Damascus

[liadnan]

I 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.

Comments

[chickenfeet]

The trouble is that with the exception of the ID cards the new lot are at least as bad on all the issues you cite. The sad fact is that there isn't a progressive option on offer in the UK. You can pick any of three more or less right of centre parties; all of which pander to racists, are instinctively authoritarian and prone to fight stupid foreign wars any time the Americans ask.

[liadnan]

I don't actually believe this to be true, and in large part the LibDem-Tory agreement seems to support my view.
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.

[ankaret]

Your friends are amateurs. I've seen people bring the Disraeli government into this before now.

[liadnan]

In the context of the 1867 reform bill?

Was just reading a piece by David Alton talking about the great liberal split of the 1920s.

[liadnan]

Actually Cameron probably could look to Dizzy for an answer to those on the headbanging right, who are going at least as spare as anyone else. At least the rhetoric was better.

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)

[ankaret]

... at least he didn't accuse him of Dutch courage?

[ankaret]

Yes, actually. I keep waiting for the present discussion of electoral reform to come up with a catchphrase that rolls off the tongue the way 'rotten boroughs' does.

I am shamefully ignorant about the history of the Liberals during the 1920s. What happened?

[liadnan]

Originally it was about remaining in the WWI coalition with Bonar Law. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberal_Party_(UK)

[matgb]

I use Rotten Boroughs in the context of current electoral system. Burnley only just voted out a Labour MP for the first time in decades, there're parts of London with no non-Labour Cllrs, parts of rural England that're always run by Conservatives. And a few places that've been Lib Dem for a bit longer than I'm comfortable with.

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.

[fanf]

WRT civil liberties, check out the plans for the Great Repeal Bill / Freedom Bill.