An answer for Leslie Strathearn

Leslie Strathearn of Glasgow asks: “Should the Liberal Democrats change their name to something more reflective of their current approach to politics? The LibDems would not consider a Holyrood coalition in 2007 because the SNP proposal of a referendum was a deal breaker. So much for Liberal, as in broad-minded and favouring reform.

“They have now thrown away their own UK manifesto, in a coalition helping Conservatives implement ideological cuts in the public sector.

“Bang goes the Democrat bit. At the moment their name is a misnomer akin to George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth. How about the Bipolar Conliberals?”

“Or the Oxymorons?”

The Herald thinks there is nothing the party can say to answer such sharp witted criticisms. I disagree with The Herald and with Leslie Strathearn. Showing why I'm right to do so shouldn't take much time.

Leslie Strathearn suggests that the Lib Dems are no longer liberal because we refused to go along with the SNP in sanctioning a referendum on Scottish independence. This is true if being liberal means having as many referendums as possible. However, Leslie clearly states that Liberal is meant to imply "favouring reform" and "broad-minded". Having a referendum may imply favouring reform, but not having a referendum does not imply a disparaging attitude towards reform. The argument offered by Leslie can be broken down as "If X is in favour of referendums, then X is liberal. X is not in favour of a referendum, therefore X is illiberal". Even the most basic logic course will drum this fallacy out of you on day one.

Still looks like we can be Liberal.

Leslie then contends that we have thrown away our manifesto. In fact, we have not. We have retained much of the manifesto and it's worth noting that they are policies of some importance which would otherwise not have been implemented (Increase in the income tax threshold, triple-lock on pensions, Green Investment Bank, amongst others). If Leslie means that only implementing some of your manifesto is as good as throwing it away, then I propose that everyone ever who has produced a manifesto has thrown it away and that it is actually impossible for any person to not throw away a manifesto. Maybe we should be a bit more generous. If implementing your manifesto is what Leslie means by "throwing away", then I suppose Leslie is onto a winner.

Still looks like we can be Democrats.

Still looks like we can be Liberal Democrats.

Westboro Baptist Church

So I watched Louis Theroux do his documentary thing and go back to the Westboro Baptist Church.

These are the guys who picket funerals for soldiers killed in war. Regardless of whether or not you agree with (the?) war, I think all reasonable people think it to be in poor taste to picket a funeral purely by dint of its being a funeral.

I can't see passed this church as anything but institutionalised child abuse. According to Louis, the only contact the younger children have with the "outside world" is the journalists who come to ask questions at their pickets. Couple this with the active depression of various emotions (including sexual ones, for those who are getting to that age) and I worry for the children who are a part of this group. Specifically with reference to the young males in the group, I can see them ending up one of four ways. The first is relatively harmless and involves the collapse of the group. The second involves the collapse of the group and isn't all that harmful, relatively speaking. The third and fourth are anything but harmless.

First: The group collapses fairly soon, before much lasting damage can be done the the children. They can go into the wider world, have the opportunity to make friends and develop social skills which may go some way towards making them happier, more adaptable adults.

Second: The group collapses and the children have suffered lasting damage, making them cynical adults who don't contribute much to their friends, family or wider society. They may not have friends and may live sadder, less adaptable lives because of it.

Third: The group does not collapse before the children grow up. The children then grow up with the attitudes of the group, namely; ultra-patriarchal attitudes to family and relationships, plus repressed sexual attitudes. I'm not a criminal psychologist but this at least seems like the kind of attitude-set which would lead an adult to committing violent crimes of a sexual nature.

Fourth: The group does not collapse at all. The children grow up but because of a lack of genetic and social diversity are forced to find a partner to marry within their own family, in the belief it the only viable option for the survival of their group. If the group did continue to have children at this point the law could finally step in, but not before more people are created to suffer in the Westboro God's name.

Let's all hope it collapses tomorrow.