> If staying in government requires betraying that ideology, what's the point of being in government?
Changing things. Honestly I don't think you understand this at all. You're acting as if by collapsing the government it would instantly pass to a more preferential party who would reign in the excesses.
In reality there exists no such party, no such majority. Who would step in to carry out these actions you desire?
> Honestly I don't think you understand this at all. You're acting as if by collapsing the government it would instantly pass to a more preferential party who would reign in the excesses.
I think you don't understand me at all, to be honest. I don't expect a change in the parties in charge to reign in the excesses - why would it? Both the major parties are full of authoritarians.
What I think it might provide is what we don't have in the current situation - a basis for future change. A party that actually stands up for what's right provides a cause for effective protest to coalesce around - as things stand, who does a concerned citizen vote and work for, when no party supports change of substance? You're hardly going to spur on a popular movement with promises of working within the existing government to change the situation from horrifying to very slightly less horrifying.
I do believe there's enough concern over these issues for a talented politician to work with and build on. After all, despite their recent actions, both the lib dems and the cons were elected on a popular mandate to improve civil liberties from the dark days of labour.
Changing things. Honestly I don't think you understand this at all. You're acting as if by collapsing the government it would instantly pass to a more preferential party who would reign in the excesses.
In reality there exists no such party, no such majority. Who would step in to carry out these actions you desire?