• Username
• Password
• Log in
  

• Forgot your password?

If you don't have an account you can register here

Comments

• Posted by mweitsch@qcea.org on August 30, 2010

  I was surprised about the rather better assessment of the new Governments track record in relation to Quaker testimony than I had expected.

  On the subject of simplicity, I do not agree that spending cuts can be defined as ‘simplicity’ in the sense that I understand. If there was any indication that the cuts would not disproportionatley affect poorer people then maybe I would go along, but as it is, there is every indication that the cuts will complicate the lives of the most vulnerable of citizens and make the work of many NGOs impossible.

  Just one example of this: a DiFD grant to an international peace NGO (not QCEA!)which was granted until March 2011 (i.e. the previous Government had entered into a contract) was unceremoniously cut from October 2010. The letter indicating this to the recipient was received in late August. That is a major cause for complication and concern for an organisation that does important work for peace.

  The suggestion that the possible introduction of a system of proportional represenattion might improve integrity, suggests a misundertanding of the proposal and a rather optimistic view of the connection between the two systems. What might have been a better option was a public debate about what system of proportional representation might have contributed to accountability and integrity.

  I agree with the analysis on the subject of peace but think that a C is far too good a grade for this. A fail might be more appropriate.

  Martina Weitsch