By Katrina A Prentice

The nation of Great Britain is at a tipping point. The proposed same sex marriage bill, like no other bill, serves as a determinant of this nation either for better or for worse.

The institution of marriage, the union of one man and one woman for life, has served as the bedrock of society and is upheld in civilised societies across the globe since the dawn of time. Marriage predates law, nation and church.

Now, however, politicians appear to be considering their own opinions above foundational laws. One must caution those who are wise in their own eyes; those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness are subject to judgment.

Just a few short months ago, on December 16th 2011, David Cameron, spoke at the 400thanniversary of the King James Bible whereby he stated that the UK was a Christian nation "and we should not be afraid to say so". He further called for a revival of traditional Christian values to counter Britain's 'moral collapse'.

He went on to say: "The

Kneejerk responses to the lobbying scandal and terrorism in Woolwich are inherently weak. It's why we should treat them with suspicion - and the coalition's gay marriage reforms with respect.

Reading the headlines in the last fortnight, you could be excused for thinking there are two ways policies actually get changed in this country: the Kneejerk and the Despite Howls Of Horror (Dhoh).

Both are being tested as they work their way through the clanking machinery of Westminster's policymaking machine this week. The end result is likely to be a positive one for the government, but a mixed one for the citizen. Here's why.

In the Lords, the government's attempt to legalise gay marriage faces a tough challenge from our nation's crustiest parliamentarians. This is an issue of principle for the coalition's leaders. The change is an obvious step to take and is supported by a large chunk of the public - as well as a hefty majority in the Commons. But it faces last-gasp opposition and all the

By Dr Matthew Ashton

The news that Patrick Mercer has resigned the Conservative whip in response to allegations made by the BBC programme Panorama about his relationship with lobbyists has dominated weekend headlines. By acting so swiftly, he and the Conservative party are clearly hoping to limit the damage from the story as much as possible. The Liam Fox and Andrew Mitchell scandals demonstrate what can happen if the press decide to keep the pressure up. The Andrew Mitchell affair also provides a useful lesson in not rushing to judgement before all the facts are in.

Regardless of the outcome of the investigation, this scandal will undoubtedly lead to further debate and hand-wringing about the role of lobbying in British public life, and old wounds that will damage the reputation of our elected representatives will be re-opened.

The reason for this is that the problem remains the same. Parliament has been plagued by lobbying scandals over the last two decades, and the response is

By Mike Harris

What a difference a month makes. Just weeks after a Queen's Speech that heralded the end of the draft communications data bill (aka the snoopers' charter'), the government seems to be mounting a dramatic U-turn after the attack in Woolwich. Home secretary Theresa May has signalled plans are afoot for wider surveillance powers, new bars on the broadcast of radical preachers and the blocking of extremist websites. This is the wrong response. Not only would these measures be wrong in principle, they are likely to make the fight against extremism harder as the government undermines the values it seeks to promote.

It is expected that a new task force will propose granting Ofcom the power to pre-emptively bar radical preachers from the television, in response to Anjem Choudary's invitation onto Newsnight. Right now, Ofcom can intervene after an unacceptable broadcast has been made. It's not as if Ofcom wants additional powers – it has publicly stated its powers are already

By Darinka Aleksic

The case of 'SB', heard by the court of protection last week, when a 37-year-old woman suffering from bipolar disorder was judged capable of choosing to terminate her pregnancy, is not, despite all appearances, about abortion. No medical or moral judgement was being made about the 'right to choose'.

When is a person so mentally incapacitated, either through illness or disability, that they are unable to make decisions about their health? This is the question the court was asked to consider, and in this instance it found that despite her 'severe mental disorder', and despite being detained in hospital under the Mental Health Act, the unnamed woman was in fact capable of knowing her own mind – a decision made against the wishes of her mother and estranged husband, and contrary the advice of her psychiatrist who was "100% certain" she was not able to decide for herself.

It makes for a less sensational story. But rather than focusing on abortion, we should think about

Photo: altogetherfool

"I don't pretend this is easy or what I came into politics to do," George Osborne said dolefully this morning.

This is partly a political point. The chancellor is inches away from mentioning the mantra that the coalition had to clear up the mess made by New Labour.

It also cuts much deeper. Osborne did not become a member of the governing elite to preside over the slowest recovery or harshest period of austerity since the Second World War. That he should lament his own fortunes at being in charge right now seems entirely justifiable.

Right now is a good time for Osborne to moan, too. The full extent of the misery in No 11 is being laid bare by the tensions around Whitehall as next month's spending review approaches.

The tussles over which departments should pay the heaviest price as total savings of £11.5 billion are sought is widening existing cracks in the government.

On the face of it, the bravado of Iain Duncan Smith is staggering. He has a track record of behind-the-scenes

The period which immediately follows a terror attack is always uniquely dangerous. The leashes which hold certain dogs at bay are loosened. Far-right groups like the EDL and the BNP try to capitalise. Politicians use the event to justify whatever opinion they already held – Ken Livingstone and George Galloway have been unfortunate examples of this. Conservative commentator Toby Young even used it to justify the free schools programme.

But the most cynical and pernicious response of all comes from the security industry, whose lobbying operation took no time to spin into operation. The Woolwich attack gave it an opportunity to revive its seemingly-moribund plans for a snoopers' charter. The securocrats in Whitehall started whispering in ministers' ears. Lord West, the former first sea lord and security minister, made his view clear. The former reviewer of terror laws Lord Carlisle, whose assessment of what constitutes a civilised country is alien to the basic notions upon which this one

One quick look at today's front pages will confirm the potential pitfalls of covering a terrorist attack. There are some pretty grubby examples on offer. The Daily Express' decision to plaster a photo of Kate Middleton (yep, she's still pregnant) next to the story was staggeringly misjudged.

But the worst example came from the Guardian, which is usually more restrained. Like most newspapers, it ran with an image of one of the alleged assailants, his hands covered in blood, with the headline: "You people will never be safe." He might as well write them a cheque. They did his job for him.

As Sunder Katwala pointed out last night, the decision to extract direct quotes as the top line was a mistake. It was especially damaging given the Guardian's decision to use a large photo for the front page, giving the event an extra injection of importance and relevance. It spreads the message of the terrorists and serves to lionise them in the eyes of men who might consider similar actions.

A