Effective Opposition

Back in 1997, I remember that we were all so happy about Labour’s landslide victory in the General Election. Having been born around the time that Thatcher was elected and living through that and the subsequent Major administration, we’d lived our whole lives under Tory rule, so when the General Election coincided with us all getting the vote for the first time, we used it, enjoyed using it, and were generally happy with the results.

I’m a Liberal Democrat voter myself, but most of my peers were Labour supporters. Despite this, they all voted Liberal Democrat because in 1997, the objective was not to elect a Labour government but to make sure that there wasn’t a Tory government. This meant that in some areas there was tactical voting; in seats where Labour was third, Labour voters would vote Liberal to prevent the left-wing vote from splitting and the Tory taking the seat. The Liberals did very well out of this, ending up with about 50 seats in the Commons, though this was dwarfed by Labour’s huge majority.

Flash-forward to 2001, and we find people a lot less emotionally charged about the whole deal. Labour are plodding on with things, and the Tory party is still traumatised from its crashing defeat of ’97. There hasn’t been much in the way of serious political turmoil, so people vote Labour again as it seems like the sensible thing to do, leading to another Labour victory, a few more Liberal Democrats and the Tory leader resigning (again). Life is quiet, peaceful, serene.

Then we come to 2005, with a General Election only months away, and Jesus Christ, what happened? Labour appears to have gone insane, introducing compulsory ID cards, removing the right to trial by jury, taking us in to illegal wars and now trying to gain the legal right to imprison people without trial, indefinitely, without consulting judges and without letting the detainee know what they’re being imprisoned for or allowing them the opportunity to defend themselves. It’s as if Tony Blair visited Burma and took notes. It’s now reached the point where we have to rely upon the entirely undemocratic, non-elected House of Lords to enforce some measure of sanity on proceedings.

Conflicts.

It’s been a tricky time, being a liberal. Take the recent anti-hunting legislation, for instance. Labour promised to introduce measures to ban hunting with hounds way back in ’97 but for various reasons have only just got around to it. There was a little political drama about the whole thing as the House of Lords — you know, the old, senile, infirm ladies and gentlemen who weren’t elected and thus do not represent our interests — repeatedly refused to pass the legislation, resulting in the government invoking the Parliament Act to force the measures through. Hooray for democracy, boo to the House of Lords. God, it’s great being a liberal.

Now, though, us liberals have found ourselves relying on the House of Lords to block this ‘anti-terrorist’ measure. It’s a problem; we’d happily abolish the Lords at a moment’s notice, and introduce an elected second house, but it sort of ruins our argument when the Lords stubbornly insist on being reasonable and helpful.

In its original form, this new anti-terrorist bill was a fairly terrifying piece of work. The Home Secretary would have the power to put people under house-arrest, indefinitely, without allowing them their day in court, without charging them, and without showing them the evidence that lead to the order in the first place — ever. Supporters of the bill claim it will make us safer by locking away suspected terrorists, but I don’t think they’re seeing the big picture. They’re looking at the specifics; 11 terrorists suspects, currently detained at Belmarsh prison and due to be released when the original (illegal) order to detain them runs out on Sunday, will be placed under immediate house arrest. They will then not be a danger to us, the Great British Public. Lucky us! However, this legislation isn’t really about that. It’s legislation that would have allowed this government and any future government the ability to detain anybody they liked, without having to justify their actions, not even to the person being detained. Call me a big old cynic if you like, but I just don’t think a government should have that sort of power.

People have also suggested that terror suspects have in some way given up their human rights. The key word here is suspects — there’s a real ‘guilty until proven innocent’ mentality about this. Actually, it’s not even that — it’s ‘guilty if accused’, a sort of ‘no smoke without fire’ mentality. I find it astonishing and deeply worrying. People don’t realise that it’s not just terrorists giving up their civil liberties by virtue of being a terrorist, it’s everybody giving them up. If you agree, in principle, to someone else being placed under house arrest without a trial, then you agree in principle to yourself, your friends and your family being detained under the same conditions. If you can’t see what evidence led to your detention, then you can’t dispute it, and you’re screwed.

Now, as I write, it seems that the Lords have rejected the bill for the second time and it’s gone back to the Commons for some more debating. It’s been watered-down to some extent thanks to the Lords; control orders would now be issued by a non-partisan judge rather than a politician which is some small improvement. Demands for a ‘sunset clause’, which would see the bill expire after eight months, have so far been rejected on the grounds that it would make us appear weak in the eyes of terrorists. Will the Government have to use the Parliament Act again? It’s a real last-resort act, and used sparingly — only four times since 1949 — so I doubt it, but that said I wouldn’t be surprised if they did as very little this government does surprises me anymore.

And so, to the point.

I discovered this morning that the deadline for getting yourself onto the electoral roll was at 1700 GMT today, thanks to reading it on the BBC news website. Well, thanks for the advance warning! Perhaps we could have been warned of this a week ago, or a fortnight ago? I was able to run into town during my lunch break to register but I can’t help but wonder how many people won’t get a say in this year’s General Election because they weren’t made aware of the deadline for registering. It’s a shame.

Thanks to some last-minute Googling and About My Vote, I’m registered, and I’ll be voting Liberal. What worries me about this forthcoming election is that the Tories are on the rise again. It’s a fairly safe bet that Labour are going to win again, but the Tories have been pushing all the right buttons — promising to put quotas on immigration, for instance, which is a big vote winner for the terrified Mail readers of middle England who believe their way of life is being somehow threatened and eroded by asylum seekers in Folkestone. They’ve also been putting up a lot of opposition to the anti-terrorism bill alongside the Liberals, but when it comes to the election, will people vote Tory because they’re perceived as being more liberal than Labour? This is, simply, fucked up.

It’s been noted by others on a number of occasions that a strong opposition is a necessary component of our parliamentary system, but we don’t need a strong right-wing opposition because Labour are already so much further to the right of the political spectrum than in ’97. A right-wing government with a right-wing opposition — this does us no good. I would be amazed and very happy if the Liberals actually came to power this year, but it would be great to see them in opposition as well, or if there’s no clear majority after the election then they could do well in coalition with Labour (a coalition between the Liberals and the Tories has been ruled out due to fundamental differences in policy). This would have an appealing historical symmetry to it, as Labour originally took power way back when by becoming the senior partner in a coalition with the Liberals and demonstrated to the voting public that they weren’t just a bunch of filthy Reds.

People tend not to vote Liberal because they believe a vote for a Liberal will be a wasted vote as they’re not going to get into power. This isn’t the point; we’re faced this year with a choice between two right-wing parties and one left-wing party (discounting minority, single-issue parties). Voting Labour will ensure a Labour victory, and voting Tory will ensure that parliament is packed with right-wing MPs. So vote Liberal; you may not be voting to get the party into power but a liberal opposition is what’s needed right now to take the wind out of Labour’s sails.

• Tweet
• Share on Tumblr