Thursday, 11 January 2018


I just don't get it. It's infuriating. The same old lines about "betrayal", and how Lib Dems must never be trusted again. It's so absolutist, and so tiresome.

Let me break it down simply.

Dave and Nick rent a house together. Dave pays dramatically more of the rent than Nick and has a much higher regular income, but Nick has the initial lump sum to pay the deposit. Without Dave's greater income, never could Nick afford to live in that house, but without Nick, Dave can't quite get the house either. They both need it to get to work easily. So they do a deal.

Yes they play friendly and try to get along initially, compromise where possible, but the imbalance becomes very obvious very quickly. Nick later finds out Dave is a right bastard. Which one of them do you think gets final say in the house? Will Nick get any say in anything at all really, when Dave takes very obvious pleasure in pointing out he has all the money, and he pays all the bills?

No is the answer.

“The souls of emperors and cobblers are cast in the same mould. The same reason that makes us wrangle with a neighbour creates a war betwixt princes.”― Michel de Montaigne

What I'm trying to say, is the analogy of an everyday situation like a 'house share' possibly isn't as daft as it might first appear.

If you don't like that analogy, how about the Bible? Where does it say that if a party/person or organisation makes a mistake, they can categorically never be trusted again? Or their words should cease to carry any worth at all?

On the contrary, in the words of Jesus Christ, our (alleged) Lord and saviour:

"Let he without sin cast the first muthaf**king stone."

Okay, I may be paraphrasing slightly, but you get the point.

I refuse to bow to this idea we must all follow one party and/or leader blindly, rather than judging by the policies they propose and what physically comes out their mouths. That is tribalism, plain and simple.

Am I a fan of Tony Blair? No. Did I agree with his role in the Iraq war, or somehow condone it? Not in the slightest. Do I think he was virtually a Tory in disguise? Yes. (But hey, at least he was that now sorely missed breed of Tory who merely pursued wealth as the end-goal, as opposed to these hard-right ideological Tories we now face.)

However, do I also think he's saying some sensible things about Brexit, and the future of this country? Yes, yes I do. And I do sorely miss the days when a British statesman of gravitas could put Nigel Farage in his place, like this:

As much as I support Corbyn in many regards, certainly his ethics, I shall not be sucked into refusing to acknowledge what other reasonable and pragmatic people have to say, labelling them "scum" and "traitors" etc on account of mistakes made by former leaders, back before Brexit was even an issue. It's senseless.

Though in fairness, Lib-Dem supporters and many ardent remainers are just as rude and dismissive about Corbyn too. It's just such a bloody mess, and very depressing.

Meanwhile the Brexiters and far-right are cackling, rolling around in the spoils of our demise. 

Suing the doorman

It's just so bizarre. Some Labour supporters apparently hate the Lib Dems and resent them so much, and vice versa, they're both effectively willing to give a free pass to the party that physically caused all the woes! Like suing the doorman, rather than the owner of the company that screwed you.

It seems to me that reasonable western populaces needs to wake up sharpish, and remember the meaning of 'compromise'. To take stock of the fact that sometimes those we disagree with, or even oppose, might have a point and be right about some things. We need to stay talking, acknowledging shades of grey; not become polarised into two teams of mortal enemies on single principles alone. That way lies ruin.

The minute you stop listening to someone on account of who they are or something they once did, as opposed to the merit of what they say, you're in very shady and prejudiced territory. Prejudice never benefits an informed or rational analysis. Ever.

1 comment:

  1. Lisening is not voting. The minute you start listening to people and not checking whether their actions match up to reality you're handing yourself over to con artists. And politics isn't an abstract game of ideals. It's about practical action - and about electing people who will make smart decisions over the next five years.

    Fundamentally the problem with the Liberal Democrats isn't the "betrayal" of going into coalition. It's their categorical and unequivocal demonstration that for a plurality of the Parliamentary Liberal Democrat party their word simply isn't worth the paper it's printed on - as the tuition fees pledge, followed by Nick Clegg's spectacular notpology demonstrates.

    Clegg, of course, has been followed in charge of the Liberal Democrats by a man who has just come out to say he was willing to betray his core beliefs and say homosexual sex wasn't a sin for power. And Farron has been followed by someone who was just as eager as Clegg to demonstrate that his promises and his word weren't worth the paper they are written on.

    That's three faithless leaders in a row, willing to say whatever they think it will take to get power. Two sold out their base and one sold out his beliefs - and at three in a row and none brought down from inside it is pretty obvious that the Liberal Democrats as a party are fine with this.

    Listening is one thing. But the Liberal Democrats are not entitled to my vote. They've demonstrated that they can say nice things - but their word literally isn't worth the paper it is written on. And the remaining Liberal Democrats don't see this as a deal breaker.