Your party has stood side-by-side with the Conservatives as part of a coalition in opposition to the riots. (LongFordLeader.ie) You have stood by with Cameron, using the same exact catch phrases to describe the candlelight vigil held for a police brutality victim that led to rioting as "needless, opportunistic theft and violence." (TruthDig.com) Your party has been with the police entirely.
Your constitution says plainly in black and white: "We believe that sovereignty rests with the people and that authority in a democracy derives from the people. We therefore acknowledge their right to determine the form of government best suited to their needs." (LibDems.org.uk) If people have taken to the streets, set on fire stores selling commodities made in sweatshops, and have firebombed police departments that have been executing black men in the streets -- don't you think that's a completely legitemate expression of self-government? Apparently, you don't.
The only valid expression of self-government for you is an electoral system, where no matter who gets elected, police still have the right to kill. Police still have the right to act as the lynch mob, the gas chamber operator, the gendarme, etc., etc.. You asked people "to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives." Firebombing a police department is a decision that will affect their lives. How? By reducing the amount of police violence in the area. Legislators write their laws with pen and ink; the masses write their laws with revolutions and uprisings.
In case you have forgotten, George Orwell said something like, "If I could make a nuclear bomb, I would drop it on London." ("You and the Atomic Bomb," 1946.) Is Orwell a "criminal"? Is the author of 1984 "opportunistic" and "violent"? More than all of that -- would you set his words ablaze, like a rioter of the intellect, and call him "needless"?
"We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full." But that means forming a coalition government with Conservatives. The members of these parties have talked about corruption, violence, mob-rule, etc.. Do they mean the rule of the police who have killed an innocent black man, shot with a machine gun, after being followed by the cops for at least fifteen minutes? No, no. That's not "Violence." Violence is smashing a window, apparently. Who cares about aggression against actual flesh-and-blood, living human beings? That, apparently, doesn't count as "violence."
Where are you, Mr. "Champion for freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals"? How much freedom is their in bleeding to death in the back of a taxi from police gunshot wounds? How much dignity is there in being murdered for being poor and black? How much well-being can you intend to create for people when your own police are killing them? How does this relate to your described intentions of the economy: "a competitive environment in which the state allows the market to operate freely where possible"? Are police brutality victims a necessary component of "a competitive environment"?
But, no, none of this gets mentioned. Why would it get mentioned? You're the political party that believes that "the independence of individuals is safeguarded by their personal ownership of property." Yes, the Party of Property -- and don't forget that you don't own your life. That apparently can be taxed out of you by corrupt officials when they feel like it. As the Party of Property, you have one thing to defend -- those precious windows! They might be smashed. And that precious mortar! Why, it might end up covered in spray paint!
Yes, send more guards to the watchtower and the malls, send more army units to the town hall and the malls, send in the tanks to guard your churches and your subsidy-dependent shops! "Property is at stake here! Forget all that stuff about a human life being squeezed out of existence by a few police officers. We don't much such a huff about those things. But a window might be hit with a rock! Think of the glass, the splitting pieces of silicon, oh, the agony! OH THE HUMANITY!" Oh, what humanity indeed.
The party you've formed a coalition with is led by Cameron, who "told an emergency session of parliament authorities are considering disabling social networking websites that rioters used to coordinate their activity." (VOANews.com) The Internet in the United Kingdom is going to be shut down, like in Iran or Egypt or Syria or Malaysia or Chile.
You're supporting this party, when your Constitution clearly states that you believe that "we will protect the right of citizens to enjoy privacy in their own lives and homes." Oh, yeah -- except for what you read. Why not add that in to your constitution? "(Privacy doesn't extend to literature or Internet activity.)" You probably won't add that addendum because it won't help you deceiving the people. It'll make you look like exactly what you are: an opportunistic, petty, thieving official of the government.