4 ms·

As a citizen of the UK, the government's reaction to the Snowden revelations chills my soul. I imagined they would at least be embarrassed to be shown to be pr

As a citizen of the UK, the government's reaction to the Snowden revelations chills my soul. I imagined they would at least be embarrassed to be shown to be presiding over the construction of a turn-key despotic state. I don't have massively high expectations of Cameron, but the fact that Clegg's Lib Dems haven't broken up the government over this has completely destroyed my respect for them - and any chance of me voting for them in future.

hahainternet 13y ago
What exactly should they have broken the government up over? How would that have helped in any way?
- nodata 13y ago
  It would have given the other party power.
  - dreamfactory 13y ago
    How, given that they can't form a majority?
    - nodata 13y ago
      By forming a majority.
      - AlisdairO 13y ago
        With whom? Labour?
- atmosx 13y ago
  Every political party represents a specific ideology. If your actions go against the ideology you represent you should at least have the decency to resign. If that's the case, then it means that all you're after is power at whatever cost. Which means that a voter with 2 braincells shouldn't vote for that party again, because it has lost the only currency that matters: trust.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- AlisdairO 13y ago
  It would have provided a single political party with a clear willingness to meaningfully stand up against the authoritarianism that runs rampant in our main two parties. It would have shown that they were willing to fight for the principles of their voter base. It would have given those who care about civil liberties a power base to work with and rally behind. Symbols matter. To be clear, my view is not that bulk surveillance trends are something that needs a little adjustment, that one might work within the system to adjust appropriately. I see them as a wholesale betrayal of our society, and the idea that I voted for people who won't take a strong stand against this repels me.
  - hahainternet 13y ago
    > It would have provided a single political party with a clear willingness to meaningfully stand up against the authoritarianism that runs rampant in our main two parties Who are you even talking about here? You can't stand up against authoritarianism by collapsing the government especially when you are a minority partner with no clear better option available.
    - AlisdairO 13y ago
      ...why not? I would imagine that collapsing the government would be a very effective way to communicate that you will not compromise on your most fundamental principles. Why is being in government but complicit in betraying your country better than being out of government? A party's goal is not (or at least, should not be) to be in government at any cost. It should be to represent an ideology maintained by their voters. If staying in government requires betraying that ideology, what's the point of being in government? Presumably, your answer would be to exert power on other issues, and under normal circumstances I would agree wholeheartedly. I was initially in favour of the lib-con alliance, because I understand that under normal circumstances, compromise is healthy and necessary - believe it or not, I'm generally a political pragmatist. I just don't see this as an issue that someone could possibly consider compromising on.
      - hahainternet 13y ago

hahainternet 13y ago

What exactly should they have broken the government up over? How would that have helped in any way?

nodata 13y ago
It would have given the other party power.
- dreamfactory 13y ago
  How, given that they can't form a majority?
  - nodata 13y ago
    By forming a majority.
    - AlisdairO 13y ago
      With whom? Labour?
atmosx 13y ago
Every political party represents a specific ideology. If your actions go against the ideology you represent you should at least have the decency to resign. If that's the case, then it means that all you're after is power at whatever cost. Which means that a voter with 2 braincells shouldn't vote for that party again, because it has lost the only currency that matters: trust.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
AlisdairO 13y ago
It would have provided a single political party with a clear willingness to meaningfully stand up against the authoritarianism that runs rampant in our main two parties. It would have shown that they were willing to fight for the principles of their voter base. It would have given those who care about civil liberties a power base to work with and rally behind. Symbols matter. To be clear, my view is not that bulk surveillance trends are something that needs a little adjustment, that one might work within the system to adjust appropriately. I see them as a wholesale betrayal of our society, and the idea that I voted for people who won't take a strong stand against this repels me.
- hahainternet 13y ago
  > It would have provided a single political party with a clear willingness to meaningfully stand up against the authoritarianism that runs rampant in our main two parties Who are you even talking about here? You can't stand up against authoritarianism by collapsing the government especially when you are a minority partner with no clear better option available.
  - AlisdairO 13y ago
    ...why not? I would imagine that collapsing the government would be a very effective way to communicate that you will not compromise on your most fundamental principles. Why is being in government but complicit in betraying your country better than being out of government? A party's goal is not (or at least, should not be) to be in government at any cost. It should be to represent an ideology maintained by their voters. If staying in government requires betraying that ideology, what's the point of being in government? Presumably, your answer would be to exert power on other issues, and under normal circumstances I would agree wholeheartedly. I was initially in favour of the lib-con alliance, because I understand that under normal circumstances, compromise is healthy and necessary - believe it or not, I'm generally a political pragmatist. I just don't see this as an issue that someone could possibly consider compromising on.
    - hahainternet 13y ago