More on the CCDP thing, and on LibDemmery in general.

[miss_s_b]

So, this morning's news brings noises that the leadership appear to be moving in the right direction on the CCDP, and they are certainly making the right noises on the secret trial plans too, but I still don't think they are there, and I still don't think they get that civil liberties are a red line issue, not just for me, but for many Lib Dems.

The usual progress of contentious policy in the coalition appears to be

1. The Tories (or their underlings) announce something


2. The Lib Dem leadership says "Our members probably won't like that, but we'll try and get it past them"


3. The Lib Dem membership erupts in visceral outrage


4. The Lib Dem leadership says "look, we're going to have to water this down, our members are going mental"


5. The Tories give minor concessions


6. The Lib Dem leadership tries to sell this to the membership as a great victory

Now, I have (reluctantly) accepted that process in the cases of tuition fees, and welfare reform, and the NHS, because (although I hate it) I can see that there is an economic argument to be made, and there are valid reasons to accept the pain. I'm not an expert on economics, but people I trust who ARE experts tell me that this is the case.

That is NOT the case with the CCDP.

There are NO valid reasons for extending state intrusion into ordinary people's lives. This is pure and unsullied security theatre of the worst kind. It's "OMG THERE ARE TERRORISTS AND PAEDOPHILES AND THE GOVERNMENT MUST DO SOMETHING!!!" Any of the proposals I have seen will be wide open to abuse, will significantly increase the intrusion into the lives of ordinary people and will be easy to get around, so won't even approach solving the problem. I can't see a way of doing this where those three criticisms WOULDN'T apply. So even if this WASN'T a matter of principle, it's still pointless because IT WON'T WORK.

I accepted all that other horrible stuff because I thought we would at least be able to extract concessions on liberty in return for it. And I don't mean the sort of adding a yellow figleaf to the great big nasty Tory giant with a club for beating the poor concessions that we have "achieved" on Welfare reform etc., either.

On the news this morning, they are talking about how they won't extend the powers THAT much, then, if we're all going to get our knickers in a twist about it. THIS IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH. We should be REPEALING RIPA, not extending it. I can just about, JUST ABOUT, live with the status quo. But if this goes the same way the NHS and Welfare and all those other issues did? I can't live with that. I know we are the junior coalition party. I know we only have one sixth of the MPs that the Tories have. But Liberty is the one remaining unsullied bit of the party constitiution. The party constitution which is so dear to me that I have extracts from it in the sidebar of my blog. We've already given in or sold out on conformity (compulsory prayers in councils) and poverty (welfare reform) and ignorance (letting creationists set up schools FFS). If we trample all over Liberty too, what is left?

Comments

[burkesworks]

Come outside the tent. We have CAKE. And BEER. And Henderson's.

[miss_s_b]

* resists your siren call *

* at least for the time being *

[blazingskies]

*beats head uselessly against desk*

Is it time to start a Moon Colony yet? One not run by the stupid, the entitled, the power-hungry and the dickwad-ish.

I felt betrayed by tuition fees, I was angry about welfare, I was furious about the NHS, but this is the issue that reaches right down into the depths of my soul, it touches the logical part of me (the part where the knowledge of my decade-long slog through Networking and IT support lives) and the emotional part (the part that loves freedom and liberalism and the right to privacy).

You're right, this IS a line in the sand. And for far, far too many people, the LibDem leadership have crossed it.

Lets hope it doesn't turn out to be the Rubicon. Or I'll be over here waving a pirate flag.

[miss_s_b]

You and me both. Arrr.

[blazingskies]

*puts on bandana and eyepatch8 ARRR!!!!

[miss_s_b]

Also, your icon is AWESOME.

[blazingskies]

Why thank you, a friend of mine made it for me :)

[http://www.nickbarlow.com/blog/]

Tinfoil hat time, but what if the Tories are being extremely cunning and evil on this one and after 1-3, it goes:

4) Lib Dem leadership realise that they actually have to stand up and fight this as the membership will lynch them if they don't.
5) Tories say 'well, if you'll put the safety of TERRORIST PAEDOPHILES over national security, we'll have to end the coalition'
6) David Cameron gets a general election framed around the issue of 'who will best protect you from the TERRORIST PAEDOPHILES?' or Nick Clegg has to cave in and go back to your original number 4, leading to the party imploding.

[miss_s_b]

I guess that's possible, but if that's the case, what the hell can we do? We can't let them enact this. Not in our name.

[andrewhickey.info]

Actual 6) Cameron realises we have fixed-term parliaments now, and either he has to form a minority administration (which would have to rely on Lib Dem or Labour support for every bill) or a rainbow Lib/Lab/Alliance/Green/Nationalist government is formed. Only if neither of those could work would there be an election.

Even if there was an election, we'd probably do better having the coalition fall on a matter of principle (and one on which even the sodding Mail is being more liberal than the line coming from the government) than we would after sticking out the full five years.

[pseudomonas]

I'd rather campaign on "the government fell because we wouldn't let them steam open everyone's email" than "um, actually, I'm not sure what we do stand for, let me get back to you on that".

[andrewducker]

Yes, this.

[purplecthulhu]

Quite...

The LibDems would probably *gain* support if they l;eft the coalition on a matter of principle like this. Many would say it should have been over fees, DLA, or NHS, but at least it would have been something, rather than the unending salami slicing of a once principled party into... well, nothing very much.

It can also be argued that the necessary measures to sort out the economic mess left by NewLab are now in place, so that the 'strong government' that the coalition permitted is no longer needed, so we can go back to a weaker hung parliament where the issues can actually be discussed rather than pushed through by the whips - something that actually looks like a proper democracy in fact.