Strong arguments don’t require this kind of duplicity

I was going to follow my own advice and move beyond the ridiculous partisan arguments invented by Nadine Dorries MP to excuse the defeat of her amendment to reduce the upper legal limit for abortion to 20 weeks. She insists that Labour MPs were on a three-line whip to attend the Chamber during the vote, in the expectation that, once there, they would vote for the status quo. I know she’s only been an MP for three years, but that’s long enough to know that there is no such thing as a whip to attend the Chamber.

Following my posting on this very subject yesterday, I’ve had a laughable comment posted from some Tory activist claiming to be “an anonymous Labour backbencher”. Curiously, he/she uses exactly the same terminology as Nadine in his/her insistence that a whipping operation was used to get MPs into the Chamber.

If Nadine’s supporters are going to stoop to this level of duplicity to win the argument, it makes those of us who are sympathetic to her case weep with despair.

One more thing: in a post she wrote today, Nadine insists that it’s not she who is trying to make abortion a political issue. She then carries a link entitled: “Archbishop Cranmer – Why Christians Should Think Thrice Before Voting Labour”.

Irony, anyone?

Leave a comment

Filed under Conservative Party, Parliament, Politics

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s