A yougov/sunday times poll from March asked about this (is this what you were talking about?). They had a plurality supporting 20 weeks, a majority if you include people who want abortion banned entirely : http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/poll.pdf

Here’s the question:
“And finally, MPs will shortly debate the law on
abortion. Currently, the legal time limit for
abortion is 24 weeks. Some MPs want to reduce
this limit to 20 weeks. Leaving aside medical emergencies which of
these options do you favour?
Keep the time limit at 24 weeks 35%
Reduce the time limit to 20 weeks 48%
Ban abortions altogether 8%
Don’t know 9%

That doesn’t seem outrageously rigged to me. OK, there was no option for ‘raise the limit’ - but that would hardly cause a 20% swing against 20 weeks.

Besides, the 20 weeks campaign haven’t made any secret that some of their supporters want much lower/tighter limits on abortion.

Rilly? The Christian Institute’s utterly rigged poll (the question was something like “should the UK follow the lead of other European countries where the abortion cut-off rate is 20 weeks, or are you a sick baby-murdering bastard?”) is the only recent public one I’ve seen supporting 20 over 24, while the view among MPs seems to be majority-24 as far as I can make out…

One point though, is that it does look like - on the specific issue of 24 versus 20 weeks - you guys are in a minority on this issue. Normally, just as a matter of political strategy, when you are in that position you want to present the most appealing and welcoming face possible to the outside world. Try and do all you can to bring people on side. Of course, you guys are bloggers not campaigners and I could be wrong so feel free to ignore my advice.

The rest of your stuff is worth more serious consideration than I have time for right now so I’ll respond, if it seems necessary, later this evening.

*searches vainly using high-powered optical equipment*

If anyone sees any, could you drop me a note? Thanks.

I don’t think there have been any reports - possibly because Austria has similar reporting restrictions to the UK on this (?) - that any *sexual* offences were committed against children under 18. As I understand it, Fritzl is in custody charged with rape and incest against an adult, and manslaughter of the baby that died, and that is all that’s been released by the police.

“And there are also a lot of laws in place for reporting rape cases too, particularly incest/rape.”

True. But Fred and Rose West still attracted some pretty sensationalist reporting, even though many of the family members and lodgers they’d abused as children and adults were still alive.

has taken me a while to get my tiny mind around it, but I think I like that line!

Means, ends etc etc.

Strike that. What am I saying. Of course the above post is another hatchet job on the Labour party - or on the government, I should say.

I had a long interview with Emily Thornberry yesterday where we discussed exactly that. I’ll publish that article and audio in the next few days: suffice to say that she acknowledged that it was possible for government to send a firm message down the line re: the ‘right’ way to vote on a free vote on abortion amendments, and that it would not be out of place for the Labour party to do that, given that it was traditionally liberal on abortion law anyway, but that that wouldn’t happen in this instance.

Would that then make Gordon a crazed dictator? Possibly, but there are times when there’s justification in strong leadership, and this is one of those times. A strong party line in this instance is about making sure the troops are organised and in a position to stand up to the religious right/conservative political opportunists. As Thornberry said to me yesterday, there are a lot of Labour MPs who are still dithering on the 24 week time limit. Gordon is in a position to help them focus. And why not? Everyone else is lobbying the ditherers.

It is my view that Gordon Brown could make known - very firmly - that there is a Labour party line on amending abortion and that his MPs are expected to toe it, free vote or no.

I think ‘dither’ is an entirely appropriate word when it comes to our Gordon. Brown has already compromised on free votes on various aspects of the HFEB in response to pressure applied by Catholic members of his cabinet. I did not see that as an instance of strong leadership. As for partisan politics - well, can of worms and all that: where would you draw the line between firm leadership and a strong party line on the ‘right’ liberal issues, and letting the god-squad run riot?

This is not meant necessarily to be another hatchet job on the Labour party, just by the way. I think several Labour MPs like Thornberry and Clark have been excellent. Clark did dither when I asked her where the party was heading on this one, though, and I don’t see why the liberal left shouldn’t ask what it’s doing to protect a woman’s right to choose and whether Labour MPs think their comrades are going to do the right thing by us chicks. I do think Gordie boy could crack the whip.

If only I ruled the world…

Etc

I wouldn’t have thought it possible but finally we have a criticism of Gordon Brown that I feel the need to defend him against. He isn’t permitting anything - except a free vote. Conventional on these issues as it should be. Surely you can’t think it would be desirable for abortion to be a politically partisan issue in the way it has been in the United States?

After all, if there isn’t enough space to keep suspected rapists waiting for trial off the streets, putting away an anarchist blogger would seem a rather low priority - entertaining as it would have been.

I’m staggered that she can go to church, be backed by religiously motivated pressure groups into promoting religious doctrine as party policy while remaining oblivious to references about the story of Noah, or maybe she and her supporters just don’t agree with the teachings of their religion and are in denial about which side of the debate they are really on.