The liberal democrats should be fighting whoever is their closest rival and/or who holds the constituency, otherwise there is no point in them existing as a political party.

If you’re talking about just pure liberalism then to be honest it’s gone far, far past the point where there is a “better” of the worse parties, they’re both just wrong. We have to accept the next ten years at least are going to be spent, regardless of who’s in power, fighting authoritarian and illiberal measures. There’s no point pretending one fight is going to be easier than the other, so perhaps liberals should just get used to doing what they need to do against both parties.

I agree with you Andrew. The Tories are going to clean up across the board at the next general election unless there is a concerted opposition to them.

And because the tories have got such a lead, there is a real apathy about the next GE. The feeling seems to be that because they’re going to get into power anyway, that there is no point in fighting them. My own feeling is that a Tory party with a huge majority would be real bad news for the country, and that both Labour and the Lib Dems should work to reduce it. Apart from anything else, a reduced Tory majority would give the Lib Dems greater influence in the house. Attacking Labour isn’t going to do much to decrease the Tory majority. Attacking the Tories and setting out a clear alternative with the Lib Dems will.

The Lib Dems have to decide who they are before they start talking about coalitions and which party they prefer.

Standing up for civil liberties is all well and good, but a tax-and-spend approach to government and supporting the smoking ban are hardly liberal policies. Are the Lib Dems left, right or centre? They seem to be anti-big government which suggests they are in line with the Conservatives, but increasing taxes on the rich is hardly setting us free from government control. Nick Clegg is evidently to the right of the party, but I suspect he will alienate a lot of people (like the above author) by talking about aligning themselves with the Conservatives – even though the Conservatives are becoming more liberal on issues such as education.

All in all, the Lib Dems haven’t got a clue where they are on the political spectrum nor do their weak and incoherent policies tempt the electorate.

http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com

It does so amuse me when people use “tax-and-spend” as a term of abuse for a givernment / party. Being anti “tax-and-spend” for a government is a bit like being anti “breathe-and-walk” for a human being.

Toryboy is right about the Libs schizophrenic identity though. Speaking from a left perspective, I voted Lib Dem once, with a very heavy heart, when Kennedy was in charge. Given the rightward drift since under Clegg I would absoutely NOT vote for them again. I suspect there are quite a few like me. I agree with the spirit of Andrew H’s argument but believe that Clegg’s instincts are much more market-right than his. For the Lib Dems to get my vote again they would have to make progressive moves for social justice as well as civil liberties, and it seems that just won’t happen under Cleggie.

I suggest that telling others they have no idea is to expose one’s own ignorance, LFaT.

From what I’ve seen of them, LibDems are not left, right or centre and disagree with the need to follow prescribed doctrine in the way you dogmatically assume is necessary. Rather there seems to be a broad spectrum of opinion among them which tries to take a variable approach based upon ‘what works’, not ‘what ought to work’.

The standard criticism of the LibDems is not that they don’t know who they are, but they have trouble not becoming too one-sided and upsetting their internal balance. It’s almost a requirement for them to be multi-polar, their challenge is to cohere and remain united.

I would like for them to be able to find the right words and announce this ‘decentralised’ approach as a real strategy – not a party or a position as such, but a progressive movement.

They seem to tend towards decentralisation as a policy already, so if their spokespeople were brave and imaginative enough to make the connection clear I’d find myself able to fork over for a membership.

Kennedy was the last time I voted for them as well. Come back Charlie, all is forgiven

I suggest that telling others they have no idea is to expose one’s own ignorance, LFaT.

*and arrogance

Y HALLO THAR, Andrew

LfaT, our tax policy has been to cut taxes for the vast majority o people for five or six years now, do keep up.

Some of this posting is quite absurd. The hate directed at Nadine Dorries is frankly bizarre. Fine, you disagree with her on abortion, but surely this is something that people of a liberal persuasion can disagree on? I don’t think that anyone who has any moral certainty on the question can have thought it through properly.

I’ve just spent fifteen minutes going through her blog, and I can find nothing other than abortion that could possibly cause you describe her views as illiberal. She says she has no problem with gay vicars for pete’s sake! She also points out that 20 percent of Labour MPs supported her abortion amendment. Are these people just as hateful? (For the avoidance of doubt, I think she’s probably wrong. This doesn’t make her a hate figure though. If ever there was an issue for cool heads, it’s this one).

The problem that liberal liberals have is that there is no liberal liberal party. The LibDems are still overwhelmingly statist, although Clegg has started to make appealing noises – is that education vouchers he’s hinting at now? Whether he would ever get something so radical past the activists is another question though. The party is stuck in the 1950s mindset of “the state will provide” despite half a century or more of evidence to the contrary. Good grief, you all still think the NHS and state education are a good idea – you think central planning works! What’s that got to do with liberalism!

Jennie

What government operations are going to be done away with to compensate for the lower tax take?

Bishop: my brain won’t do maths before lunchtime, but you’re welcome to trawl through the documentation yourself.

This sort of post seems to do too much to make the Lib Dems adjuncts of the Labour Party. The Liberal Democrats are not just one part of an anti-Conservative coalition, they are a distinct party in their own right. Clegg’s article in The Times makes clear the Lib Dem strategy at the moment and whether you consider that it de facto favours the Conservatives or not, it is a compelling pitch. He argues that Labour is exhausted as a vehicle of progressive politics, the Conservatives false friends to progressivism. Progressive politics – by which he means politics with the overriding aim of increasing social mobility – has failed under Labour because it has been statist and centralising; the true progressive approach would spread power, encourage choice and innovation, and end state dependance.

I can understand the feelings of liberals who feel that opposition to the Conservatives must trump every other concern, but there are important substantive disagreements between Labour and the Lib Dems; and with the government so vulnerable it is surely too much to expect that Clegg will not try to capitalise.

To read more of my views go to my blog, Just who the hell are we?, on wordpress.com at:
http://adammcnestrie.wordpress.com/

Some sort of ‘vote blue, get Nadine‘ campaign.

*facepalm*

I never know where to start with this type of political racketeering. People sidling up to me whispering That’s a nice NHS you’ve got there, some tasty equality protections… It’d be a shame if something happened to them, if you know what I mean are going to get short shrift, and I imagine the electorate at large will have a stronger reaction.

Why are we putting *any energy at all* into fighting Labour?

Because Labour are astonishingly wrong on many issues, especially those where they’re almost indistinguishable from the Tories. This forelock-tugging, please-sir-may-I-have-some-more attitude to Labour’s self-inflicted woes is nothing but a licence for the party to continue it’s stupid-ward trajectory. I’ll no more be voting Labour at the next election than I will be handing my drunk friend my car keys and inviting him to take my motor for a spin.

We really are turning into the Americans here, aren’t we? Bitter, paranoid, obsessed with trivia… Bitching about battles that should’ve been won decades ago while struggling to slide a credit card between two parties of barely-distinguishable political mannequins, as the wheels of finance rumble ever onward.

You don’t need psychic powers to work out who benefits from that equation.

Thanks Jennie. Unfortunately the paper you link to is only about tax – not spending. I find both LibDem and Conservatives thoroughly unconvincing on this issue – never any talk of what they are going to cut, only of tinkering with the tax system. The problem is mainly that we’re taxing too much. We may well be taxing the wrong things, but that’s a subsidiary issue. If the tax burden returned to 1960s levels we’d be much less worried about what we were taxing.

And people under forty might be able to imagine retiring one day.

Bish – the problem we have with Dorries isn’t directly her pro-lifery, but her repeated, rampant dishonesty on the issue (presenting fake foetus photos to MPs and on her blog; lying on her blog that she’d removed comments due to harassment rather than because commenters had noticed the fake photo; taking secret donations from fundamentalist Christian groups; denying that she wanted a lower limit than 20 weeks despite having explicitly stated otherwise; and so on…)

The Liberal Democrats are anti-big government?

Why are most of them in favour of further EU integration, then?

[does not compute]

“This sort of post seems to do too much to make the Lib Dems adjuncts of the Labour Party. The Liberal Democrats are not just one part of an anti-Conservative coalition, they are a distinct party in their own right.”

“I can understand the feelings of liberals who feel that opposition to the Conservatives must trump every other concern, but there are important substantive disagreements between Labour and the Lib Dems; and with the government so vulnerable it is surely too much to expect that Clegg will not try to capitalise.”

Spot on twice.

John B

OK, I’m fine with that, although it just makes her the same as all the other residents of the Palace of Westminster doesn’t it? I’m still not sure why she’s getting singled out. And the original article was having a go at her on (alleged) illiberalism grounds.

Question That

being in favour of good government and opposed to overwhelming government are not incompatible. What has EU integration necessarily got to do with ‘big’ government? It could also provide a way to minimise it if we had some liberal leaders in charge of reshaping its structure.

If you can’t compute, how come you managed to post here ok?

“It could also provide a way to minimise it if we had some liberal leaders in charge of reshaping its structure.”

…and if my Aunt had balls she’d be my Uncle.

relevance?

About time somebody ‘officially’ said this! Yay.

Some sort of ‘vote blue, get Nadine‘ campaign.

Vote Blue, get Christian fundamentalists from Christian Concern for our Nation.

Liberals belive in liberalism, don’t they?

Which, philoosophically, places you in bed right next to the Tories.

Of course, it may be that many of your members believe in State intervention – and that the Labour Party is, well, nicer. In which case… they ain’t Liberals in any meaningful philosophical sense.

Look, the Party you’ve joined is liberal – it’s free-market, free-thinking, and against State intervention, or it’s nothing.

But if you’d rather the State thing (and I agree it’s pretty comforting) then just click on this link: http://www.labour.org.uk/joinus

Anthony: It’s probably best to ignore what the actual name of the Lib Dem’s is, but you still pull on libertarianism rather than liberalism so maybe you’re talking about the new Libertarian party instead? A liberal can happily believe in state intervention because a liberal can believe that the process of doing so causes more freedom for more people.

Sunny

She says she’s comfortable with gay vicars. Funny sort of Christian fundamentalist if you ask me.

She says she’s comfortable with gay vicars.

Have you asked what CCFON’s stance is? Those were the same people protesting outside the House of Commons against homosexuality remember? And Nadine was actively working with these people… as seen on the C4 doc.

Funny friends she has, no?

Sunny

This from the guy who is supporting David Davis’ campaign! Does that make you a Tory boy?

Lynne Featherstone thinks I’m a Tory Boy…

Andrew, I said when you first posted this I’d go through it and say where and why I disagreed, my brain still isn’t working right but here’s a summary of some points.

why the hell are we cosying up to the Tories with things like not opposing David Davies’ bid for re-election in one of our key marginals?

That H&H was given target status in ’05 was folly—I wasn’t a member then, and the whole decapitation strategy was a waste of time. For anyone to believe that a seat where the incumbent has a ten point lead and over 50% of the vote is a ‘marginal’ I found worrying, it most certainly is not.

For now, we have reached the high-water mark against the Tories, we’ll not make any more significant gains against them while they’re in opposition, there will be the normal to-and-fro in some constituencies, but a ten point lead is a ‘safe’ seat. To waste money fighting it when the resignation was unneccessary is not a good use of my membership fee, just as trying to fight in Crewe wasn’t. Fighting Henley was, and a lot of resources were put in there. Who was that against?

Oh yes, it was the Tories. The party is fighting the Tories, hard, on the battlegrounds it thinks it might win. But it has VERY limited resources, so it can’t fight everywhere—picking fights wisely is a good thing.

Any close Labour/Lib Dem race is going to go to us in the next election anyway

True, very true. But the ones that aren’t so close, or where the Tories may try to leapfrog ont he back of national momentum?

They need to be fought too. In addition, seats recently gained from Labour where they weren’t expecting to lose, such as Manchester Withington, need to be defended against their fightback.

I rejoined the Lib Dems when I gave up on the idea that the Labour Govt was going to implement the democratic reforms it promised in ’97. They’re the only party that are serious about changing, liberalising, the way we’re governed. They need to fight, and win, in every seat where they’re in with a chance.

But they’re not going to take more seats from the Conservatives—they’re defending gains against them, but they can’t keep trying to fight them, especially when they have the political momentum as they do. If the momentum changes, Cameron cocks up, Labour sorts itself out, some realignment or party split happens, then things would change, but with the current parties, the current leaders, the Lib Dems need to, have to, fight defensively against the Conservatives and hold their ground, while taking as much Labour territory as possible. It’s the only way they can progress. That’s one of the reasons I rejoined.

I suspect the current strategy is an attempt to create a Blair-style ‘big tent’ against an unpopular government.

Not with the current Conservative leadership, and not with Clegg—people I know and trust that have discussed this with him are very clear, he doesn’t trust the Tories at all, if he wanted tog et into bed with them, he could join them, they’d take him in a shot and put him on the front bench, he’d be Cabinet and possibly PM within a decade.

That he hasn’t shows that he’s both principled, liberal and distrustful. It does to me, at least. He may not be the best leader ever, but he’s better than the previous two incumbents, and is fighting the fights we need to be fighting.

a lot of Liberals … would rather see Labour stay in than see another Conservative government.

I don’t want to see another Conservative government, I don’t want to see a Labour government returned either. But a coalition government, such as Churchill’s (the last proper UK coalition) is not a government of any one party. I would rather the liberal elements within Labour either reclaimed their party or left (I can say the same about the genuine liberals within the Conservatives), and would rather see a liberal-lead coalition, but I don’t live in an ideal world.

In fact, were the party ever to enter into any kind of formal pact with the Tories I would have to leave the party – I couldn’t in all conscience remain in a party that was allied to the party that gave us the poll tax, the sus laws and the destruction of the unions amongst other horrors.

If it were a pre-election pact, I would agree, I am a left wing liberal, Tories (as opposed to members of the Conservative party) are people I oppose instinctively.

But the party that, before most of its current MPs were elected, before some of them were even born, gave us a bunch of bad shit, has changed. Given a choice, a genuine choice, between the party of “the poll tax, the sus laws and the destruction of the unions ” and the party of detention without trial, ID cards, the National Identity Register, SOCPA, PFI, restrictions on jury trials and more faith schools than Thatcher ever dreamed of? I cannot, and will not, support the current government any more. They have lost my trust and goodwill.

I would rather see a Lib Dem lead govt. Failing that, I’d like to see serious gains and then Clegg as leader of the opposition. But in the very unlikely (and I’ve crunched the numbers as have better psephologists than me) situation where there’s a choice? (odds are less than 5% of a parlt where Lib Dems really could choose, assuming Cameron would even offer and he’d be a fool to) I think we should reject the choice, but if it comes down to it and we prop up a Labour govt that’s just been voted out?

Electoral suicide, we might as well give up on the idea of ever getting anything done in the future.

When the fucking *NAZIS* are getting more votes than Labour,

In one by election, where all the Labour vote either stayed at home or deserted three ways, it’s not like it’s indicative of a national trend, third party squeeze is a psephological fact.

We can’t allow the Tories to position themselves as defenders of liberty

I agree, and they need to be fought. The problem I have with your post, and your analysis, is that I’m seeing them being fought, in the media, in briefings, in Parlt. I think you’re tilting at windmills, Clegg’s fighting both parties, while establishing a strong policy position on the liberal centre-left (and those commenters saying he’s taking the party ‘right wing’? Evidence please, I’ve seen none, and I follow policy making quite closely—of course, there may be a different interpretation of left/right but that’s something that can be debated).

One, final, point.

people … to represent themselves as civil libertarians when they vote …for hanging.

Not every liberal is as liberal as me. Some liberals are distinctly illiberal on some issues, or disagree on issues such as the death penalty. Indeed, if he hadn’t died in a car crash, David Penhaligan would likely have beaten Ashdown for the first leadership of the new party. Penhaligan was pro hanging.

Specific issues do not make someone, on balance, more on my side on a specific set of issues than against. I don’t know Davis, I’ve not met him, and given his past record, I don’t fully trust him. But I’m prepared to accept that he might not be the old school Tory some paint him as, I’ve said many times that I consider him to be a Constitutionalist, which was one of the terms the right wing liberals used to describe themselves under in the past. But that’s not relevent really for this post.

Party speakers need to do more to press the attack on the issues, and attack both parties, Labour for selling out to its authoritarian wing, the Conservatives for being split, inconsistent and untrustworthy.

The only decent policies they’ve got have been lifted wholesale from old Lib Dem ideas, just as many of Blair’s policies were lifted back in ’97. But most of their policies are either non-existent or crap. That must be highlighted.

But both the Big Two must be attacked, all the time, all the way up to the next GE, and that’s what the current strategy is. That the media doesn’t cover it very well if at all?

That’s a different issue.

(gods, that’s long—I’m bunged up and it’s probably very rambling, any typos, etc, I’ll blame on the headache and the cold, anything that makes no sense at all, I’ll try to clarify in the morning, g’night all)

How’s this for an idea: join forces with the Tories to destroy New Labour. Throw all your resources into seats where it’s you against Za-Nu, and let the Conservatives steamroller ahead everywhere else. With a little luck, we’ll have a Tory government and the Lib Dems will be the new Official Opposition to make sure they keep their promises on civil liberties. Everyone’s happy, except for Gordon and his proto-totalitarian stormtroopers – and who gives a stuff about them?

In case you hadn’t noticed, it’s _Labour_ that’s throwing centuries of liberties down the bog – and in a few short years, there’ll be nothing left. If you can’t get over your knee-jerk Tory hatred and at least abstain from voting for Labour, then there’s nothing “liberal” about you.

I’m firmly with Lee and Mat on this one, Andrew; any residual support I had for Labour over the Conservatives, had it boiled down to a choice between those two parties, has been completely snuffed out by their constant “salami-slicing” approach towards civil liberties, coupled with their support of the Iraq war, their constant persecution of benefits claimants, their abolition of student grants, their selling out of schools to any religious nutter with a few hundred grand to invest… these are the policies that the Thatcherites would have had big stonking wet dreams about but never would have dared to put before Parliament. While I don’t trust Cameron for a moment, there’s always a (slim) chance that some of his “compassionate conservatism” rhetoric might actually be genuine; there’s no hope of anything other than yet more relentless regulation, statism and dog-whistle politics under Brown’s stewardship; imagine a Birkenstock stamping on a human face forever. Ideally, I’d love to see the likes of Bob Wareing and Clare Short and Lynne Jones and Alan Simpson come on board, though I’m pretty sure they still believe the Labour Party is their “party, right or wrong”. Once upon a time, I did too.

The LibDem election strategy should be to throw the bulk of resources at the 50 to 100 most winnable marginals and the seats that need defending, regardless of whether the main opposition in said seats are Labour or the Tories (and seats like Crewe & Nantwich, Henley, Haltemprice or Glasgow East are not among them). Of course, I would make an exception for Mid-Bedfordshire (see latest Mad Nad thread).

“In case you hadn’t noticed, it’s _Labour_ that’s throwing centuries of liberties down the bog – and in a few short years, there’ll be nothing left”

a) you are a gibbering paranoid buffoon

b) the idea that the Tories will be any better at defending liberties is hilarious, given everything they’ve actually done when in power

I, too, side more with Andrew than Mat on this, for the reasons john B mentions – yes, Labour have been fucking awful, but the idea that the Tories will be any better is not even comical.

@john b:

Shawcross is right about the liberties. Will the Tories be any better? I’m not sure, but at least they’re making the right noises. Why do the likes of you insist on judging a party on what they were like in the 80s and early 90s instead of on what they’re like now.

Question That

Until your Aunt grows some balls she is still your Aunt.

Too many people are still talking in tones as if one of the two main parties is better than the other. Can’t we accept the time has come where they are both not worth it? Gone is the time of “Never vote for a Tory”, surely now is the time of “Never vote for a Tory or Labour”?

That would be Lee neatly encapsulating my view. Again.

My dear John B – if you can’t see the problem with us becoming the most intensely-surveilled country in the developed world, with 200,000 CCTV cameras in London (vs. only 5,000 in New York) and a state that can hold the DNA of innocent people; will force normal citizens to carry ID cards like common criminals, and collate all the information on the most intrusive database in the world; lets hundreds of minor agencies bug your phone and read your e-mails; cannot be trusted not to lose 25 million pieces of personal data or leave top secret information on a train; thinks that abolishing habeas corpus and the right to know the identity of your accuser is a good idea; that can seize private property without a warrant (as recently in London) ……… well, you’ve either got a sub-normal IQ, or you’re simply a totalitarian. Which is it?

In any case, I asked that people merely _abstain_ from voting for Labour. Or are you afraid of losing this brave new world?

Unfortunately this went up when I was away from the computer for a day and a half… and I’m exhausted now and can’t really respond as I’m at work. But in brief:
The Lib Dems should, of course, fight against Labour in seats where we look likely to win. I live in a Labour/Lib Dem marginal and I’ll be out there campaigning and door-knocking every second I can to ensure our excellent MP gets back in. And on May 1 I spent 24 hours straight leafletting, door-knocking and at the count ensuring that a neighbouring ward turned Lib Dem in the local election (our candidate got in with a six vote majority).

We should try to get every single seat we can, from whatever opponents we can. But the way it looks at the moment, we can take seats from Labour with relative ease, but the Tories will be taking from us just as easily if not more so, in large part because they’re presenting themselves as closer to our views.

I’m sure the party leadership don’t trust the Tories, as Mat says, but the way the party is presenting iself is primarily as ‘anti-Labour’, criticism of the Tories being comparatively muted (though in the time between me writing that last week and it going up there, Nick Clegg seems to have gone on the attack against the Tories a little more – his CiF thing yesterday was very well put, I thought).

More later maybe.

The problem, John B, is that a fear-related reduction of liberty is a one-way ratchet.

Each consecutive administration passes its own bills, never ever allowing itself to be seen as weak on security.

If you actually look at the laws of this country, we have relatively few protections against State excess as it is. Also, I don’t actually believe it’s terrorism that our politicians – and the American government – actually fear. It’s civil collaboration, and the propagation of information outside of the institutional media, that threatens them.

We live in a rigged system, and our ignorance and fear is important to its survival.

Ben>It does so amuse me when people use “tax-and-spend” as a term of abuse for a givernment / party. Being anti “tax-and-spend” for a government is a bit like being anti “breathe-and-walk” for a human being.

I’d disagree there Ben.

I understand “tax and spend” to be about placing the emphasis on how much money has been doled out rather than how much utility has been delivered.

For years Nulab were boasting about “raising Health spending to the European average”, and the amounts of expenditure increases were quoted repeatedly – especially by Mr Gordon – as the primary achievements of government.

And – sure enough – we find ten years later that the money has been spent but they have not been measuring the effectiveness properly, as per the report on Newsnight Last Night:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm

Is anyone surprised? I can’t imagine why.

[if] you can’t see the problem with us becoming the most intensely-surveilled country in the developed world, with 200,000 CCTV cameras in London (vs. only 5,000 in New York)

No, don’t see the problem. Daft use of money, but so what?

and a state that can hold the DNA of innocent people

Fingerprints OK with you?

will force normal citizens to carry ID cards like common criminals

Not been proposed by anyone (also, in which country are common criminals and not posh criminals or law-abiding folk forced to carry ID)?

and collate all the information on the most intrusive database in the world

I don’t understand the claim “government should be allowed to have lots of information on us, but only if the information retrieval system is rubbish”. Either no data should ever be collected by anyone ever, or cross-referencing to improve delivery is a good thing.

lets hundreds of minor agencies bug your phone and read your e-mails

Agreed, this is out of order.

cannot be trusted not to lose 25 million pieces of personal data or leave top secret information on a train

Make your mind up – should their information management be competent or incompetent? Anyway, neither the HMRC nor the MI5 cock-ups had any real-world impact, despite all the scaremongering.

thinks that abolishing habeas corpus and the right to know the identity of your accuser is a good idea

Please define your understanding of “habeas corpus” in this context. And yes, I disagree with the anonymous trials point, but the Law And Order Tories don’t.

that can seize private property without a warrant (as recently in London)

Short-term, that applies to any government; long-term, it doesn’t apply to the current government.

……… well, you’ve either got a sub-normal IQ, or you’re simply a totalitarian. Which is it?

No, just not a hysterical bloggertarian, and particularly not a hysterical bloggertarian who’s so scared of the take-away-some-rights-and-grant-others [*] Labourites that they’d consider the take-away-some-rights-and-grand-none Tories…

[*] civil partnerships; Human Rights Act, Freedom of Information Act

John B, do you mean the Freedom of Information That We Don’t Mind The Public Having Act?

No, I mean the “not brilliant but significantly better than what we had before” act.

@ John B

Thank you for your response – which I cannot help but feel is severely misguided.

On CCTV – New York has in recent years faced significantly greater threats from
both terrorism and crime than we have. Why can’t we handle it without
making innocent citizens feel like lab rats when they walk the streets?
Talking cameras? Did the government realize that certain novels were
written as a warning, not a blueprint?

Fingerprints – Are OK subject to the same provisos as DNA, namely that they should
be held permanently only if their owner is found guilty of a crime after
a fair trial. DNA will also be able to be used for far more nefarious
purposes in the future (e.g. weeding out those predisposed to mental illness,
denying insurance to those susceptible to expensive diseases, etc.)
than fingerprints ever could. A clever criminal could also e.g. go round a bar
collecting bits of detritus from strangers to confuse a crime scene.

ID cards – Everyone will have to carry them. My point about “common criminals” (which
permitted you your moment of sophistry) is that innocent people should be
treated as innocents, and should not have to prove their identity to anyone
unless there is serious suspicion that they have committed a crime or are
likely to do so – as is currently the case.

Databases – It is a saving grace that government is too incompetent to process all its
data correctly, as we otherwise would already be living in 1984. I would prefer
them to hold as little data as possible, but since that is not going to happen,
the next best thing is for them to be incapable of making full use of it. As for
the “lack of real- world harm” – don’t make me laugh. Why don’t you publish your address, your name and those of your wife and children, your credit details, and date of birth (plus any sexual, psychological, criminal, or political matters that may or may not be relevant) on the internet and see what happens.

Council/etc. Bugging – Glad we agree on something.

Habeas corpus – Simply the right not to be held in confinement without charge and the chance for a fair trial. The Government is abusing our rights, making excellent propaganda for the terrorists, and doing their work of dismantling our society for them.

Anonymous trials – as Bugging above.

Seizing private property – brought in by Labour and deployed for the first time this year.

Civil Partnerships – So taking away ancient rights from 100% of the population and then appeasing 10% with a cheap gimmick is a good deal, eh? I don’t think so.

Human Rights Act – Pretty damned useless if it hasn’t been able to prevent a single one of these abuses.

FOI Act – A good idea – but, again, it’s far too limited.

Finally – I notice that all you managed to come up with was the pathetic insult “bloggertarian” – something I’d rather be called a thousand times than relinquish one particle of my freedom to the lunatics in the Labour Party. Any single _one_ of the above outrages should prevent a liberal voting Labour, so don’t you dare tell me that that’s what you call yourself. At least the Conservatives oppose ID cards.

I’ll be very impressed if you can give me some convincing answers to how any of these things can be reconciled with a genuine love of freedom.

“No, just not a hysterical bloggertarian, and particularly not a hysterical bloggertarian who’s so scared of the take-away-some-rights-and-grant-others [*] Labourites that they’d consider the take-away-some-rights-and-grand-none Tories…”

Indeed, much nicer to be fucked by a stranger that tempts you with candy than to just be fucked by a stranger, eh?

John B, why aren’t the HRA and FOIA “brilliant as well as significantly better than what we had before” acts?

“We also need to stop the move in the party towards ‘modernisation’ which seems to mean moving to the right-wing.”

Same old story, really…