Here’s a video on Youtube showing John Cleese doing a Party Political for the old SDP/Liberal Alliance.

It’s very entertaining, but the explicit appeal to ‘the best solution’ being a compromise between two extremes is pure fallacy. It’s not true. Sure it feels true, but it’s not.

Sorry.

On a policy by policy basis, a compromise could be the best solution, depending on the policy – but not because it’s a compromise between two extremes. It just happens to be good.

The extremism of the Labour Party of the day was wrong not because it was extremism, but because it was militant trade-unionism and bonkers socialism. It was wrong all by itself.

The contemporary Lib Dems still have a policy of ‘equidistance,’ at least officially although in practice this only seems to apply to decisions regarding who the party may or may not go into coalition with in the event that there’s a hung parliment. Yawn.

Our constitution, too, represents this appeal to the centre between the two extremes – a masterpiece of equivocation that can mean anything to anyone who wants to read it. Balance liberty and equality? Great! Treating everyone equally is a feature of free trade societies, so I’m in favour of that…. wait, what? Sorry? You think it means treating people differently to get equal outcomes, which obviously means scuppering many people’s liberty? Crikey! Yes George, what’s that? Ah you think it means finding a balance between the two of our positions because we’re both extremists? John Cleese would be proud.

You see the problem?

Looking forward to conference…