I think that even most Labour party members agree that the party’s record on civil liberties has not been great. 42-day detention, persecution of photographers, ID cards, cameras everywhere, and so on. I’m prepared to accept that all this did not happen just for the sake of it, and that each idea was a reaction to something specific and was felt to be justified, but the cumulative effect just didn’t feel very free.
As it happens, although it was the policy most disliked by the public, I don’t have a problem with the concept of ID cards – just a lack of belief in the ability of whatever the Home Office is called now to implement them without cocking it all up somehow.  And CCTV was something that everyone complained about except they all wanted it in their own area to prevent crime – I think a lot of people were really against those cameras that detected their own (speeding) crimes.
However, it all seems positively cuddly compared to some of the little details in this story about the student protests from the Guardian’s website.Towards the end it says:
As police face continued criticism for failing to control the march, the Observer has learned that defence firms are working closely with UK armed forces and contemplating a “militarisation” strategy to counter the threat of civil disorder.
The trade group representing the military and security industry says firms are in negotiation with senior officers over possible orders for armoured vehicles, body scanners and better surveillance equipment.
The move coincides with government-backed attempts to introduce the use of unmanned spy drones throughout UK airspace, facilitating an expansion of covert surveillance that could provide intelligence on future demonstrations.
Militarisation of the police force? I don’t like the sound of that. I think I would be happier carrying an ID card than living somewhere that feels like Northern Ireland in the 70s or 80s with the added bonus of UAVs buzzing around to make it all feel a bit more like the future vision in the Terminator films.
Nothing to worry about because the Lib Dems are part of the government, and they got elected on the back of a campaign that criticised the Labour government’s activites in homeland defence.  Its not as if they would say one thing to get elected and then do the opposite as soon as they get a whiff of power is it?  That sort of thing could lead to riots.
Fair doos Skuds there is enough the Lib Dems are doing (or not doing) that make me nervous but the scrapping of ID cards I have no problems with nor the rolling back of the start of Labour’s police state.
Sadly though most of the flak the Coalition government is getting is over the Labour legacy/elephant traps. Now lets check a few items off:
AV referendum. Lots of flak: not doing what either Lib Dems or Tories proposed. AV was however in the Labour manifesto although most of the Labour MPs have seemingly forgotten this as have the Labour peers.
Housing benefit cuts: As per the Labour manifesto.
Tuition fee changes: As laid out in Labour’s Browne report. Actually tweaked to be a little less bad.
VAT rise: OK, there was a 0.5% difference in it, but essentially the same plan that Darling now says he was proposing to do.
This may take a few posts, but brazen spin deserves a rebuttal…
Police State: As well as the militarisation and introducing private companies into public order policing, how about that new guidance on Section 60 that allows the police to stop ‘on suspicion’ people because of their race. And the removal of monitoring of who the police stop. We are back to the ‘sus laws’ that triggered the 1980s riots. And Cameron promised that before the election. ‘rolling back’ what, now?
AV referendum: Manifesto said have a referendum, but didn’t say we had to back the ‘Yes’ campaign. And when the referendum is combined with the 5-yr fixed term and boundary changes in a pretty awful Bill, why should we back the whole thing?
Housing Benefit: Still spinning that one, but ignoring our replies under that post? Tell me, was the 10% cut after a year for job seekers in our manifesto? How about screwing council tenants by putting rents up and changing the tenure rules?
Tuition Fees: Browne didn’t fulfil the original remit, and was told by the Coalition government that tuition grants were going to be slashed. Besides, no-one forced your party to break their promises on tuition fees.
VAT: That’ s assuming Darling would have had his proposal accepted, been allowed to have a second budget, or even remained in post. Again, though, your party explicitly campaigned against a Tory VAT rise and… voted for it.
These aren’t ‘elephant traps’, they are examples of your party making a decision. To suggest that Labour forced your hand on them is ridiculous.
The real elephant trap was gleefully entering a coalition, and committing too much when you did. Confidence & supply would have preserved Lib Dem independence and allowed you some leverage as and when (as circumstances change). Now you are hostages to fortune, shackled to the Tories and unable to pull out without triggering an election you will be hammered in.
But hey. I bet the party offices have more money coming in than before…
Sorry – should have added that if they weren’t so loud and aggressive about it, you’d be able to enjoy the irony that what the unions and their fellow travellers are campaigning and protesting against most vigorously is the coalition doing the things that they bankrolled Labour to deliver in the first place………
As an Independent listening to this party-political cock-fight between two Lab/LibDem ‘has been’ councillors, I am unable to express how I really feel here.
What I will say is you & your respective parties simply ‘lost the plot’, politically & morally, and no amount of double-think mental gymnastics is going to change that.
Both Blair & Clegg have sold their parties (& supporters) down the river – and are collecting their 30 pieces of silver….leaving you with nothing but rhetoric.
The only way out, as I see it, is a moral & political revolution – as well as becoming Independents of course 😉