From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: The Liberal Party RIP.
Date: 11 Jan 93 12:19:38 GMT
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK

An immediate apology to Matthew Huntbach for my rather silly posting
in this thread, since his reply to Phill Hallam-Baker was a model of
restraint and good humour.  Anyway, I've a few comments:

In article <1993Jan11.101125.26245@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>In article <C0JzHB.9GG@dscomsa.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:

>>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.

Hmm -- that's an interesting comment.  I was always under the
impression that you backed the Liberal (Democrat)s because you
were in broad agreement with their principles, not because they
were the underdog.  If the Alliance had made a breakthrough in
1983, do you think you would have switched parties?

>>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.

Is this just a reflection of current political demography, or do you
genuinely believe that the Liberals should be considered primarily as
an anti-Tory party?  This strikes me as rather negative -- almost as
though you don't want them to do too well.  It also suggests that
you seem them as a centre-left rather than a genuinely centrist party.

>>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.

[I can just feel Matthew biting his tongue as he wrote this...]
Unfortunately, no one has copyright on policies, so any party can
latch onto any set of policies and claim them as their own.

>>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.

The problem here is that the Liberals are the only party who can say
they've been fully committed to European integration right from the
start, and so even though the Maastricht treaty isn't perfect they
had to vote for it because there is at present no alternative.
At least the Maastricht arrangements are more democratic than the
ones we have at the moment, with increased powers for the European
Parliament and more devolution from the Commission back to national
parliaments.

--
Guy Barry, University of Cambridge | Phone: +44 (0)223 334757 
Computer Laboratory                | Fax: +44 (0)223 334678
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street  | JANET: Guy.Barry@uk.ac.cam.cl 
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England, UK     | Internet: Guy.Barry@cl.cam.ac.uk