Being Proud of Pride

It was disappointing, but not surprising to see Alan Clifford's ill-judged, ungracious and in-tolerant attack on the Norwich Pride Parade held in July (EDP 29/8). The offensive language and aggressive tone says more about him than it does the organisers of such a popular and powerful annual event, and, not for the first time, leading to police intervention. Pride is about tolerance, inclusion and respect, about celebrating difference and creating safe space and common ground. It brings communities together and provides an opportunity to stand in solidarity and for Christians to fulfil our calling to stand up for the oppressed and alongside the marginalised. Nearly 100 homophobic and transphobic hate crimes are recorded each week by police across Britain. Research shows that over half of homophobic and transphobic crime is not reported to the police, many people suffering in silence. 1 in 8 lesbian, gay or bisexual people are the target of hate crime each year. Increased prejudice and homophobic bullying has been reported in families, social media, schools, work places, faith communities, healthcare, sports fields and the criminal justice system. Stephen Fry has been vocal in his opposition to events in Russia. Progress has been made in some areas, shown by legalisation of equal marriage, but now is not the time for complacency. As the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby acknowledged last week, “The church has not been good at dealing with it. We have implicitly and even explicitly supported [homophobia] and that demands repentance.." From equal marriage to ordination, the Church has complex issues to engage with, and must do so with humility, grace and tolerance. Pride is something to be proud of.

Archbishop of Canterbury attacks Government welfare reforms

In his most significant political intervention since taking office, the Most Rev Justin Welby has warned that “children and families will pay the price” if plans to change the benefits system go ahead in their current form. Mr Welby and the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, have backed a letter to The Sunday Telegraph written by 43 bishops who say the benefits cuts will have a “deeply disproportionate” effect on children. The move will come as a blow to Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, who is attempting to steer the reforms through Parliament. He has said the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill, which will cap benefit rises at 1 per cent a year until 2016, is needed to help get spending “back under control” and create a fairer deal for taxpayers. However, Mr Welby, who will be formally enthroned at Canterbury Cathedral on March 21, said the legislation will remove the protection given to families against the rising cost of living and could push 200,000 children into poverty. He said: “As a civilised society, we have a duty to support those among us who are vulnerable and in need. When times are hard, that duty should be felt more than ever, not disappear or diminish. “It is essential that we have a welfare system that responds to need and recognises the rising costs of food, fuel and housing. “The current benefits system does that, by ensuring that the support struggling families receive rises with inflation. “These changes will mean it is children and families who will pay the price for high inflation, rather than the Government.” Mr Welby added: “Politicians have a clear choice. By protecting children from the effects of this Bill, they can help fulfil their commitment to end child poverty.” Mr Welby’s intervention signals his willingness to enter political debates on issues he believes are the Church’s responsibility to address, a policy for which his predecessor, Dr Rowan Williams, faced criticism. He has, since taking office, already set out his opposition to the Government’s plans to allow gay marriage. Benefits have risen in line with inflation in the past and this year rose by 5.2 per cent, but the Government’s reforms will limit the annual rises to just one per cent for the next three years. The “umbrella” legislation, which is currently passing through the House of Lords, applies to a wide range of benefits and tax credits, including income support, child benefit, working tax credits and child tax credits. According to The Children’s Society, this will mean that a couple with two children, where one parent earns £600 per week, would lose £424 a year by 2015 under the changes. Among the bishops to sign the letter to this newspaper are 14 of the 26 bishops who sit in the House of Lords. Although Mr Welby and Dr Sentamu have added their voices to the concerns raised by the bishops, they have not signed the letter – in accordance with a long-standing convention within the Church of England. Dr Sentamu said: “I hope that the Government will listen to the concerns being raised on the impact the changes to the Welfare Benefit Up-rating Bill could have on the poorest and most vulnerable in our society, our children. “In difficult times it is right as a nation, committed to justice and fairness, that we protect those that are most in need. “Even in tough economic times we have a duty and responsibility to care for those who are struggling." The Bishop of Leicester, the Rt Rev Tim Stevens, said: “The bishops feel we have to be involved as it is no longer true to say these people are costing us money because they are feckless or lazy. We are talking about people who are working hard to support their families." Bishop Stevens, who leads the 26 bishops in the Lords, added: “We are facing families who will have to choose from April 1 between buying food for their children and paying their rent, or between feeding their children and turning the fire on.” A spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions said the legislation was important to keep the welfare bill sustainable. He said: “In difficult economic times we’ve protected the incomes of pensioners and disabled people, and most working age benefits will continue to increase 1 per cent. This was a tough decision but it’s one that will help keep the welfare bill sustainable in the longer term. “By raising the personal allowance threshold, we’ve lifted 2 million people out of tax altogether, clearly benefiting people on a low income.” The letter from 43 bishops to The Sunday Telegraph: SIR – Next week, members of the House of Lords will debate the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill. The Bill will mean that for each of the next three years, most financial support for families will increase by no more than 1 per cent, regardless of how much prices rise. This is a change that will have a deeply disproportionate impact on families with children, pushing 200,000 children into poverty. A third of all households will be affected by the Bill, but nearly nine out of 10 families with children will be hit. These are children and families from all walks of life. The Children’s Society calculates that a single parent with two children, working on an average wage as a nurse would lose £424 a year by 2015. A couple with three children and one earner, on an average wage as a corporal in the British Army, would lose £552 a year by 2015. However, the change will hit the poorest the hardest. About 60 per cent of the savings from the uprating cap will come from the poorest third of households. Only 3 per cent will come from the wealthiest third. If prices rise faster than expected, children and families will no longer have any protection against this. This transfers the risk of high inflation rates from the Treasury to children and families, which is unacceptable. Children and families are already being hit hard by cuts to support, including those to tax credits, maternity benefits, and help with housing costs. They cannot afford this further hardship penalty. We are calling on the House of Lords to take action to protect children from the impact of this Bill. Rt Rev Tim Stevens, Bishop of Leicester Rt Rev John Packer, Bishop of Ripon and Leeds Rt Rev Graham James, Bishop of Norwich Rt Rev Paul Butler, Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham Rt Rev Richard Frith, Bishop of Hull Rt Rev Nick Baines, Bishop of Bradford Rt Rev David Rossdale, Bishop of Grimsby Rt Rev Alan Smith, Bishop of St Albans Rt Rev David Walker, Bishop of Dudley Rt Rev Michael Langrish, Bishop of Exeter Rt Rev Humphrey Southern, Bishop of Repton Rt Rev Chris Edmondson, Bishop of Bolton Rt Rev David Urquhart, Bishop of Birmingham Rt Rev Jonathan Clark, Bishop of Croydon Rt Rev Trevor Willmott, Bishop of Dover Rt Rev Adrian Newman, Bishop of Stepney Rt Rev John Wraw, Bishop of Bradwell Rt Rev James Newcome, Bishop of Carlisle Rt Rev Peter Burrows, Bishop of Doncaster Rt Rev Keith Sinclair, Bishop of Birkenhead Rt Rev Clive Young, Bishop of Dunwich Rt Rev Tim Thornton, Bishop of Truro Rt Rev Steven Croft, Bishop of Sheffield Rt Rev Jonathan Gledhill, Bishop of Lichfield Rt Rev John Inge, Bishop of Worcester Rt Rev Peter Price, Bishop of Bath and Wells Rt Rev Stephen Conway, Bishop of Ely Rt Rev Alistair Redfern, Bishop of Derby Rt Rev James Langstaff, Bishop of Rochester Rt Rev James Bell, Bishop of Knaresborough Rt Rev Mike Hill, Bishop of Bristol Rt Rev Christopher Chessun, Bishop of Southwark Rt Rev Nigel Stock, Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich Rt Rev John Pritchard, Bishop of Oxford Rt Rev Ian Brackley, Bishop of Dorking Rt Rev Jonathan Frost, Bishop of Southampton Rt Rev Stephen Platten, Bishop of Wakefield Rt Rev David Thomson, Bishop of Huntingdon Rt Rev John Holbrook, Bishop of Brixworth Rt Rev Tim Dakin, Bishop of Winchester Rt Rev Peter Hancock, Bishop of Basingstoke Rt Rev Andrew Proud, Bishop of Reading Rt Rev Anthony Priddis, Bishop of Hereford

Say NO to Secret Courts

Dear Sir, We are writing to urge all MPs to do the right thing by voting against Part II of the Justice and Security Bill when it has its Report stage in the Commons today. The Justice and Security Bill runs a coach and horses through fair trial guarantees which have been part of our country's constitution since the Civil War and which were first enshrined in the Magna Carta. The secret court measures contained in the Bill could even apply to habeas corpus proceedings. The stakes for our country could not be higher. The "War on Terror" led to many mistakes: liberty was sacrificed in the name of security. This led directly to British agents facilitating kidnap and torture such as the cases of Binyam Mohammed and Abdul-Hakim Belhaj. For those who are victims of such crimes to be shut out of the trials of their own claims for damages runs totally contrary to any notion of justice. As the Special Advocates reiterated last week, the case for this Bill has not been made. The Joint Committee on Human Rights reported on 28th February 2013 that the government has failed to meet its requirements to make "Closed Material Procedures" less unfair. We call on all MPs now to act before it is too late, and they become complicit in irrevocable damage to our constitution. This issue goes beyond party politics. However, as Liberal Democrats the protection of civil liberties is of crucial importance. We are looking to Nick Clegg to lead the Liberal Democrat MPs in opposition to the Bill. Opposition to Part II is what liberal democracy demands of us. Secret courts must not form any part of the legacy of a government in which Liberal Democrats have a role. Yours faithfully, 1. Jo Shaw, Member of Liberal Democrat Federal Executive, London 2. Martin Tod, Member of Liberal Democrat Federal Executive, Winchester 3. Sarah Ludford MEP 4. David Howarth, Cambridge 5. Lord Strasburger 6. Professor Philippe Sands QC, Camden 7. Sandra Gidley, Romsey 8. Robin Meltzer, Prospective Parliamentary Candidate, Richmond 9. Elaine Bagshaw, Federal Executive member, London 10. Daisy Cooper, Federal Executive member 11. Mark Pack, Federal Policy Committee member 12. Gareth Epps, Federal Policy Committee, Social Liberal Forum co-chair 13. Benjamin Mathis, Hackney 14. Sally Hooker, Greenwich 15. Tracy Connell, Newcastle, Regional Officer 16. Christina Shaw, Leeds NW 17. David Shaw, Leeds NW 18. Matt Whayman, Runnymede and Weybridge 19. Chris Richards, Camden 20. John L Oakes, London N6 21. Paula Keaveney, Liverpool, Police and Crime Commissioner candidate, Merseyside 22. Alix Mortimer, Haringey 23. Tom Polak - Campaigns Secretary Nottingham Liberal Youth 24. Rob Knight, Haringey 25. Caron Lindsay, Member of Liberal Democrat Federal Executive, Livingston 26. Charlotte Henry, Liberal Reform, Barnet 27. Gemma Roulston, membership secretary, LDDA 28. Lady Ellen Dahrendorf, London NW3 29. Ruth Edmonds, Oxford 30. Nick Thornsby, Liberal Reform, Rochdale 31. Geoff Hinchliffe, Shipdham 32. Peter Lloyd, Birmingham 33. Councillor Jonathan Bloch 34. Mark Platt, Westminster & City of London party 35. Tom Barney 36. Roger Crouch, Twickenham 37. Jennifer Liddle, Cambridgeshire 38. Kirsten de Keyser, Camden 39. Andrew Brown, Bristol 40. Simon McGrath, Chair, Merton Liberal Democrats, Liberal Reform 41. Scott Walker, Nottingham 42. John Faulkner, Guildford 43. Kat Dadswell, Liverpool 44. Cllr James Baker, Calderdale Liberal Democrats. 45. Emily Fieran-Reed, Islington 46. Cllr Alaric Rose, Cherwell District Council 47. David Wright, Harlow 48. Nick Barlow, Colchester 49. Tony Miller, President, Ealing Liberal Democrats 50. Phil Stevens Chair Liberal Democrat Disability Association 51. Mrs Janet King, Chair, Bromsgrove Liberal Democrats 52. Corry Cashman, Leighton Buzzard 53. Prof. Denis Mollison, Musselburgh 54. Cllr Richard Cheney, Lib Dem Group Leader, Stratford DC 55. Robert Leslie, Treasurer, Banffshire & Buchan Coast Liberal Democrats 56. Hannah Bettsworth, Edinburgh South 57. Simon P. Hughes, Epping Forest, Social Liberal Forum 58. Richard Broadbent, Sutton 59. Jonathan Price, London SE24 60. Chris Smart, Chester 61. Fionn O'Donovan, Oxford 62. Richard Lowe 63. Prateek Buch 64. Charles Scanlan, London NW8 65. Chris Nelson, Kettering & Wellingborough 66. Rev Simon Wilson, Broadland 67. Peter Brooks 68. Neville Farmer 69. Cllr Janet Battye, Liberal Democrat Leader, Calderdale MBC 70. Anthony Fairclough, London Region Exec & Merton Borough 71. Jonathan Calder 72. David Abrahams, Camden 73. Richard Morris, Richmond and Twickenham 74. Alex Marsh, Bristol 75. Geoff Payne, Hertfordshire 76. Peter Reisdorf, West Kirby 77. Bridget Fox, Islington 78. Paul Wild, Walsall 79. Lisa Smart, Hazel Grove 80. Ros Gordon, Hampshire 81. Patrick Hadfield, Edinburgh 82. Lancelot Casely-Hayford, Liberal Youth Campaigns Officer 83. Reece Edmends - Liberal Youth Non-Portfolio Officer 84. Timothy Oliver, Hull 85. Ellis R Palmer, Secretary of the Univeristy of Birmingham Liberal Democrats 86. Robert Pitt, Secretary, Leeds Liberal Youth 87. Kavya Kaushik, Liberal Youth co-Chair 88. Joe Donnelly, Chair of Durham University Liberal Democrats 89. Kevin McNamara, President of University of Kent Liberal Democrats 90. Sam Fisk, Liberal Youth co-Chair 91. Jezz Palmer, Youth and Student Rep, Winchester 92. Conor McKenzie, Harrogate, Liberal Youth International Officer 93. Ashley Wilkes - President of Lancaster University Liberal Democrats 94. Jonathan Lancaster, York Outer 95. Alexander J. Harding Last, Ipswich 96. Will Fielding, Hull and Hessle Liberal Youth Officer 97. Harry Matthews, Sheffield 98. Alex Barry, Norwich 99. Stuart Wheatcroft, Chair, West Midlands Liberal Youth 100. James Higgin, Aberdeen 101. Emma Sandrey, Cardiff Central 102. Samuel Barratt 103. Cllr Mathew Hulbert, Barwell, Leicestershire 104. Dr Maria Pretzler, Swansea & Gower 105. Katrin McClure, East Yorks 106. Cllr Keith Moffitt, Leader, Liberal Democrats, Camden 107. Conor McGovern-Paul, Kingston-upon-Thames 108. Marek Lipinski, Ealing 109. Jacquie Bell, Dunbar, Scotland 110. Brian James Woodcraft,Eltham, London 111. Jean Evans, Chester 112. Jason Lower, Tonbridge and Malling 113. Cllr Terry Stacy, Leader, Islington Liberal Democrats 114. Adam Bernard, Cambridge 115. Chris Caswill, Wiltshire 116. Ed Fordham, Camden Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article-2287684/No-secret-courts-A-letter-116-Liberal-Democrats.html#ixzz2MaN5Hyo3 Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

George Orwell Day: Politics and the English Language

George Orwell has always been a big hero of mine-a fantastic writer who never fails to inform and challenge political and sociological perspectives. Today, the anniversary of his death has been designated a festival in his memory. His essay on politics and the english language may have been written in 1946 but its' advice still rings true today. Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it. Our civilization is decadent and our language – so the argument runs – must inevitably share in the general collapse. It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes. Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible. Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers. I will come back to this presently, and I hope that by that time the meaning of what I have said here will have become clearer. Meanwhile, here are five specimens of the English language as it is now habitually written. These five passages have not been picked out because they are especially bad – I could have quoted far worse if I had chosen – but because they illustrate various of the mental vices from which we now suffer. They are a little below the average, but are fairly representative examples. I number them so that I can refer back to them when necessary: 1. I am not, indeed, sure whether it is not true to say that the Milton who once seemed not unlike a seventeenth-century Shelley had not become, out of an experience ever more bitter in each year, more alien (sic) to the founder of that Jesuit sect which nothing could induce him to tolerate. Professor Harold Laski (Essay in Freedom of Expression). 2. Above all, we cannot play ducks and drakes with a native battery of idioms which prescribes egregious collocations of vocables as the Basic put up with for tolerate, or put at a loss for bewilder. Professor Lancelot Hogben (Interglossia). 3. On the one side we have the free personality: by definition it is not neurotic, for it has neither conflict nor dream. Its desires, such as they are, are transparent, for they are just what institutional approval keeps in the forefront of consciousness; another institutional pattern would alter their number and intensity; there is little in them that is natural, irreducible, or culturally dangerous. But on the other side, the social bond itself is nothing but the mutual reflection of these self-secure integrities. Recall the definition of love. Is not this the very picture of a small academic? Where is there a place in this hall of mirrors for either personality or fraternity? Essay on psychology in Politics (New York). 4. All the ‘best people’ from the gentlemen’s clubs, and all the frantic Fascist captains, united in common hatred of Socialism and bestial horror at the rising tide of the mass revolutionary movement, have turned to acts of provocation, to foul incendiarism, to medieval legends of poisoned wells, to legalize their own destruction of proletarian organizations, and rouse the agitated petty-bourgeoise to chauvinistic fervor on behalf of the fight against the revolutionary way out of the crisis. Communist pamphlet. 5. If a new spirit is to be infused into this old country, there is one thorny and contentious reform which must be tackled, and that is the humanization and galvanization of the B.B.C. Timidity here will bespeak canker and atrophy of the soul. The heart of Britain may be sound and of strong beat, for instance, but the British lion’s roar at present is like that of Bottom in Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream – as gentle as any sucking dove. A virile new Britain cannot continue indefinitely to be traduced in the eyes or rather ears, of the world by the effete languors of Langham Place, brazenly masquerading as ‘standard English’. When the Voice of Britain is heard at nine o’clock, better far and infinitely less ludicrous to hear aitches honestly dropped than the present priggish, inflated, inhibited, school-ma’amish arch braying of blameless bashful mewing maidens! Letter in Tribune. Each of these passages has faults of its own, but, quite apart from avoidable ugliness, two qualities are common to all of them. The first is staleness of imagery; the other is lack of precision. The writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not. This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing. As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house. I list below, with notes and examples, various of the tricks by means of which the work of prose-construction is habitually dodged. Dying metaphors. A newly invented metaphor assists thought by evoking a visual image, while on the other hand a metaphor which is technically ‘dead’ (e. g. iron resolution) has in effect reverted to being an ordinary word and can generally be used without loss of vividness. But in between these two classes there is a huge dump of worn-out metaphors which have lost all evocative power and are merely used because they save people the trouble of inventing phrases for themselves. Examples are: Ring the changes on, take up the cudgels for, toe the line, ride roughshod over, stand shoulder to shoulder with, play into the hands of, no axe to grind, grist to the mill, fishing in troubled waters, on the order of the day, Achilles’ heel, swan song, hotbed. Many of these are used without knowledge of their meaning (what is a ‘rift’, for instance?), and incompatible metaphors are frequently mixed, a sure sign that the writer is not interested in what he is saying. Some metaphors now current have been twisted out of their original meaning without those who use them even being aware of the fact. For example, toe the line is sometimes written as tow the line. Another example is the hammer and the anvil, now always used with the implication that the anvil gets the worst of it. In real life it is always the anvil that breaks the hammer, never the other way about: a writer who stopped to think what he was saying would avoid perverting the original phrase. Operators, or verbal false limbs. These save the trouble of picking out appropriate verbs and nouns, and at the same time pad each sentence with extra syllables which give it an appearance of symmetry. Characteristic phrases are: render inoperative, militate against, prove unacceptable, make contact with, be subject to, give rise to, give grounds for, have the effect of, play a leading part (role) in, make itself felt, take effect, exhibit a tendency to, serve the purpose of, etc. etc. The keynote is the elimination of simple verbs. Instead of being a single word, such as break, stop, spoil, mend, kill, a verb becomes a phrase, made up of a noun or adjective tacked on to some general-purposes verb such as prove, serve, form, play, render. In addition, the passive voice is wherever possible used in preference to the active, and noun constructions are used instead of gerunds (by examination of instead of by examining). The range of verbs is further cut down by means of the -ize and de- formations, and banal statements are given an appearance of profundity by means of the not un- formation. Simple conjunctions and prepositions are replaced by such phrases as with respect to, having regard to, the fact that, by dint of, in view of, in the interests of, on the hypothesis that; and the ends of sentences are saved from anticlimax by such resounding commonplaces as greatly to be desired, cannot be left out of account, a development to be expected in the near future, deserving of serious consideration, brought to a satisfactory conclusion, and so on and so forth. Pretentious diction. Words like phenomenon, element, individual (as noun), objective, categorical, effective, virtual, basic, primary, promote, constitute, exhibit, exploit, utilize, eliminate, liquidate, are used to dress up simple statements and give an air of scientific impartiality to biassed judgements. Adjectives like epoch-making, epic, historic, unforgettable, triumphant, age-old, inevitable, inexorable, veritable, are used to dignify the sordid processes of international politics, while writing that aims at glorifying war usually takes on an archaic colour, its characteristic words being: realm, throne, chariot, mailed fist, trident, sword, shield, buckler, banner, jackboot, clarion. Foreign words and expressions such as cul de sac, ancien régime, deus ex machina, mutatis mutandis, status quo, Gleichschaltung, Weltanschauung, are used to give an air of culture and elegance. Except for the useful abbreviations i.e., e.g., and etc., there is no real need for any of the hundreds of foreign phrases now current in English. Bad writers, and especially scientific, political and sociological writers, are nearly always haunted by the notion that Latin or Greek words are grander than Saxon ones, and unnecessary words like expedite, ameliorate, predict, extraneous, deracinated, clandestine, sub-aqueous and hundreds of others constantly gain ground from their Anglo-Saxon opposite numbers[1]. The jargon peculiar to Marxist writing (hyena, hangman, cannibal, petty bourgeois, these gentry, lackey, flunkey, mad dog, White Guard, etc.) consists largely of words translated from Russian, German, or French; but the normal way of coining a new word is to use a Latin or Greek root with the appropriate affix and, where necessary, the -ize formation. It is often easier to make up words of this kind (deregionalize, impermissible, extramarital, non-fragmentatory and so forth) than to think up the English words that will cover one’s meaning. The result, in general, is an increase in slovenliness and vagueness. Meaningless words. In certain kinds of writing, particularly in art criticism and literary criticism, it is normal to come across long passages which are almost completely lacking in meaning[2]. Words like romantic, plastic, values, human, dead, sentimental, natural, vitality, as used in art criticism, are strictly meaningless, in the sense that they not only do not point to any discoverable object, but are hardly even expected to do so by the reader. When one critic writes, ‘The outstanding feature of Mr. X’s work is its living quality’, while another writes, ‘The immediately striking thing about Mr. X’s work is its peculiar deadness’, the reader accepts this as a simple difference opinion. If words like black and white were involved, instead of the jargon words dead and living, he would see at once that language was being used in an improper way. Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’. The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice, have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of régime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Pétain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality. Now that I have made this catalogue of swindles and perversions, let me give another example of the kind of writing that they lead to. This time it must of its nature be an imaginary one. I am going to translate a passage of good English into modern English of the worst sort. Here is a well-known verse from Ecclesiastes: I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all. Here it is in modern English: Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account. This is a parody, but not a very gross one. Exhibit 3 above, for instance, contains several patches of the same kind of English. It will be seen that I have not made a full translation. The beginning and ending of the sentence follow the original meaning fairly closely, but in the middle the concrete illustrations – race, battle, bread – dissolve into the vague phrase ‘success or failure in competitive activities’. This had to be so, because no modern writer of the kind I am discussing – no one capable of using phrases like ‘objective considerations of contemporary phenomena’ – would ever tabulate his thoughts in that precise and detailed way. The whole tendency of modern prose is away from concreteness. Now analyse these two sentences a little more closely. The first contains 49 words but only 60 syllables, and all its words are those of everyday life. The second contains 38 words of 90 syllables: 18 of its words are from Latin roots, and one from Greek. The first sentence contains six vivid images, and only one phrase (‘time and chance’) that could be called vague. The second contains not a single fresh, arresting phrase, and in spite of its 90 syllables it gives only a shortened version of the meaning contained in the first. Yet without a doubt it is the second kind of sentence that is gaining ground in modern English. I do not want to exaggerate. This kind of writing is not yet universal, and outcrops of simplicity will occur here and there in the worst-written page. Still if you or I were told to write a few lines on the uncertainty of human fortunes, we should probably come much nearer to my imaginary sentence than to the one from Ecclesiastes. As I have tried to show, modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug. The attraction of this way of writing is that it is easy. It is easier – even quicker, once you have the habit – to say In my opinion it is not an unjustifiable assumption that than to say I think. If you use ready-made phrases, you not only don’t have to hunt about for the words; you also don’t have to bother with the rhythms of your sentences, since these phrases are generally so arranged as to be more or less euphonious. When you are composing in a hurry – when you are dictating to a stenographer, for instance, or making a public speech – it is natural to fall into a pretentious, latinized style. Tags like a consideration which we should do well to bear in mind or a conclusion to which all of us would readily assent will save many a sentence from coming down with a bump. By using stale metaphors, similes and idioms, you save much mental effort, at the cost of leaving your meaning vague, not only for your reader but for yourself. This is the significance of mixed metaphors. The sole aim of a metaphor is to call up a visual image. When these images clash – as in The Fascist octopus has sung its swan song, the jackboot is thrown into the melting pot – it can be taken as certain that the writer is not seeing a mental image of the objects he is naming; in other words he is not really thinking. Look again at the examples I gave at the beginning of this essay. Professor Laski (1) uses five negatives in 53 words. One of these is superfluous, making nonsense of the whole passage, and in addition there is the slip alien for akin, making further nonsense, and several avoidable pieces of clumsiness which increase the general vagueness. Professor Hogben (2) plays ducks and drakes with a battery which is able to write prescriptions, and, while disapproving of the everyday phrase put up with, is unwilling to look egregious up in the dictionary and see what it means. (3), if one takes an uncharitable attitude towards it, is simply meaningless: probably one could work out its intended meaning by reading the whole of the article in which it occurs. In (4) the writer knows more or less what he wants to say, but an accumulation of stale phrases chokes him like tea-leaves blocking a sink. In (5) words and meaning have almost parted company. People who write in this manner usually have a general emotional meaning – they dislike one thing and want to express solidarity with another – but they are not interested in the detail of what they are saying. A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus: What am I trying to say? What words will express it? What image or idiom will make it clearer? Is this image fresh enough to have an effect? And he will probably ask himself two more: Could I put it more shortly? Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly? But you are not obliged to go to all this trouble. You can shirk it by simply throwing your mind open and letting the ready-made phrases come crowding in. They will construct your sentences for you – even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent – and at need they will perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself. It is at this point that the special connection between politics and the debasement of language becomes clear. In our time it is broadly true that political writing is bad writing. Where it is not true, it will generally be found that the writer is some kind of rebel, expressing his private opinions, and not a ‘party line’. Orthodoxy, of whatever colour, seems to demand a lifeless, imitative style. The political dialects to be found in pamphlets, leading articles, manifestos, White Papers and the speeches of Under-Secretaries do, of course, vary from party to party, but they are all alike in that one almost never finds in them a fresh, vivid, home-made turn of speech. When one watches some tired hack on the platform mechanically repeating the familiar phrases – bestial atrocities, iron heel, blood-stained tyranny, free peoples of the world, stand shoulder to shoulder – one often has a curious feeling that one is not watching a live human being but some kind of dummy: a feeling which suddenly becomes stronger at moments when the light catches the speaker’s spectacles and turns them into blank discs which seem to have no eyes behind them. And this is not altogether fanciful. A speaker who uses that kind of phraseology has gone some distance toward turning himself into a machine. The appropriate noises are coming out of his larynx, but his brain is not involved as it would be if he were choosing his words for himself. If the speech he is making is one that he is accustomed to make over and over again, he may be almost unconscious of what he is saying, as one is when one utters the responses in church. And this reduced state of consciousness, if not indispensable, is at any rate favourable to political conformity. In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, ‘I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so’. Probably, therefore, he will say something like this: While freely conceding that the Soviet régime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigours which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement. The inflated style is itself a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics’. All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer. I should expect to find – this is a guess which I have not sufficient knowledge to verify – that the German, Russian and Italian languages have all deteriorated in the last ten or fifteen years, as a result of dictatorship. But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation, even among people who should and do know better. The debased language that I have been discussing is in some ways very convenient. Phrases like a not unjustifiable assumption, leaves much to be desired, would serve no good purpose, a consideration which we should do well to bear in mind, are a continuous temptation, a packet of aspirins always at one’s elbow. Look back through this essay, and for certain you will find that I have again and again committed the very faults I am protesting against. By this morning’s post I have received a pamphlet dealing with conditions in Germany. The author tells me that he ‘felt impelled’ to write it. I open it at random, and here is almost the first sentence that I see: ‘(The Allies) have an opportunity not only of achieving a radical transformation of Germany’s social and political structure in such a way as to avoid a nationalistic reaction in Germany itself, but at the same time of laying the foundations of a co-operative and unified Europe.’ You see, he ‘feels impelled’ to write – feels, presumably, that he has something new to say – and yet his words, like cavalry horses answering the bugle, group themselves automatically into the familiar dreary pattern. This invasion of one’s mind by ready-made phrases (lay the foundations, achieve a radical transformation) can only be prevented if one is constantly on guard against them, and every such phrase anaesthetizes a portion of one’s brain. I said earlier that the decadence of our language is probably curable. Those who deny this would argue, if they produced an argument at all, that language merely reflects existing social conditions, and that we cannot influence its development by any direct tinkering with words and constructions. So far as the general tone or spirit of a language goes, this may be true, but it is not true in detail. Silly words and expressions have often disappeared, not through any evolutionary process but owing to the conscious action of a minority. Two recent examples were explore every avenue and leave no stone unturned, which were killed by the jeers of a few journalists. There is a long list of fly-blown metaphors which could similarly be got rid of if enough people would interest themselves in the job; and it should also be possible to laugh the not un- formation out of existence[3], to reduce the amount of Latin and Greek in the average sentence, to drive out foreign phrases and strayed scientific words, and, in general, to make pretentiousness unfashionable. But all these are minor points. The defence of the English language implies more than this, and perhaps it is best to start by saying what it does not imply. To begin with it has nothing to do with archaism, with the salvaging of obsolete words and turns of speech, or with the setting up of a ‘standard English’ which must never be departed from. On the contrary, it is especially concerned with the scrapping of every word or idiom which has outworn its usefulness. It has nothing to do with correct grammar and syntax, which are of no importance so long as one makes one’s meaning clear or with the avoidance of Americanisms, or with having what is called a ‘good prose style’. On the other hand it is not concerned with fake simplicity and the attempt to make written English colloquial. Nor does it even imply in every case preferring the Saxon word to the Latin one, though it does imply using the fewest and shortest words that will cover one’s meaning. What is above all needed is to let the meaning choose the word, and not the other way about. In prose, the worst thing one can do with words is to surrender them. When you think of a concrete object, you think wordlessly, and then, if you want to describe the thing you have been visualising, you probably hunt about till you find the exact words that seem to fit it. When you think of something abstract you are more inclined to use words from the start, and unless you make a conscious effort to prevent it, the existing dialect will come rushing in and do the job for you, at the expense of blurring or even changing your meaning. Probably it is better to put off using words as long as possible and get one’s meanings as clear as one can through pictures and sensations. Afterward one can choose – not simply accept - the phrases that will best cover the meaning, and then switch round and decide what impression one’s words are likely to make on another person. This last effort of the mind cuts out all stale or mixed images, all prefabricated phrases, needless repetitions, and humbug and vagueness generally. But one can often be in doubt about the effect of a word or a phrase, and one needs rules that one can rely on when instinct fails. I think the following rules will cover most cases: i. Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. ii. Never use a long word where a short one will do. iii. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. iv. Never use the passive where you can use the active. v. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. vi. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous. These rules sound elementary, and so they are, but they demand a deep change of attitude in anyone who has grown used to writing in the style now fashionable. One could keep all of them and still write bad English, but one could not write the kind of stuff that I quoted in those five specimens at the beginning of this article. I have not here been considering the literary use of language, but merely language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought. Stuart Chase and others have come near to claiming that all abstract words are meaningless, and have used this as a pretext for advocating a kind of political quietism. Since you don’t know what Fascism is, how can you struggle against Fascism? One need not swallow such absurdities as this, but one ought to recognize that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end. If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language – and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists – is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one’s own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase – some jackboot, Achilles’ heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno or other lump of verbal refuse – into the dustbin where it belongs. [1] An interesting illustration of this is the way in which the English flower names which were in use till very recently are being ousted by Greek ones, snapdragon becoming antirrhinum, forget-me-not becoming myosotis, etc. It is hard to see any practical reason for this change of fashion: it is probably due to an instinctive turning-away from the more homely word and a vague feeling that the Greek word is scientific. [2] Example: ‘Comfort’s catholicity of perception and image, strangely Whitmanesque in range, almost the exact opposite in aesthetic compulsion, continues to evoke that trembling atmospheric accumulative hinting at a cruel, an inexorably serene timelessness… Wrey Gardiner scores by aiming at simple bullseyes with precision. Only they are not so simple, and through this contented sadness runs more than the surface bitter-sweet of resignation’. (Poetry Quarterly.) [3] One can cure oneself of the not un- formation by memorizing this sentence: A not unblack dog was chasing a not unsmall rabbit across a not ungreen field. Horizon, April 1946

Church Leaders say No to EDL

Church leaders have united to deliver a clear message to the English Defence League that it will not be welcomed in Norwich if a planned protest march goes ahead in the city. The right-wing movement, which opposes what it considers to be the spread of militant Islamism, is planning its first-ever march through Norwich on Saturday, November 10. It was organised in response to Norwich City Council’s decision to ban the Rev Alan Clifford of the Norwich Reformed Church from using a market stall on Hay Hill, where it was believed that anti-Islamic literature was being distributed. But the EDL, whose marches are often marred by violence, believe the ban infringed freedom of speech and arranged the protest to demonstrate against it. Now the leaders of all Christian denominations in Norwich have joined other community and religious groups in making it clear that any organisation exhibiting intolerance of any of the city’s diverse faiths would not be welcomed. The following joint statement was issued: “The intention of the English Defence League to mount a demonstration in Norwich is entirely unwelcome. Norwich has a long history of welcoming strangers, often in considerable numbers. The integration of so many different groups into the life of this fine city is what gives Norwich such richness in its life today. This is a cause for celebration, and we must not allow this honourable tradition to be broken.” The signatories were: -Fr David Bagstaff, diocesan administrator of the Diocese of East Anglia (Roman Catholic) -Major David Jackson, divisional commander of the Eastern Region, Salvation Army -The Rt Rev Graham James, Bishop of Norwich (Church of England) -The Rev Richard Lewis, regional minister of the Eastern Baptist Association -John Myhill, on behalf of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) -The Very Rev Graham Smith, Dean of Norwich (Church of England) -The Rev Graham Thompson, chairman of the East Anglian District of the Methodist Church -Fr James Walsh, Dean of the Cathedral Church of John the Baptist (Roman Catholic) -The Rev Paul Whittle, moderator of the Eastern Synod of the United Reformed Church The Ven Jan McFarlane, Archdeacon of Norwich, added: “We pride ourselves on being open and welcoming and that is a great tradition that we want to continue, so the idea that there might be a march from an organisation such as the EDL goes against everything that Norwich stands for. All the church leaders signed the statement immediately. They all agreed that they do not want anything that says people here are not welcoming to everybody. It is just not Norwich.” Mr Whittle said the United Reformed Church, which he represents, had been mistaken for the similarly-named Norwich Reformed Church, which had sparked the controversy. He said: “I am aware that there has been some confusion between the two, but the United Reformed Church is a completely distinct entity from the Norwich Reformed Church. We would want to work in partnership with all religious leaders and respect the faiths of others. “We all really value the diversity that is found in Norwich. We would want to link with people of all faiths and we as church leaders would not be happy to support people who want to break that up; to suggest that people of different faiths are not welcome.” The EDL said it wanted to exercise its right to protest at what it sees as the “unfair” treatment of the Norwich Reformed Church. An EDL spokesman said: “The English Defence League will be showing their support for the church and protesting at Norwich City Council’s actions against the church and everyone else’s freedom of speech.” A Norfolk Constabulary spokesman said the EDL had sent a formal notification that it intends to stage the protest on November 10. “There is a legal right to freedom of expression and assembly in this country so police will be working to facilitate any peaceful protests or assemblies on this day whilst also seeking to enable others to go about their lawful business,” he said. “We understand there may be concerns and feelings of vulnerability within a number of communities and we will be looking to work closely with the organisers, our partners and community leaders to help address these.” Local community organisation We Are Norwich, a coalition of faith groups, trade unions, political parties and activists, has said it will work with the police to hold a peaceful counter-demonstration which celebrates the city’s diverse cultures, should the march go ahead. Meanwhile members of Norwich’s Muslim community say they are alarmed at the prospect of the EDL visiting their home city. Jamal Sealey of Chaplefield Mosque said: “The Norwich Muslim Community has been a part of this city for over 30 years and welcome the opportunity to work with the other members of the We Are Norwich group to ensure this city remains safe for people of all backgrounds, beliefs and ethnicities.”

Be prepared

Be Prepared - Is your community ready for anything? A Focus for prayers and sermons on October 7th 2012 October 7th sees the start of Norfolk Prepared Week-a week of action to build awareness of the vital work being done to prepare for any emergency situation hitting our county-from severe weather to terrorist attack, from a dangerous flu epidemic to a plane or train crash. It is an opportunity to pay tribute to and give thanks for the emergency services, the military, utility providers, emergency planners and decision-makers working tirelessly behind the scenes preparing for the worst case scenario through exercises and developing protocols which could literally save lives, learning the lessons of incidents elsewhere. It is an opportunity to explore ways than we can work together to make our communities more resilient and cohesive, ensuring the needs of our less able and vulnerable are considered and remembered, and identifying and managing risks. Consider whether there is anything you can do to help. What skills could members of your congregation bring to the table? It is a time to forge partnerships with parish council, local authorities, government agencies and voluntary sector groups such as the Red Cross and St John’s Ambulance. It is also a chance to raise awareness of the Norfolk and Waveney Churches Together Ecumenical Emergency Incident Team (EEIT) - a group of clergy and lay people accredited, trained, supported and ready to be called into action at any time. The team is convened by Rev Simon Wilson in his capacity as County Ecumenical Officer. Please pray for the work of the EEIT and other faith-based organisations whether Christian like the Salvation Army or from minority faith communities; for those involved in resilience work and preparing for what could be very difficult and traumatic work providing humanitarian assistance during an incident and in promoting community recovery in the aftermath. Supporting the injured, the bereaved, the homeless, the evacuated and the unsettled. Providing practical, pastoral and spiritual support. Ensuring that religious needs are met. Pray also for Chaplains in our hospitals, supporting the police, fire, ambulance and coastguard services, the military, the coroner’s court, the airport and county hall-building relationships and raising awareness-being ready for anything. Pray for disaster management across the world-for those from Norfolk serving in overseas contexts. Give thanks that Norfolk is generally a safe place to live and work but pray against complacency - what would you do if the services you rely on suddenly weren’t there anymore? Are you ready for anything? Find out more at : www.norfolkprepared.gov.uk Contact simon.wilson@norwich.anglican.org O God our father Our refuge and strength in times of trouble We thank you for all you provide for us, for those who care for us and those who keep us safe. Guide those preparing for emergency situations Make our communities cohesive and resilient places where we care for our neighbour Prepare and support us for those times when things go wrong and protect us from harm. Bless the dedication and skills of the emergency services and sustain the ministry of chaplains and the ecumenical emergency incident team In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit Amen

Lib Dem President Tim Farron MP responds to open letter

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.

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

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.

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.

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."

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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 . . .

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

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.