Tuesday, 6 September 2011

Liberals vs. Liberals

More of a comment than a Blog post really.

I saw, last week, an argument brewing between a few Lib Dems about the upcoming Lib Dem conference and the security measures put in place.

It wasn't the standard debate that we in the party usually love but almost a battle from different ideologies. I know the party is a cross spectra party based on Liberal theory and democracy rather than servicing the left or the right but this was something else.

There seemed to be a misunderstanding over someones choice not to attend vs their inability to attend due to not being able to. The basic drift was that due to reasons beyond their control one couldn't complete the Security clearance in a satisfactory manner and thus was barred from going, they were merely making the point that their vote/opinion did not matter and that ultimately there might as well be no conference this year.

This met with a stinging rebuke saying that they had chosen not to go.

This security clearance has divided party members, and I agree that it is a little extreme considering that I will be (hopefully) attending the South east conference and only need to submit my name, number and a cheque for £20's and Simon Hughes and Chris Huhne will be there who, although not Nick Clegg, are viable terrorist targets. However some people have gone too far in either direction, some believing it to be draconian, others misconstruing comments and feel they've been called Nazis, then there are comments that other liberals are living in an ideal world and security must be maintained...

Lets not forget though that the party have enough enemies out there, let alone turning on each other over pointless disagreements. Lets keep the debate healthy people!

1 comment:

  1. I thought this was a significant moment for the party - it has forced some of the more idealistic members to temper themselves with a bit of reality.

    liberty vs security is an old trope, the point being that you cannot maintain one without the other. So by setting the two principles against each other in the short term it creates a surefire way to cause ructions.

    I actually think the debate has shown the validity of compromise is as the only sensible method for advancing policy, but equally just how difficult it is for many members to make the transition from a party of opposition to one of government where decisions can't be avoided if you don't like the options.