Where do the public stand on abortion?

Forty nine per cent of women support a reduced time limit, compared with 24% of men.

To the likely dismay of Downing Street, Jeremy Hunt's comments on abortion are leading the news this morning, with David Cameron's restatement of support for the NHS entirely overshadowed.

In response to Hunt's call for a halving of the abortion time limit, from 24 weeks to 12, the Guardian's Katharine Viner tweeted: "If men could get pregnant, what would be the time limit on abortion?" It's a good question, but what's interesting (and to many, surprising) is that women have more conservative views on the subject than men.

A YouGov poll published in January found that 49% of women favoured a lower limit, compared with 24% of men. Of that 49%, 11% want it reduced to 22 weeks, 14% to 20 weeks and 23% to "below 20 weeks". Thirty per cent of women would like the limit to remain at 24 weeks, compared with 39% of men. However, asked if abortion should be banned altogether, eight per cent of men said it should, compared with five per cent of women.

In total, just 17% of people shared Hunt's view that the legal limit should be reduced to "below 20 weeks". Thirty four per cent said that it should remain at 24 weeks, five per cent said it should be increased, eight per cent said it should be reduced to 22 weeks and 12 per cent said it should be reduced to 20 weeks.

The unrepresentative nature of Hunt's views is further evidence of why the Health Secretary has done his party no favours by promoting them so strongly.

Abortion rights campaigners demonstrate outside the House of Commons in 2008. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Will the House of Lords block Brexit?

Process, and a desire to say "I told you so" will be the real battle lines. 

It’s the people versus the peers, at least as far as some overly-excited Brexiteers are concerned. The bill to trigger Article 50 starts its passage through the House of Lords today, and with it, a row about the unelected chamber and how it ought to behave as far as Brexit is concerned.

This week will, largely, be sound and fury. More peers have signed up to speak than since Tony Blair got rid of the bulk of hereditary peers, triggering a 200-peer long queue of parliamentarians there to rage against the dying of the light, before, inevitably, the Commons prevailed over the Lords.

And to be frank, the same is ultimately going to happen with Article 50. From former SDPers, now either Labour peers or Liberal Democrat peers, who risked their careers over Europe, to the last of the impeccably pro-European Conservatives, to committed Labour and Liberal politicians, there are a number of pro-Europeans who will want to make their voices heard before bowing to the inevitable. Others, too, will want to have their “I told you so” on record should it all go belly-up.

The real battle starts next week, when the bill enters committee stage, and it is then that peers will hope to extract concessions from the government, either through defeat in the Lords or the threat of defeat in the Lords. Opposition peers will aim to secure concessions on the process of the talks, rather than to frustrate the exit.

But there are some areas where the government may be forced to give way. The Lords will seek to codify the government’s promise of a vote on the deal and to enshrine greater parliamentary scrutiny of the process, which is hard to argue against, and the government may concede that quarterly statements to the House on the process of Brexit are a price worth paying, and will, in any case, be a concession they end up making further down the line anyway.

But the big prize is the rights of EU citizens already resident here.  The Lords has the advantage of having the overwhelming majority of the public – and the promises of every senior Leaver during the referendum campaign – behind them on that issue. When the unelected chamber faces down the elected, they like to have the weight of public opinion behind them so this is a well-chosen battleground.

But as Alex Barker explains in today’s FT, the rights of citizens aren’t as easy to guarantee as they look. Do pensions count? What about the children of EU citizens? What about access to social security and health? Rights that are easy to protect in the UK are more fraught in Spain, for instance. What about a British expat, working in, say, Italy, married to an Italian, who divorces, but wishes to remain in Italy afterwards? There is general agreement on all sides that the rights of Brits living in the rest of the EU and citizens of the EU27 living here need to be respected and guaranteed. But that even areas of broad agreement are the subject of fraught negotiation shows why those “I told you sos”  may come in handy sooner than we think.

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.