meaning "a bitter critical attack") as it goes on and on about the personal evils of afore mentioned Joel Edwards as if he has been personally directing the whole show. Of course, that is not likely to be the case. In many particulars the quotes are taken somewhat out of context and some things are attributed to Joel Edwards and the Evangelical Alliance when they oughtn't to be. This is unfair.

Again at the time there was a wait and see approach from Ekklesia who saw a significant potential for evangelicals to address equality, human rights and discrimination issues through bodies such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission stating

Evangelicals who recognise that equality ought to be a key part of the Christian
message have been slowly coming out of the closet, and even the Evangelical
Alliance's sceptical opinions on this issue have been expressed much more
temperately of late.

I must say I tend to agree.

My reading of Joel Edwards is of him being moderate whilst at the same time being true to his evangelical beliefs (which I personally have no objection to although I don't personally share them). I could of course be wrong on this but the politics of systematic suspicion leads to a bad place for all of us.

Of course, the Commission as a whole are open to public scrutiny as are its appointees as members of public bodies.

The Commission has broad duties laid upon it to promote equality and human rights (set out in the Equality Act) , including on the grounds of sexual orientation and has published an Equality Scheme laying out its approach to equality work in different areas as well as having as its role the support of different strands of equality legislation.

We all have a responsibility to hold the Commission to be effective in its role and also to make it clear that we oppose any hierarchy of discrimination. We also have a role to play in scrutinising the activities of Commission members and highlighting any thing that raises concerns.

One of the principal problems that we face now is the problem of alienationa and paranoia as a propaganda tool.

We definitely saw this is the debate over Goods and Services (and Joel Edwards was one of the very few evangelical voices to ward against this trend - especially in his 'Letter to leaders of Alliance member churches' on the subject).

Getting non-paranoid evangelical leaders onto the EHRC can be very valuable in ensuring that the more outlandish statements don't in the future get credance. We have also seen exaggeration and paranoia being out to good use in the debates over the Mental Health Bill - it's now a well recognised political tool.

In addition to this, religious communities do have (sometimes legitimate) concerns about human rights like freedom of religion and belief, freedom of expression and so on where there is a tension between equality provisions and human rights and it is probably better to have some faith representatives on the EHRC to be part of the solution as well as being part of a clear analysis that can address their concerns (which I acknowldege) in a realistic way and also calm down the more exaggerated claims of organisations in the 'Religious Right' such as Anglican Mainstream and so on that I have added to my blog lists as being 'ones to watch'.

Finally I believe in tolerance, pluralism and social dialogue in a way that not everyone does. This means accepting diversity of views and being political about them, not demonising your opponents.

For me this is part of our multicutluralism whilst balancing this with provision for human rights for all and making sure they are an indispensable part of our national culture.

Christian communities in the UK are not (in my view) under threat. The protection of gay people from discrimination is in my view a core right that crosses all communities and all communities have a role in ensuring that that happens.

On balance I think that we'll make further progress with the likes of Joel Edwards (who has expressed support for the principle of protecting gay people from discriminaiton through the law) on board.

I am sure that this is the right way to go but I welcome comments of dissent.

.

Save the Horizontal Directive

Now is an urgent time for action to save the so-called horizontal Directive on discrimination in areas outside employment (i.e. in goods and services).

This would therefore cover race, gender (already covered through separate Directives), disability, age, religious belief and sexual orientation.

These seems to be being blocked by Germany and, seeing they actually have a General Discrimination Law covering sexual discrimination it seems somewhat perverse to oppose a new Directive on these grounds.

Many other EU countries enjoy a high level of protection from discrimination in areas outside employment and the development of piecemeal discrimination law is prfoundly harmful, especially as new countries join the EU - there needs to be a clear common standard to protect citizens of EU countries from discrimination.

This move is supported by many EU countries of different political colours as well as being supported by the ETUC and ILGA-Europe.

Also see the website of the Lesbian and Gay Intergroup at the Europan Parliament.

.

Those election results

What a catastrophic night (two nights actually) for Labour. There is such a thing as mid term blues but here we are reaching a new level.

No amount of gloss can hide that the electorate (or part of it - though last year's results were no better) is serving notice on the Labour Party.

The loss of London caps it all.

Yet now is not the time for panic or dismay, though this advice is paradoxical and may not find much favour in politics 'out there'.

Political parties are functioning entities. They don't die (although the Liberals might be an exception to that, though even they have come back from the dead, rather proving the point). They go on and carry on achieving things that are important to them whether in government or opposition.

Panic will only make things get worse and of course it is difficult to resist the temptation to "go off on one" as the Tories and Labour have done in their time in Opposition, making it all the more difficult to win again.

Our policies are what got us elected 3 times in a row and scrabbling about now isn't going to turn the tide. Now is not the time for fiddling and fudging.

It may be that the country has tired of the current Government and wants to "let the other guys have a go - What's the worst that can happen?". That sentiment is in any case hard wired after three terms in a country like ours where we don't have either a Conservative or Social Democratic consensus which sustains one party rule for extended periods (even Sweden has elected a Centre Right Government).

So - unlike Zimbabwe - what the French call the 'alternance', the surest sign of a country actually being a healthy democracy may be about to happen (already has happened in Scotland and London).

There is only one thing we can do for the remaining two years and unusually this is entirely in our own power and that is to carry on governing and govern well.

Those kind of governments are the ones that miraculously escape come election time, coming through at the very last minute and actually after three terms in office those are the only victories on offer.

It may come down to the economy righting itself and the Tories being unable to produce a coherent Manifesto (which they certainly can't). But we should be reconciled to being completely written off by all commentators and if we win we will do so by our stamina and ability to just get on with the job. If we don't win we will have governed well and be ready to return to power when the Tories' promises (like the rather odd promises to bring back the Routemaster and make the lights stay on green for longer) turn to dust.

As Peter Hyman said on Newsnight lastnight - the last thing Gordon Brown needs to do is to go around listening to people. We need to govern and govern well.

It comes down to panic v. governing and the real test is which one of those two the Labour party chooses in the coming months. It's a test which is momentous, partly about leadership, partly collective but one that will define the future of the country over the next 15 - 20 years.

Our response to these testing times lies entirely in our own hands.