When shadow Health Secretary, Dr Liam Fox appeared to suggest that the Tories should become the anti-abortion party. In 2001 Fox was quoted in the Conservative Christian Fellowship prayerbook as saying that the UK's 'pro-abortion laws' should be scrapped. In 2005 Michael Howard almost made abortion a general election issue when, towards to start of the campaign, he told Cosmopolitan magazine 'I believe abortion should be available to everyone, but the law should be changed. In the past I voted for a restriction to 22 weeks, and I would be prepared to go down to 20.'

It is because of examples like this that I am just a little sceptical about the new campaign launched yesterday by the Tory MP Nadine Dorries. A former nurse, Ms Dorries is leading a parliamentary campaign to reduce the upper limit for abortion from 24 weeks to 20 weeks when the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is debated in the Commons later this month. The last time the law on abortion was amended was in 1990 – given the fact that both medicine and science have advanced significantly one cannot agree that a review of abortion legislation is long overdue.

At present, all legislation on abortion in Britain is considered as a matter of conscience and decided under a free vote. What worries me is that some MPs and campaigners may use the forthcoming debate as a means of polarising attitudes where the issue of abortion is seen only of terms of being a vote winner, or a vote loser. Yesterday’s Daily Mail led on the launch of Ms Dorries’ campaign and will no doubt be a strong advocate of the need for a change in the present law. Britain has a long and enviable record of allowing its elected representatives to make up their own minds in matters of conscience. The danger, as I see it, is that some of Ms Dorries’ colleagues may well be tempted to frame the debate about abortion in such a way that it heralds the first tentative steps to try and establish a political arm for the Christian right in Britain.

Ms Dorries has stated that the campaign is not a religious campaign (yet 6 out of the 10 organisations linked to it are backed by Christian evangelicals) nor, we are told, is it politically motivated. Let’s hope it stays that way.

Last April I posted about Luke Mackenzie, a Tory candidate who was standing in the British National Party (BNP) target ward of Basildon in Essex. Mr Mackenzie had been accused of peddling scare stories by suggesting that people who wanted to stop asylum-seekers being given council houses should vote Conservative. The Times reported that Mr Mackenzie's future as a Conservative candidate was 'hanging in the balance.'

Guess what? Luke is standing for the Tories in this year's election - this time for the neighbouring ward of Vange. Here are a few of Mr Mackenzie's thoughts and observations (taken directly from his website):

Luke on Crime: 'Ever heard of the saying cut off the head and the body will die. Try the hand instead.'

Luke on the NHS: 'The NHS has the money it needs, but it's mis-spent. Targets should be scrapped and the money saved from administration costs, that come with the targets should be spent on Doctors, Nurses, hygiene etc.' Does anyone understand this? Does it make any sense?

Luke on housing: 'Local council housing for local people, not asylum seekers.'

The fact is that Luke is still a candidate for the Tories and he is still (if his website is anything to go by) peddling scare stories by suggesting that people who wanted to stop asylum-seekers being given council houses should vote Conservative.

Perhaps it is a case of vote Tory and get the BNP?

Jonathan Freedland is right to argue that the new-found boldness of schools' secretary Ed Balls on the issue of admissions must be only the start. This year alone the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) has uncovered 79 instances where the new statutory code for admissions has been breached by schools that didn't give priority to kids in care; used supplementary forms asking for personal details about the applicants' parents; requested "contributions" to the school fund; asked for birth and marriage certificates and used "subjective tests" to choose pupils.

The sad truth is that the 79 examples highlighted by the DCSF and widely reported in the media are probably the tip of a huge iceberg. In his annual report, Philip Hunter, the respected chief schools adjudicator points out that many of our state schools are still engaging in "covert" admission practices despite a tightening of the code for admissions detailed in the Education Act 2006.

Does it matter? The short answer is yes. For those who want to see an increase in the levels of social mobility, for those who care about enhancing the life chances of our nation's young people, these infringements of the admissions code make for depressing reading. Britain, or rather England, remains almost unique amongst OECD countries in the degree to which the allocation of a secondary school place determines a child's future life chances. That's why school "choices", rather than house prices, now dominate discussions at Islington dinner tables.

The angst of middle-class parents, as their children get to secondary age, has reached epidemic proportions. One consequence is that every year children from many of the nation's poorest households are routinely allocated to schools which parents with higher aspirations are determined to avoid. This is because secondary school admission policies remain the secret scandal of our education system. Trapped by the rhetoric of parental choice, locked in by a league table agenda of what constitutes a "good" school and unwilling to confront the evidence about selective admissions policies, ministers have (up until very recently) allowed the line on admissions to drift in a direction that works against every other strand of government policy.

The current admission practice in many of England's secondary schools is helping to institutionalise inequality in the nation as a whole. Unfair and - under the new code for admissions - unlawful admissions procedures only intensify social, cultural and ethnic divisions. They foster delusions about consumer choice and reinforce outdated perceptions of quality in education. The outcome of such covert selection practice is to produce an educational apartheid that creates vast ghettoes of underachievement which then suck in vast amounts of public money to compensate for structural inequality. They hold back overall levels of achievement. Our divisive secondary school system is working against our objective of increasing post-16 staying-on rates and widening participation in universities.

The government must be seen to challenge schools and local authorities about any breaches to the code but it should go further. The code of practice on school admissions already excludes selection by ability as an admissions criterion to all primary schools - this should be extended to include secondary schools. A policy focused on parental choice would throw open hundreds of thousands of places in good schools to parents who have previously been excluded from applying. The winners would far outnumber those who would be anxious about loss of privilege.

I was pleased to be invited to attend last night's lecture by Tony Blair at Westminster Cathedral. The event got off to a bit of a farcical start when Tony mistook shouts from the back of the cathedral asking for the sound to be turned up for hecklers shouting him down - as he said, he is more used to people not wanting him to speak than to those expressing concern because they cannot hear him!

Blair's message was that religion could "awaken the world's conscience" and help to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to eradicate poverty and hunger. He warned against the "extremist and exclusionary tendency in religion today". He argued that it is not extreme for a person to believe their own religion is the only faith - "most people of faith do that" - but said it should not stop them respecting other religions. He said people must accept that faith is not in decline and the world has become more economically, politically and ideologically independent.

"The divide, then, is between those who see this as positive, the opening up offering opportunity, and those who see it as threatening and wish to close it back down," he said.

Blair took the opportunity to set out plans for his new Faith Foundation, to be launched later this year. The Foundation will focus on bringing together Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists to promote faith as a relevant and positive force for good.

http://mike-ion.blogspot.com/

I will be interviewing the Foreign Secretary David Miliband this Saturday at Labour's spring conference. If you have a question about any aspect of foreign policy that you would like put to David please leave as a comment or email it to me at mike-ion@hotmail.co.uk - the deadline for the submission of questions is 4pm this Friday (February 29th).

It is now an accepted fact that a significant number of England's secondary schools have been abandoned by the middle classes.  The respected chief school admissions adjudicator (Philip Hunter) points out that many of our state schools are still engaging in 'covert' admission practices despite a tightening of the code for admissions detailed in the 2006 Education Act. It would appear that some heads have been asking to see parents' marriage certificates, while others have invited parents to an interview - a practice banned under the new code. The Department for Children, Schools and Families said other examples of law-breaking by admission authorities included not giving the highest priority to children in care and even asking the order in which parents had ranked their school choices.

Britain, or rather England, remains almost unique amongst OECD countries in the degree to which the allocation of a secondary school place determines a child's future life chances. That's why school 'choices', rather than house prices, now dominate discussions at Islington dinner tables. The angst of middle class parents, as their children reach the age of secondary transfer, has reached epidemic proportions. One consequence is that every year children from many of the nation's poorest households are routinely allocated to schools which parents with higher aspirations are determined to avoid. This is because secondary school admission policies remain the secret scandal of our education system.

To read a slightly longer ramble on this issue visit http://mike-ion.blogspot.com/

Whether the time limit on abortion should or should not be lowered is an important topic - far too important for it to ever become a party political issue. This is why Michael Howard's decision to introduce the issue into the 2005 election campaign was so disappointing and why I am hoping that David Cameron's announcement today is not an attempt to gain favour with the anti-abortion lobby.

Gordon Brown stood for the leadership of the Labour party on a platform that argued that the renewal that was undertaken in order to gain power needed to be repeated if Labour was to keep power. The fact is that by successfully occupying the centre ground, by modernising and reaching out beyond its own activists Labour ended up turning the Tories into a replica of what it used to be itself – a party with a narrow base, a party obsessed about the wrong things and a party seen as old fashioned and out of touch. To his credit David Cameron understands all of this and it is why he is busily re-branding and re-positioning today’s modern Tory party. Cameron knows that to be taken seriously he and his party need to be seen as the future, to be heralded as the bearers of hope and deliverers of change. The problem for Cameron is that the promotion of such a message takes the Tories into unchartered waters. Why? Because the history of the Tory party is centred on the core belief that politics can't change people’s lives.

Can you ever imagine a time when a future Tory manifesto included a passage about the strength of our common endeavour or about ensuring wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few? Me neither.

Why are there no regional parliamentary select committees? We now have regional Ministers but to whom are they accountable? How is their work scrutinised? I think the creation of regional select committees would go along way in helping to promote regional politics and in holding regional bodies (PCTs, Regional development agencies, LSCs etc) and regional Government offices to account.

So I ask again - why are there no regional parliamentary select committees?

According to Frank Field "super rich" should pay a minimum of 10% more tax on any earnings over £150,000 (or give the same amount to a charity of their choice). Field suggest that such a move could raise £3.6bn a year.

What do you think? Personally I think it has real merit.