Mutiny| Posted Thursday, 31 January 2008 at 12:09 |
I was shocked to see the report on Newsnight that there are rumblings amongst my peers to remove Mr Speaker.
The words of my first chief whip, on my first day, always come back to me when I hear such things; his words were “this place is full of clever b*****s, they are two a penny in this place, but there are very few nice people.”
How right he was.
Speaker Martin is one of the nice people, a decent man.
He is the 156th speaker and there is no mechanism by which he can be removed.
This is to protect the Speaker’s position from political interference, and that is how it should be.
I am sure of the 156 Speakers that Parliament has known, some have been good and some bad, some clever and some not. Some kindly and others fierce.
Whatever they have been, they have each embraced the Speaker’s chair with their own personality and idiosyncratic behaviour, making each reign of Speaker unique, unlike any other which in itself enhances the nature of the office.
There will be someone at the bottom of it all who has his eye on the Speaker’s chair. Someone who is fed up of waiting for his time to come.
I regard this rumour to pressurise the Speaker to resign as mutinous.
Maybe it’s a Labour MP who wants to get his backside into the chair before the government becomes Conservative led, thereby ensuring a continued reign of a Labour Speaker.
No MP feels enough animosity towards Speaker Martin to instigate a mutiny; self interest will be at the root of this somewhere.
For myself, I find him the kindliest of men. He made me feel welcome when I arrived as a new MP and I have never once been aware of our political differences.
He does frustrate me sometimes when he allows the PM so much leeway at PMQs. He could be a bit harder on ministers and a bit more generous to backbenchers, but is this enough reason to oust him and a tradition which has stood for hundreds of years?
Whoever is at the bottom of the plot should be very careful.
The only hope they have is to pressurise the Speaker to go.
I hope he stands his ground and is loyal to the office which was bestowed upon him.
If they attempt to introduce any other mechanism and set a precedent, whoever is at the bottom of all of this may find it comes back to bite them one day.
http://blog.dorries.org/Blogs/2008/Jan/31#31
Scholar Google| Posted Wednesday, 30 January 2008 at 14:01 |
A journalist has sent me an e mail informing me of the web site Google scholar
http://scholar.google.co.uk/. I was un-aware of its existence until now.
The person who sent me the email said “I was checking out Anands qualifications”. I checked it out myself.
The papers he has produced are staggering.
“How could the Science and Technology committee have overlooked such a man? The title ‘world authority’ is obviously correct but somehow doesn’t do him justice?” said the journo.
It does make you wonder. Especially as Evan Harris told me in the tea room the other day that he knew of Anand when he was at Oxford.
I remember well Evan Harris commenting in the committee when I suggested, on number of occasions, that Anand should give evidence.
He said, “If we ask every paediatrician from Little Rock to give evidence we will be here forever”.
Click on Google Scholar, type in KJS Anand and see for yourself.
Then type in the names of the members on the committee who felt that taking evidence from Anand in relation to foetal pain wasn’t necessary.
http://blog.dorries.org/Blogs/2008/Jan/30#30
I Am Not A Democrat!| Posted Wednesday, 30 January 2008 at 09:52 |
Melissa Kite, mistakenly gave the impression in the Sunday Telegraph, that I am a Democrat. I am not - I am most definitely a moderate Republican.
I'm sure Melissa's article had been subjected to word chopping, which allowed this error to occur; however, the interview was about which Democrat candidate I preferred, Clinton or Obama, not which party!
My new American intern Justin has arrived, which means I now have someone to chew the American elections cud with.
He's in the 'military', is a moderate Republican, and McCain's his man.
We were both excited about the Mansion House address Bush delivered this week; and both despair with Giuliani's position in the polls.
McCain's win last night was good news, however, I am so sad that Giuliani came third.
I can't believe Americans aren't crying out for the man who fixed New York and dealt with the aftermath of 9/11.
The rest of my staff look on with bemused wonderment, as American election morning conversation goes over their heads. Never mind you lot - only 11 more months to go!
The atmosphere around Westminster is not very nice, these are strange days.
Hain gone, Alexander hanging by her finger tips, Harman with a big cloud hovering, the media in a feeding frenzy over one of ours.
I can't help thinking it all detracts from the bigger picture, which is the government pushing through legislation, that will see the biggest transfer of powers to the EU, we have witnessed in a very long time.
Everyone in the Chamber was very tetchy last night, lots of shouting and generally a very uncomfortable atmosphere - I didn't like it one bit.
I find it very depressing. As I watched the government's hapless Minister read quickly through a speech prepared earlier by a civil servant, I couldn't help wondering whether democracy really can truly exist in an objective driven society, governed by a political ideology.
I so often see the will of the people ignored - the protocols and traditions of the House - there to guarantee fair representation - abused, as one piece of faulty legislation after another is pushed through.
My own select committee experience, and what I saw in the Chamber last night, would lead me to conclude, probably not.
It's no wonder the American elections provide a bit of light relief!
http://blog.dorries.org/Blogs/2008/Jan/30#30
"Mystery Guest"| Posted Tuesday, 29 January 2008 at 12:29 |
“Science is like a constantly rolling movie, whereas legislation is simply a snap shot in time. Legislation must take into account the evolving nature of science,” Professor Sunny Anand.
Last night's meeting was a huge success with lots of MPs and journalists present.
Professor Campbell and Professor Anand both made fascinating presentations.
Professor Anand was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, and completed a seven year thesis on foetal pain in three, at which point he transferred to Harvard Medical School.He completed a further seven years research into the same subject, and then became Head of the Arkansas Neo-natal and Paediatric Intensive Care Unit.
In 20 years he has stood at the cot side of thousands of neo-nates and babies - whatever he learnt during his years of research has been more that supplemented by his years of practical experience.
You just knew you were in the presence of a very learned, great and humble man - the atmosphere in the Grand Committee Room when he spoke to a rapt audience endorsed this.
Professor Anand explained the quality of the research being produced across the world in respect of foetal pain and how the view of Dr Stuart Derbyshire - as espoused in the Science & Technology Select Committee report - has become a minority view amongst academics across the globe.
It might be worth mentioning here, Derbyshire, who challenges men with the stature of Professor Anand, is a Psychologist.
I am one of those people - in common with most - who understand their own limitations; it’s a lesson Derbyshire, certainly judging by last night, has yet to learn.
On yesterday's blog I mentioned that Derbyshire had refused to sit on the panel because he claimed it was 'biased.'
Some of us found this slightly amusing, as recently he has sat on three such panels which were entirely pro-abortion - you might say they were biased!
However, towards the end of the evening the last questioner from the audience announced that he was in fact, Dr Stuart Derbyshire; he had sat in the audience throughout.
He challenged Professor Anand with a question, in such a way, which frankly made him look and sound like very much the lesser man.
Whereas everyone else in the room inhaled sharply at the cowardice displayed at hiding at the back of the room, obviously evaluating if he dared be brave enough to ask a question, Professor Anand was delighted.
He immediately quoted Dr Benjamin Franklin - I paraphrase what he said, but in essence it meant that one of the benefits of disagreement, was the outcome of good reason.
Professor Anand then provided an answer which was based on fact, research and personal experience.
The Professor is already back in the United States as I type this, probably at a cot-side; he was heading straight from the flight back to his Unit.
To sum up the Professor's presentation is difficult to do on a blog; however, both his evidence and arguments were compelling.
He said it is very likely, due to how different areas of the brain develop, mainly at the sub cortex area, that a foetus will feel pain at around 20 weeks and that babies aborted after that time would experience excruciating pain.
Some people left my meeting after hearing Professor Anand, to attend the Lords, where this issue was being debated and voted upon.
They walked into the Lords' gallery to hear Lord Darzi quote form the Science & Technology Committee report that babies don’t feel pain below 26 weeks.
Information which was provided by the psychologist Dr Derbyshire and included in the report, whilst Professor Anand's research, and that of the rest of the world was ignored.
The Today Programme This Morning - Nadine's Blog Monday 28th January 2008
Time To Reduce The Upper Limit For Abortion Meeting On Monday 28th January 2008
http://blog.dorries.org/Blogs/2008/Jan/29#29
The Today Programme This Morning.| Posted Monday, 28 January 2008 at 10:31 |
This evening I have organised a meeting in Westminster Hall, to present to MPs the important evidence which was excluded from the Science and Technology Select Committee Report on abortion.
Professor Sunny Anand arrived in the UK at midnight on Friday night, to a collective sigh of relief from the staff in my office.
I won't even begin to tell the story of the effort and organisation required in having his bio-metrics recorded in Geneva en route from America in order to have his Visa processed, so that he could get into the UK to contribute on the