From: mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: The Liberal Party RIP. (was: Re: Silly Bible semi-pedantry [was: Re: Happy Christmas!]
Date: 11 Jan 93 10:11:25 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

In article <C0JzHB.9GG@dscomsa.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.103545.27019@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew
>Huntbach) writes:
>|>Most people don't sit down, analyse the policy of each
>|>political party, and vote accordingly. If this were the case,
>|>the Liberals would win every time.
>
>Except for the fact hey no longer exist. I was at the Norbreck Castle for the
>merger beano. Unfortunately the merger partner turned out not to be the
>advertised party of social democracy but a yuppie version of the Tory party
>without That Bloddy Woman.
>
Well, I said "Liberals" rather than "Liberal Party" to cover
both pre- and post-merger. Yes, I was at the Norbreck Castle as
well, and voted against the merger. The problem was that not
only was the merger partner a form of 80s yuppyism, it was also
full of people who had no idea how to play the third party
game, thinking, like the person to whom I originally replied
(Ray?) that it was easy, and the Liberals must be doing things
all wrong not to have got on much better. So they threw out all
the things that had kept the Liberals going, and almost
destroyed the party altogether.

>|>business, Labour is funded by the Trade Unions, the Liberals
>|>are funded by jumble sales
>
>And the BSM, doggy overpriced driving instructors inc.

You forgot Spud-U-Like, another of Tony Jacobs' businesses.
Yes, there were one or two business donors, but they could literally be
counted on the fingers of one hand.
>
>>| - I am not joking here), the
>|>Liberals have done a remarkable job in surviving at all (look
>|>at the dismal fate of third parties in the USA for comparison).
>
>Except that the Liberals started from being a party of government and
>managed to self destruct with two massive splits over Ireland and
>Lloyd George.

Yes, but had they not, they would have remained one of the two
establishment parties, with all the arrogance that involves,
and I doubt I would be much interested in them.

>Question is whether the people remaining in the SlDLDPLDDP (I left after I
>couldn't remember the boody name while canvasing) are committed to the
>principles or the party. As Paddy was saying before he became leader, for the
>Liberals to have a future they have to replace the Labour party.
>
Most members always wanted it to be called "Liberal Democrats"
in the first place. Personally, I think Ashdown was wrong to
suggest that the future of the LibDems was to "replace Labour".
This was all part of the SDP-yuppy influence. My view has
always been that the prinbciple job of the Liberals was to
oppose the Tories, with occasional forays against LLabour when
they have become grossly incompetent in certain of their rotten
boroughs.

>Since the Labour party has adopted most of the policies of the old liberal
>party and offers a far more credible party machine I don't see much point
>in the Liberal Democrats.

It would be nice if they had the grace to acknowledge that they
were wrong and we were right. When one has slogged one's guts
out keeping a third party alive, it does grate a little to have
one's policies stolen by smoothies who have made themselves
nice comfortable careers in one of the establishment parties.

>If Paddy had had any guts he would have voted against Maastricht. The idea
>of a federal Europe is attractive, but the manner in which the
>Maastricht treaty was produced was despicable.

I fully agree. I also note the ease with which you have slipped
into discussing the position of the party in terms which
personalise it as "Paddy". I think this is one of the primary
mistakes which it has made - overemphasising its leader, and
underemphasising its principles.

Matthew Huntbach
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:18581 alt.usage.english:10511