Skip to main content

Ming Campbell's answer to Triangulation

I see that in this morning's Independent Michael Brown makes the case for an alliance between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

I find it hard to feel warm and cuddly about such an alliance, but that is not because I have any great ideological hang ups about working with Conservatives. The problem is that, were cross party coalitions required in the future, I find that the Conservatives have more in common with Labour.

It is Labour who have proposed most of the key planks of the surveillance state, which the Conservatives have supported.

It is Labour who proposed the Iraq war, the Conservatives who supported it.

It is Labour who try to impose unworkable but supposedly draconian legislation on immigration, the Conservatives who have supported it.

In fact the Conservatives have supported Labour on several of their key mistakes.

The Liberal Democrats have been a far more effective opposition to Labour than the Conservatives, simply because the supposed left and the supposed right have converged on a mildly reactionary, mildly authoritarian consensus.

The Liberal Democrats are supporters of a progressive, far more libertarian world view.

As Ming Campbell finished his speech this afternoon, he completed a Liberal Democrat conference which has underlined our commitment to Liberalism as a force to promote individuality and freedom. The message is clear: if you support less restrictive, more individualistic society, then the Liberal Democrats are on your side.

As for Michael Brown: the Tories just aren't in favour of the kinds of freedom that we are working for, any more than Labour are. In fact the other two have more in common with each other than either have with us. So, since you will not ask whether Labour would go into coalition with the Tories, why bother to ask the Lib Dems? Your agenda is to create a spoiling tactic and distract the electorate from the reality of the current Tweedledum/Tweedledee politics.

Our politics remains about principles and, after a successful and business like conference, the Liberal Democrats can look forward to putting our case to the country at local, European and eventually the general elections ahead of us.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Consul


May we cross swords again?

Briefly surveillance state Tory support? Evidence m'lud. Exhibits for defence, 90 days, Religious Hatred Bill, ID Cards (under Cameron) So you're saying what?

Iraq War - So did a lot of people who trusted that on something like this the PM would not speak unless he was 100%. Not just Conservatives. One P Ashdown as well!


Immigration. Well we'll have to disagree. But it's hard to see how borrowing Zapatero's idea when Zapatero has been caught admitting to Sarkozy what a mistake it was, is now a good idea!


Don't push the old tired Tory/Lab thing again Consul. It's the Emperor with no clothes argument. Sans another World War or major major national crisis which we all pray not this a risible one even as a debating point.

Good Luck in Aberdeen

Lepidus
Martin Veart said…
I think Ming's point the closeness of New Labour and the Tories is well taken and possibly a great threat to the long-term prospect of democracy in the UK. The situation is becoming ominously like that in the USA where there is little to divide the Republican and Democratic parties. The Liberal Democrats are the only UK-wide opposition to the cozy concensus of the two largest parties. It is vital that we take the field on this point.

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...