There are words tossed around in politics today that are sacrosanct: moderate, middle ground, centrist. Usually those words are used to positively describe a politician that is reaching across the aisle, working with his more leaning compatriots. But you need to be careful with centrists, too. Often they can be an indication of someone with either no vested opinion of their own, or one that is willing to set their opinions aside. For what, you might ask? Why, money and privelage of course.
Take the new internet law passed in the UK, the Digital Economy Bill. Here you have an example of the much heard of Three Strikes policy. If you are accused of copyright infringement via illegal downloads over the internet three times, your internet connection is severed. Read that again. ACCUSED. Not convicted. Not tried. Not even arrested. Just accused. That means no form of due process.
Who could be responsible for passing such a law?
Well, the much maligned Lord Peter Mandelson, President of the Lords Council, is the one that crafted the law immediately after taking a short vacation with some entertainment industry executives (no, I'm not making this up). But he couldn't have passed the law without help. So who else was in on it?
The notoriously centrist Labour Party, fairly well known for not being far on either side of the political spectrum on any major issue. From the DailyTech article, written by Jason Mick:
"The bill was hurriedly passed before the upcoming election, which is expected to hurt the current dominant party, the centrist Labour Party. Opponents from the left and the right both derided the bill and are trying to seize a portion of control of the island nation from the Labour Party."
Think about that for a moment. In Britain they have many parties. In America, we basically have two, Democrat and Republican. Can any of us Americans even FATHOM a scenario in which a bill passed through Congress when it was opposed by BOTH the far right and far left? How could that even happen? Think about the major issues that get reported on: Healthcare, Education, Abortion, War Funding. Which of them could you imagine the far left and far right AGREEING on, and then legislation goes the opposite way against both of them?
So what is the only possible motivation for a centrist party to go against what both sides of the political spectrum want? Again, from Jason Mick:
"[The Bill] enjoyed the hearty support, though, of the music and film industries which lobbied heavy for the bill pouring millions of pounds in support to help override the voice of the citizens."
Yup. Money. These politicians sold out to lobbiests. Now, granted, unless I'm mistaken, the House of Lords members are appointed, not elected, so theoretically they have no constituency to represent (even though they are supposed to). But, if that's the case, what the hell do they need that much lobbying money for? They aren't campaigning, are they?