From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: 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: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:55:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.103545.27019@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew
Huntbach) writes:

|>In article <1993Jan7.051814.10544@philmtl.philips.ca> ray@philmtl.philips.ca
|>(Ray Dunn) writes:
|>>In refd article, mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
|>>>It was difficult not to write a letter of this sort when
|>>>yesterday someone had one printed saying how wonderful the
|>>>Labour Party was with all its new radical commitment to regional
|>>>devolution, an elected second chamber, a bill of rights etc. etc.
|>>>basically all the things the Liberal Party has been committed
|>>>to for forty years.
|>>
|>>I'm intrigued to know whether your response was one of condemning the Labour
|>>Party for having such stupid ideas, or castigating the Liberal Party for
|>>political ineptitude at being unable to make any headway for forty years
|>>even with such a desirable platform....
|>
|>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.


|> In fact, given the bias of
|>British politics towards the two party system and the lack of
|>funding of the Liberals (the Conservatives are funded by big
|>business, Labour is funded by the Trade Unions, the Liberals
|>are funded by jumble sales

And the BSM, doggy overpriced diving instructors inc.

>| - 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.


|>Why don't you go away and fight an election self-funded and
|>single-handed against a well-oiled party machine funded by
|>business, with paid employees doing the party work, and the press on
|>their side as well, and having narrowly failed to win, criticise yourself
|>for "ineptitude"?

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. He thought that
there was no way that Labour could escape from the Trade Union boss influence
and was bound to fail (he said this to me just before the '87 election). Turned
out he was wrong.

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. Wheras before they were the only party with a constitutional
agenda they  are currently less open to new thinking on this front than Labour.

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. Are we seriously to beleive that the only future for a
united Europe is a cosy agreement hacked out in a sordid backroom deal? Better
to have no treaty that one which surrenders sovereign rights to beauracrats.
Problem is that where Europe is concerned Paddy just dosen't have a price, he
should have. It is a big mistake to think that a semi-united Europe run by
unelected beauracrats is a half way house to a democratic united Europe. 

--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british