From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: The Liberal Party RIP. (was: Re: Silly Bible semi-pedantry [was: Re: Happy Christmas!]
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:07:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.101125.26245@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew
Huntbach) writes:

|>>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.

Except that this analysis considers that the Labour party was adopting Liberal
policies rather than adjusting its policies in response to what the Tories were
doing.

As an example pre poll-tax I was opposed to the principle of local income tax on
the basis that the upheval was not worth the benefits. Same with much of local
government, the continuous changes and reorganisation were far more damaging
than the benefits they were meant to produce.

Now that the Tories have effectively abolished local government it is possible
to consider it from scratch.


Most of the other positions separating the parties in the eighties are no longer
current issues. Nuclear disarmament is no longer a priority, the role of Britain
in Europe is no longer as much of a concern to the left since the EC adopted a
social policy. The main difference between the parties now is that Labour is
full of middle class people trying to pretend they have proletarian roots and
the Liberals are full of proles pretending that they are middle class. Only the
Tory party achieves a genuine egalitarian mix in which anyone can pretend to be
upper class.

|>>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.

Paddy made his speach in order to forstall anyt attempt by the rest of the party
to support Labour and vote against the government. He should have objected to
the bill on the grounds that it did nothing more than praise the government and
had no relevance whatsoever. Since Maastricht was in the Tory Manifesto, failure
to carry the bill was a matter of confidence.

Paddy was playing party games because he didn't want an imediate general
election because he knew that there would be no chance of a hung parliament.
With the Tories in dissaray they would have no chance of repeating their
unlikely victory earlier in the year. The Queen would have been in a very
difficult possition in that refusing a dissolution would have lead to
considerable pressure from the republican faction. This would have put a written
constitution and reform of the house of Lords back onto the Labour adgenda.


--

Phill Hallam-Baker