The “Euston Manifesto” keeps it simple. It prefers democratic pluralism, at any price, to theocracy. It raises an eyebrow at the enslavement of the female half of the population and the burial alive of homosexuals. It has its reservations about the United States, but knows that if anything is ever done about (say) Darfur, it will be Washington that receives the UN mandate to do the heavy lifting.

It prefers those who vote in Iraq and Afghanistan to those who put bombs in mosques and schools and hospitals. It does not conceive of arguments that make excuses for suicide murderers. It affirms the right of democratic nations and open societies to defend themselves, both from theocratic states abroad and from theocratic gangsters at home.

This is probably the most "conservative" document I've ever signed. Although I don't agree with every single word, I like the change of direction it suggests for progressives/liberals.

WHAT IS IT?

In May last year about 20 disgruntled leftists met in a pub near Euston station in London. Journalists, academics, bloggers and students, they were united in feeling at odds with the anti-war movement and the blanket anti-American/anti-Blair sentiments it inspired. They felt that the left had lost touch with its core values, its muddled sympathies now falling in with terrorists in its rush to condemn its own government

WHAT IS THE POINT OF IT?

The manifesto appeared on the internet, arguing the time has come for “egalitarian liberals” to reassess their behaviour and allegiances. Members include Norman Geras, Nick Cohen and Brian Brivati

POINTS INCLUDED:

A rejection of the idea that the left should “indulgently ‘understand’ reactionary regimes and movements for which democracy is a hated enemy”

That members will condemn any abuse of human rights, and not see Guantanamo or rendition as being somehow worse than equivalent actions by non-democracies

That without incitement, people should be free to criticise others’ religious beliefs

That the duty of the left is to concentrate on seeing democracy triumph in Iraq and not ceaselessly to harp on about the justice of the initial intervention

WHY DOES IT MATTER?

Because, its authors believe, it will lead to a return to common sense and put an end to so-called liberals supporting gruesome regimes for political gain back home.

It has won support from John Lloyd, Paul Berman, Anthony Julius and Francis Wheen. There are now more than 200,000 mentions of it online