For those still unaware of the Libertarian performance in the recent Norwich North by-election, the party to which Mr B and I are members scored a total of 36 votes.
This result cemented concerns that we both already had, in that we felt that communication in the party hovers between lacklustre and non-existent, and it is a grey area as to what the senior people in the party actually do.
I, for instance, have received one email (relating to the AGM) since I joined the party one year ago. That is it.
Presumably, when the party was founded, there were at least a handful of people willing to take the job on of taking the outfit forward with the purposes of accumulating members and public popularity.
Yet whenever Mr B and I raise our hands to make constructive comment, criticism or points of view, we are (irritatingly) told that the party doesn't have a 'machine', that the senior people 'have lives' and that with little resources, the party does the best it can.
This is inevitably followed up with 'put your money where you mouth is' type challenges, which is like saying 'if you don't like it, you bloody do it'.
A resounding chime of confidence rings out of our heads, I'm sure you can imagine.
Well, I am happy to be a paid up member and so is my colleague Mr Boatang. We too have 'busy lives', though this singularly fails to stop us from writing thousands of words of blinding, genius and original content every single day on the world's best blog.
As it happens, Mr B and I are actually up for becoming more active in the party and getting out there to help in campaigns. The LPUK would realise this were so much a a solitary individual with responsibility disposed towards communicating with members properly. Email, and ten minutes of time, is not exactly like asking someone to organise the next Cannes Film Festival.
So, when the Norwich North election result came in, Mr B and I braced ourselves for the predictable and infuriating waves of spin that got pumped out on the LPUK blog.
One chap did a post trying to gloss over the result, whilst still (after the campaign was dead and over) making negative remarks about the Tory candidate and winner.
The Party Chairman, Mr Withers, produced a more down to earth article on the result, though there was the notable air of spin about the piece and a lack of comment on how to move forward and progress. Members would read that and wonder where the hell the party can possibly go, unless we start to look deeply and inwardly at ourselves and our approach to campaigning.
This is where Mr B. and I decided to step up and make an appearance. The more we offered constructive criticism (read the comments sections of the articles on the LPUK blog for evidence), the more certain people got annoyed.
Interestingly, the level of irritation and panic over our comments solidified once we popped on their blog and ours to cock a snook at the incestuous, cliquey and inbred manner in which the party (and its core, root cabal of blogging campaigners) conduct matters.
If Libertarianism is (and it is) about openness, accountability, democracy, fairness, transparency and power to the individual, it is obviously of some concern when a small clique of faceless people start to try and shut down debate.
'We have a forum, this is not the best place to discuss this, go there instead' is one type of refrain we've been getting.
'This blog should be deleted' is, amazingly, another idea, along with 'the comments should be heavily moderated'.
The deletion of a place of accountability? A public forum where people can talk and air views, which are fairly and rightly offered to prospective members and the public?
The institution of a 'heavily moderated' place of discussion?
What the hell is this, fucking Pravda? Views like this are valid, but please, if you genuinely think that the LPUK should conduct itself in this manner, then I am sorely disappointed to inform you that maybe - just maybe - you are possibly not that much of a Libertarian.
People in the LPUK may not like what we have to say, but we have the god damned right (as members) to go on the members' blog to voice our views on how we can improve and move forward. We have the god damned right to ask questions of this campaign in Norwich, and what the hell happened. We note that there has been a piss poor attempt at answering those queries. But hey, 'they have lives' huh. So I guess I'll just have to sit back and accept what is doled out to me.
We did find out one thing, however, after our attempts to relentlessly pursue some answers. There was no discernible 'LPUK campaign' to speak of, outside of one lady who turned up from the West Country.
Brilliant. And, er, was there no bloody campaign co-ordinator out there with the common sense to email members to ask for help? Or are we all expected to read every thread or article on the blog or forum thing in order to grab what snippets of info we can?
Little wonder there was nil man power. Little wonder poor Thomas Burridge could only get his family and friends out to vote for him.
I, many years ago, worked as an intrinsic team member in a political campaign during a general election. I witnessed countless volunteers, unpaid people of generous years, give up their time to campaign for a party they didn't even quite agree with, but helped anyway because they were made to feel important. They had morale in their hearts. And all that brought them out was a fucking phone call or a knock on the door.
We're talking common sense, not money or resources, just a little bit of effort.
There will be LPUK people who will read this and fucking fume. They'll hate our guts. They'll think we're mad, or trouble makers, or just plain arrogant cocky arseholes who haven't the balls to make their own efforts to help.
They will be angry for these reasons: we are right, and they know we're right...and we have the fucking bow locks to tell it how it is. If people like us didn't, no-one would. We do so because we are libertarian, we actually want the party to go somewhere and do well, and we don't like being bullshitted.
I'll leave all our readers with this quote from a bloke called John Stuart Mill. You might, if you are even vaguely libertarian, have fucking heard of him:
If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
...the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error...
Mr B and I do not state opinion as though fact; as though we are 100% correct, 100% of the time and our interlocutors axiomatically wrong. But we have the right to speak up and voice our opinion. We will offer that dissenting voice and we seek answers and responses. We will not be silenced.
I will be doing more articles over the next few days on libertarianism and what it is to be libertarian in modern Britain. I also hope to feed more into party debate. I know Mr Boatang wishes to feed into this process - though it is never quite clear if anyone in the LPUK is listening.
It is possible that we will end up being silenced, or banished from the party. It's human nature and libertarians are no less immune to it than anyone else - people don't like having their cosy little boat rocked by others. The apple cart simply must go on, with all the fruit aboard left in tact.
Mr B and are are like libertarian bandits. We'll fuck up that cart, we'll eat all the apples and we'll put a fucking hole in the quaint little gondola if it makes people wake up, listen and help get things done.
32 comments:
Nice article.
If you are analysing libertarianism, you might want to consider a conundrum which a commenter at DK's place has highlighted.
So why are libertarians asking them to vote for ideas they don't understand or value?
I replied thusly ...
Because to do otherwise (ie to promote populist, kneejerk, policies to gain power before moving to a different agenda) would be to fall in line with mainstream parties and further illustrate that democratic process in this country has descended into farce.
Libertarianism, as I understand it anyway, by its very nature would value honesty above political expediency.
... but it has certainly got the brain cogs moving a bit here.
Are libertarians to be as facile and disingenuous in pursuit of votes for the greater good as other parties? Or hold to liberal principles in the face of widespread ignorance in the electorate?
All part of getting the message out really, as I see libertarianism as a very natural and potentially popular viewpoint.
Thank you for the links. I will read them.
You are damn right: libertarianism does have the scope and potential for huge public popularity and acclaim. Awareness is key, getting the philosophy out there and debated is important.
I am concerned that the LPUK is turning into a hard line, closetted party with a tiny scope for public appeal.
We need to be targetting not just small pockets of people, but Tories, lefties, centrists, Lib Dems, academics, housewives, people from the countryside, the burbs, the cities...pretty much everyone.
If Libertarianism is about economic AND social liberalism, then we have something for everyone. That something can feasibly be enough to entice a large number of people.
It is crucial to remain balanced and moderate and to back up policies with good philosophical roots.
It's no good taking an anarcho-capitalist line on everything - smash the state, fuck everyone, privatise every last scrap of services, fuck Europe etc
Anarcho-capitalism limits out appeal to such an extent that, well, you know, it's quite possible that the LPUK could fight a seat in a general election and get something silly like 36 votes.
And that would be a pretty poor show, I'm sure you'll agree.
Standing motherfucking ovation, Mr D.
If they properly addressed your points, I'd fork over membership fees and donations in a heartbeat.
AJ
p.s. what's with all the deleted comments?
AJ
@DickPuddlecote:
"Libertarianism, as I understand it anyway, by its very nature would value honesty above political expediency."
That might appeal to left-libertarians, but a right-libertarian is surely a realist and pragmastist, who knows that political expediency is a necessary and inescapable part of the human condition. All you can do is anticipate and mitigate.
What sayeth you?
AJ
Cheers AJ!
The reason for the deleted comments is that our man Mr Puddlecoat deleted the first comment and re-posted having edited it slightly (which is of course fine).
The subsequent two deleted comments were from me, asking what was going on. When I realised what was going on, I thereafter deleted my own responses.
So if you were wondering why this comments page looks like a car crash, it's 'cos I'm a daft cunt. Or have the capacity to be one.
As Fox News would say..."YOU DECIDE!"
"Mr Puddlecoat" ....
More like Pister Muddlecote, tonight, apparently.
That booze-up must have hit him hard. :-)
AJ
My view on the points raised by Mr P. is that libertarianism is not an ideology but a collection of disprate philosophies and ideas.
There's no hard and fast answer...it is possible to apply a very generous brush to the canvas and cover a good deal of the spectrum.
There's no reason why libertarianism can't be expressed within a party that becomes popular with the electorate, without selling out or watering down.
I can see left wing social liberals liking us, and moving away from their authoritarian ideals to more left libertarian ones. I can also see Tories liking us, and coming over to us, on account of disliking authoritarian, pious and repressive aspects to the Tory Party.
We can easily be mass appeal. I think the LPUK ought to be looking at becoming a successful party, and this is more than possible given the fact that the electoral system is almost certain to change to PR in the coming years.
Once that happens, the world is our oyster.
:Sigh:
So young, yet such a visionary.
Come down to Leeds next time I'm there. We need to have beer.
AJ
Give me a little notice, my man, and you're on.
But let's get one thing straight.
I'm not 'your man'. Not, at least until the 3rd date.
I once innocently used that expression in the wrong way, in the wrong club in the west end.
The night air was fresh and bracing... lol.
AJ
FFS, how many times, 'Heaven' has a rainbow outside the front door for a reason!
Do tell us more about your little 'misunderstanding', though...sounds rather amusing!
I should imagine it wasn't just the night air that was bracing - or at least braced...
I only stumbled on Libertarianism by accident - blame B&D.
I liked their blog and read what they said. It gradually emerged that they were Libertarian so I read up on it and read more blogs.
It's great because it could be very inclusive and embrace left and right philosophies but the basic problem is education.
People just don't know about it as an option.
Maybe blogging about it will help...
Also - and this is not meant to trivialise debate - it's the branding.
1) Libertarian sounds a bit like Liberal to a lot of people and they confuse the two names - as well as the two concepts.
2) LPUK looks a bit like UKIP.
Really, some people are that easily confused.
Absolutely Steve - but my view is that it has to be one step removed, at least, from political rhetoric.
I mean, talk about eyes glazing over. I wouldn't be surprised if politics had become the leading cause of glaucoma in the last 20 years.
Weave it into the narrative that your blog would have with or without El-Puck and libertarianism. Such as you very much do today, Steve.
Express the benefits of free individual choice, but also the positive implications of having to put in the thought that choice requires.
People find comfort in the herd, and we have to overcome that.
Fuck knows how. The easiest people to instill confidence of our ideas in are the educated, who are naturally independently minded. And yet the working and under classes are big enough that an 'elitism' label could hamper us good and proper.
As far as the proles are concerned, see Clarkson & Co with their 'leave us alone Gordon' piece on Top Gear. He's a secret weapon. Read his columns in The Sun for more.
AJ
Re. the other thing, well his b/f chased me away and then went back to bitch about what a dog I am.. ;-)
AJ
Steve - re the party name & acronym... what about the Just Fucking Leave us Alone Please party.
JFLAP for short.
AJ
Give me a shout when you're having that beer.
AJ: That might appeal to left-libertarians, but a right-libertarian is surely a realist and pragmastist, who knows that political expediency is a necessary and inescapable part of the human condition. All you can do is anticipate and mitigate.
What sayeth you?
OK. Well, as someone who is liberal (ie properly liberal, nut pretend like the Lib Dems), it would not sit well with me if a party extolling a libertarian agenda were to follow the same truth-bending way of doing things as other parties.
This is why it appears to be a difficult situation that LPUK face IMO.
To get through the barriers placed in front of libertarianism, a certain amount of spin (or lying) is going to be necessary. But my understanding of libertarianism would be that such things are anathema to the whole concept in itself.
That being that politicans should be perfectly open about their policies, no hidden agenda, and that every elector is perfectly clear about not just what they are voting for, but also that they are free to vote on the basis of their true feelings and not to satisfy a morality which has been implanted in them by those who they would identify as 'knowledgeable'.
I think I'm going to have to blog this myself tomorrow as it's hard to explain.
And AJ, the hangover is fine, I was watching a film with Mrs P ... it keeps her sweet for the other 6 days of the week. ;-)
It's no good taking an anarcho-capitalist line on everything - smash the state, fuck everyone, privatise every last scrap of services, fuck Europe etc
JD: Interesting you should day that, as, like AJ touched on, I cannot for the life of me see why libertarianism as a concept should be viewed as exclusively right of centre. Not as I understand it anyway.
There is no reason why there couldn't be two or three 'libertarian' parties in the UK representing left, right, and centre politics.
The freedom of the individual and less state control is the only consideration IMO. Or have I got that wrong? ;-)
I know where you're coming from, but let's have a look at the popular profiles of politicians who have spoken their minds, shall we?
Claire Short, Robin Cooke, Geoffrey Howe, Michael Heseltine, Dennis Skinner, Norman Tebbit, John Redwood, Ken Livingstone, Derek Hatton, George Galloway, Enoch Powell.
I need to stop now as I was trying to keep the list balanced, and all I have left is about 100 more lefties.
As the iron lady would have said if she had pig-flu:
This ladle's not for turnip.
AJ
Dick, you're definitely gonna be stuffed into a back office unless you get with the programme ;-)
AJ
John Demetriou: I am concerned that the LPUK is turning into a hard line, closetted party with a tiny scope for public appeal. We need to be targetting not just small pockets of people, but Tories, lefties, centrists, Lib Dems, academics, housewives, people from the countryside, the burbs, the cities...pretty much everyone.
You're right, of course.
@Dick P: as I said elsewhere: you can't have social freedoms without economic freedoms. Left libertarians say "you can have these (social) freedoms but not those (economic) freedoms." How is that libertarian?
Ah, Obo, the great liberal debate!
Hayek said (although not the first as far as I know) that money is freedom. That is, the freedom to choose how to spend one's money is the right to choose what one does and how one does it.
True. However...
That does not have to mean total economic freedom. I am an economic liberal, but realise that certain restraints have to be in place. On the market to stop excess and exploitation for instance (ie insider trading) and on the public through taxes for beneficial services, such as roads and security.
That is me as a fairly centrist libertarian.
However economic freedom is the other side of the coin to social freedom. Chomsky certainly has libertarian attributes when he argues against big state and its control. Yet he does not also argue for the restriction of the state to such an extent that no tax is paid and the markets are not regulated.
The best way I can describe it is the liberal wing of the Democrats. The Dems believe in social freedom and economic restraint. The people more to the right of that party start falling into the libertarian spectrum.
The Republicans on the other hand want social restraint and economic freedom. Their libs start heading in the direction you wish to see of total freedom in both.
One side wants more social freedom than tradidtional right and one side wants more economic freedom that the traditional left. They are simply approaching the same thing from different angles.
Just to say about libertarian as a word. I'm sure people know but as it has been raised. The term was always liberal until the rise of the socialist left, who then took the term liberal and redefined its freedom as more a freedom from the landowner kind of way. Because of this the term classical liberal was coined, but libertarian was further used to create more distance.
The term has never sat well. However the term liberal has been totally hijacked in the UK (the very title Liberal and Social Democrats is hilarious) and in America is positively evil.
Good points. I think the leadership of the party is currently pretty weak and definately very cliquish. I joined with great expectations but have been consistently disappointed by the lack of vision and the "do it yourself" approach when any criticism of debate is volunteered.
Even when I've offered practical help I've been told basically to think of my own thing to do and then go and do it all by myself. This is hopeless for a serious political party.
Ron,
the more we talk about this, here and on El Pucko, we find that more and more people are standing up and saying 'You know what, I think that as well'. Yet we seem to be treated like some kind of revolutionaries who should be ignored.
All we want is constructive debate to move the party forward in a way we all want, rather than some.
The classic so far is that IPJ is on holiday. Because he has a life. A life that happens to need a hokiday right on the cusp of a by-election.
Can you ever see any leader of any other party doing this? Neither can I.
"Mr B and I do not state opinion as though fact; as though we are 100% correct, 100% of the time and our interlocutors axiomatically wrong."
Are you sure about that? Because you seem to think you have all the answers about what LPUK should be and everyone else is wrong.
Just because you're the LibDems of libertarianism doesn't mean you're correct.
"Are you sure about that? Because you seem to think you have all the answers about what LPUK should be and everyone else is wrong."
Where have I said everyone else is wrong? Show me some proof of that, if you can. I have not said everyone else is wrong at all, merely setting forth my perspective and my idea on how things should progress.
It's called having an opinion. Not the answers. Hence my comment about not being 100% right, and everyone else axiomatically wrong.
I suggest you're sore because our vision of libertarianism is somewhat different to your own.
This is all fine - just argue your point, if you have the confidence and courage of your own convictions. Would certainly make a refreshing change from the cheeky one liners and little knocks you've been offering up lately. Much to my growing sense of boredom.
Post a Comment