![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
liadnanI realise now that when I voted LibDem, in my Labour/Respect marginal constituency, what I was really voting for was the "progressive coalition" and that I should now feel angered enough to be turning to the Labour party.
To discover the views of the "progressive coalition" I look to the voting record of Ben Bradshaw, one of those who has explained it all to me by banging on about this again and again: it turns out that it includes strong progressive policies like being strongly for ID Cards; against laws to stop climate change; for the anti-terrorism laws of the last decade, ministerial intervention in inquests and a stricter asylum system; and opposing an inquiry into the Iraq war.
Yes, that's it. And what I really wanted was for the Ministry of Justice to remain in the hands of Jack Straw, someone I believe to have colluded in torture, and for others who I believe lied to take us into a disastrous war to remain in government as well.
It certainly couldn't possibly have been true that not only did I object to all of that, I put a very high priority on those specific issues.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-12 01:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-12 01:49 pm (UTC)But the point is, I did not vote for the people who actually formed the Government that actually did those things, I quite expressly voted against them. Whether I voted for people who might do those things in the future at least remains to be seen.
Nor, incidentally, am I remotely interested in arguments about what the last Tory government did, any more than I'm interested in arguments about what the Wilson government did.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-12 03:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-12 03:11 pm (UTC)Was just reading a piece by David Alton talking about the great liberal split of the 1920s.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-12 03:17 pm (UTC)http://www.historyhome.co.uk/polspeech/reform.htm
Alton meanwhile ends by linking Clegg to the Flying Dutchman. Eh?
( http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100039399/former-liberal-chief-whip-coalition-will-lead-to-lib-dem-rupture-and-resignations/ - afraid I have to point you to Thompson because I don't have a direct link to wherever Alton wrote it originally)
no subject
Date: 2010-05-12 03:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-12 03:21 pm (UTC)I am shamefully ignorant about the history of the Liberals during the 1920s. What happened?
no subject
Date: 2010-05-12 03:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-12 11:10 pm (UTC)Same party in power for too long, without a lot of renewal, can lead to complacency and corruption, hence rotten boroughs works.
I definitely think that parts of the NE fit the classic meaning of Rotten Borough though, as do parts of the SW.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-12 02:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-12 02:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-12 11:12 pm (UTC)Then, I proposed a Lib Dem/Tory coalition in 2006, before I joined the LDs. Ahead of the curve, me. Got slated by a lot of LDs at the time, IIRC. Including some of those now most in favour.
To be fair, the guy who best told me I was wrong then has resigned the party over it now.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-12 04:31 pm (UTC)(I did get a little emotional last night, seeing David Cameron walk into Downing Street had that effect on a lot of people I suspect)
I look forward to the Labour Party welcoming you with both arms. Or something :)
no subject
Date: 2010-05-12 04:46 pm (UTC)http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/passports-and-immigration/id-cards/
no subject
Date: 2010-05-12 04:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-12 05:01 pm (UTC)I don't remember the Tories making too much noise about it, and the Libs did actually end up voting for it, so I have a suspicion it's not at the top of anyone's agenda. Which is why it was such a huge mistake for the Libs to let it go through washup.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-12 06:32 pm (UTC)Serious props to Evan Harris, Lynne Featherstone and Tom Watson for doing their damndest to stop what is probably an unworkable piece of legislation.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-12 08:02 pm (UTC)I wouldn't be too optimistic. The problem is that this is now a passed statute. There is a review procedure because of the way it was passed, but as I vaguely understand it, the onus is now very much on those who want to change it to show why.
The Tories are, ultimately, a party that prioritises property rights and entrepeneurship, which is, whether one likes it or not, a principled provision. To get them to care about it it has to be explained, clearly, as a civil liberties issue of the kind that will engage the likes of David Davies. Meanwhile they also have, on the rather less principled side, Murdoch on their backs. So far as the LibDems are concerned, individuals may get it, but does the leadership? Do they actually care enough?
On the optimistic side, if it had been raised as an issue in the talks, perhaps they might have wanted to avoid spelling out that it was for the chop and thus have Murdoch on their backs immediately. It's a nice thought, but I'm not counting on it.
One answer might be to simply not bring it into force. Is it a DTI (or whatever that's called these days) responsibility or DCMS (ditto)? If the former, what does Cable think, if the latter, who got that job? The point is, these days acts are rarely self-effecting, instead they contain a variety of provisions to the effect that a particular provision shall come into force when the relevant minister by Statutory Instrument says so. Not saying so happens more often than one might think. To take a fairly non-political example, vast swathes of the Companies Act 1989 never came into force. But they sat there on the statute book, waiting for an SI, until 2006 when they were overtaken by the new Companies Act.
Other than that: it has to be spelled out, in terms the non-technical understand, as a civil liberties issue. Fast. Otherwise, it'll just go by the board, because there's too much else to deal with.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-12 11:14 pm (UTC)But I might be misremembering.