The London Mayor has decided not to use the 4th plinth in Trafalgar Square for a permanent statue of Second World War hero Sir Keith Park. The news has not gone down well at Conservativehome.com or on the Evening Standard website where many seem to think that it is some kind of snub to the war hero. This is ridiculous. There are plenty of statues and memorials to those who served in World War Two and Boris has said that there will be a Keith Park statue somewhere in London. Yet there are only a handful of high profile pieces of contemporary public art in prominent places in the capital.

I think that having a revolving piece on the fourth plinth is a fantastic idea. It ignites our imagination and gets Londoners who otherwise wouldn’t have thought about it discussing contemporary art. Many seem to have confused their dislike of modern art with a dislike of the idea of having revolving pieces displayed there. For all the complaints about Marc Quinn’s sculpture of a limbless lady (and I really liked it) it got people discussing art and culture in a way that would never happen with a permanent statue of Sir Keith.

When Civil Partnerships were introduced many saw the measure as the end of the gay rights debate. Gay couples could get married, the tax system was no longer discriminatory and gay couples could adopt children. Hurrah. Progress has won. The placards aren’t needed anymore. Except it now seems that they are. MPs will vote on Monday on a measure which would make it harder, if not impossible for lesbians to have IVF treatment. Andrew Lansley thinks the need for children born through IVF to have a“male role model” should be made into law. The amendment is there to strengthen families; current IVF legislation already calls for supportive parenting but Lansley wants to go further and talk specifically about father figures.

This is ridiculous for many reasons, here are my top 3 – Just because an individual or couple has jumped through the legislative hoop and found a ‘father figure’ doesn’t mean the man is going to be around in 10 years time when the (as yet unborn) child needs fatherly influence most. Secondly, children who do not have a father figure, maybe because he died, has moved away or the child is brought up by lesbians, will still meet and spend time with male figures, at school, relatives, family friends etc. Thirdly, the amendment is anti gay. By the nature of their relationships lesbian couples are less likely to be able to provide the father figure the amendment requires. Any MP that believes in equal gay rights should vote against this amendment on Monday. If passed homophobia will be back on the statute book.

On Monday MPs will vote on an amendment to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill that would lower the legal limit for abortions to 20 weeks. If the amendment were to be passed into law it would be a disaster for some of the most vulnerable women in Britain today. Only 1.46%, of abortions happen after 20 weeks. When they do abortion is not being used as a ‘casual form of birth control’ to use the phrase the Daily Mail is so fond of but as an act of last resort for women that may not have realized they were pregnant or who went to see their doctor before 20 weeks but have not been able to complete the process in time.  

Many of those pushing for the amendment on Monday have no interest in lowering the limit. They are simply anti abortion. If they wanted fewer abortions to take place after 20 weeks they would make early stage abortions easier, removing the 2 doctor rule and improving access in the NHS. Instead we are stigmatizing abortion and the women that make the choice to terminate their unwanted pregnancy. This amendment threatens some of the most vulnerable women in our society yet it is being used by the pro life lobby as just another battle in their campaign to ban abortion. MPs that support a women’s right to choose must vote it down.

A majority of Daily Mail readers want to scrap the Olympics after Beijing; I know, but its on their website and everything - HERE. I imagine a majority of Olympians want to scrap the Daily Mail but I doubt the IOC will ever get around to running a poll on their website. Most people don’t have a problem with the Olympics as a sporting event. The objectionable part is the endless talk of how they are a ‘global celebration’ and ‘bring people together.’ There is even a pyramid on www.olympic.org explaining how we are all part of the Olympic movement. Needless to say the sponsors are pretty near the top.

I think the reason the Olympics attract such controversy and cynicism is because we have come to expect too much from a 2 week sporting event. The Olympics only feature in the news when protesters are trying to extinguish the torch, Chinese officials are threatening to deal with protesters who attempt to interfere with the torch when it goes near Tibet or when the budget for London 2012 overruns. The news coverage is so far removed from a sporting event that we have lost site of what the games is all about. Until the Olympics becomes about sport again the public’s cynicism will continue to grow.

Jacqui Smith has just started speaking in favour of extending the detention without trial period to 42 days. If you’re interested she is wearing a smart brown suit that looks a little tight around the chest and using a very fancy biro to make notes as she speaks. We have already heard how the new threat is worse and more ferocious than before. She keeps talking about new challenges and darkly hints about the new ‘responses’ that are needed. It is all mood music to set us up for the argument that we need to allow the police to detain suspects for 42 days without trail. 

The flaw in the argument is that its all a bit similar to everything we have heard before. We were told that unless there was an upper limit of 90 days the sky would fall down. MPs blocked 90 days, yet our streets have not been deluged with terrorists who the police could only hold for 28 days. The debate around our response to terrorism relies on striking a balance between preserving our liberty and making it as hard as possible for terrorists to carry out attacks. This risk is the price we pay for freedom. The price has a long way to go before it becomes too high.