Labour MP outraged over inclusion of anti-abortion group in debate
Debate on the topic of abortion is heating up in Britain, as the British pro-abortion lobby is making demands quite familiar to those who follow abortion in the rest of the world.
That demand is rather simple: groups who hold a differing opinion on abortion are to be denied a voice in the discussion.
Labour Shadow Minister of Health Diane Abbott is apparently quite apoplectic about the inclusion of Life, a British anti-abortion group, on a government advisory panel on sexual health.
Abbott is apoplectic that groups such as life, or Conservative MP Nadine Dorries, would be allowed to have a voice on any kind of government panel.
"We cannot allow Nadine Dorries and some of the anti-abortion groups currently advising the government to turn the clock back for millions of women," Abbott declared. "Mainstream medical opinion is united in its agreement that, when carried out in a legal setting where sterile facilities are available, abortion is a safe procedure carrying a low risk of complications."
"And we must not underestimate the chilling news that the government has appointed anti-abortion group Life to their expert advisory group on sexual health," she continued. "This appointment, coupled with the retraction of an invite to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, one of the UK's leading abortion providers, signals a dangerous move."
"Increasingly, people up and down the country are looking to take a stand against what they see as an attempt to chip away at abortion access for women in England, Scotland and Wales," she added. "There is a rising tide of opposition and concern about the agenda being pushed by figures in this Tory-led government, and David Cameron must come clean on where the Tories now stand on a woman's right to choose."
All of this over the inclusion of a few abortion-opposing groups on an advisory panel intended to represent a wide variety of views.
Perhaps it's time for Diane Abbott, Ed Miliband and the Labour Party to make something clear: do Britons have the right to have an opinion on abortion that differs from her own? And if they do, do they not have the right to be heard by the government?
Then again, perhaps Abbott has already made herself clear about that.
Showing posts with label Diane Abbott. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Diane Abbott. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
Friday, October 01, 2010
Should Diane Abbott Make the Cut?
Abbott wants to be Municipal secretary in shadow cabinet
With the Labour leadership campaign finally behind him, Labour leader Ed Miliband now needs to look to establishing his Shadow Cabinet.
It's only natural that the other leadership contenders would line up to be considered for roles. Diane Abbott is clearly no different.
Although it probably won't, Abbott's status as the token female candidate of the campaign should probably cast some doubt on whether or not she'll receive any such role. After all, Abbott couldn't even convince electors within her own riding that she would make a good leader. Support for her leadership was scarcely more than 20% in her own riding.
But Abbott clearly seems to think of herself as a contender for Shadow Cabinet. She's even picked a portfolio out for herself -- she wants to be the Communities and Local Government Secretary.
"London and the inner cities do not get enough representation and I’d like to see that change," she announced. "Multiculturalism, gang crime and housing look very different in London than the rest of the country."
But given the level of support for Abbott within her own riding, and the anemic level of support for her leadership in general, it may be far to speculate if she would have made the cut for the Shadow Cabinet under Labour's customary rules.
Prior to Tony Blair's tenure as Labour leader, members of the Shadow Cabinet used to be chosen by the party's Parliamentary caucus. The leader would assign portfolios once the Shadow Cabinet was chosen.
Tony Blair discontinued this practice.
If Ed Miliband were to reinstate this practice, it's fair to speculate if Abbott, who unequivocally was not a serious contender for the leadership, would make the cut.
Judging from the support she received in the leadership campaign, the available evidence seems to suggest "probably not".
With the Labour leadership campaign finally behind him, Labour leader Ed Miliband now needs to look to establishing his Shadow Cabinet.
It's only natural that the other leadership contenders would line up to be considered for roles. Diane Abbott is clearly no different.
Although it probably won't, Abbott's status as the token female candidate of the campaign should probably cast some doubt on whether or not she'll receive any such role. After all, Abbott couldn't even convince electors within her own riding that she would make a good leader. Support for her leadership was scarcely more than 20% in her own riding.
But Abbott clearly seems to think of herself as a contender for Shadow Cabinet. She's even picked a portfolio out for herself -- she wants to be the Communities and Local Government Secretary.
"London and the inner cities do not get enough representation and I’d like to see that change," she announced. "Multiculturalism, gang crime and housing look very different in London than the rest of the country."
But given the level of support for Abbott within her own riding, and the anemic level of support for her leadership in general, it may be far to speculate if she would have made the cut for the Shadow Cabinet under Labour's customary rules.
Prior to Tony Blair's tenure as Labour leader, members of the Shadow Cabinet used to be chosen by the party's Parliamentary caucus. The leader would assign portfolios once the Shadow Cabinet was chosen.
Tony Blair discontinued this practice.
If Ed Miliband were to reinstate this practice, it's fair to speculate if Abbott, who unequivocally was not a serious contender for the leadership, would make the cut.
Judging from the support she received in the leadership campaign, the available evidence seems to suggest "probably not".
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
The Self-Defeat of Political Tokenism
Diane Abbott must face serious questions about the seriousness of her candidacy
At the risk of sounding politically incorrect, it must be noted that defeated Labour Party leadership candidate Diane Abbott was a token candidate.
Not a token black candidate (although she was keen to invoke race when she declared Prime Minister David Cameron and Deputy PM Nick Clegg to be "posh white boys"). Rather, she was a token female candidate.
Looking back on the Labour leadership campaign, it's hard to view her otherwise. She was never a serious contender. She very seldom brought anything of interest to the table.
In fact, the only attention-worthy statements from Abbott during the entire campaign were far-from-Earth-shattering speculation on the role of major donors on the leadership campaign, and questions about the legality of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In other words, Abbott strove to be little more than a standard left-wing candidate.
There seemed to be little compelling reason for her candidacy. Her campaign's sole boost came when disgraced candidate John McDonnell -- who obliterated his own slender chances at the leadership by musing about a desire to assassinate Margaret Thatcher while she was Prime Minister of Britain -- withdrew from the contest and threw his support behind her.
His reasoning? The Labour leadership contest needed a female candidate.
If Abbott being a woman was truly the only reason why electors in the campaign -- consisting of Labour Party members, Labour MPs and members of affiliated groups -- would want to vote for her, Abbot's candidacy was in trouble from the very get-go.
This shouldn't be mistaken for a suggestion that women shouldn't run for the leadership of political parties.
In fact, strong female candidates speak volumes about the strength of a particular political party. That Labour couldn't produce a strong female candidate for leadership does precisely that.
Even Abbott's own constituents declined to support her. Of the electors within her riding of Hackney North-Stoke Newton only 20.55% cast their votes in her favour.
While her candidacy may have been based on the best of intentions -- providing demographic diversity in the Labour leadership contest -- it certainly hasn't met those intentions.
In fact, Abbott's candidacy could be considered to have done a disservice to women in the Labour Party. If Abbott's candidacy -- a waste of time and resources by any account -- is the best the women of the Labour Party could produce, the role of women within the party should be very much a matter of question.
This is how political tokenism -- in the name of feminism, race, or anything else -- defeats itself. The next token candidate should leave such matters to serious contenders.
At the risk of sounding politically incorrect, it must be noted that defeated Labour Party leadership candidate Diane Abbott was a token candidate.
Not a token black candidate (although she was keen to invoke race when she declared Prime Minister David Cameron and Deputy PM Nick Clegg to be "posh white boys"). Rather, she was a token female candidate.
Looking back on the Labour leadership campaign, it's hard to view her otherwise. She was never a serious contender. She very seldom brought anything of interest to the table.
In fact, the only attention-worthy statements from Abbott during the entire campaign were far-from-Earth-shattering speculation on the role of major donors on the leadership campaign, and questions about the legality of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In other words, Abbott strove to be little more than a standard left-wing candidate.
There seemed to be little compelling reason for her candidacy. Her campaign's sole boost came when disgraced candidate John McDonnell -- who obliterated his own slender chances at the leadership by musing about a desire to assassinate Margaret Thatcher while she was Prime Minister of Britain -- withdrew from the contest and threw his support behind her.
His reasoning? The Labour leadership contest needed a female candidate.
If Abbott being a woman was truly the only reason why electors in the campaign -- consisting of Labour Party members, Labour MPs and members of affiliated groups -- would want to vote for her, Abbot's candidacy was in trouble from the very get-go.
This shouldn't be mistaken for a suggestion that women shouldn't run for the leadership of political parties.
In fact, strong female candidates speak volumes about the strength of a particular political party. That Labour couldn't produce a strong female candidate for leadership does precisely that.
Even Abbott's own constituents declined to support her. Of the electors within her riding of Hackney North-Stoke Newton only 20.55% cast their votes in her favour.
While her candidacy may have been based on the best of intentions -- providing demographic diversity in the Labour leadership contest -- it certainly hasn't met those intentions.
In fact, Abbott's candidacy could be considered to have done a disservice to women in the Labour Party. If Abbott's candidacy -- a waste of time and resources by any account -- is the best the women of the Labour Party could produce, the role of women within the party should be very much a matter of question.
This is how political tokenism -- in the name of feminism, race, or anything else -- defeats itself. The next token candidate should leave such matters to serious contenders.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Diane Abbott Blows Smoke on War in Afghanistan
Abbott raises question, offers no answer
As the Labour Party prepares vote for its next leader, longshot Diane Abbott has set about her last-ditch effort to stem the tide away from a choice between the Miliband brothers:
She's courting the soft-peacenik vote.
Abbott admitted that if there was a war for Britain to fight, she may commit British forces to it -- provided that it's a legal war. Abbott merely can't seem to find any currently ongoing that she deems to be legal.
"If it was a legal war I might do," she explained. "The problem with the Iraq War, it was widely judged to be illegal."
Moreover, Abbott questions the legality of thw war in Afghanistan.
"It might have been legal, a legal invasion, in the very first place, but 10 years on, where is the legality for it?" Abbott asked.
Simple: NATO's mission in Afghanistan was mandated by the United Nations. The United Nations has not withdrawn its mandate, nor did it ever attach an expiry date for that mandate.
None of the conditions affecting the legality of the war have changed.
In fact, the most elaborate explanation of Abbott's sentiments is that she regards the war to be counter-productive.
"I think what is perceived as a western occupation of Afghanistan is becoming counter-productive," Abbott mused.
Moreover, Abbott believes she has the answer: UN Peacekeeping.
"I think there should be a phased withdrawal," Abbott asserted. "We should give way to a UN peacekeeping force, ideally led by troops from an Islamic nation. But you will not win, you will not bring stability to the region with a war."
THe problem for Abbott is that a handover of Afghanistan from NATO combat forces to UN peacekeepers is that there is currently little peace to keep. But a handover to UN peacekeepers wouldn't merely require a pace: it would require a just peace.
The Taliban is extremely unlikely to agree to a just peace accord -- particularly not one hastily-negotiated.
Moreover, the Taliban is not interested in negotiating: they merely want to re-take power.
Some of the other insurgent groups fighting NATO forces -- just as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's Hisb-i-Islami could be negotiated with. But the historical experience negotiating with Hekmatyar -- in which Hekmatyar stabs his earstwhile-allies in the back in order to seize more power -- tells any informed individual that you simply do not bother.
At the end of the day, however, Abbott is clearly just blowing smoke. She asks the question about the legality of the war in Afghanistan, but attempts to offer no substantive answer.
Diane Abbott is merely fishing for votes among the soft-peacenik crowd. If this crowd falls for her empty platitudes and give her their vote, then they and Abbott deserve each other.
As the Labour Party prepares vote for its next leader, longshot Diane Abbott has set about her last-ditch effort to stem the tide away from a choice between the Miliband brothers:
She's courting the soft-peacenik vote.
Abbott admitted that if there was a war for Britain to fight, she may commit British forces to it -- provided that it's a legal war. Abbott merely can't seem to find any currently ongoing that she deems to be legal.
Moreover, Abbott questions the legality of thw war in Afghanistan.
"It might have been legal, a legal invasion, in the very first place, but 10 years on, where is the legality for it?" Abbott asked.
Simple: NATO's mission in Afghanistan was mandated by the United Nations. The United Nations has not withdrawn its mandate, nor did it ever attach an expiry date for that mandate.
None of the conditions affecting the legality of the war have changed.
In fact, the most elaborate explanation of Abbott's sentiments is that she regards the war to be counter-productive.
"I think what is perceived as a western occupation of Afghanistan is becoming counter-productive," Abbott mused.
Moreover, Abbott believes she has the answer: UN Peacekeeping.
"I think there should be a phased withdrawal," Abbott asserted. "We should give way to a UN peacekeeping force, ideally led by troops from an Islamic nation. But you will not win, you will not bring stability to the region with a war."
THe problem for Abbott is that a handover of Afghanistan from NATO combat forces to UN peacekeepers is that there is currently little peace to keep. But a handover to UN peacekeepers wouldn't merely require a pace: it would require a just peace.
The Taliban is extremely unlikely to agree to a just peace accord -- particularly not one hastily-negotiated.
Moreover, the Taliban is not interested in negotiating: they merely want to re-take power.
Some of the other insurgent groups fighting NATO forces -- just as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's Hisb-i-Islami could be negotiated with. But the historical experience negotiating with Hekmatyar -- in which Hekmatyar stabs his earstwhile-allies in the back in order to seize more power -- tells any informed individual that you simply do not bother.
At the end of the day, however, Abbott is clearly just blowing smoke. She asks the question about the legality of the war in Afghanistan, but attempts to offer no substantive answer.
Diane Abbott is merely fishing for votes among the soft-peacenik crowd. If this crowd falls for her empty platitudes and give her their vote, then they and Abbott deserve each other.
Monday, August 09, 2010
The Hard Turn of Labour's Class Warfare
Abbott: New Labour "contaminated" by big money
As the Labour leadership campaign creeps closer and closer to balloting, candidate Diane Abbott is taking a new approach to her leadership bid:
Class warfare.
Some may recall that, as the 2010 general election approached, then-Labour leader (and then-Prime Minister) Gordon Brown tried to stir up class warfare sentiments when he targetted Tory leader David Cameron over his education.
Abbott has evidently decided to adopt the same tactic. The difference is that she's directing it within her own party, as opposed at a partisan opponent.
Her principle complaint is that some of her competitors have received far more campaign donations than she has. She declares this to be evidence that New Labour was "pretty much contaminated".
"It is odd that David Miliband has £400,000 and I have £5,000," Abbott complains. "He's got the big Blairite money and the big Blairite backers."
It's the kind of move that must lead one to question how serious Abbott is about her leadership bid.
After all, to be seen attempting to divide Britons at large against one another based on wealth is one thing. To be doing it within her own party is another entirely.
After all, election campaigns cannot be contested without money. Under Abbott's best-case scenario, in which wealth is a pervasive enough wedge issue to help her win the Labour leadership, she risks dividing the party membership against those most likely to donate to contest the next election.
The dangers of this stategy speaks for itself: a Labour Party under Diane Abbott's leadership isn't likely to progress any closer to power in a future election, but is likely to instead find itself further away.
Moreover, if Labour rewards Abbott's petty class warfare, it will deserve to be.
As the Labour leadership campaign creeps closer and closer to balloting, candidate Diane Abbott is taking a new approach to her leadership bid:
Class warfare.
Some may recall that, as the 2010 general election approached, then-Labour leader (and then-Prime Minister) Gordon Brown tried to stir up class warfare sentiments when he targetted Tory leader David Cameron over his education.
Abbott has evidently decided to adopt the same tactic. The difference is that she's directing it within her own party, as opposed at a partisan opponent.
Her principle complaint is that some of her competitors have received far more campaign donations than she has. She declares this to be evidence that New Labour was "pretty much contaminated".
"It is odd that David Miliband has £400,000 and I have £5,000," Abbott complains. "He's got the big Blairite money and the big Blairite backers."
It's the kind of move that must lead one to question how serious Abbott is about her leadership bid.
After all, to be seen attempting to divide Britons at large against one another based on wealth is one thing. To be doing it within her own party is another entirely.
After all, election campaigns cannot be contested without money. Under Abbott's best-case scenario, in which wealth is a pervasive enough wedge issue to help her win the Labour leadership, she risks dividing the party membership against those most likely to donate to contest the next election.
The dangers of this stategy speaks for itself: a Labour Party under Diane Abbott's leadership isn't likely to progress any closer to power in a future election, but is likely to instead find itself further away.
Moreover, if Labour rewards Abbott's petty class warfare, it will deserve to be.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Labour Leadership Race Getting Crowded
With the Labour Party extending the deadline for would-be leaders to declare their candidacy, the race to become the successor to former Prime Minister Gordon Brown has gotten crowded.
It may get more crowded yet.
The campaign started slowly, with the Miliband brothers, David and Ed, declaring their candidacy. They have since been followed by Ed Balls, Andy Burnham, John McDonnell, and Diane Abbott.
Abbott is the MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington. In 1987 Abbott was the first black woman elected to the British House of Commons. Abbott is a second-generation Birton born to Jamaican immigrants. She has also contributed her talents to the Jamaica Observer newspaper.
Although Abbott, 56, was a member of the National Council for Civil Liberties, where she worked alongside former Labour Cabinet Ministers Paul Boateng, Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt, Abbot has no Ministerial experience -- likely a handicap in the contest.
John McDonnell, 58, is the MP for Hayes and Harlington. He chairs the Socialist Campaign Group, a group by the name of Public Services Not Private, and the Labour Representation Committee. He also serves a group of eight large labour unions as their benefactor in Parliament.
McDonnell will likely be the left-wing standard-bearer of the leadership campaign. Among his acts as a left-wing insurgent within the Labour caucus has been joining together with a number of Plaid Cymru MPs to demand an inquiry into the Iraq War that his own party initiated.
One could expect that a McDonnell victory would be the prelude to a significant leftward shift for Labour Party policy.
Leigh MP Andy Burnham, 40, seems to be the heavyweight of the newcomers. He has served as Secretary of State for Health, Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport, and as Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
Burnham joined Labour at the tender age of 14, in protest to the Thatcher government's treatment of miners.
However, Burnham was also hit by the recent controversy over MPs' expenses. He attempted to claim 16,000 Pounds Sterling in expenses for a home he had been renovating in London. He submitted the claim on numerous occasions. It was rejected each time.
Whether or not the Labour Party manages to attract additional leadership candidates, the stage has been set for an intriguing leadership campaign.
It may get more crowded yet.
The campaign started slowly, with the Miliband brothers, David and Ed, declaring their candidacy. They have since been followed by Ed Balls, Andy Burnham, John McDonnell, and Diane Abbott.
Although Abbott, 56, was a member of the National Council for Civil Liberties, where she worked alongside former Labour Cabinet Ministers Paul Boateng, Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt, Abbot has no Ministerial experience -- likely a handicap in the contest.
McDonnell will likely be the left-wing standard-bearer of the leadership campaign. Among his acts as a left-wing insurgent within the Labour caucus has been joining together with a number of Plaid Cymru MPs to demand an inquiry into the Iraq War that his own party initiated.
One could expect that a McDonnell victory would be the prelude to a significant leftward shift for Labour Party policy.
Burnham joined Labour at the tender age of 14, in protest to the Thatcher government's treatment of miners.
However, Burnham was also hit by the recent controversy over MPs' expenses. He attempted to claim 16,000 Pounds Sterling in expenses for a home he had been renovating in London. He submitted the claim on numerous occasions. It was rejected each time.
Whether or not the Labour Party manages to attract additional leadership candidates, the stage has been set for an intriguing leadership campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)