Government Plans Could Disenfranchise Millions, Say Political Reformers

The rights group Unlock Democracy has strongly criticised the UK government's proposals to remove the legal duty for people to register to vote.







Peter Facey, director of the campaigning NGO, commented: “Unlock Democracy believes that individual voter registration is essential to improving the security of our elections and actively campaigned for it. It is an important mechanism to prevent fraud and ensure that the person who casts the vote in an election, is the person on the electoral register. But we have always recognised that its introduction, at least in the short term, would require Electoral Registration Officers to be more pro-active, not less."

He continued: “Scrapping the 2014 canvass alongside the legal duty for people to register represents a double-whammy and will lead to millions of people to fall off the register. Combine this with the new rolling boundary review rules and it will mean that many people on the margins of society will be disenfranchised in the 2020 general election."

“It is a simple fact of life that effective electoral administration costs money. This is not an administrative issue but one that cuts to the heart of our democracy. This isn’t a question of bureaucracy but of who gets to participate in our political system. It is bad enough that the voting system excludes so many people; when even the registration system is rigged against under-represented groups we cannot call ourselves a democracy by any definition," said Mr Facey.

“Given the economic situation, if the government believes that the cost to introduce individual voter registration properly cannot be afforded, it should abandon these plans. However flawed the current system of household registration may be, it is a lot better than what the government are now proposing,” concluded the organisation's CEO.








Unlock Democracy is a leading UK campaign for democracy, rights and freedoms. It was formed in 2007 and is the successor organisation to Charter 88 and the New Politics Network.

Autumn Of Strikes Edges Closer

Unions have moved closer to an autumn of strikes as the Government was warned it faces a huge campaign of civil disobedience over spending cuts and "attacks" on workers' rights.













Millions of public sector workers could be taking industrial action in protest at planned changes to their pensions, possibly on November 29, when the Government announces its autumn financial statement.

An announcement could made within days of widespread ballots for action, heralding the biggest outbreak of industrial unrest for decades.

Plans to co-ordinate industrial action will be discussed at the TUC on Wednesday, but sources said a large number of unions were now moving towards balloting for strikes.

At the conference on Monday, delegates agreed to consider a legal challenge against the coalition, alleging breaches of international labour law, and to campaign against "anti-union" legislation.

Officials lined up to attack the Government over its spending cuts and moves to strengthen laws against strikes and other forms of union action.

Paul Kenny, leader of the GMB union, said that if the Government brings in more laws, it would be in response to strikes against public sector pensions, which he warned looked set to be joined by millions of workers.

He said: "Bad laws have to be broken. Civil disobedience in protest at erosion of civil liberties and freedoms have a place in our history. Millions of people inside and outside of trade unions can and will fight. If going to prison is the price to pay for standing up to bad laws, then so be it.

"We will give politicians the biggest campaign of civil disobedience their tiny minds have ever seen."

Len McCluskey, general secretary of Unite, said unions should not "meekly accept" anti-union laws, adding: "If tax avoidance is lawful and unpunished, let's plan for anti-union law avoidance in the same spirit."

Nadine Dorries' Abortion Proposals Heavily Defeated In Commons

Abortion amendment that bids to strip termination providers of their counselling role loses by 250 votes with supporters divided












Nadine Dorries debates plans to bar abortion providers from giving advice to pregnant women.

An attempt to strip abortion providers of their role in counselling women was heavily defeated in the House of Commons this afternoon after a split between the original supporters of the amendment.

MPs voted by 368 votes to 118 – a majority of 250 – to reject the amendment by the Tory backbencher Nadine Dorries after she lost the support of her co-sponsor, the former Labour minister Frank Field.

Dorries managed to win the support of three cabinet ministers – Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, Liam Fox, the defence secretary, and Owen Paterson, the Northern Ireland secretary.

Field withdrew his support for the Dorries amendment after Anne Milton, the health minister, said the government would try to implement the spirit of her proposal.

Milton told MPs: "The government is … supportive of the spirit of these amendments and we intend to bring forward proposals for regulations accordingly, but after consultation. Primary legislation is not only unnecessary but would deprive parliament of the opportunity to consider the detail of how this service would develop and evolve."

Dorries hailed Milton's undertaking as a victory. She told the BBC's Norman Smith: "We lost the battle but we have won the war."

Milton distanced the government from the amendment towards the end of a stratchy debate in which Dorries said that David Cameron had initially encouraged her.

Dorries claimed that the prime minister had advised her on the wording of her amendment by saying that she should describe abortion counsellors as independent.

Dorries said: "I went to see the prime minister regarding this amendment and he was very encouraging. In fact it was at the prime minister's insistence that I inserted the word 'independent'. I attended a meeting at the department of health and at that meeting it was decided what the outcome, the process that would be implemented, to make this a reality."

The Dorries amendment would have stripped non-statutory abortion providers such as Marie Stopes and Bpas from offering counselling to women. This was designed to provide greater opportunities for independent counsellors, some of whom are influenced by pro-life groups, to provide counselling. NHS abortion providers would still be free to offer counselling.

Dorries claimed that the prime minister changed his mind under pressure from Nick Clegg, after the deputy prime minister was lobbied by the former Lib Dem MP Evan Harris. Dorries said: "Basically the Liberal Democrats, in fact a former MP who lost his seat in this place, is blackmailing our prime minister. Our prime minister has been put in an impossible position regarding this amendment. Our health bill has been held to ransom by a former Liberal Democrat MP."

A senior Lib Dem source dismissed her allegation. The source said: "That is utter rubbish. [Nick] doesn't need Evan to tell him the problems with her amendment."

The defeat was welcomed by Bpas. Ann Furedi, its chief executive, said: "Bpas is pleased to see Nadine Dorries' amendment so overwhelmingly rejected. We look forward to being able to focus our efforts on the issues which pose a genuine problem for women considering ending a pregnancy."

Dorries insisted that she did not want to restrict access to abortion. "I do not want to return to the days of back street abortionists," she said. "I am pro-choice. Abortion is here to stay."

The MP said that it was wrong for abortion providers to counsel women with unplanned pregnancies. "It must be wrong that the abortion provider, who is paid to the tune of £60m to carry out terminations, should also provide the counselling if a woman feels strong or brave enough to ask for it. If an organisation is paid that much for abortions, where is the incentive to reduce them?"

Diane Abbott, the shadow public health minister, said: "This amendment is a shoddy, ill-conceived attempt to promote non-facts to make a non-case – namely that tens of thousands of women every year are either not getting counselling that they request or are getting counselling that is so poor that only new legislation can remedy the situation. In matters of this kind, if legislation is the answer then you have almost certainly asked the wrong question."

Public Reject Dorries' Abortion Proposal

Tomorrow, MPs will debate whether to prevent abortion providers from counselling women seeking an abortion. The motion – put forward by Tory backbencher Nadine Dorries as an amendment to the Health and Social Care bill – is being opposed by the government, and pro-choice groups are backing a rival amendment, which reinforces the status quo. The amendement's author, Lib Dem MP Julian Huppert says:










"The present system which allows women access to evidence-based guidance works, therefore I cannot see why we need to change it. I do not want to see us opening the door to anti choice organisations which could prevent women making their own decision on such a momentus issue."

And a YouGov poll released today shows that, were the public to be voting instead of MPs, they would be much more likely to back Huppert's amendment than Dorries'.














Fewer than one-in-four people support changing the law to prevent charities like BPAS and Marie Stopes from providing counselling, while 40 per cent oppose it. And, strikingly, Conservative voters are no more likely to support Dorries' motion than the public as a whole. In addition, a majority dismiss the notion that "it is too easy for women to obtain abortions in Britain":














These results are hardly surprising in a country that is predominantly pro-choice, as shown by a poll yesterday showing more than three-to-one support for the claim that "if a woman wants to have an abortion, she should not have to continue her pregnancy".

Why Cameron Must Stop Running Scared Of These Abortion Zealots

Many who gaze across the Atlantic have long been amazed at the way in which the toxic issue of abortion fundamentally distorts the U.S. political agenda.

With a certain amount of smugness, the British have told themselves that things are very different in the UK.

Here, such issues are settled not by divisive decisions of the courts, as in the U.S., but through the democratic and unifying route of Parliamentary debate and votes.

Yet now it appears that abortion hysteria is beginning to distort British politics, too.



















Amendment: Frank Field and Nadine Dorries have been pushed the law changed, yet it looks as though their proposals will be lost after a screeching u-turn.

Just one week ago, an amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill drafted by Tory MP Nadine Dorries and Labour MP Frank Field looked set to sail through the Commons on a wave of general approval.

Their amendment — to be debated in the Commons this week — aims to break the stranglehold of abortion clinics which are the sole state-funded providers of counselling to pregnant women who are contemplating abortion.

The measure would open up to independent counsellors this optional process of advice and guidance to avoid any possible conflict of interest by abortion providers.

According to opinion polls, no fewer than 92 per cent of MPs, along with around three-quarters of the public, said they supported the amendment. For its part, the Government let it be known that it was already developing proposals to introduce independent abortion counselling for women.

Nevertheless, the amendment now seems likely to be lost because the Government has performed a screeching U-turn and urged MPs to vote against it.

In an unprecedented letter to Tory MPs, Health Minister Anne Milton said that ministers would themselves vote to block it. This has been interpreted by some Tory MPs at least as a covert attempt to whip them all into the ‘no’ lobby.

Yet abortion has always been decided by free votes rather than the imposition of party lines. So why has the Government suddenly decided to wreck both the amendment and this sacred constitutional protection for issues of conscience?

















Unprecedented: Anne Milton sent a letter to Tory MPs saying that minister would vote to block the proposals.

It has been suggested that this was yet another example of Nick Clegg forcing David Cameron to adopt a Left-wing position. Well, maybe.

What seems more plausible, however, is that with the Prime Minister’s antennae so finely tuned to the Guardian/BBC agenda, he simply took fright at the vitriol being hurled from the Left.

If so, this demonstrates once again the power of the campaigns of instantaneous demonisation and denunciation now employed to silence those who uphold a socially conservative position by tarring and feathering them as swivel-eyed bigots. It is particularly instructive that the amendment’s co-sponsor, Frank Field, has not been subjected to the abuse being hurled at Nadine Dorries.

For Field is a decent and principled man of the Left. But those seeking to characterise the measure as an import from what they portray as the knuckle-dragging, U.S. Right-wing Christian fundamentalist agenda cannot acknowledge Field’s involvement.

For this would destroy the demonisation strategy by suggesting the amendment is motivated by sound and decent principles. So, tellingly, Field has been all but airbrushed out of this venomous campaign. It is Dorries, the Tory bogeywoman, who receives the hate mail and death threats.

The impetus behind the amendment is a change in British attitudes. While only a minority would want abortion made illegal once again, thus returning to the evils of back-street butchery, there is now widespread revulsion over two aspects in particular of the current situation.

The first is the unmistakeable humanity of the foetuses subjected to late abortion. The second is the enormous abortion rate, which last year amounted to more than 200,000 terminations in England and Wales.

According to Dorries, up to half of those women who have independent counselling change their minds and decide not to abort. However, when women are referred straight to an abortion clinic for counselling, that number can be as low as 8 per cent.

It does not follow from these figures that the two abortion clinics providing most of the available counselling, Marie Stopes International and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, are subjecting vulnerable pregnant women to pro-abortion propaganda.

Maybe they do exude a more subtle ethos of pro-abortion sympathies — but that would hardly be surprising, since they are, after all, abortion clinics.

The reason for the different rates might merely be that women who seek out independent counselling have a more open mind in the first place and so are more likely to decide to have the baby.












Counselling service: Statistics appear to show Marie Stopes and other clinics to be be pro-abortion and therefore offer advice that way - but it is not surprising given that abortion is the very reason they exist.

Whatever the explanation, surely only a zealot would be complacent about the huge number of abortions — a number which was never envisaged when the procedure was legalised.

Dorries has been pilloried for declaring that she wants to bring the number down. Yet how can any decent person not want to bring down the huge rate of what should only be a procedure of last resort?

Some of the objections used in the past week — that if tens of thousands more children were born as a result this would put pressure on social services — have been spine-chillingly callous.

They are sobering evidence of the brutalisation of attitudes that abortion virtually on demand has brought in its wake.

So if independent counselling would reduce this toll, who could possibly object? Only the pro-abortion zealots, whose visceral hostility to faith-based counselling is based on the fact that this changes some women’s minds.

This is no more than opposition to thinking independently. To put it another way, to the pro-abortion lobby, if a woman decides against having an abortion after counselling, she has been brainwashed, but if she decides to go ahead with it she has reached her own decision.

Now we can see the vacuity of the pro-abortion slogan: ‘A woman’s right to choose.’ From the reaction to the Dorries-Field amendment, a woman only has the right to choose counselling that is pro-abortion.


















Compromise: Louise Mensch has put forward proposals suggesting women should be able to receive support from faith based charities and abortion clinics.

Having said that, it does seem unnecessarily divisive to prevent abortion clinics from themselves offering counselling. Surely women should be able to access counselling from both faith-based charities and abortion clinics, as another compromise amendment by the Tory MP Louise Mensch is suggesting.

This would seem to allow various folk to climb down from their respective trees. After all, Downing Street said the Prime Minister supported providing women with more counselling about their pregnancies, but didn’t want to shut down what was provided by Marie Stopes and the BPAS.

Nevertheless, the Government has refused to back even the Mensch compromise. By way of explanation, the Department of Health came up with a prize bit of obfuscatory waffle about there being no need to define independent counselling.

This makes little sense. The real reason is surely that this Conservative Prime Minister is running so scared of the ‘nasty party’ tag that no compromise with the Left is possible.

But what is nice about thinking there is nothing wrong with 200,000 abortions a year? What is nice about wanting to prevent pregnant women from accessing different types of counselling? What is nice about demonising people in order to shut down debate?

Surely this is what is really nasty. The country is crying out for leadership to stand up to this kind of bullying and intimidation. The Prime Minister should get up off his knees and support women’s genuine right to choose.

Health Ministers Vow A United Front Against Plans To Tighten Up Abortion Laws

Health ministers promised yesterday to vote en masse against Commons moves to tighten up Britain’s abortion laws.

Backbenchers are seeking an amendment that would change the law to stop charities carrying out abortions, such as Marie Stopes and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, from offering advice to women considering a termination.

In a letter to Tory MPs last night, public health minister Anne Milton said she and ministerial colleagues would not support the change.




















David Cameron said that the was sympathetic to the proposals on abortion made by Nadine Dorries and other MPs, but he would not in favour of them.

She said she had no evidence that organisations such as the BPAS were causing ‘any harm to women’, despite claims from pro-life groups that the charities are biased because they earn money from terminations.

And she said she did not want to create an extra ‘hurdle’ for women seeking an abortion.

Mrs Milton reiterated that the Government would put forward proposals this year to ensure women had access to independent counselling.

The Health Bill amendment, to be tabled by Tory Nadine Dorries and supported by Labour’s Frank Field, aroused fears that faith groups opposed to abortion on moral grounds would start to offer counselling.












Offering advice: Charity Marie Stopes, based in central London, is against the backbench proposals.

David Cameron has already signalled that he will vote against it.

Mrs Milton said in her letter: ‘We are very sympathetic to the aim of ensuring that all women requesting abortion are offered impartial, informative counselling.

‘However, on the issue of preventing abortion services from offering counselling, we disagree with the amendment.

‘What matters is the quality and independence of view of the advice given. Counsellors should stick to the facts, not promote a particular view, and most importantly help to support women to make their own decision.

‘It is important to be clear that the Government’s position neither represents a criticism of existing counselling services, nor hopes to create an extra hurdle for women to pass before successfully requesting an abortion.

‘We have no evidence that existing abortion counselling services are causing any harm to women.

‘If pressed to a vote, my ministerial colleagues in the Department of Health and I will vote against the amendments. This is because the amendments exclude existing abortion services from offering counselling.’

Tory backbencher Louise Mensch has said she will also put down an amendment, saying women should be offered counselling by independent organisations that are neither abortion providers nor faith groups.

A source at the Department of Health said that although ministers had not yet seen the text of this amendment, they were likely to vote against it because they did not see the need for legislation defining independent counselling.

Headteacher's Killer Back In Jail

The widow of murdered headmaster Philip Lawrence told last night of her anguish after learning his freed killer had been returned to jail to protect the public after an alleged robbery.











Widow Frances Lawrence holds a picture of her husband Philip who was killed.

Learco Chindamo was arrested just four months after he was released from prison and controversially all­ow­ed to stay in Britain after successfully fighting a deportation bid.

Shocked Frances Lawrence described the incident as “very, very distressing on many levels”.

At her home in Ham, west London, she said: “I can’t understand why Chindamo was in a position to do what he allegedly did when he is supposed to be on licence.

“He always swore he would spend his life living quietly and atoning. I understood he was supposed to be in rehabilitation.”

Detectives detained Chindamo, 30, on Wednesday at his home in south London after studying CCTV footage following the mugging of man at a cashpoint in Camden, north London.

An inquiry is expected to be launched into the monitoring of the killer who has been staying in a hostel in Catford, south London, since his release in July after serving 14 years for the knife murder of Mr Lawrence.

The arrest will raise fresh questions about the watch kept on offenders released back into communities.

It will also put pressure on David Cameron to honour a pledge to scrap the Human Rights Act.

At an immigration tribunal in 2007 the Home Office warned that Chindamo “represents a genuine and present and sufficiently serious threat to the public in principle as to justify his deportation”.

But a judge ruled he could not be deported to Italy, where he lived until the age of five, because it would breach his human rights.

At the time, Mr Cameron said the Act “has to go”, saying: “Abolish the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights.

“The fact that the murderer of Phil­ip Lawrence can’t be deported flies in the face of common sense. What about the rights of Mrs Lawrence?’’

The Bill of Rights was a key part of the Conservative election manifesto. But the Coalition so far has committed only to setting up a commission to review the legislation.

Chindamo was jailed indefinitely for the murder of father-of-four Mr Lawrence outside St George’s Roman Catholic School in Maida Vale, West London, in 1995.

The 48-year-old was stabbed after going to help a pupil who was attacked by a gang. Among the attackers was Chindamo, then 15.

The killer vowed to live “quietly and decently” when he moved to a secure probation hostel after his release.

Cameron Vents His Frustration At Military Commanders - Again

The Prime Minister said that he wished they would stick to fighting - and leave him to do the talking

Downing Street's evident irritation at the way senior military commanders keep speaking their mind, rather than parroting the party line from No10, became more pronounced today at a press briefing.













David Cameron said:

"There are moments when I wake up and read the newspapers and think: 'I tell you what, you do the fighting and I'll do the talking'."

Quite. This has had defence officials guffawing all over Whitehall.

Cameron spoke out after the Daily Telegraph was leaked a briefing paper from Air Chief Marshall Sir Simon Bryant, which said that the service was "running hot" and that it would struggle to meet any extra challenges if the Libya operation continued beyond the summer.

He also said that morale in the RAF was very low. It probably plunged a little further over the weekend, when its officers read the report in the Sunday Times that suggested Downing Street was considering proposals to slash the RAF by even more than the 5,000 personnel set out in last year's Strategic Defence and Security Review.

No wonder someone thought of leaking Sir Simon's private thoughts. The First Sea Lord Sir Mark Stanhope made similar remarks last week.

The problem for Cameron is that, however much he sticks his fingers in his ears, there is genuine anxiety within the armed forces about the government's commitment to the military, and how they re expected to cope in the near future.

The Prime Minister is right to say that the Libya operation can continue indefinitely. But Stanhope and Bryant are also right to point out that something else will have to give in the longterm.

And so the argument goes round and round...

The defence select committee will have a chance to get to nub of the problem tomorrow afternoon when General Sir David Richards, chief of the Defence staff, and the Armed Forces minister Nick Harvey, are quizzed by MPs.

David Cameron Accused Over School Policies By Disabled Boy's Father

David Cameron was accused today of seeking to segregate disabled children in the education system by the father of a boy with spina bifida who tackled him as he left a General Election campaign speech.














Jonathan Bardley, who confronted the Conservative leader with his wheelchair-bound son as he left the event in south London, voiced his concern about Tory plans to "end the bias towards the inclusion of children with special needs in mainstream schools".

He told Mr Cameron about the two-year struggle he had faced to get seven-year-old Samuel into his local mainstream school, and said the existing system was already biased against disabled children being educated alongside their able-bodied peers.

Mr Cameron insisted that, as the parent of a disabled child himself, he was "passionate" about helping them get the education that was right for them and would not do anything to make it more difficult for them.

But Mr Bardley said: "It is the wrong way to go. You are not representing the needs of children in mainstream education. You want to segregate disabled children."

The Conservative manifesto states: "The most vulnerable children deserve the very highest quality of care, so we will call a moratorium on the ideologically-driven closure of special schools.