4 ms·

For those who thought there was any real difference between Labour and Tories ... this is you wake up moment.

justincormack 10y ago
Labour have always had a large group in favour of state control that is quite similar to the old Tory paternalism. They have been liberal on a restricted range of issues, but only the Liberals have generally been liberal...
- junto 10y ago
  The liberals appeared very unliberal during the coalition. They stabbed the true liberals in the back. I'll never vote for them again.
  - kelnage 10y ago
    Really? They were clearly the smaller of the two parties and I feel the fact they got anything changed is frankly impressive. Compared to what the current Conservative government is doing, I feel the Lib Dems did a pretty good job of tempering their ambitions, without bringing the entire system to a standstill (which I do not believe for a second to be a good idea).
    - simonbarker87 10y ago
      Agreed, really annoys me when people say that the Lib Dems stabbed true liberals in the back. I don't know the numbers but lets say they had 5% of the MPs in coalition, in reality they should have been lucky to influence a couple of bits of policy a year, in reality they managed to punch above their weight for all of that parliament, making Nick Clegg deputy might have seemed like a good idea at the time but in reality it gave the wrong impression that it would be 50:50 on policy when in reality it was probably more 75:25 and they did well to get that. Nick Clegg clearly pulled back on tuition fees to get a referendum on AV which in hindsight he probably wishes he hadn't done and that then set the tone for media portrayal over the following 4 years. Any liberal who says they "sold-out" during the coalition only need to look at current Tory policy to realise that the LDs did an excellent job pulling the Tories back. I voted Lib Dem in the last two elections FWIW.
      - Doctor_Fegg 10y ago
        Perhaps, but they also marched through the lobbies to enable a lot of genuinely regressive policies to pass, notably Gove's education "reforms". For example, the LibDem manifesto for 2010 promised to "Switch traffic from road to rail by investing in local rail improvements, such as opening closed rail lines and adding extra tracks, paid for by cutting the major roads budget." [1] What actually happened to the major roads budget? Well, come 2013, the coalition was embarking upon a massive programme of road-building, proudly trumpeted by Danny Alexander (LibDem chief secretary to the Treasury) as "the greatest investment in our roads since the 1970s". [2] That's not compromise, that's a 180° U-turn on your manifesto commitments. Meanwhile, actual rail reopenings were happening in Scotland thanks to the SNP, and in Wales thanks to Labour, but not in England. So, no thank you. I had voted LibDem in 2012 and at every general election since the age of 18. Not in 2015 and not again. [1] http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge10/man/parties/libdem_manifesto_2010.pdf http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge10/man/parties/li... [2] https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/speech-by-chief-secretary-to-the-treasury-danny-alexander-investing-in-britains-future https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/speech-by-chief-secre...
    - toyg 10y ago
      > I feel the Lib Dems did a pretty good job They would have done a better job by supporting and conditioning a minority government. Let Tories get all the flak while you bring home electoral victories. Instead, they got all the flak, didn't significantly change anything (they resisted or delayed a few "reforms" like this bill, which will now go through), U-turned on all their manifesto promises (which, one suspects, the leadership only endured because of their grassroots activists and not because they believed in any of them) and made themselves unelectable. "A pretty good job" sounds a lot like "a heck of a job"...
  - anexprogrammer 10y ago
    All you have to do is look at the Tory party policies during coalition and after to see that's not a very accurate perception. It's clear from the perspective of now that they were indeed a highly moderating influence. They made a terrible job of promoting their role and position (PR referendum, tuition fees etc) and the allowed the Tories to use them as the fall guy for a remarkable range of things. The PR referendum should have been an eeasy sell for them considering the UK is one of the least representative democracies on the planet. On tuition fees, making huge public commitments, signing oversized documents for the cameras, then rowing back because reasons can be a textbook case of how not to do it for decades.
lewiscollard 10y ago
If people exist for whom Labour supporting state power grabs is a 'wake up call' I'd be amused by the amnesia; one can only be surprised at Labour backing this by forgetting what they did when they were in power not very long ago.
- stevetrewick 10y ago
  Indeed. This legislation is only amateurishly oppressive compared to the Interception Modernisation Program they were pushing just a few years back.[0] [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interception_Modernisation_Programme https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interception_Modernisation_P...
kebolio 10y ago
Despite the members having elected a leftist leader for the first time in 30 years, the liberals in the Labour Party continue to wield considerable power. Thatcher even said that there was "nothing to be afraid about" (paraphrasing slightly) over Blair's government. The Labour Party has not been a party of labour and work for a very long while, rather a typical liberal party as seen in the two-party systems of North America. One cannot claim to be part of a worker's party if he supports mass immigration to replace nationals for cheaper work and a welfare bureaucracy that pays more for slacking than working. The decision to support the barely amended IPB is upsetting and a disgrace to the Labour Party. I would have hoped that Jeremy Corbyn would get the party to oppose the British surveillance state, consistent with his principles on war, human rights and so on and so on.
- asuffield 10y ago
  I don't understand where you think you can find the slightest shred of liberalism in this piece of legislation. This is very much old labour: maximising state power and control over individuals, because the state knows best. A liberal bill would minimise the state's authority to do this sort of thing.
  - toyg 10y ago
    "as seen in the two-party systems of North America." aka Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Joe Lieberman... total hawks on civil rights (except on '60s causes like abortion and black voting, which most sane people already take for granted), but still very much "liberals" in the American sense. In the European sense, "liberals" are also pretty much "liberalists", aka freetraders/pro-business with a right-wing approach to civil liberties and immigration. The meaning of liberal issues as being about individual-rights and protection-from-state is rapidly disappearing. I guess it's been subsumed in the "libertarian" hodgepodge.
secfirstmd 10y ago
The last Labour government was actually just as bad...They pushed for 90 day detention, ID cards, secret evidence, reducing the number of jury trials, ASBOs, Terrorism orders (or whatever they were called), they collaborated to send people to be tortured in Libya...the list is endless...oh yeah and the Iraq War

Labour have always had a large group in favour of state control that is quite similar to the old Tory paternalism. They have been liberal on a restricted range of issues, but only the Liberals have generally been liberal...

junto 10y ago
The liberals appeared very unliberal during the coalition. They stabbed the true liberals in the back. I'll never vote for them again.
- kelnage 10y ago
  Really? They were clearly the smaller of the two parties and I feel the fact they got anything changed is frankly impressive. Compared to what the current Conservative government is doing, I feel the Lib Dems did a pretty good job of tempering their ambitions, without bringing the entire system to a standstill (which I do not believe for a second to be a good idea).
  - simonbarker87 10y ago
    Agreed, really annoys me when people say that the Lib Dems stabbed true liberals in the back. I don't know the numbers but lets say they had 5% of the MPs in coalition, in reality they should have been lucky to influence a couple of bits of policy a year, in reality they managed to punch above their weight for all of that parliament, making Nick Clegg deputy might have seemed like a good idea at the time but in reality it gave the wrong impression that it would be 50:50 on policy when in reality it was probably more 75:25 and they did well to get that. Nick Clegg clearly pulled back on tuition fees to get a referendum on AV which in hindsight he probably wishes he hadn't done and that then set the tone for media portrayal over the following 4 years. Any liberal who says they "sold-out" during the coalition only need to look at current Tory policy to realise that the LDs did an excellent job pulling the Tories back. I voted Lib Dem in the last two elections FWIW.
    - Doctor_Fegg 10y ago
      Perhaps, but they also marched through the lobbies to enable a lot of genuinely regressive policies to pass, notably Gove's education "reforms". For example, the LibDem manifesto for 2010 promised to "Switch traffic from road to rail by investing in local rail improvements, such as opening closed rail lines and adding extra tracks, paid for by cutting the major roads budget." [1] What actually happened to the major roads budget? Well, come 2013, the coalition was embarking upon a massive programme of road-building, proudly trumpeted by Danny Alexander (LibDem chief secretary to the Treasury) as "the greatest investment in our roads since the 1970s". [2] That's not compromise, that's a 180° U-turn on your manifesto commitments. Meanwhile, actual rail reopenings were happening in Scotland thanks to the SNP, and in Wales thanks to Labour, but not in England. So, no thank you. I had voted LibDem in 2012 and at every general election since the age of 18. Not in 2015 and not again. [1] http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge10/man/parties/libdem_manifesto_2010.pdf http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge10/man/parties/li... [2] https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/speech-by-chief-secretary-to-the-treasury-danny-alexander-investing-in-britains-future https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/speech-by-chief-secre...
  - toyg 10y ago
    > I feel the Lib Dems did a pretty good job They would have done a better job by supporting and conditioning a minority government. Let Tories get all the flak while you bring home electoral victories. Instead, they got all the flak, didn't significantly change anything (they resisted or delayed a few "reforms" like this bill, which will now go through), U-turned on all their manifesto promises (which, one suspects, the leadership only endured because of their grassroots activists and not because they believed in any of them) and made themselves unelectable. "A pretty good job" sounds a lot like "a heck of a job"...
- anexprogrammer 10y ago
  All you have to do is look at the Tory party policies during coalition and after to see that's not a very accurate perception. It's clear from the perspective of now that they were indeed a highly moderating influence. They made a terrible job of promoting their role and position (PR referendum, tuition fees etc) and the allowed the Tories to use them as the fall guy for a remarkable range of things. The PR referendum should have been an eeasy sell for them considering the UK is one of the least representative democracies on the planet. On tuition fees, making huge public commitments, signing oversized documents for the cameras, then rowing back because reasons can be a textbook case of how not to do it for decades.

lewiscollard 10y ago

If people exist for whom Labour supporting state power grabs is a 'wake up call' I'd be amused by the amnesia; one can only be surprised at Labour backing this by forgetting what they did when they were in power not very long ago.

stevetrewick 10y ago
Indeed. This legislation is only amateurishly oppressive compared to the Interception Modernisation Program they were pushing just a few years back.[0] [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interception_Modernisation_Programme https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interception_Modernisation_P...

kebolio 10y ago

Despite the members having elected a leftist leader for the first time in 30 years, the liberals in the Labour Party continue to wield considerable power. Thatcher even said that there was "nothing to be afraid about" (paraphrasing slightly) over Blair's government. The Labour Party has not been a party of labour and work for a very long while, rather a typical liberal party as seen in the two-party systems of North America. One cannot claim to be part of a worker's party if he supports mass immigration to replace nationals for cheaper work and a welfare bureaucracy that pays more for slacking than working. The decision to support the barely amended IPB is upsetting and a disgrace to the Labour Party. I would have hoped that Jeremy Corbyn would get the party to oppose the British surveillance state, consistent with his principles on war, human rights and so on and so on.

asuffield 10y ago
I don't understand where you think you can find the slightest shred of liberalism in this piece of legislation. This is very much old labour: maximising state power and control over individuals, because the state knows best. A liberal bill would minimise the state's authority to do this sort of thing.
- toyg 10y ago
  "as seen in the two-party systems of North America." aka Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Joe Lieberman... total hawks on civil rights (except on '60s causes like abortion and black voting, which most sane people already take for granted), but still very much "liberals" in the American sense. In the European sense, "liberals" are also pretty much "liberalists", aka freetraders/pro-business with a right-wing approach to civil liberties and immigration. The meaning of liberal issues as being about individual-rights and protection-from-state is rapidly disappearing. I guess it's been subsumed in the "libertarian" hodgepodge.

secfirstmd 10y ago

The last Labour government was actually just as bad...They pushed for 90 day detention, ID cards, secret evidence, reducing the number of jury trials, ASBOs, Terrorism orders (or whatever they were called), they collaborated to send people to be tortured in Libya...the list is endless...oh yeah and the Iraq War