After the European Court of Justice basically told the UK that it wasn't allowed to keep tracking its citizens in a blanket way, effectively striking down the surveillance law, there's been a lot of negotiation going on to get a replacement written.
As far as I can tell, the Lib-Dems had two choices:
1) Say "Screw you, we're not going to have anything to do with this awful attack on civil liberties". The result of which would be the Conservatives writing it by themselves, and Labour helping them vote it through. (As happened, for instance, on the recent mandatory sentencing for knife crime.)
2) Get some limiting provisions in place by taking part in negotiations, and accept that doing so means voting for the bill you helped write, even though it's not something they actually approve of.
(Clearly they went for option 2, and this is what Julian Huppert, one of the Lib-Dem MPs involved has to say about it. The Guardian's Home Affairs editor agrees that it's clearly had liberal input.)
But, frankly, both of these options sound awful. So the main point of this poll is to gather some other suggestions from people.
So, particularly in this case, ticking box 3 without actually leaving a comment isn't terribly useful - I'd like to know what people actively think they should have done.
Should they have...
Introduced some proposals to water down the bill, and accepted having to vote for it as a consequence?
Refused to have anything to do with the bill, and let Labour/The Conservatives push it through without their influence?
Something else which I will explain in the comments
Personally, I think that the lack of transparency is a massive issue here. The negotiations between the parties happened behind closed doors, so we have no idea what the possibilities were. This, of course, leads to massive distrust from voters on all sides.
Note: _Polite_ suggestions. Anyone engaging in name-calling, rudeness, etc. towards either individuals or political parties, is getting their comment screened/deleted. If you want to refer to a party as "authoritarian" or "confused" then go ahead, that's descriptive. Words like "bastards", "quislings", etc. are not ok. If you want to say that someone is wrong then "wrong" will do just fine.
Note 2: If you're reading this from Facebook/Twitter then you can easily log in to LJ using one of them, and leave a comment here.