The Liberal Democrats were only formed in '88. The Liberal Party was a power, and rightly so because the Liberal party was pretty awesome. But the aims of the early 20th century Liberal party and the Liberal Fascocrats are so incredibly different that while I'd love to have a party back in who were similar to the former, I'm even more scared by the concept of a Lib Dem government than I am of a Labour government. At least Labour have experience. The Lib Dems are authoritarian, too left-wing, inexperienced, and fairly populist. I hate all of the big three, but out of them I think basically a steady rotation to minimise the achievement of any party's goals is the best strategy.
Actually the lib dems are pretty big on civil liberties and the no harm clause. Atleast they have been since inception. They are pushing a "new-dems" slant with relaxing their tax policy but as far as I understand civil liberties are still a cornerstone of their policy base.
Just some copying and pasting from wikipedia here: I know this is hardly police kicking in every third door, but this is just not "liberal" in the proper sense of the word. The Liberals were as their name suggested, and so were idealistically opposed to increasing laws (on principle) and taxation on things for the purpose of social manipulation. They're pretty good on the anti-terror, and ID card stuff, I agree. They're still too fond of laws and control for my liking though. I don't know that they'd be any better if they ever got in, and it's not like they're going to any time soon anyway.
I'm not sure what liberal party you're thinking about but the previously functioning "liberal party" weren't libertarian in the least, hell they created National Insurance and heavily lobbied for the NHS. For what it's worth I believe climate change is highly overestimated, I think we can fix our way out of the worst circumstance, however I entirely believe its happening and should be countered with sensible fuel solutions and emission restrictions. My concerns with civil liberties are on personal legal freedoms, they have expressed interest in codifying a new bill of rights for Britain and the no harm clause i.e. no laws which are on moral ground which do not effect anyone but that person.
It's kind of tricky. The party with the most experience of wielding power is also the most evil one (Conservatives); the party with the least experience of it is also the most ineffectual (Lib Dems) and the one with a moderate experience of wielding power is moderately evil and ineffectual (New Labour).
In many cases you are right, but my own experience (which isn't unique) is different. I was paid comparatively more in a comparable role in local government. Less responsibility, less hours and better perks too. There is a hardcore of people who will always vote Labour and another who will always vote Tory, But there is a another bloc of the population that decides all elections. Aspirational working classes and more modest middle classes - which includes millions of 'Joe Bloggs'. They supported Nu Lab in 1997 and have continued to (in slowly dwindling numbers) ever since. But, IMHO, almost this entire bloc is going to desert Old Nu Lab in the next election for alarmingly obvious reasons. I would expect that if half of them vote Tory and the remainder either vote Lib Dem or abstain, the Tories will have a majority of some description. If the voters judge that this Tory party is the same as the one from the 1980's, and thus fewer desert labour (because Lib Dems aren't a credible alternative) or vote Lib Dem (because they cant bring themselves to vote either Tory or Labour), then we are looking at a hung parliament - which a surprising number of people think would be beneficial. In the event of a hung parliament, the only likely coalition will be a Lib-Lab one (not enough unionists to for a coalition with the Tories) Personally, I'd love to see a Tory majority of around 50-75. It's a usable amount but would prevent the complacency and contempt that afflicted the first two terms of Blairs premiership. It's ironic that people are determined that the current crop of Tories should be linked with the 1980's variant (even though the party has all but re-invented itself - only the ever popular Ken Clarke remains), when the real parallels are between Brown's administration and that of Jim Calaghan in the late 1970's. Although there were many positives of the Thatcher years, I have absolutely no desire to go back there. But equally, I don't think there is any possibility of that. There is a direct correlation between working hard and being well off. But there is no guarantee that you will be well off simply if you work hard. Despite our prejudice against the successful, it is extremely rare that you can be successfully without working hard. Jade had an unfortunate start in life, and a premature end. And although, she was extremely fortune to get the breaks that she did, there is no argument that she didn't work hard for it. How many stereotypes and cliche's in one paragraph? The prevailing view in this thread seems to be that the Tory's are copyinig Labours left-wing policies (oh, the irony) but remain the same right-wing party of the 1980's. Equally, nobody wants another term of Labour, but some think a solution will be to vote Lib-Dem (which increases the likelihood of labour still wielding power). PS. I'm not a True Blue Tory; I've voted for a number of different parties, but never labour - and that won't be changing at the next election.
I said that there is no absolute correlation between working hard and being well off. Plenty of people work very hard and are only just scraping by. Occasionally people do very well mainly by being lucky: born into the right family and social class, with the right access to good educational opportunities. They may not sit on their asses, but they don't exactly have to strain themselves either. I think it is necessary to emphasise that sometimes lest poor people are unconditionally blamed for their misfortune. We all know that life is not as simple as that. I think I set a new record for the highest cliche/stereotype density in a single sentence. Of course, the emoticon should have tipped you off that the statement was tongue-in-cheek.
