Hi Mike, At 07:54 24/01/02 -0500, you wrote: (MG) <<<< BTW, I'm curious from both you and Harry. I was living as a student in the UK in the early 1970's and I could never figure out what function the Liberal party served for those who were as you say in the "background". Clearly (at least as filtered through Private Eye and all), there were some deep dark forces behind the Liberals, and some deep game was being played but I could never figure out what the game might be given that the Liberals had no real likelihood to any sort of power or even much influence. >>>>
True, the Liberals had no prospect of power at that time. They seemed a nice bunch when I joined them but, on closer acquaintance and at high level, there was much that was unsavoury about some of the personalities. Having met the leader of the liberals, Jeremy Thorpe (indeed, having a photograph taken when standing at his side at one Party Conference), and experiencing the lack of interest in real policies (rather than nice-sounding "progressive" ones) I resigned from the NE as already mentioned. I wasn't at all surprised when, years later, Jeremy Thorpe was prosecuted in a notorious court case for inciting the murder of his ex-homosexual lover. (He was found innocent of the charge, but one has one's own views on the matter!) I can't speak for Harry, but I joined the Liberal Party in the 70s for two reasons: (a) I was aghast at the way that the Labour Party believed in nationalising everything that moved and also at the way that extreme Marxist-types (the Militant Tendency) were invading and taking over constituency Labour Parties. This was called "entrysim" and was relatively easy to do because active membership of the Labour Party was then (as now) very low. (At the same time, I was inherently against Conservatives -- and still am -- and would never trust them because of their social culture, even though I believe in free markets.) (b) The Liberals were the only ones at that time who were paying serious attention to environmental issues. Or said they were anyway. Keith __________________________________________________________ �Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in order to discover if they have something to say.� John D. Barrow _________________________________________________ Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________
