From the Associated Press of Pakistan:
LONDON, Oct 27 (APP): Politicians, activists and grass-root leaders joined thousands of British Muslims to celebrate peace, in defiance of divisive smear casters. They gathered Sunday to take part in an annual jamboree to celebrate British Islam and discuss how the community can reach out to wider society in peace and solidarity.
The Global Peace and Unity conference organised by the Islam Channel took place at Excel Centre in East London despite the attempts of smear casters to dissuade leading politicians, activists and community leaders from attending.
The Muslim Council of Britain has written to the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, to express their appreciation for the manner in which he stood up to the smear tactics of the divisive think-tank, the Policy Exchange.
The leader of the Liberal Democrat party wrote to the Policy Exchange ‘think-tank’ criticising its ‘bizarre and underhand behaviour’ in seeking to try and dissuade prominent politicians from attending.
Mr Clegg, along with politicians from across the political spectrum, took part at the event or sent messages of support.
“For years, the Policy Exchange has peddled a McCarthyite agenda that seeks to divide British people and draw suspicion and fear towards British Muslims. Nick Clegg is to be commended for not succumbing to the pressure brought to bear by the Policy Exchange and indeed revealing to the world the underhand manner in which the Policy Exchange operates,” said MCB Secretary-General Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari.
Simon Hughes, Liberal Democrat MP for North Southwark and Bermondsey, was among the politicians who received a special award from the Muslim Council of Britain for principled defence of the Muslim community.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Have a goat day tomorrow!
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
The Joy of Six 1528
Endometriosis and acetylation
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
Kira Collins
Ian Patterson
Daniel Walker
Richard Flowers
Mick Taylor
26 Comments
As you quoted the first six paragraphs verbatim, perhaps it’s worth adding the remaining five for completeness.
(We wouldn’t want any “editing out” of politicians from other parties, would we?)
As part of its programme of connecting Muslims to the democratic process, the MCB sponsored a political award at the weekend event to honour the politicians.
The Friends of Islam Award recognised Mps Stephen Timms and Simon Hughes for their principled defence of the Muslim community whilst an independent panel awarded the Conservative Party spokesman on Home Affairs Dominic Grieves for his contribution to the political process.
The Global Peace and Unity Event was also attended by Communities and Local Government Minister Sadiq Khan and London Minister Tony McNulty .
Sending a message of support for the Event, Justice Secretary Jack Straw said: “Our society should be one which recognises and celebrates our differences.One in which we all have an opportunity to flourish, regardless of who we are or where we are from.”
Whilst London Mayor Boris Johnson said: “This hugely significant event in London does much to promote global cohesion across all communities; it increases understanding and encourages dialogue throughout the Muslim community and beyond.”
I am such a pedant you know.
Wow, that was startlingly useful. Thanks CCF – its good to know you’re out there looking out for the little guy who doesn’t know what a hyperlink is.
The second comment posted above attributed to “Clegg’s Candid Friend” was posted by somebody else. I thought that kind of thing was frowned on here?
James
I just thought it was quite funny that the references to all the politicians from other parties were “edited out” – considering the fuss that was made about that photo the other day…
The day LDV is funded by taxpayers, I will concede you have a point.
“The day LDV is funded by taxpayers, I will concede you have a point.”
Call me old-fashioned, but I reckon it’d be nice if LDV wasn’t quite so relentlessly one-sided in its treatment of every story that a bit of propaganda can be squeezed out of, and didn’t quite so often criticise other parties for things that are known to go on in every party. But maybe this kind of spin is absolutely endemic now.
We of course welcome any activity that reminds us all that UK Mulims are just another community trying to go about their business and seeking nothing more than to be treated as normal citizens
This event helped that cause
Let us not make it an issue over which to make political capital
Must admit though having read the rest of the text I too had a little chuckle over the fuss colleagues mad last week because a lib dem was edited out
What is good for the goose etc etc etc
The second comment posted above attributed to “Clegg’s Candid Friend” was posted by somebody else. I thought that kind of thing was frowned on here?
No, no, it’s positively encouraged, particularly when people post anonymously.
CCF,
Please start your own blog.
You spend so much time on the net, commenting on LDV, usually first on every story.
You have so much to say about most everything.
It would be great if it was all in one place where you were leading rather than following.
It would be great to see what you choose to write about and what you ignore.
It may also serve to be theraputic for you.
Love CCFF
CCFF
I’m pleased to see that CCF’s home truths are getting under so many people’s skins. It is the beginning of wisdom.
David
Well, what with one other person pretending to be me, and another posting as “Clegg’s Candid Friend’s Friend”, I think there must be an element of truth in that.
Though I do worry about the latter person, if he/she thinks my comments are “usually first on every story”. It sounds rather like a paranoid delusion.
Sorry, I missed the third joker in the pack – someone calling himself “Clegg’s Other Candid Friend”, and assuring me that this site encourages people to pretend to be other people.
Generally I dislike the phrase “Get a life”, but there are occasions when it cries out to be used.
It’s a fair cop.
I do suffer from paranoid delusion.
You know when someone tells you they are your candid friend, what they tend to be is neither your friend nor being particular candid.
It is a device in which to layer criticism with a patina of good wishes.
You know some of my best friends are black, but…..
I’ve got nothing against gays per se, but…..
What I would like to see from CFF is a sense of where this person is coming from and why.
That is why I would like to see a CCF blog. I would like to see what CCF chooses to blog about etc.
Where friend, where foe, where candid, where artful, what for, what against.
Time to branch out my candid friend…
CCFF
I suppose I should be gratified by all the attention, but …
Anyway, if you really can’t work out where I’m coming from, here it is in a nutshell. I have supported the Liberal Party, and then the Alliance, and then the Liberal Democrats, all my adult life (that’s since about 1980). I joined the party in 1988, and was an active member for twenty years. I resigned my membership in September following the conference vote on the “Make it Happen” amendment.
I am critical of Nick Clegg because I believe he has betrayed the principles for which I have worked as a member of the party for more than two decades.
Perhaps, as an ex-member, I should stop commenting here, and perhaps I will. But I’m certainly not going to take any crap about being a “Tory troll” from any of the bright young sparks who are eagerly participating in the transformation of the Liberal Democrats into Tory Party Number 3.
CCF: That doesn’t especially explain why you can’t just post under your own name, like most of us. Or pick a less snarky pseudonym.
Andy
I think you only have to look at what’s happened on this thread alone – fake posts purporting to be from me, and a series of ad hominem attacks posted under silly pseudonyms. If I posted under my real name, the anonymous character assassins would have the satisfaction of attacking me under my real name, sure enough – but why on earth would I want to give them that satisfaction?
Surely you’re not incapable of judging posts by what they say, rather than by the name that’s written underneath them?
No, I’m not incapable. And you have the right to call yourself whatever you want. But you can’t be surprised, when you give yourself a name that sounds like a troll, and then usually write comments critical of the party, that people assume you’re trolling. I suspect that’s where most of the attacks come from – after all, I’ve never seen such treatment of anyone else, but plenty of other people are critical of the party.
Dear CCF,
Thank you for explaining your motivations.
I would say I believe your judgement of Nick Clegg’s leadership is just plain wrong and you should join the party again.
I am not quite sure what principle of the party Nick Clegg has betrayed. He may well have betrayed one of your own personal principles but I’m not clear what that is.
Were you at conference? If you were you will know that the make it happen amendment was defeated by approaching 75% of the conference delegates in a packed hall.
If the issue of not offering lower taxes is your principle, in that sense I guess you could say the party left you rather than the other way around.
Through this prism you know see all the things that annoy you, and none of the things that reaffirm why you were once a Liberal Democrat. You accused me of paranoid delusion, I accuse you of not seeing the wood for the tree that gets on your nerves.
But don’t be so glum. I can confidently predict that the next Lib Dem manifesto under Nick Clegg will be the most redistribute and the most focussed on help for those without than any of the other parties – and even I would dare to say – of any Lib Dem manifesto.
Look to the policy my friend. Look to the ‘pupil premium’ devised by David Laws that focussed 2.5bn at the poorest pupils at the expense of those who don’t need state help. Look to Clegg’s endless focus on fuel poverty that he bangs on about week in week out at PMQs. Look to the care guarantee, restoring the pension’s earning’s link, the inequity of Council Tax.
I hope you find a new political home CCF, but I would suggest its still us.
Love and Best wishes
CCFF
“If the issue of not offering lower taxes is your principle, in that sense I guess you could say the party left you rather than the other way around.”
Oh, the party has certainly left me all right. My principles have changed little since I joined.
And for your information, of course I don’t object to tax cuts per se. What I object to is making them the be all and end all – above social justice and environmental issues – and plucking some arbitrary amount of unspecified spending cuts out of the air to pay for them.
And if you are really saying the party “has left” all those members who feel the same way (a quarter even of conference delegates, by your reckoning), then you’d better get really busy with a massive recruitment programme to make up the deficit.
Helpful hint: Posting messages on the Internet saying the disaffected should learn to love Nick Clegg isn’t going to do the trick.
We need another thread to discuss which party CCF should belong to.
My problem with the Liberal Democrats in recent years is that it has lost it’s critique of capitalism and has become more influenced by the free market fundamentalism of Hayak rather than the more Left of Centre position that Keynes occupies. The MIH policy passed at conference where we are now committed to cutting public services was the nadir of that.
However I think that all of the political parties, including our will have to change now that we know that neo-liberalism is fatally flawed, and is certainly not providing any solutions to the economic problems we face today.
So I do not think this is a good time to leave. MIH was little more than a glossy brochure, when what we really need is a new Yellow Book.
On the substantive issue, I think the Liberal Democrats are doing exactly the right thing in networking with the muslim community. I guess we discussed this at length on the other thread, so I am not sure if there is anything new to add.
In politics you have to engage with people you disagree with.
“We need another thread to discuss which party CCF should belong to.”
I certainly don’t plan to join any other party!
That’s one thing I can never understand – why people so often leave a party and rush straight into the arms of another, which they have previously opposed tooth and claw. I suppose that in many cases (where they are elected representatives) they realise that they would stand no chance of re-election as independents.
“We need another thread to discuss which party CCF should belong to.”
No, we need another thread to discuss who he’d vote for in our internal elections if he was still eligible.
CCF: I agree with Geoffrey Payne that now is not a good time to leave. I did resign my position in our local party, though, and have stopped campaigning. My local colleagues get a bit bemused as to why I am suddenly unwilling to format their Focus articles on wheelie bins, etc. I think that when I said that a Focus might just as well have a blue torch in its top right corner these days, I did at least make people aware how I felt!
I don’t think the Party at large has yet properly woken up to what has changed. When it does, sparks will fly. Don’t give up hope!
CCFF: You run through a series of seemingly left-wing redistributive policies we still have. My feeling is that there is a large element of window-dressing. It reminds me that Labour, when they brought in top-up fees, made great play of the bursaries they would also bring in, so as to mitigate the ill effects of their own policy on poorer students! Labour were clearly trying to hang on to their left-wing voters while shifting to the right. Are we doing the same?
Perhaps I am being too cynical. But let’s start with pupil premium. Perhaps someone can enlighten me on this. We do, now, already have a school funding system that pays schools extra money related to the proportion of their pupils who qualify for free school meals. Will pupil premium replace this method of providing extra resource for the poor, or, will it be an additional source of money? If it is a replacement, will it be any more redistributive than what it replaces? And if on the other hand it is an additional source of money, where will that money come from? (Hint to politburo, it would be a mistake to tell me “higher taxes”!)
David Allen:
“I don’t think the Party at large has yet properly woken up to what has changed. When it does, sparks will fly. Don’t give up hope!”
Sorry, but I’ve been hoping for months that the party would have the backbone to stand up to this stuff, and it hasn’t happened.
Basically I think there needs to be at least one political party defending public services and having the honesty to explain that they need to be properly paid for.
We used to do that. We’re not doing it any more – we’re peddling populist rubbish about spending cuts and tax cuts. I’m not willing to be party to that.