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.
> 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.
...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.
> If staying in government requires betraying that ideology, what's the point of being in government?
Changing things. Honestly I don't think you understand this at all. You're acting as if by collapsing the government it would instantly pass to a more preferential party who would reign in the excesses.
In reality there exists no such party, no such majority. Who would step in to carry out these actions you desire?
> Honestly I don't think you understand this at all. You're acting as if by collapsing the government it would instantly pass to a more preferential party who would reign in the excesses.
I think you don't understand me at all, to be honest. I don't expect a change in the parties in charge to reign in the excesses - why would it? Both the major parties are full of authoritarians.
What I think it might provide is what we don't have in the current situation - a basis for future change. A party that actually stands up for what's right provides a cause for effective protest to coalesce around - as things stand, who does a concerned citizen vote and work for, when no party supports change of substance? You're hardly going to spur on a popular movement with promises of working within the existing government to change the situation from horrifying to very slightly less horrifying.
I do believe there's enough concern over these issues for a talented politician to work with and build on. After all, despite their recent actions, both the lib dems and the cons were elected on a popular mandate to improve civil liberties from the dark days of labour.
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.