Thanks very much for the letter, I will raise this directly with Nick and his team.
I think you probably know my views on this matter. As a Liberal I was extremely concerned by the press reports of new surveillance powers potentially to be included in the Queens Speech.
I also agreed very much with Julian Huppert’s article on Lib Dem Voice — there must be no question of the authorities having universal internet surveillance powers.
We are reasonable people and we should be prepared to look at what will now be draft legislation with an open mind, but we should be prepared to put our foot down and pull the plug if we consider the proposals to be illiberal. We must not as Liberal Democrats fall into a position of trying to amend, unpick or apologise for a piece of authoritarian Tory policy.
Over the last couple of years we have made some mistakes, which is OK so long as we learn from them. This is our opportunity to put those lessons into practice. Britain must be more liberal and free as a result of Liberal Democrats in power, not less. The proposals as they were first set out undoubtedly cross a red line, we’ve crossed enough of those already – no more.
Friday, April 06, 2012
Open Letter to Tim Farron MP, Liberal Democrat President
Re: Concerns over our liberal identity and mission in government
We understand that the leaked policy on RIPA internet surveillance is now being reviewed more thoroughly, rather than rushed into the Queen's speech. As such we would like you, as our president, to convey the following thoughts to appropriate Liberal Democrat ministers.
The Home Secretary wrote in the Sun on Tuesday that "Only suspected terrorists, paedophiles or serious criminals will be investigated." This is akin to saying "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to worry about." If the hacking scandal and ongoing Leveson inquiry has taught us anything, it is that argument is demonstrably false.
At first hacking was tolerated by the public when it was only celebrities and politicians who were victims. It was only after it was exposed that private individuals were hacked that there was public outrage. Even the Queen's own police protection sold information about her to the News of the World. If our head of state cannot be safeguarded from corrupt police officers, what chance has the rest of us got? This is our fear over these leaked proposals; we believe that extending universal, rather than targeted internet surveillance powers to the police, exposes innocent citizens to corrupt sections of authority. We agree with Julian Huppert MP when he argues that the police should only be allowed to access private internet usage when they have obtained a "named, specific and time-limited warrant" from a judge or minister.
In a February 2011 interview with the Guardian Nick Clegg said: "You should not trust government – full stop. The natural inclination of government is to hoard power and information; to accrue power to itself in the name of the public good." And later: Clegg says the restoration of liberty is ongoing, and urges campaigners to "hold the government's feet to the fire". We are attempting to do just that with this letter. Surely an important part of our party's mission is to defend and protect the civil rights of our fellow citizens, and if we fail, our party's liberal identity will be put at grave risk. We urge our ministers to heed our call – block these illiberal proposals and lead the charge for reform of RIPA to ensure our citizens enjoy the fair, free and open society we seek to build and safeguard.
Kind regards,
1. Cllr Lev Eakins, Manchester City Council 2. Cllr Janet Battye, Leader, Calderdale MBC 3. Cllr Guy Poultney, Cabinet Member, Bristol City Council 4. Cllr Anood Al-Samerai, Leader, Southwark Liberal Democrat council group 5. Cllr Iain Roberts, Cabinet member, Stockport MBC 6. Cllr Prue Bray, Leader, Wokingham Liberal Democrat council group 7. Cllr Tom Papworth, Leader, Bromley Liberal Democrat council group 8. Cllr Erica Kemp, Liverpool City Council 9. Cllr Alex Folkes, Deputy Leader Cornwall Liberal Democrat council group 10. Cllr. Tony Harwood, Deputy Leader Maidstone Liberal Democrat council group 11. Cllr Tom Simon, Deputy Leader, Camden Liberal Democrat council group 12. Cllr Tom Morrison, Chair Liverpool Wavetree 13. Cllr. Neil Taylor, Chair Altrincham and Sale West 14. Cllr Victor Chamberlain, Manchester City Council 15. Cllr James Baker, Calderdale 16. Cllr Nigel Ashton, Southport 17. Cllr Michelle Pearce, Wiltshire 18. Cllr Colin Rosenstiel, Cambridge 19. Cllr Darren Thornton, Richmond 20. Cllr Colin Strong, Spelthorne 21. Mark Pack, London, Co-Editor Lib-Dem Voice 22. Stephen Tall, Oxford, Co-Editor Lib-Dem Voice 23. Paul Walter, Newbury, Co-Editor Lib-Dem Voice 24. Mark Thompson, Bracknell, LD Blogger 25. Richard Morris, Richmond, LD Blogger 26. Zadok Day, Co-Chair Liberal Reform, Secretary Bury LDs 27. Linda Jack, Member of FPC and SLF Council and Chair Liberal Left 28. Kelly-Marie Blundell, Vice Chair of Ashford, Diversity Champion for the SE Region and South East SLF 29. Conor McKenzie, Harrogate, England Convenor Liberal Youth 30. Hannah Bettsworth, Liberal Youth Scotland Ordinary Executive Member-elect 31. Sara Lloyd Williams, Ieuenctid Rhyddfrydol Cymru Liberal Youth Wales Chair 32. Tom Lister, Ieuenctid Rhyddfrydol Cymru Liberal Youth Wales Vice Chair/Treasurer 33. Linden Parker, Ieuenctid Rhyddfrydol Cymru Liberal Youth Wales Communication Officer 34. Cadan ap Tomos, Aberystwyth, Ieuenctid Rhyddfrydol Cymru Liberal Youth Wales Young Members' Officer 35. Rory Roberson, Ieuenctid Rhyddfrydol Cymru Liberal Youth Wales Branch Officer 36. Natasha Chapman, East Midlands Regional Liberal Youth chair 37. David Cope, LD Youth South West Regional Chair 38. Joe Donnelly, Rossendale, Chair of Durham Liberal Youth 39. Daniel Waterfield, Liverpool, Co-Chair Liverpool LD Youth 40. Madeleine Spink, Chair York University LDs 41. Alan Belmore, Horsham (Former Chair, Liberal Youth) 42. Richard Gadsden, Manchester, Exec Member NW Region 43. Josh Allen, York Central (Press Secretary) 44. Tracy Connell, Newcastle, Regional Officer 45. Neil Derby, Chair of Preston Liberal Democrats 46. Gemma Roulston, Reigate, LDDA officer 47. Paul Wild, Walsall, MDO 48. William Jones, Chair, Wythenshawe and Sale East 49. Steve Middleton, Treasurer, Salford Lib Dems 50. Jennie Rigg, Branch secretary, Brighouse Liberal Democrats 51. Steven Haynes, Northfield Liberal Democrats, MDO 52. Joy Winder, Manchester, former Councillor 53. Karen Chilvers, Brentwood, Essex 54. Maria Pretzler, Swansea & Gower 55. Lance Idiabor-Moses, Leeds Central and Yorkshire and the Humber Liberal Youth 56. Kevin White, Liverpool 57. Penny Burgess, Cotswolds 58. Peter Reisdorf, West Kirby 59. Graham Hopgood, Hastings & St Leonards 60. John Richardson, Newark 61. Iain Donaldson, Manchester 62. Tim Allan, Newcastle Central 63. Alan Neil Webb, Amber Valley 64. Kat Dadswell, Liverpool 65. Bevis Maun, Manchester 66. Stuart Wheatcroft, Carlisle 67. James Rowe, Barnsley 68. Gareth Peter Jones, Swansea 69. Graeme Cowie, Glasgow 70. Martin Veart, Edinburgh 71. Louise Shaw, Stockport 72. Leon Duveen, Bassetlaw & Sherwood 73. Ian Morris, Doncaster 74. Jason Kay, Folkestone 75. Stephen Clarke, Tower Hamlets 76. Jack Cartwright, Brighton 77. Andy Spracklen, Manchester 78. Jock Coats, Oxford 79. Andrew Hardwick, Manchester 80. George Potter, Guildford 81. Hywel Morgan, Calderdale 82. Harry Matthews, Sheffield 83. Callum Morton, Colchester 84. Robert Pitt, London 85. Colin Walklin, Canterbury 86. Rev Simon Wilson, Broadland 87. James Howitt, Salisbury 88. Jonathan Bates, Southampton 89. Andrew Tennant, Charnwood 90. Jonathan Lancaster, York Central 91. Gary McKenna, Salford 92. David Roberts-Jones, Cheadle 93. Riff Devin, Dudley 94. Lee Thacker, Rhondda Cynon Taff 95. Iain Coleman, Edinburgh 96. Martin Tod, Winchester 97. Shaun Young, Portsmouth 98. Martin Gentles, Battersea 99. Caron Lindsay, Dunfermline & West Fife 100. Valerie Talacko, Prague 101. Rob Parsons, Lewes 102. Ron Stafford, Warrington 103. Will Howells, London. 104. Richard Struck, North Bedfordshire 105. Lois Norton, Wealden 106. Frank Little, Aberavon & Neath Liberal Democrats 107. Andrew Hickey, Manchester 108. Ed Trelinski, Rugby 109. Leslie K. Clark, Aberdeen South 110. Sam Bennet, Greater Reading Lib Dems 111. Aidan McGuire, Southport Lib Dems 112. Bob Browning, Ealing
Re: Concerns over our liberal identity and mission in government
We understand that the leaked policy on RIPA internet surveillance is now being reviewed more thoroughly, rather than rushed into the Queen's speech. As such we would like you, as our president, to convey the following thoughts to appropriate Liberal Democrat ministers.
The Home Secretary wrote in the Sun on Tuesday that "Only suspected terrorists, paedophiles or serious criminals will be investigated." This is akin to saying "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to worry about." If the hacking scandal and ongoing Leveson inquiry has taught us anything, it is that argument is demonstrably false.
At first hacking was tolerated by the public when it was only celebrities and politicians who were victims. It was only after it was exposed that private individuals were hacked that there was public outrage. Even the Queen's own police protection sold information about her to the News of the World. If our head of state cannot be safeguarded from corrupt police officers, what chance has the rest of us got? This is our fear over these leaked proposals; we believe that extending universal, rather than targeted internet surveillance powers to the police, exposes innocent citizens to corrupt sections of authority. We agree with Julian Huppert MP when he argues that the police should only be allowed to access private internet usage when they have obtained a "named, specific and time-limited warrant" from a judge or minister.
In a February 2011 interview with the Guardian Nick Clegg said: "You should not trust government – full stop. The natural inclination of government is to hoard power and information; to accrue power to itself in the name of the public good." And later: Clegg says the restoration of liberty is ongoing, and urges campaigners to "hold the government's feet to the fire". We are attempting to do just that with this letter. Surely an important part of our party's mission is to defend and protect the civil rights of our fellow citizens, and if we fail, our party's liberal identity will be put at grave risk. We urge our ministers to heed our call – block these illiberal proposals and lead the charge for reform of RIPA to ensure our citizens enjoy the fair, free and open society we seek to build and safeguard.
Kind regards,
1. Cllr Lev Eakins, Manchester City Council 2. Cllr Janet Battye, Leader, Calderdale MBC 3. Cllr Guy Poultney, Cabinet Member, Bristol City Council 4. Cllr Anood Al-Samerai, Leader, Southwark Liberal Democrat council group 5. Cllr Iain Roberts, Cabinet member, Stockport MBC 6. Cllr Prue Bray, Leader, Wokingham Liberal Democrat council group 7. Cllr Tom Papworth, Leader, Bromley Liberal Democrat council group 8. Cllr Erica Kemp, Liverpool City Council 9. Cllr Alex Folkes, Deputy Leader Cornwall Liberal Democrat council group 10. Cllr. Tony Harwood, Deputy Leader Maidstone Liberal Democrat council group 11. Cllr Tom Simon, Deputy Leader, Camden Liberal Democrat council group 12. Cllr Tom Morrison, Chair Liverpool Wavetree 13. Cllr. Neil Taylor, Chair Altrincham and Sale West 14. Cllr Victor Chamberlain, Manchester City Council 15. Cllr James Baker, Calderdale 16. Cllr Nigel Ashton, Southport 17. Cllr Michelle Pearce, Wiltshire 18. Cllr Colin Rosenstiel, Cambridge 19. Cllr Darren Thornton, Richmond 20. Cllr Colin Strong, Spelthorne 21. Mark Pack, London, Co-Editor Lib-Dem Voice 22. Stephen Tall, Oxford, Co-Editor Lib-Dem Voice 23. Paul Walter, Newbury, Co-Editor Lib-Dem Voice 24. Mark Thompson, Bracknell, LD Blogger 25. Richard Morris, Richmond, LD Blogger 26. Zadok Day, Co-Chair Liberal Reform, Secretary Bury LDs 27. Linda Jack, Member of FPC and SLF Council and Chair Liberal Left 28. Kelly-Marie Blundell, Vice Chair of Ashford, Diversity Champion for the SE Region and South East SLF 29. Conor McKenzie, Harrogate, England Convenor Liberal Youth 30. Hannah Bettsworth, Liberal Youth Scotland Ordinary Executive Member-elect 31. Sara Lloyd Williams, Ieuenctid Rhyddfrydol Cymru Liberal Youth Wales Chair 32. Tom Lister, Ieuenctid Rhyddfrydol Cymru Liberal Youth Wales Vice Chair/Treasurer 33. Linden Parker, Ieuenctid Rhyddfrydol Cymru Liberal Youth Wales Communication Officer 34. Cadan ap Tomos, Aberystwyth, Ieuenctid Rhyddfrydol Cymru Liberal Youth Wales Young Members' Officer 35. Rory Roberson, Ieuenctid Rhyddfrydol Cymru Liberal Youth Wales Branch Officer 36. Natasha Chapman, East Midlands Regional Liberal Youth chair 37. David Cope, LD Youth South West Regional Chair 38. Joe Donnelly, Rossendale, Chair of Durham Liberal Youth 39. Daniel Waterfield, Liverpool, Co-Chair Liverpool LD Youth 40. Madeleine Spink, Chair York University LDs 41. Alan Belmore, Horsham (Former Chair, Liberal Youth) 42. Richard Gadsden, Manchester, Exec Member NW Region 43. Josh Allen, York Central (Press Secretary) 44. Tracy Connell, Newcastle, Regional Officer 45. Neil Derby, Chair of Preston Liberal Democrats 46. Gemma Roulston, Reigate, LDDA officer 47. Paul Wild, Walsall, MDO 48. William Jones, Chair, Wythenshawe and Sale East 49. Steve Middleton, Treasurer, Salford Lib Dems 50. Jennie Rigg, Branch secretary, Brighouse Liberal Democrats 51. Steven Haynes, Northfield Liberal Democrats, MDO 52. Joy Winder, Manchester, former Councillor 53. Karen Chilvers, Brentwood, Essex 54. Maria Pretzler, Swansea & Gower 55. Lance Idiabor-Moses, Leeds Central and Yorkshire and the Humber Liberal Youth 56. Kevin White, Liverpool 57. Penny Burgess, Cotswolds 58. Peter Reisdorf, West Kirby 59. Graham Hopgood, Hastings & St Leonards 60. John Richardson, Newark 61. Iain Donaldson, Manchester 62. Tim Allan, Newcastle Central 63. Alan Neil Webb, Amber Valley 64. Kat Dadswell, Liverpool 65. Bevis Maun, Manchester 66. Stuart Wheatcroft, Carlisle 67. James Rowe, Barnsley 68. Gareth Peter Jones, Swansea 69. Graeme Cowie, Glasgow 70. Martin Veart, Edinburgh 71. Louise Shaw, Stockport 72. Leon Duveen, Bassetlaw & Sherwood 73. Ian Morris, Doncaster 74. Jason Kay, Folkestone 75. Stephen Clarke, Tower Hamlets 76. Jack Cartwright, Brighton 77. Andy Spracklen, Manchester 78. Jock Coats, Oxford 79. Andrew Hardwick, Manchester 80. George Potter, Guildford 81. Hywel Morgan, Calderdale 82. Harry Matthews, Sheffield 83. Callum Morton, Colchester 84. Robert Pitt, London 85. Colin Walklin, Canterbury 86. Rev Simon Wilson, Broadland 87. James Howitt, Salisbury 88. Jonathan Bates, Southampton 89. Andrew Tennant, Charnwood 90. Jonathan Lancaster, York Central 91. Gary McKenna, Salford 92. David Roberts-Jones, Cheadle 93. Riff Devin, Dudley 94. Lee Thacker, Rhondda Cynon Taff 95. Iain Coleman, Edinburgh 96. Martin Tod, Winchester 97. Shaun Young, Portsmouth 98. Martin Gentles, Battersea 99. Caron Lindsay, Dunfermline & West Fife 100. Valerie Talacko, Prague 101. Rob Parsons, Lewes 102. Ron Stafford, Warrington 103. Will Howells, London. 104. Richard Struck, North Bedfordshire 105. Lois Norton, Wealden 106. Frank Little, Aberavon & Neath Liberal Democrats 107. Andrew Hickey, Manchester 108. Ed Trelinski, Rugby 109. Leslie K. Clark, Aberdeen South 110. Sam Bennet, Greater Reading Lib Dems 111. Aidan McGuire, Southport Lib Dems 112. Bob Browning, Ealing
Tuesday, March 06, 2012
Faith Communities and Organ Donation
The letter below was published in the Eastern Daily Press (Feb 27th 2012)
I am afraid that I must take issue with some of the comments made by John Ferguson (Solution is Simple, EDP 22/2) relating to the supposed attitudes of the Church regarding organ transplant.
Christian Church leaders, along with colleagues from other faith communities remain at the forefront on the ongoing debate around issues such as the campaign for presumed consent.
Church of England teaching and synodical policy suggests that organ donation be a Christian duty, in keeping with giving oneself and one's possessions freely-The ready willingness to donate an organ is a clear sign of that sacrificial self-giving for others patterned by Jesus Christ.
Pope John Paul 2nd declared that, "Every organ transplant has its source in a decision of great ethical value… Here lies the nobility of a gesture which is a genuine act of love. There is a need to instil in people's hearts a genuine and deep love that can find expression in the decision to become an organ donor."
The Methodist Church has consistently supported organ donation and transplantation in appropriate circumstances, as a means through which healing and health may be made possible.
Of course, we all grieve differently and pastoral sensitivity has to be at the
heart of this issue;
Jesus Christ demonstrated with his own life how, even in sorrow, love enables us to embrace
the needs of others. We can choose to donate our organs to save the lives of many people. The decision to donate at the end of life is the beginning of healing for many others. As a disabled person myself, I know that healing and saving life is a great gift. Jesus sent his twelve disciples out with the imperative to heal disease and illness and care for the sick; we are called to
do likewise.
I am afraid that I must take issue with some of the comments made by John Ferguson (Solution is Simple, EDP 22/2) relating to the supposed attitudes of the Church regarding organ transplant.
Christian Church leaders, along with colleagues from other faith communities remain at the forefront on the ongoing debate around issues such as the campaign for presumed consent.
Church of England teaching and synodical policy suggests that organ donation be a Christian duty, in keeping with giving oneself and one's possessions freely-The ready willingness to donate an organ is a clear sign of that sacrificial self-giving for others patterned by Jesus Christ.
Pope John Paul 2nd declared that, "Every organ transplant has its source in a decision of great ethical value… Here lies the nobility of a gesture which is a genuine act of love. There is a need to instil in people's hearts a genuine and deep love that can find expression in the decision to become an organ donor."
The Methodist Church has consistently supported organ donation and transplantation in appropriate circumstances, as a means through which healing and health may be made possible.
Of course, we all grieve differently and pastoral sensitivity has to be at the
heart of this issue;
Jesus Christ demonstrated with his own life how, even in sorrow, love enables us to embrace
the needs of others. We can choose to donate our organs to save the lives of many people. The decision to donate at the end of life is the beginning of healing for many others. As a disabled person myself, I know that healing and saving life is a great gift. Jesus sent his twelve disciples out with the imperative to heal disease and illness and care for the sick; we are called to
do likewise.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Odd defection news
On November 11th, Phil Hardy, Leader of the Green Party Group on Norfolk County Council said: "Councillor Paul Rice's defection from the Lib Dems to the Tories only a few months ago was the first one in Norfolk since the 1970s. Now David Callaby has defected so soon after, this is a clear indication of how close the Liberal Democrats are with the Tories, not just with the coalition Government but here in Norfolk too. People in Lakenham need to be aware of this when they decide how to vote in the by-election on 24th November."
Just a month later Councillor Phil Hardy defects to the Conservative Party!
This appears to be a very strange move indeed. I'm sure that there is more to this story than meets the eye, not least because of the ongoing anger relating to the proposed incinerator for Kings Lynn.
Just a month later Councillor Phil Hardy defects to the Conservative Party!
This appears to be a very strange move indeed. I'm sure that there is more to this story than meets the eye, not least because of the ongoing anger relating to the proposed incinerator for Kings Lynn.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Government Minister Praises Ecumenical Criminal Justice Forum
Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice, Lord (Tom) McNally has praised the enormously important role of the Norfolk Ecumenical Criminal Justice Forum.
Speaking to the Forum at a meeting hosted by the Bishop of Norwich on July 26, Lord McNally said: “A group like yours has an enormously important role; by coming together to share experiences from your “day jobs”; by contributing to thoughtful and informed debate; and by trying to discern the best ways of helping those in your care.”
Addressing the forum, which brings together a wide range group of people engaged in the criminal justice system from judges and magistrates to ex-offenders and volunatry sector partners, Lord McNally, said: “I welcome the fact that the Ecumenical Criminal Justice Forum provides time and space for a range of practitioners in the criminal justice system to meet to exchange views, and discuss imaginative solutions to some of the problems local people experience on a day to day basis. These are times of great challenge and change for all of us..a measure of ourselves as a just and compassionate society is how we treat and aim to rehabilitate those who break the law."
Liberal Democrat Leader in the House of Lords, Lord McNally, went on to address the Government’s current programme of reforms of sentencing and legal aid, exploring issues relating to penal reform, prisoner reparation, youth justice, reforms of the legal aid system and restorative justice.
Having spent the afternoon looking at how police, probation and other agencies in Norfolk have led the way in its' adoption of restorative approaches relating to criminal justice, anti-social behaviour and community mediation, Lord McNally commented that "Restorative justice has an important part to play, but only so long as it is used appropriately, and that interventions are of sufficiently high quality and there are sufficient safeguards in place for victims. Our aim is to introduce a framework for best practice at all stages in the criminal justice system. Restorative justice is not a soft option… Many offenders find the process demanding and tough. We require offenders to take an active role in repairing harm, acknowledging the impact of what they’ve done and facing up to the consequences.Only those working within local communities understand the extent to which different types of crime are prevalent, and local justice requires flexibility in the kinds of disposals that are available.
Paying tribute to the dedication and vision of those involved in the criminal justice process, Lord McNally thanked those present for their contribution and highlighted the role played by prison chaplaincy teams making a real difference to the lives of prisoners, staff and the wider community by encouraging personal change and rehabilitation.
Echoing Martin Luther King's vision of a“the beloved community” – an activism that moves beyond securing individual rights to a broader understanding of building a just and compassionate society for all people,” Lord McNally concluded his address by calling for more dialogue and more partnership working and an extension of the work and vision of this ecumenical criminal justice forum. "A just society is an inclusive one… It’s about achieving a cultural shift in people’s attitudes and thinking. That applies just as much to the offender as to the victim; to the criminal justice professionals as much as to the media commentators; and to faith groups and churches as much as to those of no faith.”
Forum convenor, Rev Simon Wilson commented:
"The criminal justice forum has been one of the most encouraging and exciting projects that I have ever had the privilege of being involved in. It brings together a wide range of people working hard to make our communities cohesive, safe and inclusive places and we are grateful for Lord McNally's support and encouragement."
Speaking to the Forum at a meeting hosted by the Bishop of Norwich on July 26, Lord McNally said: “A group like yours has an enormously important role; by coming together to share experiences from your “day jobs”; by contributing to thoughtful and informed debate; and by trying to discern the best ways of helping those in your care.”
Addressing the forum, which brings together a wide range group of people engaged in the criminal justice system from judges and magistrates to ex-offenders and volunatry sector partners, Lord McNally, said: “I welcome the fact that the Ecumenical Criminal Justice Forum provides time and space for a range of practitioners in the criminal justice system to meet to exchange views, and discuss imaginative solutions to some of the problems local people experience on a day to day basis. These are times of great challenge and change for all of us..a measure of ourselves as a just and compassionate society is how we treat and aim to rehabilitate those who break the law."
Liberal Democrat Leader in the House of Lords, Lord McNally, went on to address the Government’s current programme of reforms of sentencing and legal aid, exploring issues relating to penal reform, prisoner reparation, youth justice, reforms of the legal aid system and restorative justice.
Having spent the afternoon looking at how police, probation and other agencies in Norfolk have led the way in its' adoption of restorative approaches relating to criminal justice, anti-social behaviour and community mediation, Lord McNally commented that "Restorative justice has an important part to play, but only so long as it is used appropriately, and that interventions are of sufficiently high quality and there are sufficient safeguards in place for victims. Our aim is to introduce a framework for best practice at all stages in the criminal justice system. Restorative justice is not a soft option… Many offenders find the process demanding and tough. We require offenders to take an active role in repairing harm, acknowledging the impact of what they’ve done and facing up to the consequences.Only those working within local communities understand the extent to which different types of crime are prevalent, and local justice requires flexibility in the kinds of disposals that are available.
Paying tribute to the dedication and vision of those involved in the criminal justice process, Lord McNally thanked those present for their contribution and highlighted the role played by prison chaplaincy teams making a real difference to the lives of prisoners, staff and the wider community by encouraging personal change and rehabilitation.
Echoing Martin Luther King's vision of a“the beloved community” – an activism that moves beyond securing individual rights to a broader understanding of building a just and compassionate society for all people,” Lord McNally concluded his address by calling for more dialogue and more partnership working and an extension of the work and vision of this ecumenical criminal justice forum. "A just society is an inclusive one… It’s about achieving a cultural shift in people’s attitudes and thinking. That applies just as much to the offender as to the victim; to the criminal justice professionals as much as to the media commentators; and to faith groups and churches as much as to those of no faith.”
Forum convenor, Rev Simon Wilson commented:
"The criminal justice forum has been one of the most encouraging and exciting projects that I have ever had the privilege of being involved in. It brings together a wide range of people working hard to make our communities cohesive, safe and inclusive places and we are grateful for Lord McNally's support and encouragement."
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
2011 chaplaincy conference
Report of Inter-disciplinary multi-faith chaplaincy conference May 2011
The annual Inter-disciplinary multi-faith chaplaincy conference organised by Good Work, in partnership with Norfolk and Waveney Churches Together, took place recently at Trinity United Reform church in Norwich. Well attended, as always, the event brought together chaplains from a variety of contexts-including police, hospital, prison, local authority or education settings-from a diversity of faith communities including those from Christians, Muslims, Jewish and Sikh traditions. The event also brought together a variety of different models of chaplaincy-some full-time, others part-time or sessional; some paid others voluntary. The resulting gathering showed how increasingly important chaplaincy is as a dimension of the mission and ministry of our faith communities in a changing contemporary and cosmopolitan culture.
After a generous welcome from the Bishop of Norwich, showing the high regard and gratitude that church leadership has for the commitment and contribution that chaplains make to the institutions in which they serve and the wider community. Marie-Charlotte Remy Macaud from the Faith Matters project talked about recent work exploring the role of the Muslim Chaplain in public sector chaplaincy and in particular the understanding of community leadership through chaplaincy. Professor Paul Ballard, a well known academic theologian, explored the inner and outer formation of the modern chaplain and their place in the wider church.
The afternoon sessions were more practical- Jenny Kartupelis from the East of England Faiths Council examined the wider context in which chaplains operate: the pastoral and practical factors arising from public sector cuts and restructuring and their prominent place in any “big society”. David Capey from the East of England Faiths Agency outlined some of the resources available to chaplaincy teams to help them explore multi-faith aspects of their work, including the pastoral needs of the diversity of faith communities present in Norfolk.
The chaplains also spent time reflecting on how to evaluate chaplaincy, where chaplains find their own needs met, what support is available and how chaplains can work together. Chaplains often feel isolated, so this mutual encouragement and dialogue is important. Chaplaincy is at the cutting-edge of the presence and engagement of faith communities in the uncertain, apparently secular, post-modern world in which we find ourselves. We have much to celebrate and be proud of.
Rev Simon Wilson, June 2011
Social and Community Concerns Co-ordinator, Diocese of Norwich
County Ecumenical Officer, Norfolk and Waveney Churches Together
The annual Inter-disciplinary multi-faith chaplaincy conference organised by Good Work, in partnership with Norfolk and Waveney Churches Together, took place recently at Trinity United Reform church in Norwich. Well attended, as always, the event brought together chaplains from a variety of contexts-including police, hospital, prison, local authority or education settings-from a diversity of faith communities including those from Christians, Muslims, Jewish and Sikh traditions. The event also brought together a variety of different models of chaplaincy-some full-time, others part-time or sessional; some paid others voluntary. The resulting gathering showed how increasingly important chaplaincy is as a dimension of the mission and ministry of our faith communities in a changing contemporary and cosmopolitan culture.
After a generous welcome from the Bishop of Norwich, showing the high regard and gratitude that church leadership has for the commitment and contribution that chaplains make to the institutions in which they serve and the wider community. Marie-Charlotte Remy Macaud from the Faith Matters project talked about recent work exploring the role of the Muslim Chaplain in public sector chaplaincy and in particular the understanding of community leadership through chaplaincy. Professor Paul Ballard, a well known academic theologian, explored the inner and outer formation of the modern chaplain and their place in the wider church.
The afternoon sessions were more practical- Jenny Kartupelis from the East of England Faiths Council examined the wider context in which chaplains operate: the pastoral and practical factors arising from public sector cuts and restructuring and their prominent place in any “big society”. David Capey from the East of England Faiths Agency outlined some of the resources available to chaplaincy teams to help them explore multi-faith aspects of their work, including the pastoral needs of the diversity of faith communities present in Norfolk.
The chaplains also spent time reflecting on how to evaluate chaplaincy, where chaplains find their own needs met, what support is available and how chaplains can work together. Chaplains often feel isolated, so this mutual encouragement and dialogue is important. Chaplaincy is at the cutting-edge of the presence and engagement of faith communities in the uncertain, apparently secular, post-modern world in which we find ourselves. We have much to celebrate and be proud of.
Rev Simon Wilson, June 2011
Social and Community Concerns Co-ordinator, Diocese of Norwich
County Ecumenical Officer, Norfolk and Waveney Churches Together
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Benefice Magazine Editorial May 2011
MAGAZINE EDITORIAL CHRISTAN AID WEEK 15-21 MAY 2011
Enclosed in this magazine is a little red envelope-that might not seem very exciting, but there is something very special about this little red envelope-it is an invitation to get involved in something alongside millions of others; it is an opportunity to give, pray or take action; it is a calling to look beyond ourselves make a difference and for some of the world’s poorest communities, this little red envelope represents hope. It is, of course, a Christian Aid envelope.
Every year, people of this benefice give generously –some financially, others prayerfully and now is the opportunity to do so again-to make a difference here in this country and overseas.
For so many of the world’s people, life is an unending struggle-a struggle against poverty, disease and famine, against natural disaster, war and exploitation. In the face of such need and desperation, it is hard not to feel overwhelmed and helpless, but we can make a difference. Christian Aid works with partner organisations already involved across the world in helping the poorest of the poorest not only survive hardship today but to dare to hope for a better tomorrow.
We can be part of the bigger picture-of transformation where it seems impossible-imagining how the world would look if we allowed the kingdom of God to be a reality, if we truly believed in abundant life for all and don’t put limits on love and justice-if we act as neighbours should. We can be the change that matters.
Please return your envelope to Foulsham Rectory or to church-wardens.
For more information about Christian Aid Week, please visit www.christianaidweek.org.uk
Thank you for your generosity .
Rev Simon Wilson
Enclosed in this magazine is a little red envelope-that might not seem very exciting, but there is something very special about this little red envelope-it is an invitation to get involved in something alongside millions of others; it is an opportunity to give, pray or take action; it is a calling to look beyond ourselves make a difference and for some of the world’s poorest communities, this little red envelope represents hope. It is, of course, a Christian Aid envelope.
Every year, people of this benefice give generously –some financially, others prayerfully and now is the opportunity to do so again-to make a difference here in this country and overseas.
For so many of the world’s people, life is an unending struggle-a struggle against poverty, disease and famine, against natural disaster, war and exploitation. In the face of such need and desperation, it is hard not to feel overwhelmed and helpless, but we can make a difference. Christian Aid works with partner organisations already involved across the world in helping the poorest of the poorest not only survive hardship today but to dare to hope for a better tomorrow.
We can be part of the bigger picture-of transformation where it seems impossible-imagining how the world would look if we allowed the kingdom of God to be a reality, if we truly believed in abundant life for all and don’t put limits on love and justice-if we act as neighbours should. We can be the change that matters.
Please return your envelope to Foulsham Rectory or to church-wardens.
For more information about Christian Aid Week, please visit www.christianaidweek.org.uk
Thank you for your generosity .
Rev Simon Wilson
Friday, April 08, 2011
Call for Churches to Engage with AV referendum
You do not need to be a psephological geek like me to realise that a referendum is taking place on May 5th concerning the adoption of the Alternative Vote system for elections to the House of Commons. It asks a crucial question about how our democratic political system operates and how we interact with it, because how we vote will affect the sort of parliament and government we get out of it.
It is important that churches are aware that the referendum is happening and are equipted to help people think through the issues involved. For some Christians, this may not be an issue that they have given much thought to, however others may hold very strong views and others still would prefer to be answering a different question and considering different systems. Disagreement though should not prevent us bringing our beliefs into the heart of the political process.
Various neutral and informative resources are available to stimulate reflection and discussion including the following which I commend to you:
Faithworks Direct Democracy campaign:
http://www.faithworks.info/SubSection.asp?id=9239
Evangelical Alliance:
http://www.eauk.org/articles/debate-av-referendum.cfm
Theos:
http://campaigndirector.moodia.com/Client/Theos/Files/VotingReform.pdf
In addition to these, the offical campaign sites are at:
http://www.yestofairervotes.org
http://www.no2av.org
There is planned to be a series of hustings meetings organised by church groups across the region which I will advertise when confirmed. Please do let me know of anything happening in your own locality.
It is important that churches are aware that the referendum is happening and are equipted to help people think through the issues involved. For some Christians, this may not be an issue that they have given much thought to, however others may hold very strong views and others still would prefer to be answering a different question and considering different systems. Disagreement though should not prevent us bringing our beliefs into the heart of the political process.
Various neutral and informative resources are available to stimulate reflection and discussion including the following which I commend to you:
Faithworks Direct Democracy campaign:
http://www.faithworks.info/SubSection.asp?id=9239
Evangelical Alliance:
http://www.eauk.org/articles/debate-av-referendum.cfm
Theos:
http://campaigndirector.moodia.com/Client/Theos/Files/VotingReform.pdf
In addition to these, the offical campaign sites are at:
http://www.yestofairervotes.org
http://www.no2av.org
There is planned to be a series of hustings meetings organised by church groups across the region which I will advertise when confirmed. Please do let me know of anything happening in your own locality.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Say Yes to Fair Votes
We will finally be given our say in the referendum on 5th May 2011. The proposed Alternative Vote ("AV") method of electing MPs builds on the strengths of the current system while eliminating many of its weaknesses.
The official YES campaign (with supporters from all parties and none)is very much up and running-visit the website at: www.yestofairervotes.org to find out more and to register your interest.
The circumstances may not be ideal but this referendum is a chance to move forwards towards much needed comprehensive political reform.
IT IS TIME FOR CHANGE-BE A PART OF IT
The official YES campaign (with supporters from all parties and none)is very much up and running-visit the website at: www.yestofairervotes.org to find out more and to register your interest.
The circumstances may not be ideal but this referendum is a chance to move forwards towards much needed comprehensive political reform.
IT IS TIME FOR CHANGE-BE A PART OF IT
Monday, May 17, 2010
Into Coalition-my thoughts
It has been quite a month to be a Liberal Democrat-we find ourselves on a journey none of us predicted.
We can be proud of the campaign we fought both on the ground and in the air. We saw the birth of Cleggmania after Nick's superb performance in the televised debates which caught the public's attention and energised the campaign. I think that we all got caught up in the optimism of the moment which came with the spring sunshine. Liberal Democrat hopes and expectations soared. I even dusted my SDP "the time has come" mug! The Guardian urged readers to support this "Liberal moment".
The results came as a shock-the Liberal Democrats polled the most votes ever (6.8million), the highest share of the votes (23%) but just 57 seats-a net loss of 6. It was as diverse as it was unexpected. We held seats in the south west that the Tories had expected to win, but lost Oxford West and Abingdon; gained Redcar but not Watford; Eastbourne but not Islington South; gained Derby South but lost Rochdale. In Norfolk, Simon Wright ousted Charles Clarke in Norwich South, Norman Lamb increased his majority again in North Norfolk and our vote went up in every consituency in the county. Nationally we gained ground and new 2nd places in many seats and fell behind in others. I was especially pleased to see Naomi Long defeat Northern Ireland first minister, Peter Robinson, for the Alliance in Belfast East and old friend Stephen Twigg who was returned for Labour in Liverpool West Derby.
For the first time since 1974, the country found itself with a hung parliament-the Tories gained 90 odd seats but not given the overall majority they had expected months before; Labour lost 90 seats but avoided meltdown and showed resilience in London and the North. The BNP were destroyed in general election and locals.
My first thought was that a progressive alliance was the answer-the traffic light initiative which I dreamed of. However, there problems: the maths did not add up-any progressive alliance would be unstable; Labour in their hearts and minds were turning their attention to opposition and the election of a new leader. Then the big gamble happened-the Liberal Democrats began negotiations with the Conservative. A minority confidence and supply agreement would have left the Tories able to call a snap election when it suited them.
Instead, a full coalition agreement was agreed- including a referendum on AV (not ideal but better than FPTP), other constitutional reform measures; many of Lib Dem manifesto demands were accepted by the Conservatives-along with 5 cabinet and 15 other governmental posts offered.
For me, the special conference showed how united the party was in the face of this unexpected turn of events. It is an opportunity to step out of the comfort zone of opposition, to put Lib Dem policies into action-that is what I went into politics more. The Lib Dems can liberalise the Conservative agenda. It won't be easy but we need to make it work. Maybe the Liberal moment is here after all.
We can be proud of the campaign we fought both on the ground and in the air. We saw the birth of Cleggmania after Nick's superb performance in the televised debates which caught the public's attention and energised the campaign. I think that we all got caught up in the optimism of the moment which came with the spring sunshine. Liberal Democrat hopes and expectations soared. I even dusted my SDP "the time has come" mug! The Guardian urged readers to support this "Liberal moment".
The results came as a shock-the Liberal Democrats polled the most votes ever (6.8million), the highest share of the votes (23%) but just 57 seats-a net loss of 6. It was as diverse as it was unexpected. We held seats in the south west that the Tories had expected to win, but lost Oxford West and Abingdon; gained Redcar but not Watford; Eastbourne but not Islington South; gained Derby South but lost Rochdale. In Norfolk, Simon Wright ousted Charles Clarke in Norwich South, Norman Lamb increased his majority again in North Norfolk and our vote went up in every consituency in the county. Nationally we gained ground and new 2nd places in many seats and fell behind in others. I was especially pleased to see Naomi Long defeat Northern Ireland first minister, Peter Robinson, for the Alliance in Belfast East and old friend Stephen Twigg who was returned for Labour in Liverpool West Derby.
For the first time since 1974, the country found itself with a hung parliament-the Tories gained 90 odd seats but not given the overall majority they had expected months before; Labour lost 90 seats but avoided meltdown and showed resilience in London and the North. The BNP were destroyed in general election and locals.
My first thought was that a progressive alliance was the answer-the traffic light initiative which I dreamed of. However, there problems: the maths did not add up-any progressive alliance would be unstable; Labour in their hearts and minds were turning their attention to opposition and the election of a new leader. Then the big gamble happened-the Liberal Democrats began negotiations with the Conservative. A minority confidence and supply agreement would have left the Tories able to call a snap election when it suited them.
Instead, a full coalition agreement was agreed- including a referendum on AV (not ideal but better than FPTP), other constitutional reform measures; many of Lib Dem manifesto demands were accepted by the Conservatives-along with 5 cabinet and 15 other governmental posts offered.
For me, the special conference showed how united the party was in the face of this unexpected turn of events. It is an opportunity to step out of the comfort zone of opposition, to put Lib Dem policies into action-that is what I went into politics more. The Lib Dems can liberalise the Conservative agenda. It won't be easy but we need to make it work. Maybe the Liberal moment is here after all.
Friday, May 07, 2010
Nick Clegg's statement on the results of the election
Today Nick Clegg Leader of the Liberal Democrats said that the party with the greatest number of seats and the greatest number of votes was the one which had the mandate to try and form a government.
Last night was a disappointment for the Liberal Democrats. Even though more people voted for us than ever before, even though we had a higher proportion of the vote than ever before, it is of course a source of great regret to me that we have lost some really valued friends and colleagues and we have returned to Parliament with fewer MPs than before.
Many, many people during the election campaign were excited about the prospect of doing something different, but it seems that when they came to vote, many of them, in the end, decided to stick with what they knew best. And at a time of great economic uncertainty, I totally understand those feelings. But that’s not going to stop me from redoubling my efforts and our efforts to show that real change is the best reassurance that things can get better for people and their families, that it shouldn’t be something which unsettles people.
Now we’re in a very fluid political situation with no party enjoying an absolute majority. As I’ve said before, it seems to me in a situation like this, it’s vital that all political parties, all political leaders, act in the national interest, and not out of narrow party political advantage. I’ve also said that whichever party gets the most votes and the most seats, if not an absolute majority, has the first right to seek to govern, either on its own or by reaching out to other parties, and I stick to that view. It seems this morning that it’s the Conservative party that has more votes and more seats, though not an absolute majority, and that is why I think it is now for the Conservative party to prove that it is capable of seeking to govern in the national interest. At the same time, this election campaign has made it abundantly clear that our electoral system is broken, it simply doesn’t reflect the hopes and aspirations of the British people, so I repeat again my assurance, that whatever happens in the coming hours and days and weeks, I will continue to argue not only for the greater fairness in British society, not only the greater responsibility in economic policy making, but also for the extensive, real reforms that we need to fix our broken political system. Thank you very much.
Last night was a disappointment for the Liberal Democrats. Even though more people voted for us than ever before, even though we had a higher proportion of the vote than ever before, it is of course a source of great regret to me that we have lost some really valued friends and colleagues and we have returned to Parliament with fewer MPs than before.
Many, many people during the election campaign were excited about the prospect of doing something different, but it seems that when they came to vote, many of them, in the end, decided to stick with what they knew best. And at a time of great economic uncertainty, I totally understand those feelings. But that’s not going to stop me from redoubling my efforts and our efforts to show that real change is the best reassurance that things can get better for people and their families, that it shouldn’t be something which unsettles people.
Now we’re in a very fluid political situation with no party enjoying an absolute majority. As I’ve said before, it seems to me in a situation like this, it’s vital that all political parties, all political leaders, act in the national interest, and not out of narrow party political advantage. I’ve also said that whichever party gets the most votes and the most seats, if not an absolute majority, has the first right to seek to govern, either on its own or by reaching out to other parties, and I stick to that view. It seems this morning that it’s the Conservative party that has more votes and more seats, though not an absolute majority, and that is why I think it is now for the Conservative party to prove that it is capable of seeking to govern in the national interest. At the same time, this election campaign has made it abundantly clear that our electoral system is broken, it simply doesn’t reflect the hopes and aspirations of the British people, so I repeat again my assurance, that whatever happens in the coming hours and days and weeks, I will continue to argue not only for the greater fairness in British society, not only the greater responsibility in economic policy making, but also for the extensive, real reforms that we need to fix our broken political system. Thank you very much.
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
Letter to a Young Activist
The frenetic campaigning is drawing to a close; tomorrow we do our democratic duty and as a community deliver our verdict so it seems a good time to pause and reflect. In my politics and ministry, I have always been challenged and encouraged by the following words of wisdom from Thomas Merton's LETTER TO A YOUNG ACTIVIST.
Do not depend on the hope of results. When you are doing the sort of work you have taken on, essentially an apostolic work, you may have to face the fact that your work will be apparently worthless and achieve no result at all, if not perhaps results opposite to what you expect. As you get used to this idea, you start more and more to concentrate not on the results but on the value, the truth of the work itself. And there, too, a great deal has to be gone through, as gradually as you struggle less and less for an idea, and more and more for specific people. The range tends to narrow down, but it gets much more real. In the end, it is the reality of personal relationships that saves everything.
You are fed up with words, and I don’t blame you. I am nauseated by them sometimes. I am also, to tell you the truth, nauseated by ideals and with causes. This sounds like heresy, but I think you will understand what I mean. It is so easy to get engrossed with ideas and slogans and myths that in the end one is left holding the bag, empty, with no trace of meaning left in it. And then the temptation is to yell louder than ever in order to make the meaning be there again by magic. Going through this kind of reaction helps you to guard against this. Your system is complaining of too much verbalizing, and it is right.
The big results are not in your hands or mine, but they suddenly happen, and we can share in them, but there is no point in building our lives on this personal satisfaction, which may be denied us and which after all is not that important.
The next step in the process is for you to see that your even thinking about what you are doing is crucially important. You are probably striving to build yourself an identity in your work, out of your work and witness. You are using it, so to speak, to protect yourself against nothingness, annihilation. That is not the right use of your work. All the good that you will do will come, not from you but from the fact that you have allowed yourself, in the obedience of faith, to be used by God’s love. Think of this more and gradually you will be free from the need to prove yourself, and you can be more open to the power that will work through you without your knowing it.
The great thing after all is to live, not to pour out your life in the service of a myth; and we turn the best things into myths. If you can get free from the domination of causes and just serve Christ’s truth, you will be able to do more and will be less crushed by the inevitable disappointments. Because I see nothing whatever in sight but much disappointment, frustration, and confusion.
The real hope, then, is not in something we think we can do, but in God who is making something good out of it in some way we cannot see. If we can do His will, we will be helping in this process. But we will not necessarily know all about it beforehand . . .
Do not depend on the hope of results. When you are doing the sort of work you have taken on, essentially an apostolic work, you may have to face the fact that your work will be apparently worthless and achieve no result at all, if not perhaps results opposite to what you expect. As you get used to this idea, you start more and more to concentrate not on the results but on the value, the truth of the work itself. And there, too, a great deal has to be gone through, as gradually as you struggle less and less for an idea, and more and more for specific people. The range tends to narrow down, but it gets much more real. In the end, it is the reality of personal relationships that saves everything.
You are fed up with words, and I don’t blame you. I am nauseated by them sometimes. I am also, to tell you the truth, nauseated by ideals and with causes. This sounds like heresy, but I think you will understand what I mean. It is so easy to get engrossed with ideas and slogans and myths that in the end one is left holding the bag, empty, with no trace of meaning left in it. And then the temptation is to yell louder than ever in order to make the meaning be there again by magic. Going through this kind of reaction helps you to guard against this. Your system is complaining of too much verbalizing, and it is right.
The big results are not in your hands or mine, but they suddenly happen, and we can share in them, but there is no point in building our lives on this personal satisfaction, which may be denied us and which after all is not that important.
The next step in the process is for you to see that your even thinking about what you are doing is crucially important. You are probably striving to build yourself an identity in your work, out of your work and witness. You are using it, so to speak, to protect yourself against nothingness, annihilation. That is not the right use of your work. All the good that you will do will come, not from you but from the fact that you have allowed yourself, in the obedience of faith, to be used by God’s love. Think of this more and gradually you will be free from the need to prove yourself, and you can be more open to the power that will work through you without your knowing it.
The great thing after all is to live, not to pour out your life in the service of a myth; and we turn the best things into myths. If you can get free from the domination of causes and just serve Christ’s truth, you will be able to do more and will be less crushed by the inevitable disappointments. Because I see nothing whatever in sight but much disappointment, frustration, and confusion.
The real hope, then, is not in something we think we can do, but in God who is making something good out of it in some way we cannot see. If we can do His will, we will be helping in this process. But we will not necessarily know all about it beforehand . . .
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
Values to guide voters
The Norfolk and Waveney Church Leaders have issued a joint statement on the values which they believe should guide voters in the General Election.
General Election - 6th May 2010
A Statement from the Church Leaders of Norfolk and Waveney
On 6th May the people of Norfolk and Waveney will choose our representatives in Parliament at the General Election. Five years ago almost four in ten of those registered to vote did not do so. As Church Leaders in this area we encourage everyone to exercise their right to vote and to do so with the wellbeing of all people in our communities in mind.
The Churches in our area have hosted some of the best attended hustings during this election campaign and have done so in service to the wider community. The same area’s tradition of hospitality is well reflected in this area’s notable history of welcoming people fleeing persecution elsewhere in Europe, sometimes on religious grounds. As Christian leaders in this generation we believe that living together with mutual respect remains the foundation of a civilised society. All human beings are created equally in the image of God. That is why racism is a sin. Christ calls us to love our neighbours as ourselves and in this forthcoming election we believe it is right to be vigilant about any party or individual candidate seeking to use people’s fears for their own wellbeing to stir racial or religious hatred.
Inevitably this is an election taking place when people are anxious about their jobs, finances and future. We pray that the best and most generous traditions of our national life will guide all voters on May 6th.
The Rt. Revd. Michael Evans, Bishop of East Anglia (Roman Catholic)
Major David Jackson, Divisional Commander, Anglia Division of the Salvation Army
The Rt. Revd. Graham James, Bishop of Norwich (Church of England)
The Revd. Richard Lewis, Regional Minister, Baptist Union of Great Britain
John Myhill, Norfolk Representative of the Society of Friends
The Revd. Graham Thompson, Chair, East Anglia District of the Methodist Church
The Revd. Paul Whittle, Moderator, Eastern Province, United Reformed Church
General Election - 6th May 2010
A Statement from the Church Leaders of Norfolk and Waveney
On 6th May the people of Norfolk and Waveney will choose our representatives in Parliament at the General Election. Five years ago almost four in ten of those registered to vote did not do so. As Church Leaders in this area we encourage everyone to exercise their right to vote and to do so with the wellbeing of all people in our communities in mind.
The Churches in our area have hosted some of the best attended hustings during this election campaign and have done so in service to the wider community. The same area’s tradition of hospitality is well reflected in this area’s notable history of welcoming people fleeing persecution elsewhere in Europe, sometimes on religious grounds. As Christian leaders in this generation we believe that living together with mutual respect remains the foundation of a civilised society. All human beings are created equally in the image of God. That is why racism is a sin. Christ calls us to love our neighbours as ourselves and in this forthcoming election we believe it is right to be vigilant about any party or individual candidate seeking to use people’s fears for their own wellbeing to stir racial or religious hatred.
Inevitably this is an election taking place when people are anxious about their jobs, finances and future. We pray that the best and most generous traditions of our national life will guide all voters on May 6th.
The Rt. Revd. Michael Evans, Bishop of East Anglia (Roman Catholic)
Major David Jackson, Divisional Commander, Anglia Division of the Salvation Army
The Rt. Revd. Graham James, Bishop of Norwich (Church of England)
The Revd. Richard Lewis, Regional Minister, Baptist Union of Great Britain
John Myhill, Norfolk Representative of the Society of Friends
The Revd. Graham Thompson, Chair, East Anglia District of the Methodist Church
The Revd. Paul Whittle, Moderator, Eastern Province, United Reformed Church
Saturday, May 01, 2010
The Guardian is urging readers to vote for the Liberal Democrats on Thursday; reward for a fantastic and inspirational campaign led so well by Nick Clegg in the TV debates and on the ground with a strong team of candidates and growing band of helpers. The tide is turning.
2010 has a different feel to 1997. In 1997 the voters clearly wanted the Tories out but there was also huge positive momentum behind Tony Blair and New Labour. In 2010, the public wants change again, but there is not the same groundswell of support for David Cameron and his party which may use different words and images but underneath are the same old Tories. I can remember being at school, then a student and for a short while unemployed under the Conservatives and saw at first-hand the consequences of Thatcher's divisive and alienating policies-not the party you would trust to lead us out of recession.
2010 must be an election of real change. Not just replacing a tired Labour Government with an unimaginative Tory one and the same old politics; but real change-of our outdated political system-fair voting, a properly reformed House of Lords, fixed term parliaments, real freedom of information, real accountable localism not top down decree; principled foreign policy and striving for peace not illegal war; protecting welfare services and sound economic policy led by a trusted Chancellor.
The enemies of change from the right-wing press to those who claim a divine right to rule us may want to stop us and try to scare; but I for one will be proud to vote Liberal Democrat on Thursday.
Here is that Guardian leader in full:
General election 2010
The liberal moment has come
If the Guardian had a vote it would be cast enthusiastically for the Liberal Democrats. But under our discredited electoral system some people may – hopefully for the last time – be forced to vote tactically
Citizens have votes. Newspapers do not. However, if the Guardian had a vote in the 2010 general election it would be cast enthusiastically for the Liberal Democrats. It would be cast in the knowledge that not all the consequences are predictable, and that some in particular should be avoided. The vote would be cast with some important reservations and frustrations. Yet it would be cast for one great reason of principle above all.
After the campaign that the Liberal Democrats have waged over this past month, for which considerable personal credit goes to Nick Clegg, the election presents the British people with a huge opportunity: the reform of the electoral system itself. Though Labour has enjoyed a deathbed conversion to aspects of the cause of reform, it is the Liberal Democrats who have most consistently argued that cause in the round and who, after the exhaustion of the old politics, reflect and lead an overwhelming national mood for real change.
Proportional representation – while not a panacea – would at last give this country what it has lacked for so long: a parliament that is a true mirror of this pluralist nation, not an increasingly unrepresentative two-party distortion of it. The Guardian has supported proportional representation for more than a century. In all that time there has never been a better opportunity than now to put this subject firmly among the nation's priorities. Only the Liberal Democrats grasp this fully, and only they can be trusted to keep up the pressure to deliver, though others in all parties, large and small, do and should support the cause. That has been true in past elections too, of course. But this time is different. The conjuncture in 2010 of a Labour party that has lost so much public confidence and a Conservative party that has not yet won it has enabled Mr Clegg to take his party close to the threshold of real influence for the first time in nearly 90 years.
This time – with the important caveat set out below – the more people who vote Liberal Democrat on 6 May, the greater the chance that this will be Britain's last general election under a first-past-the-post electoral system which is wholly unsuited to the political needs of a grown-up 21st-century democracy.
Tactical option
The pragmatic caveat concerns the danger that, under the existing electoral system, switching to the Liberal Democrats in Labour-Conservative marginal constituencies might let in an anti-reform Tory party. So, voters who share this principled enthusiasm for securing the largest possible number of Liberal Democrat MPs next Thursday must, in many constituencies, weigh the tactical option of supporting Labour to prevent a Conservative win.
Hopefully, if this really is the last election under the old system, such dilemmas between head and heart will apply less in future. For now, however, the cause of reform is overwhelmingly more likely to be achieved by a Lib Dem partnership of principle with Labour than by a Lib Dem marriage of convenience with a Tory party which is explicitly hostile to the cause and which currently plans to redraw the political map for its own advantage. The momentum for change would be fatally undermined should the Conservatives win an overall majority. The Liberal Democrats and Labour should, of course, have explored much earlier and more explicitly how they might co-operate to reform the electoral system. During the campaign, and especially since the final leaders' debate, the appetite for co-operation has clearly increased and is increasing still. Mr Clegg's Guardian interview today underscores the potential for more productive engagement with Labour and is matched by fresh, untribal thinking from his potential partners.
This election is about serious choices between three main parties which all have something to offer. David Cameron has done what none of his immediate predecessors has understood or tried to do: he has confronted the Conservative party with the fact that it was out of step with the country. He has forced the party to become more diverse and to engage with centre-ground opinion. He has explicitly aligned himself with the liberal Conservative tradition which the Thatcherites so despised during their long domination of the party. He has promoted modern thinking on civil liberty, the environment and aspects of social policy.
Mr Cameron offers a new and welcome Toryism, quite different from what Michael Howard offered five years ago. His difficulty is not that he is the "same old Tory". He isn't. The problem is that his revolution has not translated adequately into detailed policies, and remains highly contradictory. He embraces liberal Britain yet protests that Britain is broken because of liberal values. He is eloquent about the overmighty state but proposes to rip up the Human Rights Act which is the surest weapon against it. He talks about a Britain that will play a constructive role in Europe while aligning the Tories in the European parliament with some of the continent's wackier xenophobes. Behind the party leader's own engagement with green issues there stands a significant section of his party that still regards global warming as a liberal conspiracy.
The Tories have zigzagged through the financial crisis to an alarming degree, austerity here, spending pledges there. At times they have argued, against all reason, that Britain's economic malaise is down to overblown government, as opposed to the ravages of the market. Though the Conservatives are not uniquely evasive on the deficit, a large inheritance-tax cut for the very wealthy is the reverse of a serious "united and equal" approach to taxation. Small wonder that the Cameronisation of the Conservative party sometimes seems more palace coup than cultural revolution. A Cameron government might not be as destructive to Britain as the worst Tory regimes of the past. But it is not the right course for Britain.
If this election were a straight fight between Labour and the Conservatives – which it absolutely is not – the country would be safer in the hands of Labour than of the Tories. Faced in 2008 with a financial crisis unprecedented in modern times, whose destructive potential can hardly be exaggerated, the Labour government made some absolutely vital calls at a time which exposed the Conservatives as neoliberals, not novices. Whether Labour has truly learned the right lessons itself is doubtful. Labour is, after all, the party that nurtured the deregulatory systems which contributed to the implosion of the financial sector, on which the entire economy was too reliant. How, and even whether, British capitalism can be directed towards a better balance between industry and finance is a question which remains work in progress for Labour, as for us all. At the highest levels of the party, timidity and audacity remain in conflict. Nevertheless, Labour, and notably Alistair Darling, a palpably honest chancellor who has had to play the most difficult hand of any holder of his office in modern times, deserves respect for proving equal to the hour. Only the most churlish would deny the prime minister some credit for his role in the handling of the crisis.
Labour's failings
But this election is more than a verdict on the response to a single trauma, immense though it was. It is also a verdict on the lengthening years of Labour government and the three years of Gordon Brown's premiership. More than that, any election is also a judgment about the future as well as a verdict on the past. A year ago, the Guardian argued that Labour should persuade its leader to step down. Shortly afterwards, in spite of polling an abject 15.7% in the European elections, and with four cabinet ministers departing, Labour chose to hug Mr Brown close. It was the wrong decision then, and it is clear, not least after his humiliation in Rochdale this week, that it is the wrong decision now. The Guardian said a year ago that Mr Brown had failed to articulate a vision, a plan, or an argument for the future. We said that he had become incapable of leading the necessary revolution against the political system that the expenses scandal had triggered. Labour thought differently. It failed to act. It thereby lost the opportunity to renew itself, and is now facing the consequences.
Invited to embrace five more years of a Labour government, and of Gordon Brown as prime minister, it is hard to feel enthusiasm. Labour's kneejerk critics can sometimes sound like the People's Front of Judea asking what the Romans have ever done for us. The salvation of the health service, major renovation of schools, the minimum wage, civil partnerships and the extension of protection for minority groups are heroic, not small achievements.
Yet, even among those who wish Labour well, the reservations constantly press in. Massive, necessary and in some cases transformational investment in public services insufficiently matched by calm and principled reform, sometimes needlessly entangled with the private sector. Recognition of gathering generational storms on pensions, public debt, housing and – until very recently – climate change not addressed by clear strategies and openness with the public about the consequences. The inadequately planned pursuit of two wars. A supposedly strong and morally focused foreign policy which remains trapped in the great-power, nuclear-weapon mentality, blindly uncritical of the United States, mealy-mouthed about Europe and tarnished by the shame of Iraq – still not apologised for. Allegations of British embroilment in torture answered with little more than a world-weary sigh. Large talk about constitutional change matched by an addiction to centralisation. Easy talk about liberty and "British values" while Britain repeatedly ratchets up the criminal justice system, repeatedly encroaches on civil liberties, undermines legal aid and spends like there is no tomorrow on police and prisons. Apparent outrage against the old politics subverted by delay, caution and timid compromise.
There are reservations too, though of a different order and on different subjects, about the Liberal Democrats. The Liberal Democrats are a very large party now, with support across the spectrum. But they remain in some respects a party of the middle and lower middle classes. Labour's record on poverty remains unmatched, and its link to the poor remains umbilical. Vince Cable, so admirable and exemplary on the banks, nevertheless remains a deficit hawk, committed to tax cuts which could imply an even deeper slashing of public services. Though the party has good policies on equality, it has not prioritised the promotion and selection of women and ethnic minority candidates.
Matched priorities
Surveying the wider agenda and the experience of the past decade, however, there is little doubt that in many areas of policy and tone, the Liberal Democrats have for some time most closely matched our own priorities and instincts. On political and constitutional change, they articulate and represent the change which is now so widely wanted. On civil liberty and criminal justice, they have remained true to liberal values and human rights in ways that the other parties, Labour more than the Tories in some respects, have not. They are less tied to reactionary and sectional class interests than either of the other parties.
The Liberal Democrats were green before the other parties and remain so. Their commitment to education is bred in the bone. So is their comfort with a European project which, for all its flaws, remains central to this country's destiny. They are willing to contemplate a British defence policy without Trident renewal. They were right about Iraq, the biggest foreign policy judgment call of the past half-century, when Labour and the Tories were both catastrophically and stupidly wrong. They have resisted the rush to the overmighty centralised state when others have not. At key moments, when tough issues of press freedom have been at stake, they have been the first to rally in support. Above all, they believe in and stand for full, not semi-skimmed, electoral reform. And they have had a revelatory campaign. Trapped in the arid, name-calling two-party politics of the House of Commons, Nick Clegg has seldom had the chance to shine. Released into the daylight of equal debate, he has given the other two parties the fright of their lives.
A newspaper that is proudly rooted in the liberal as well as the labour tradition – and whose advocacy of constitutional reform stretches back to the debates of 1831-32 – cannot ignore such a record. If not now, when? The answer is clear and proud. Now.
2010 has a different feel to 1997. In 1997 the voters clearly wanted the Tories out but there was also huge positive momentum behind Tony Blair and New Labour. In 2010, the public wants change again, but there is not the same groundswell of support for David Cameron and his party which may use different words and images but underneath are the same old Tories. I can remember being at school, then a student and for a short while unemployed under the Conservatives and saw at first-hand the consequences of Thatcher's divisive and alienating policies-not the party you would trust to lead us out of recession.
2010 must be an election of real change. Not just replacing a tired Labour Government with an unimaginative Tory one and the same old politics; but real change-of our outdated political system-fair voting, a properly reformed House of Lords, fixed term parliaments, real freedom of information, real accountable localism not top down decree; principled foreign policy and striving for peace not illegal war; protecting welfare services and sound economic policy led by a trusted Chancellor.
The enemies of change from the right-wing press to those who claim a divine right to rule us may want to stop us and try to scare; but I for one will be proud to vote Liberal Democrat on Thursday.
Here is that Guardian leader in full:
General election 2010
The liberal moment has come
If the Guardian had a vote it would be cast enthusiastically for the Liberal Democrats. But under our discredited electoral system some people may – hopefully for the last time – be forced to vote tactically
Citizens have votes. Newspapers do not. However, if the Guardian had a vote in the 2010 general election it would be cast enthusiastically for the Liberal Democrats. It would be cast in the knowledge that not all the consequences are predictable, and that some in particular should be avoided. The vote would be cast with some important reservations and frustrations. Yet it would be cast for one great reason of principle above all.
After the campaign that the Liberal Democrats have waged over this past month, for which considerable personal credit goes to Nick Clegg, the election presents the British people with a huge opportunity: the reform of the electoral system itself. Though Labour has enjoyed a deathbed conversion to aspects of the cause of reform, it is the Liberal Democrats who have most consistently argued that cause in the round and who, after the exhaustion of the old politics, reflect and lead an overwhelming national mood for real change.
Proportional representation – while not a panacea – would at last give this country what it has lacked for so long: a parliament that is a true mirror of this pluralist nation, not an increasingly unrepresentative two-party distortion of it. The Guardian has supported proportional representation for more than a century. In all that time there has never been a better opportunity than now to put this subject firmly among the nation's priorities. Only the Liberal Democrats grasp this fully, and only they can be trusted to keep up the pressure to deliver, though others in all parties, large and small, do and should support the cause. That has been true in past elections too, of course. But this time is different. The conjuncture in 2010 of a Labour party that has lost so much public confidence and a Conservative party that has not yet won it has enabled Mr Clegg to take his party close to the threshold of real influence for the first time in nearly 90 years.
This time – with the important caveat set out below – the more people who vote Liberal Democrat on 6 May, the greater the chance that this will be Britain's last general election under a first-past-the-post electoral system which is wholly unsuited to the political needs of a grown-up 21st-century democracy.
Tactical option
The pragmatic caveat concerns the danger that, under the existing electoral system, switching to the Liberal Democrats in Labour-Conservative marginal constituencies might let in an anti-reform Tory party. So, voters who share this principled enthusiasm for securing the largest possible number of Liberal Democrat MPs next Thursday must, in many constituencies, weigh the tactical option of supporting Labour to prevent a Conservative win.
Hopefully, if this really is the last election under the old system, such dilemmas between head and heart will apply less in future. For now, however, the cause of reform is overwhelmingly more likely to be achieved by a Lib Dem partnership of principle with Labour than by a Lib Dem marriage of convenience with a Tory party which is explicitly hostile to the cause and which currently plans to redraw the political map for its own advantage. The momentum for change would be fatally undermined should the Conservatives win an overall majority. The Liberal Democrats and Labour should, of course, have explored much earlier and more explicitly how they might co-operate to reform the electoral system. During the campaign, and especially since the final leaders' debate, the appetite for co-operation has clearly increased and is increasing still. Mr Clegg's Guardian interview today underscores the potential for more productive engagement with Labour and is matched by fresh, untribal thinking from his potential partners.
This election is about serious choices between three main parties which all have something to offer. David Cameron has done what none of his immediate predecessors has understood or tried to do: he has confronted the Conservative party with the fact that it was out of step with the country. He has forced the party to become more diverse and to engage with centre-ground opinion. He has explicitly aligned himself with the liberal Conservative tradition which the Thatcherites so despised during their long domination of the party. He has promoted modern thinking on civil liberty, the environment and aspects of social policy.
Mr Cameron offers a new and welcome Toryism, quite different from what Michael Howard offered five years ago. His difficulty is not that he is the "same old Tory". He isn't. The problem is that his revolution has not translated adequately into detailed policies, and remains highly contradictory. He embraces liberal Britain yet protests that Britain is broken because of liberal values. He is eloquent about the overmighty state but proposes to rip up the Human Rights Act which is the surest weapon against it. He talks about a Britain that will play a constructive role in Europe while aligning the Tories in the European parliament with some of the continent's wackier xenophobes. Behind the party leader's own engagement with green issues there stands a significant section of his party that still regards global warming as a liberal conspiracy.
The Tories have zigzagged through the financial crisis to an alarming degree, austerity here, spending pledges there. At times they have argued, against all reason, that Britain's economic malaise is down to overblown government, as opposed to the ravages of the market. Though the Conservatives are not uniquely evasive on the deficit, a large inheritance-tax cut for the very wealthy is the reverse of a serious "united and equal" approach to taxation. Small wonder that the Cameronisation of the Conservative party sometimes seems more palace coup than cultural revolution. A Cameron government might not be as destructive to Britain as the worst Tory regimes of the past. But it is not the right course for Britain.
If this election were a straight fight between Labour and the Conservatives – which it absolutely is not – the country would be safer in the hands of Labour than of the Tories. Faced in 2008 with a financial crisis unprecedented in modern times, whose destructive potential can hardly be exaggerated, the Labour government made some absolutely vital calls at a time which exposed the Conservatives as neoliberals, not novices. Whether Labour has truly learned the right lessons itself is doubtful. Labour is, after all, the party that nurtured the deregulatory systems which contributed to the implosion of the financial sector, on which the entire economy was too reliant. How, and even whether, British capitalism can be directed towards a better balance between industry and finance is a question which remains work in progress for Labour, as for us all. At the highest levels of the party, timidity and audacity remain in conflict. Nevertheless, Labour, and notably Alistair Darling, a palpably honest chancellor who has had to play the most difficult hand of any holder of his office in modern times, deserves respect for proving equal to the hour. Only the most churlish would deny the prime minister some credit for his role in the handling of the crisis.
Labour's failings
But this election is more than a verdict on the response to a single trauma, immense though it was. It is also a verdict on the lengthening years of Labour government and the three years of Gordon Brown's premiership. More than that, any election is also a judgment about the future as well as a verdict on the past. A year ago, the Guardian argued that Labour should persuade its leader to step down. Shortly afterwards, in spite of polling an abject 15.7% in the European elections, and with four cabinet ministers departing, Labour chose to hug Mr Brown close. It was the wrong decision then, and it is clear, not least after his humiliation in Rochdale this week, that it is the wrong decision now. The Guardian said a year ago that Mr Brown had failed to articulate a vision, a plan, or an argument for the future. We said that he had become incapable of leading the necessary revolution against the political system that the expenses scandal had triggered. Labour thought differently. It failed to act. It thereby lost the opportunity to renew itself, and is now facing the consequences.
Invited to embrace five more years of a Labour government, and of Gordon Brown as prime minister, it is hard to feel enthusiasm. Labour's kneejerk critics can sometimes sound like the People's Front of Judea asking what the Romans have ever done for us. The salvation of the health service, major renovation of schools, the minimum wage, civil partnerships and the extension of protection for minority groups are heroic, not small achievements.
Yet, even among those who wish Labour well, the reservations constantly press in. Massive, necessary and in some cases transformational investment in public services insufficiently matched by calm and principled reform, sometimes needlessly entangled with the private sector. Recognition of gathering generational storms on pensions, public debt, housing and – until very recently – climate change not addressed by clear strategies and openness with the public about the consequences. The inadequately planned pursuit of two wars. A supposedly strong and morally focused foreign policy which remains trapped in the great-power, nuclear-weapon mentality, blindly uncritical of the United States, mealy-mouthed about Europe and tarnished by the shame of Iraq – still not apologised for. Allegations of British embroilment in torture answered with little more than a world-weary sigh. Large talk about constitutional change matched by an addiction to centralisation. Easy talk about liberty and "British values" while Britain repeatedly ratchets up the criminal justice system, repeatedly encroaches on civil liberties, undermines legal aid and spends like there is no tomorrow on police and prisons. Apparent outrage against the old politics subverted by delay, caution and timid compromise.
There are reservations too, though of a different order and on different subjects, about the Liberal Democrats. The Liberal Democrats are a very large party now, with support across the spectrum. But they remain in some respects a party of the middle and lower middle classes. Labour's record on poverty remains unmatched, and its link to the poor remains umbilical. Vince Cable, so admirable and exemplary on the banks, nevertheless remains a deficit hawk, committed to tax cuts which could imply an even deeper slashing of public services. Though the party has good policies on equality, it has not prioritised the promotion and selection of women and ethnic minority candidates.
Matched priorities
Surveying the wider agenda and the experience of the past decade, however, there is little doubt that in many areas of policy and tone, the Liberal Democrats have for some time most closely matched our own priorities and instincts. On political and constitutional change, they articulate and represent the change which is now so widely wanted. On civil liberty and criminal justice, they have remained true to liberal values and human rights in ways that the other parties, Labour more than the Tories in some respects, have not. They are less tied to reactionary and sectional class interests than either of the other parties.
The Liberal Democrats were green before the other parties and remain so. Their commitment to education is bred in the bone. So is their comfort with a European project which, for all its flaws, remains central to this country's destiny. They are willing to contemplate a British defence policy without Trident renewal. They were right about Iraq, the biggest foreign policy judgment call of the past half-century, when Labour and the Tories were both catastrophically and stupidly wrong. They have resisted the rush to the overmighty centralised state when others have not. At key moments, when tough issues of press freedom have been at stake, they have been the first to rally in support. Above all, they believe in and stand for full, not semi-skimmed, electoral reform. And they have had a revelatory campaign. Trapped in the arid, name-calling two-party politics of the House of Commons, Nick Clegg has seldom had the chance to shine. Released into the daylight of equal debate, he has given the other two parties the fright of their lives.
A newspaper that is proudly rooted in the liberal as well as the labour tradition – and whose advocacy of constitutional reform stretches back to the debates of 1831-32 – cannot ignore such a record. If not now, when? The answer is clear and proud. Now.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Tory business letter writing supporters being rewarded with peerages
It seems an age ago that the opening salvos of the General Election were dominated by arguments, claims and counter-claims over Labour's proposals for increases in national insurance. In response, the Conservatives produced letters supporting their opposition signed by a number of business-people.
Not suprisingly, many of them are known to be long-time Conservative party members, supporters and donors; others Labour claim were "deceived" into signing.
This issue then got diverted by the triumph of Nick Clegg in the first of the Prime Ministerial TV debates.
One thing interests me about these people-I cannot help myself speculating as to how many of these Conservative supporters will be rewarded by peerages and honours. Apparently, this process has already started with news that the appointments of Next chief executive Simon Wolfson and JCB chairman Sir Anthony Bamford to the peerage have been approved by the appointments commission and would be announced 'imminently'.
Over the coming months and years, it will be interesting to see which other business people in the same way. I will report back at regular intervals.
Read more:
Not suprisingly, many of them are known to be long-time Conservative party members, supporters and donors; others Labour claim were "deceived" into signing.
This issue then got diverted by the triumph of Nick Clegg in the first of the Prime Ministerial TV debates.
One thing interests me about these people-I cannot help myself speculating as to how many of these Conservative supporters will be rewarded by peerages and honours. Apparently, this process has already started with news that the appointments of Next chief executive Simon Wolfson and JCB chairman Sir Anthony Bamford to the peerage have been approved by the appointments commission and would be announced 'imminently'.
Over the coming months and years, it will be interesting to see which other business people in the same way. I will report back at regular intervals.
Read more:
Monday, April 19, 2010
Exploring the Roots of BNP Support
Today (19/04/10) The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) publish an indepth research report, Exploring the Roots of BNP Support
IPPR conducted regression-based analysis to see whether or not high levels of immigration do raise communities’ support for the BNP, or if other variables – such as political disengagement – are important. Their findings suggest that areas that have higher levels of recent immigration than others are not more likely to vote for the BNP. In fact, the more immigration an area has experienced, the lower its support for the far right. Rather, the evidence points to political and socio-economic exclusion as drivers of BNP support.
The report therefore urges mainstream politicians to strongly resist the notion that people have been driven into the arms of the BNP by the harm immigration is causing to their communities. Instead, they must focus on building strong communities and strong education systems, and on rebuilding trust and confidence in democratic politics, so that marginalised people do not feeling so disconnected. This should allow them to both better serve the interests of these communities, and undercut support for the BNP.
IPPR conducted regression-based analysis to see whether or not high levels of immigration do raise communities’ support for the BNP, or if other variables – such as political disengagement – are important. Their findings suggest that areas that have higher levels of recent immigration than others are not more likely to vote for the BNP. In fact, the more immigration an area has experienced, the lower its support for the far right. Rather, the evidence points to political and socio-economic exclusion as drivers of BNP support.
The report therefore urges mainstream politicians to strongly resist the notion that people have been driven into the arms of the BNP by the harm immigration is causing to their communities. Instead, they must focus on building strong communities and strong education systems, and on rebuilding trust and confidence in democratic politics, so that marginalised people do not feeling so disconnected. This should allow them to both better serve the interests of these communities, and undercut support for the BNP.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Lies, damn lies, statistics and David Cameron's anecdotes
Hat-tip to the Guardian for analysing those anecdotes that David Cameron shared as part his disappointing and lacklustre performance in the first Prime Ministerial debate last week.
Firstly, Humberside police did not pay £73,000 for a Lexus.
Secondly, no-one joins the Navy at 10 years old.
Thirdly, no such murder happened in Crosby.
That clears that up then.
Firstly, Humberside police did not pay £73,000 for a Lexus.
Secondly, no-one joins the Navy at 10 years old.
Thirdly, no such murder happened in Crosby.
That clears that up then.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
GENERAL ELECTION RESOURCES AND LINKS
The General Election takes place on May 6th.Many church and other faith-based organisations have produced useful, challenging and informative General Election focussed web-based liturgical and campaigning resources. These include:
Church of England resources, briefing and prayers: http://www.cofe.anglican.org/generalelection
Churches Together in Britain and Ireland GE policy guides and details of hustings meetings: http://www.ctbi.org.uk/427
The free churches have produced a comprehensive guide to the key issues facing voters from a faith perspective. Read it at: www.churcheselection.org.uk
Christians in Politics: http://www.christiansinpolitics.org.uk
Ekklesia produce daily briefings at: http://www.ekklesia.co.uk
Theos discuss faith and politics at: www.theosthinktank.co.uk
The Jubilee Centre in Cambridge have produced Votewise 2010- a guide to the election and detailed small group materials: http://www.jubilee-centre.org
CARE produce news based briefings at: www.care.org.uk
The Roman Catholic Bishops of England and Wales have published “Choosing the Common Good” which can be accessed via: http://www.rcdow.org.uk
Read the Westminster “declaration of Christian conscience” at: http://www.westminster2010.org.uk
Faithworks have interviewed party leaders and promote their declaration supporting the role of faith communities in welfare and wider public service provision at: http://www.faithworks.info
Several Christian organisations are calling on voters and candidates to support the people fleeing persecution and oppression by promoting the Sanctuary Pledge: http://sanctuarypledge.org.uk
Church Action on Poverty are promoting an accountability pledge for candidates: www.church-poverty.org.uk/2010election
Housing Justice briefings can be accessed at: http://www.housingjustice.org.uk
For those concerned about extremist politics, resources can be found at: http://www.hopenothate.org.uk
Further local news and information can be found at: http://www.networknorwich.co.uk
We will continue to publish information including details of Church hosted hustings event in Norfolk at www.norwich.anglican.org
There is of course no obvious “Christian way to vote” and people of religious faith are actively involved in all parties. Each has a Christian group or forum which can be contacted via official party websites.
THINK REFLECT PRAY VOTE
This list is by no means exhaustive. For further information or recommendations on other useful resources, please contact Rev Simon Wilson, Diocese of Norwich Social and Community Concerns Co-ordinator via: simon.wilson@norwich.anglican.org
The General Election takes place on May 6th.Many church and other faith-based organisations have produced useful, challenging and informative General Election focussed web-based liturgical and campaigning resources. These include:
Church of England resources, briefing and prayers: http://www.cofe.anglican.org/generalelection
Churches Together in Britain and Ireland GE policy guides and details of hustings meetings: http://www.ctbi.org.uk/427
The free churches have produced a comprehensive guide to the key issues facing voters from a faith perspective. Read it at: www.churcheselection.org.uk
Christians in Politics: http://www.christiansinpolitics.org.uk
Ekklesia produce daily briefings at: http://www.ekklesia.co.uk
Theos discuss faith and politics at: www.theosthinktank.co.uk
The Jubilee Centre in Cambridge have produced Votewise 2010- a guide to the election and detailed small group materials: http://www.jubilee-centre.org
CARE produce news based briefings at: www.care.org.uk
The Roman Catholic Bishops of England and Wales have published “Choosing the Common Good” which can be accessed via: http://www.rcdow.org.uk
Read the Westminster “declaration of Christian conscience” at: http://www.westminster2010.org.uk
Faithworks have interviewed party leaders and promote their declaration supporting the role of faith communities in welfare and wider public service provision at: http://www.faithworks.info
Several Christian organisations are calling on voters and candidates to support the people fleeing persecution and oppression by promoting the Sanctuary Pledge: http://sanctuarypledge.org.uk
Church Action on Poverty are promoting an accountability pledge for candidates: www.church-poverty.org.uk/2010election
Housing Justice briefings can be accessed at: http://www.housingjustice.org.uk
For those concerned about extremist politics, resources can be found at: http://www.hopenothate.org.uk
Further local news and information can be found at: http://www.networknorwich.co.uk
We will continue to publish information including details of Church hosted hustings event in Norfolk at www.norwich.anglican.org
There is of course no obvious “Christian way to vote” and people of religious faith are actively involved in all parties. Each has a Christian group or forum which can be contacted via official party websites.
THINK REFLECT PRAY VOTE
This list is by no means exhaustive. For further information or recommendations on other useful resources, please contact Rev Simon Wilson, Diocese of Norwich Social and Community Concerns Co-ordinator via: simon.wilson@norwich.anglican.org
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
John Kampfner supports Liberal Democrats in 2010
Today the well-respected political commentator John Kampfner launched the pamphlet, Lost labours, with Nick Clegg.
He comments, "As somebody who has a long involvement with the Labour party, including editing the New Statesman magazine, I have been able to give a frank and honest appraisal of a decade and a half of New Labour. And in it I explain why I can no longer support them, and am instead turning to the Liberal Democrats. You can read a more condensed version in an article I wrote for the Guardian here.
"Alongside one million other voters, I deserted Labour in 2005 in protest at Iraq in favour of the Liberal Democrats, the only party to oppose the war. My decision to back the Lib Dems in 2010 is based in a more fundamental appraisal of Labour’s record together with a positive assessment of the Liberal Democrats’ platform.
"New Labour in office has had one all-consuming purpose: re-election. Since 1997, their every working day was based around the task of prolonging their term of office. It filled in the ideological hollow and justified ever-encroaching authoritarianism and a pandering to the right on criminal justice and other areas of social policy. In contrast, the Liberal Democrat analysis of the failures of the deregulated market has been consistently, and painfully, accurate. Nick Clegg’s tax reform plans, taking four million low paid workers out of tax altogether, are the most redistributive of any party. And the Liberal Democrat approach to criminal justice, human rights, foreign and social policy is close to mine.
People can only for so long be exhorted to hold their nose, to vote for a party they feel has let them down, simply because the alternative is worse. It is deeply damaging to politics to resort perpetually to the double negative. The Liberal Democrats offer a positive, radical and different vision. That is why they have my support."
He comments, "As somebody who has a long involvement with the Labour party, including editing the New Statesman magazine, I have been able to give a frank and honest appraisal of a decade and a half of New Labour. And in it I explain why I can no longer support them, and am instead turning to the Liberal Democrats. You can read a more condensed version in an article I wrote for the Guardian here.
"Alongside one million other voters, I deserted Labour in 2005 in protest at Iraq in favour of the Liberal Democrats, the only party to oppose the war. My decision to back the Lib Dems in 2010 is based in a more fundamental appraisal of Labour’s record together with a positive assessment of the Liberal Democrats’ platform.
"New Labour in office has had one all-consuming purpose: re-election. Since 1997, their every working day was based around the task of prolonging their term of office. It filled in the ideological hollow and justified ever-encroaching authoritarianism and a pandering to the right on criminal justice and other areas of social policy. In contrast, the Liberal Democrat analysis of the failures of the deregulated market has been consistently, and painfully, accurate. Nick Clegg’s tax reform plans, taking four million low paid workers out of tax altogether, are the most redistributive of any party. And the Liberal Democrat approach to criminal justice, human rights, foreign and social policy is close to mine.
People can only for so long be exhorted to hold their nose, to vote for a party they feel has let them down, simply because the alternative is worse. It is deeply damaging to politics to resort perpetually to the double negative. The Liberal Democrats offer a positive, radical and different vision. That is why they have my support."
Saturday, February 06, 2010
G7 nations pledge to cancel debts with quake-hit Haiti
The G7 group of the world's leading industrialised nations have pledged to write off the debts that Haiti owes them, following the devastating earthquake last month. At least one million people currently need aid in Haiti after the Magnitude 7 quake and more than 50 after-shocks. Latest estimates show that the disaster has killed more than 200,000 people; 300,000 injured have been treated; more than 250,000 residences and 30,000 commercial buildings had collapsed or were severely damaged; Hundreds of thousands of people are displaced, homeless, orphans, in temporary shelters or been moved to huge refugee camps; Looting and other signs of chaos. Final figures may never be calulated.
This G7 decision comes as a result of broad-based, interational campaigning involving faith communities, trade uions, local action groups and relief and medical providers. in schools and colleges along with a huge range of other campaigning organisations including, Christian Aid, Oxfam, Save the Children and Red Cross.
Oxfam has urged the writing off of about an additional $900m (£557m) that Haiti still owes to donor countries and institutions. Oxfam have prouced a wide-ranging yet concise, set of recommedations relating to the reconstruction of Haiti, which can be downloaded here.
Reconstruction of this proud nation will be a huge and expensive challege and must include infrastructe, houses, transport links, commercial sector, medical and security issues, ameities and sanitation meeds, and reconstructio of rule of law and functions. It is important that internatioal organisations and goverments do not attempt to imposeb one "size fits all" solutions from outside. This opportunity to engage, empower, equip and encourage must start at base community grassroots. Whether now or in the future, rescue recovery and reconstructioh must never be or felt to be a military occupation.
All this will take time so it is important that we make a loger term commitment to Hiati. Otherwise, when the next disaster or significant world event emerges in media, priorities and resource allocation will be under pressure and slow dow. That is why the reconstruction of Hiati must meet local needs. In partnership with local people and most of all, be sustainable.
This G7 decision comes as a result of broad-based, interational campaigning involving faith communities, trade uions, local action groups and relief and medical providers. in schools and colleges along with a huge range of other campaigning organisations including, Christian Aid, Oxfam, Save the Children and Red Cross.
Oxfam has urged the writing off of about an additional $900m (£557m) that Haiti still owes to donor countries and institutions. Oxfam have prouced a wide-ranging yet concise, set of recommedations relating to the reconstruction of Haiti, which can be downloaded here.
Reconstruction of this proud nation will be a huge and expensive challege and must include infrastructe, houses, transport links, commercial sector, medical and security issues, ameities and sanitation meeds, and reconstructio of rule of law and functions. It is important that internatioal organisations and goverments do not attempt to imposeb one "size fits all" solutions from outside. This opportunity to engage, empower, equip and encourage must start at base community grassroots. Whether now or in the future, rescue recovery and reconstructioh must never be or felt to be a military occupation.
All this will take time so it is important that we make a loger term commitment to Hiati. Otherwise, when the next disaster or significant world event emerges in media, priorities and resource allocation will be under pressure and slow dow. That is why the reconstruction of Hiati must meet local needs. In partnership with local people and most of all, be sustainable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
