Chris Williamson MP: sadly misinformed, or a liar? @chriswmp

[miss_s_b]

Yesterday, Chris Williamson MP tweeted:

Lib Dem membership in freefall. I'd urge all Lib Dems who want progressive social change to back #Labour

Now, I know that some of you reading this have left the Lib Dems. At least one of those has joined the Greens, and several have joined the Pirates. Maybe some of you have joined Labour, and you know what? I'm a Liberal, and I am happy to see the exercising of personal choice even if it's not a decision I would make myself. But the idea that Liberals should leave the Lib Dems en masse and join Labour just because a Labour MP says so? THAT got my back up. So I replied. Possibly slightly less than respectfully:

AHAHAHAHAHAHAA the day authoritarian #Labour are the agents for real social change is the day Satan skates to work

Now, to give him his due, he didn't just ignore me. Unfortunately, some of the examples he replied with are.... well, shall we say "suspect"

But Labour introduced NHS, welfare state, equal pay, race & gender equality acts, min wage, civil partnerships, legalised abortion

So, I'm not the political historian that matgb is, but even I know that David Steel introduced the Abortion Act, and it was a free vote issue, and lots of Labour politicians opposed it. To try and claim that as a Labour measure just because Labour were in power when it was passed is disingenuous to say the least. And I know for a fact that they introduced civil partnerships because they were too cowardly to introduce equal marriage, which Lib Dems in government are doing RIGHT NOW! (Hi Lynne! *waves*) This makes me suspect that some of his other examples might not be as clear-cut as he is presenting them either, although I suppose I can give him minimum wage. So I go to reply to him to say that "just because something happened when Labour was in government doesn't mean it was instigated by or supported by Labour" and notice that he's also having a twitter conversation with Douglas... In reply to

What about those of us who value civil liberties, constitutional reform & not pandering to the media?

he says

Your point is? Remember Labour introduced biggest constitutional reforms, FOI Act & it was Ed Miliband who took on Murdoch.

So, chickening out of proper Lords reform (which, again, Lib Dems are doing in government), backing away from electoral reform when you got a big enough majority to snub Paddy, and opposing AV and boundary changes mean Liberals should trust you on constitutional reform, does it, Chris? And Ed Miliband is better than, ooo, say... VINCE CABLE on Murdoch?

So, my question to you, loyal reader, is this: is this man misinformed, deluded, or simply lying? And why does he think that spouting untruths directly at Lib Dems will get them to join his party? I mean, if you are a person who thinks the Lib Dems lied on tuition fees (which I can understand, even if I don't entirely share that view) or is dismantling the NHS (which, again, I can understand, even if I think what we're doing is preventing the tories from doing so) then WHY IN CTHULHU'S NAME would being barefaced lied to by a Labour MP entice you to join Labour? I know we have a reputation as masochists in the Lib Dems, but surely we're not all that masochistic?

My advice to you, if you're a Lib Dem leaver who still wants to remain politically active? If you're technologically inclined, join the Pirates, because they love freedom as much as we do, and they're a rising star. If I were ever to leave, that's where I'd go. If you're less technologically inclined, join the Greens and try to change some of their more ridiculous anti-science policies. And say hi to Liz. And if neither of those appeals, then join a single issue group. Perhaps the electoral reform society. But for pity's sake, don't join Labour. They'll betray you like they've betrayed everybody else since about 1998. They lie about how we got in the mess we're in now, they lie about what they did in power, and they won't even tell us what they're going to do if they get back in. If you want the definition of an untrustworthy politician, I'd say look for one in a red rosette.

Comments

Was Labour responsible for the victory at Stamford Bridge?

[daweaver]

The quotes were that Labour can claim the credit for...

* The NHS. This has been dissected in a previous comment. The myth that the NHS was a Labour idea has taken root, and is clear in the party's rhetoric about how only they can "save" the NHS. That's for values of "save" roughly equal to "preserving in aspic".

* Welfare state. That was Lloyd George and the massive constitutional row of 1909-11. It's true that the various Labour MPs tended to vote with the Liberals at the time; it's also true that party lines were significantly more fluid than they are today, and that most of the intellectual ground had been prepared by Liberals.

* Equal pay, race and gender sex equality acts. I'll grant Labour the 1970 Equal Pay Act, and at a pinch the Race Relations Act. But not the Equal Opportunities Commission and Sex Discrimination Act: that was timetabled by the Conservative administration for 1974 had there not been an election.

* Civil partnerships are already under review, less than seven years after coming into existence. That suggests the original legislation was ill-considered and inadequate.

* Biggest constitutional reforms. Really? Labour is claiming credit for the universal franchise (1928, Conservative), limitation of the powers of the Lords (1911, Liberal), introduction of the secret ballot (1872, Liberal), reform of the Commons (1832, Whig), replacement of James II with William of Orange (1688, Paisleyite), and creation of the Church of England (1534, Henry VIII-ite)? Four of these predate the Labour Representation Committee, for goodness' sake. May we borrow your time machine?

We're asked to consider "is this man misinformed, deluded, or simply lying?"

Let me go back to the original suggestion, that Labour is associated with "progressive social change". Like the claim that Labour invented the NHS, this is a Helpful Myth, a story that the Labour party tells about itself, to help make some sort of internal sense of its own muddled thinking. Similar Helpful Myths exist for all other parties, of course, and often with as distant a relationship to the objective facts. The evidence suggests that Labour's commitment to social change is always tactical and opportunistic. And whatever "progressive" means, Labour doesn't always go down that road: in order to govern, it needs to keep the City and the working-class conservatives onside, thus limiting its room for manoeuvre.

My experience is similar to a commentator above, in that Labour acolytes believe there is an active and wide-ranging conspiracy against them. If one dares question the party's orthodoxy, by pointing out evidence to the contrary, or by questionning the conclusions or premises, then one is instantly deemed a thought criminal and ostracised until one recants. They simply cannot get their minds around the fact that other people might consider the same evidence, add in their own experiences and prejudices, and reach a very different conclusion.

I thank the original poster for the sagacious closing paragraph, as it is more than likely that I will need it in the coming weeks.