When was a Militarised Police State “Progressive”?

by Sean Gabb

Tha answer, I suppose, is when you’re a Liberal Democrat MP. Ever since they went into coalition with a Tory Party that is, admittedly, awful, they’ve been whining about the chance they missed of creating a “progressive” coalition.

What was progressive about the Blair/Brown Junto? Its wars with Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq? The Civil Contingencies Act? The various “terror” laws? Identity cards? When did the Tories last do anything that awful? What chance they will this time?

My advice to David Cameron is to wait until Labour has burdened itself with a new and useless leader, and then hurry off to make HMQEII dissolve Parliament. I don’t fancy a Tory majority – not bearing in mind the dross who get selected. Better that, though, that having to be partly governed by a few dozen people who, despite the name they’ve given their party, are neither liberals nor democrats.

One response to “When was a Militarised Police State “Progressive”?

  1. It was all very Progressive. Progressivism is based on the use of force- to an unlimited degree- to produce a greater moral good. It doesn’t matter how many people you kill to create a democracy. It doesn’t matter how many people you kill or incarcerate to stop drug use. And so on.

    Progressivism is descended from Puritanism which, we recall, inflicted a vicious civil war and religious tyranny on England. Violent imposition is the Progressive way.