• The Apology Nick Clegg should have made

    I’d like to take a few moments of your time to clear the air. It is obvious to me that significant numbers of people who voted for the Liberal Democrats at the last election have felt let down by how the Liberal Democrats have behaved in government. The reality is that we have let down not only those who voted for us but most particularly those who worked hardest to put Liberal Democrats in parliament. The time has come for me to put on record my thoughts about this and then make some suggestions as to the way forward.

    Firstly, there is no doubt that people have been disappointed that we formed a coalition with the Conservative Party. I make no apology for doing so. The country needed a stable government, we believe that coalition government can be a good thing and I’ve fought every election because I want a share in power in order to implement liberal policies and make the country a better place for all. However, the manner in which we entered into this coalition was not good for the country. People needed to be able to see that we were fighting within the coalition for the values we hold dear. Instead of that, people saw us as those who were enabling the Tory party to have its way, cutting much needed taxation, promoting policies to benefit the few rather than the many  such as the removal of essential benefits and further emphasising the North-South divide in the UK. We should have been much more cautious. We should have opposed such plans both publicly as well as privately.

    Secondly, it is obvious to everyone that we made a big mistake on tuition fees. We should not have gone back on our pledge to vote against tuitions fees. It was not merely foolish politically to be photographed making those pledges, it was fundamentally wrong to break them. I now take full responsibility for advising others in the party to do so and I will take the consequences of those decisions. I make no apology for wanting the best eduction system in the world and wanting the fullest access to be available to it regardless of the income of students. My generation benefitted from easy access to Higher Education and I believe it is necessary not merely for the well-being of students but also for the well-being of the country. We need to educate in order to grow.

    I apologise for ever suggesting that the country could not afford this. There was always money available in the form of increased taxation. We were uniquely placed for making the case to the country that investment in our educational establishments and in our young people was an investment that Britain could not afford to avoid making.

    Thirdly, I have heard that voices who say that we were not ready for government. Unfortunately, they were right. However, engaging in politics at the highest level teaches you hard lessons and the fact is that we are now a party of government and Britain needs a strong liberal force in parliament. Whether as a loyal opposition or whether we are in government, we need to bring creative liberal answers to the problems which beset us. However, it is clear that we will be unable to do this whilst the country does not trust us.

    I take full responsibility for these mistakes. The people of the UK need our values. Many trust our values and many more will come to believe in what we stand for. However, this can only happen if trust can be rebuilt in the public sphere.

    For these reasons, the time has come for change. I am sorry for the mistakes that I made. I know that a liberal Britain can only come about if I now step aside and allow other more trusted colleagues to put the case to the people. For this reason, I shall resign the party leadership and concentrate my efforts on retaining my Sheffield seat. I want a party I can feel proud of. I want a country I can feel proud of. And I commit myself to building a better future where the all the people of the UK are free to prosper.

    Thank you.

15 responses to “The Scottish Episcopal Church and the upcoming Primates’ Meeting”

    1. Andrea Maier Avatar
      Andrea Maier

      Concur!

  1. Lionel Deimel Avatar

    We can hope that new primates will change the ethos of the Primates’ Meeting. I’m making no bets on it.

  2. Phil Groves Avatar
    Phil Groves

    100% agreement.

  3. Eamonn Avatar

    Beautifully balanced – and witty, too! Well said!

  4. Meg Rosenfeld Avatar
    Meg Rosenfeld

    It’s happening here in the USA and unless you believe that our current president represents God’s punishment (personally, I think God wouldn’t be so tacky) we haven’t blown up yet. As you say, it’s about goodness and love–how radical can we get?

  5. Wayne Kamm Avatar
    Wayne Kamm

    Thank you for an excellent statement!

  6. Tobias Stanislas Haller Avatar

    Well said. Most of the Primates have only limited authority even within their own provinces, and absolutely no authority outside them. Trying to turn international Anglican conferences and meetings into disciplinary bodies is the stuff of fiction. All of that sort of pre-meeting hoopla makes the real work of the meeting, in terms of open dialogue and interaction, much more difficult.

  7. Drew_Mac Avatar
    Drew_Mac

    Well said! There’s been lots of blogging recently about the sensitive consciences of those who inexplicably claim they will be ‘forced’ to marry same-sex couples. At the same time I’m being forced to send loving committed and legally married same-sex couples away without even a formal blessing. Respect for conscience should cut both ways.

  8. Andrew Bowdler Avatar
    Andrew Bowdler

    Kelvin, listening can – and often does – result in disciplining. To try to separate them, as you have in your original piece, is therefore to miss the point. With the enormous divide that exists on this particular issue, one or other side is ultimately going to have to be ‘disciplined’ – and, no, discipline doesn’t have to be harsh or violent. It can equally be gently persuasive.

    1. Jo Avatar
      Jo

      Isn’t the lesson from both TEC and the SEC is that no-one need be disciplined for following their personal conscience; the issue only arises when one side seeks to force the other to act against their conscience and only one side is doing that.

    2. Cynthia Katsarelis Avatar
      Cynthia Katsarelis

      There’s no “gently persuasive” way to say that my spouse and I aren’t loved by God and our sacramental marriage deeply infused with God’s grace.

      Discipline should be to those who have supported criminalization of LGBT people.

    3. Richard Ashby Avatar
      Richard Ashby

      Why should ‘listening’ result in disciplining? It should lead to understanding of an opposite point of view and respect for another’s conscience. Neither the primates nor Lambeth nor the Communion has any power to ‘discipline’ anyone and neither should it. We aren’t Roman Catholics and we don’t have a
      Pope. The Scottish Episcopal Church allow the exercise of conscience on both sides. The problem is that too many Christians want to impose their rules over against another persons conscience. That’s just not right.

      And what’s the point anyway? The ‘consequences’ haven’t changed the mind of the America Anglicans, the prospect didn’t stop the Scottish Church, it’s not going to stop Canada or South Africa.

      1. Andrew Bowdler Avatar
        Andrew Bowdler

        No society or organisation can allow diametrically opposing opinions on the same issue to be held with the same validity, Richard. They can, and often will allow for debate and ‘listening’ but in the long run, one opinion of the other has to be accepted over and against the other. Those who continue to hold the unsuccessful opinion will then have to accept the other, or face ‘discipline’ in one of a number of forms. When said society allows meaningless phrases such as ‘hate crime’ to brandied about with no legal or linguistic definition to support them, that society opens itself to a form of anarchy.

        1. Richard Ashby Avatar
          Richard Ashby

          But I thought that that the CofE has ‘two integrities’ on women as priests and bishops. What about ‘mutual flourishing’. In your view this is obviously impossible in long term (actually I happen to agree with you on that.) but what’s sauce for the goose etc

          We are supposed to be living side by side with these tensions. The Scottish Church has said that no one is to be forced to marry or not marry same sex couples. I know some people think that is impossible, I’ve been told so by members of ‘Christian concern’ etc. But we cannot allow these people to dictate to us what we hold by our consciences also to be true.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Back Home

    It does feel good to get back home from Yorkshire. Well specifically, it does feel good to get back home from Wakefield.And tomorrow, to Leipzig. Well, metaphorically speaking. The choir are going to be taking the congregation there at 10 am with a fantastic hymn arrangement by Bach of All Glory Laud and Honour which…

  • Moderatorial Dress

    No lace, alas, but we did get a purply blue shirt, a large official ring and a pectoral cross. Indeed, all the C of S ministers in the party were wearing very prominent clanking pectoral crosses. Bishop all, of course.

  • Lunch

    Today's excitement, if that is the word, is lunch at the University of Stirling with the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. Iain Torrance is almost at the end of his moderatorial year. He has been pleasingly unpredicatable too. At the time he was nominated it was widely seen as a…

  • Brownies

    Yesterday, I was the assessor for a Brownie Guide Faith Discovery Badge. Yet another thing I was not taught to do in theological college. However, the Brownie was very impressive, passed the badge easily and o­ne of the pictures that she drew is now o­n the church website – www.saint-saviour.org