Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
More elaborately, the idea of "why settle for the lesser evil?"



Of course those results are the rub. Against left-wing dissidents (cf. also French elections) the counter-argument was that effective abstention or defection is contrary to their stated principles in result. With the right that may or may not have been the case, the "not" being the more troubling scenario as we saw that it implies illiberalism. But no citizen is released from the duty to appraise results and interests according to the conduct of government in fact, not according to a high level of philosophical abstraction. "I am X, so I support X party" is not inherently satisfactory.

Thought you were a classical liberal* though.
More relevantly, it doesn't make sense to hold the opposition, who do not make the laws, to higher standards than the government, who do make the laws. The point of liberalism, in its original form, was to radically reassess the establishment by asking difficult questions of the establishment. By holding the opposition to higher standards whilst constantly excusing the government, one goes against the fundamental basis of liberalism, by having a tendency against changing the establishment. It is the very definition of conservatism (Toryism even).

In related news, the government has passed a Bill that gives it power over the previously independent Electoral Commission. So in addition to having a government which disregards the constitution, media which will disseminate and support its lies, and voters who will back it no matter what, the government now has formal control of the electoral system too. One of the proposed measures is to address a problem which the Electoral Commission said does not exist in any meaningful form, by implementing measures that are known to discourage opposition voters, in a manner which would have disqualified me from voting in several previous elections.