At the time of writing the election campaign is in full swing.

Gordon Brown is reflecting on television debates and microphones. David Cameron is endeavouring to cover every corner of Britain in days. Nick Clegg is an unlikely visitor to the snooker world championship in Sheffield.

Even Tony Blair has emerged from the shadows to be presented with cakes by schoolchildren.

What will the legacy of New Labour be? The wonderful new hospital wings and schools, sadly, may not be remembered as clearly as the enduring image portrayed by Don Hartridge in his poem in this issue: a coffin containing a young soldier being carried off a plane.

It is also chilling to reflect that, statistically, for every combatant killed in a conflict today nine innocent civilians will also die. One hundred years ago this figure was reversed.


Now the party leaders and their supporters are desperately trying to win over the ‘undecided’ in what promises to be the closest and most interesting election in many years.

All of the leaders are stressing their differences but are united in a common challenge: to keep a permanent smile on their faces.

What will it all mean for Quakers? A lot.

Whatever the result of the election, Quakers in every corner of Britain, whether they are ninety, nineteen or nine years old, will be affected by the decisions of the new government.

The word ‘change’ appears every-where – on posters, in pamphlets and on lips – so at the Friend we decided it would be good to take the word on ourselves and hear from Friends in Britain.

We invited a cross-section of Quakers to respond to a simple question: ‘What change would you most like a new government to implement and why?’

The results are fascinating and provide the main feature in this issue.

You will have your own answer to this question. We are keen to hear it.

Comments

• Posted by geriatrikid on May 06, 2010

  The change I want to see is in the overall revision of Parliament’s structure and the expectation of how it does its work.

  Not just the voting system, although that is a start. In itself it will do nothing to change the current confrontational debating society debacle of Government and Opposition. My view of the essence of Parliament is that every MP is placed there by the electorate to work with all fellow members in the common interest. Or at least that should be the standpoint of all who believe that our task, through our members, is to find common ground by the resolution of differences - arguably as much a Quaker tenet as opposition to armed conflict.

  Government by a majority Party heightens conflict and needs to be changed. That said, I have no easy answer. Maybe a period of time really trying to make a ‘no single majority’ set up work - if that is what we get - will help. I suspect that we need conviction among the Party influentials, maybe a realistic approach to the slogan: “We are all in it together”