And another thing…

SOCIALISM.

There, I’ve said it.

But what is a socialist? Believe it or not, in the 1980s, when I first joined the Labour Party, this was a question that comrades actually used to discuss seriously, earnestly and regularly. And in every local party there was never a shortage of individuals who took it upon themselves to judge which of their colleagues were and were not socialists.

Tony Benn, the font of all knowledge when it came to judging other people’s principles, once said that the Labour Party wasn’t a socialist party, although there were socialists in it, just as the church wasn’t Christian, although there were Christians in it. This struck a chord with me, because, as a young Christian in an evangelical church, I had all too often fallen into the trap of deciding whether others were “proper” born-again Christians or, as my friends and I very patronisingly caled them, “nominal” Christians. Essentially, if other people hadn’t shared in exactly the same spiritual experience that we had, then their faith was inferior to ours.

So yes — in response to that muffled comment from the back — I was even more arrogant and insufferable then than I am now.

I’ve since reconciled myself to the truth that it’s not up to anyone else to judge my own relationship with God, just as it’s not up to me to judge anyone else’s. As I’ve said on this blog before, I’ve always been a rubbish Christian anyway.

So what is it with the church and the political Left that it attracts people only too keen to judge others’ beliefs? I guess it comes from the fact that both Christianity (and any other religion) and socialism are based on faith — faith in God or, in socialism’s case, faith in the basic good of mankind, in moral absolutes and in economic concepts.  Once those beliefs are codified and acknowledged as The Truth, it becomes easy to identify those who stray from the One True Path.

The political Right is blissfully unencumbered by such rule books, preferring a more pragmatic approach to politics.

And even today, 15 years after the advent of New Labour, there are still those in my party who like to obsess about the “socialist” label. Among some, it is undoubtedly a cause of some resentment that it was Tony Blair who first inserted the word “socialist” in the party’s constitution, thereby redefining it in a broader, vaguer but more inclusive sense.

So the question is: do I consider myself a socialist? Yes, I suppose I do, but there are plenty of others who wouldn’t agree with that description of me. And maybe they’re right. Whatever.

Same goes for me describing myself as a Christian.

But if judging others’ definitions of themselves is your “thing”, who am I to tell you what to do?

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill was given its second reading in the Commons tonight by a big majority. Although abortion isn’t yet part of the Bill, MPs will table amendments reducing the upper limit at which a woman can get an abortion, from the current 24 weeks to 22 or even 20.

I genuinely don’t know how to vote on this. Years ago when I was still an evangelical Christian*, I was a dyed-in-the-wool pro-lifer. The first – and only – time I took part in a debate at my school’s debating society was to support the case against abortion. At the first Labour Party branch meeting I ever attended, I spoke against a motion which called for Labour MPs to be whipped to support the party’s policy of “abortion-on-demand”. I lost the vote and was not a popular new member.

Since then I’ve changed my mind. The idea of making abortion illegal repels me. I also don’t think a woman should have to get the permission of two GPs in order to be “approved” for a legal procedure. And I accept recent scientific advice that the survival rate of premature babies has not measurably improved since the current legislation was framed.

What worries me is the question: was the 24-weeks limit right when it was introduced? Should it have been 22 or 20 weeks even then?

I don’t know. I’ll think and read about this more between now and the vote. There seems to have developed a consensus among Labour colleagues at least that we shouldn’t tamper with legislation that was hard-won and seems to be working effectively. Colleagues whose views I deeply respect will vote for the status quo. A lobbying operation is underway and in the voting lobby tonight I was targeted by a colleague who, when I told her I hadn’t yet made up my mind, wrote something indecipherable in a box next to my name.

It’s a classic head v heart thing. There’s no doubt that being a parent of young children has affected my view on this. And by that I absolutely don’t mean to suggest that unless you’re a parent you’re not qualified to make your own judgment. It’s just that it is an emotional subject, as are children.

I hate the hard decisions. But as I’ve said before, MPs are there to make tough decisions, not easy ones. And I want to make the right one, not necessarily the one that will make me popular. Of course, whatever I do, I’ll be more unpopular with some.

*I still consider myself a Christian, just not a particularly evangelical one. Chris Bryant has dubbed me a “recovering evangelical”, which I rather like.