LPUK: How to start fighting elections
The Henley by-election has been and gone. I didn’t comment on the time because comment seemed superfluous. Labour lost – badly – in an area where they just weren’t going to win. Yeah, the extent of the defeat was embarrassing, but hardly surprising given the nadir Labour has sunk to. The only really noteworthy aspect of the Henley by-election was the fact that it coincided quite neatly with the first anniversary of Gordon Brown. That was handy timing - happy anniversary, Gordo!
What did surprise me was the absence of the UK Libertarian Party in the list of candidates. As I commented a few weeks ago, the party was gearing up to the first electoral test. However, they ended up not running. After a minimal amount of research I soon learnt the reason from the candidate himself:
Having spent the last week campaigning from Thame to Henley, it's become apparent to me how much money, and how many people, the Westminster parties are throwing at this election. As a relatively new entrant to British political life, the Libertarian Party simply doesn't currently have the resources needed to compete in such a febrile environment.It is a valid reason – there is a real bias against small parties in the British political and electoral systems. But it can’t be an excuse that the party can use in perpetuity – after all, if they wish to become a force to be reckoned with in British politics, then at some point they need to stand up and start fighting. The question is, how exactly can they do that?
Recent British political history offers no real examples. The formation of the SDP was aided greatly by the being formed by senior Labour officials and former Cabinet Ministers. From day one, they had MPs. They also went into an alliance with the Liberals, giving them further parliamentary coverage and electoral clout. Neither option seems open to LPUK. Sure, it would be great publicity wise if someone like David Davis was to join the party, but I somehow doubt that is about to happen. Likewise, the party ideologically is not just going to rush into an alliance with another party. After all, the party is ideologically opposed to the statist inclinations of the major/more established parties, and equally, if all the party was about is allying itself with another party, why the hell would the party have been formed in the first place?
Likewise, the reasonably successful (in terms of votes gained in a short space of time) Referendum Party from way back in 1997 is not a great example for LPUK to use. After all, the party was financially backed to a massive extent by James Goldsmith. Unless I have missed a trick, there are no billionaires waiting in the wings to fund the Libertarian Party. Which may be a good thing. It forces the party to be more democratic and prevents it from falling under the sway of the massive egos of the wealthy.
The demise of the Referendum Party increased the votes for another party that could be used as an example for the LPUK – UKIP. Yet UKIP is not a great example of how a small party can start influencing British politics. Mired in on/off internal conflicts and falling prey to rampant egotists like Kilroy-Silk, the party’s only real representation in government (outside of the EU) has been through undemocratic means such as the defection of Lords and the defection of an MP. After 15 years in the political game, the party is still waiting for a serious electoral breakthrough.
Which means that the Libertarian Party of the UK will have to find a new way of breaking through and becoming a political force in this country. And this probably comes down to two main things: firstly, finding money, and then working out how (or more importantly where) to spend it.
Make no mistake about it – money is crucial to getting anywhere in modern politics. Whilst the party will have to work very hard to avoid taking donations or falling foul of their own rigorous rules of what they can and can’t use/take once in power, finding funds is doing to be crucial. Over in the US, the campaigns of Barack Obama and (in particular) Howard Dean have shown how just how much money can be gathered if the internet is used effectively as a fundraising tool.
Therefore, the party needs to (shamelessly) ask for donations wherever possible. Part of this may be to encourage the blogs and websites of party allies to carry a link allowing donations to be made*. Part of this is the party promoting itself wherever possible – on their website, on every epistle the party sends out etc. It is quite telling that the LPUK website front page does not carry a donate button, merely a link for donations hidden away in the sidebar.
It will be ghastly, it will make the party look desperate for funds (although I am guessing it is desperate to get some coffers in the war chest). However the golden rule should be this – everywhere and every time the party makes their case or tries to sell their political vision, there should be a button (or at the very least a link) allowing people to donate – even if they don’t want to commit to joining the party. Yes, these donations will need to be checked to make sure they are legal and do not fall foul of any rules – legal or party based. But unless the party asks for money wherever and whenever possible, it will not get the (unfortunately) large sums of money required to fight elections in this country.
Selling the vision is part of the process of fighting elections. Getting the money to fight for the vision is much less pleasant but just as essential.
Once the party has some money to fight, it is just as essential that the party decides where to fight. Even the large parties in this country struggle to field credible campaigns across the country. It is just not feasible for a small party to do so. And if they try to fight every campaign going, not only will they lose, they will build up a reputation for standing and losing in elections. The party should instead choose which areas they are most likely to get decent results in, and then start raising their profile in those areas.
Some areas suggest themselves quite easily, although research would be necessary to back up the slightly clichéd views about to be expressed. In affluent areas, the Income Tax policy should go down very well. In student areas, a Libertarian view on drugs should prove to be a vote winner. And in areas with a strong regional identity, the concept of a weaker Central government should get some support. Once the money has been made and the areas identified, then a marker could be set in the sand as to when the LPUK should start to fight elections in these target areas. Whilst it seems a long way away, the 2010 General Election should be a good target. After all, the amount of time required to raise funds, identify target constituencies and then raise the party profile in those areas should not be underestimated.
The UK Libertarian Party is in an interesting position, and arguably at a crossroads. As the party experience in Henley shows, it is in a position where it can adhere to the cliché of a small party and waste whatever resources are available by squandering their funds on deposits in constituencies where they can never win. Or it could become the model of how a small party can get to the position where it can get electoral success quickly and efficiently. If the party doesn’t have the money or spends it in the wrong area, then it will never win elections. But if it thinks in a politically savvy way then maybe, just maybe, it can start to have an electoral (and therefore political) breakthrough.
*Yep, this blog should carry such a link as well. And it will do when I get round to it.
Labels: Elections, Getting Elected, LPUK
posted by The Nameless Libertarian @ 3:32 pm
9 Comments
9 Comments:
Highly unlikely that that they can ever get anywhere, since in order to gain an electoral foothold, they have to draw support from the Conservatives. So they end up attacking the Tories more than Labour, and in marketing terms generate all sorts of self-defeating animosity and feelings of disloyalty.
Instead, they should become a pressure group within or alongside the Conservative Party (cf 1976-1979). Their argument/philosophy is incontrovertible and internally consistent (cf 1976-1979) and would find a ready acceptance amongst numerous Conservative members - up to cabinet level, hopefully.
Disagree with Jonny. But believe that we need to have a number of targets.
The first is to gain some local foot holds. Ie -- at council level.
And then move from there. You can't run before you can walk.
Jonny,
There is absolutely no way that we would ally with the Tory Party. It is amazing that people just. Don't. Get. Why. We formed a new party: it is because all of the other parties are so despicable and statist that we cannot bring ourselves to vote for them, let alone join them.
Now, there are people like Jackart who believe that being a pressure group within the Tory Party is a better idea. But then, we have had that discussion numerous times and I simply do not think that it's possible (and nor, IIRC, does our host).
We don't have to attack anyone although, if we do, we shall attack every single party without fear or favour. We want to attract libertarians and people who don't yet know they are libertarians.
At the last GE, nearly 60% of the electorate didn't bother to vote. If we can capture even a small percentage of those, we would be rolling.
The Henley by-election taught us several things. Partly it was a money thing: partly it was a readiness thing. We just didn't have the materials ready, and couldn't get them done in time.
We must be ready to go to the presses with leaflets, etc. as soon as a by-election is called. We didn't have these, and we didn't have the time to sort them out: we are all working full-time, remember.
Yes, it's a good analysis, TNO. But you have missed one crucial thing: we need members who are willing not only to talk about things, but to actually pitch in and actively help.
DK
DK,
I have the highest respect for you, your party's aims, and its philosophy. I certainly understand why you despair of so many leading Tories. But I still think I'm right: you won't get anywhere without first taking over the soul of the Conservative party, which is where most libertarian voters currently reside.
I speak as a adman, and one who has successfully launched challenger brands into established markets. I'm just being practical. Even Steve Jobs needed to come back to Apple to complete the NeXt revolution.
But good luck, anyway.
J
Jonny,
The soul of the Conservative party is fundamentally not Libertarian. Libertarians may currently reside there, but it is purely because the Tories are less odious than Labour. The Tories are still statist, just less so than Labour.
You talk of self-defeating animosity and feelings of disloyalty, but I don't really see what you are getting at. The Libertarian Party has no loyalty to the Tory party, and would well be within their rights to feel some animosity to that party. Don't mistake the natural Libertarian hatred of Gordon Brown for a grudging endorsement of the Tories - there are some clear ideological differences between LPUK and the Tories that cannot be overcome.
TNO
TNO,
My point is simply that by attacking the Tory party brand - and doing so quite viciously on occasion - you also implicitly attack those who have voted for that brand in the past. People resent those who attack their past brand choices. That's no way to build a mass movement of ex-Conservatives.
Sadly, in a modern mass 'democracy', the laws of marketing are very much in control of the process (particularly when the state broadcaster controls so much of the agenda).
New Labour was and is nothing but marketing. It worked, for 10 years, because people simply aren't as interested in politics as we are. They didn't notice the disaster that has been building.
I believe this country is absolutely ripe for a Libertarian revolution; that without it, we're finished. But you will not break the two party system with your current approach. You could, however, start making more of the Conservative party think like you do.
Just ask John Redwood and David Davis.
J
Jonny,
I understand where you are coming from and I do understand the importance of marketing in the modern era. However, I do not see the Tory party as being a home for Libertarians.
I've been a member of the Tories, I have proactively campaigned for them in the run-up to the 2005 General Election. I understand how the party works, and what the vested interests are within that party. The party, through the very nature of the members, is naturally conservative with a small "c". It sounds like a cliche, but it is true - they just don't like change. A lot of them are harking on about a past that is dead and gone. They simply will not go for a radical Libertarian agenda.
It was Cameron's Toynbee Tories that forced me out of the party; now I see that would have happened anyway. As a Libertarian, the Tories simply do not represent what I believe in. Their sales pitch - we are not as bad as the other lot - is not enough to win my support.
And as an aside, the two examples you cite are interesting. Both are arguably ideologically sound politicians. Yet look at where they are within the party - one is sidelined, one had to resign from the Commons to fight for what he believes in.
I wish you (and others like you) all the best in converting the Tory party into a more Libertarian beast. From my first hand experience, that will simply never happen.
TNO
TNO,
That's very interesting, if a tad depressing. I cut my political teeth as a teenager in the late 1970s, when there was a real libertarian thrill in the air and an opposition leader with the guts and integrity to carry the ideas through (albeit with a lot more ducking and diving than is generally remembered today). By the time we'd got to the mid-Eighties I was practising what I'd preached, running a company and employing lots of people; since then I've only observed politics from a distance.
But we can't ignore marketing, because if we do we'll all lose. There are ways and means by which the Libertarian Party can influence events - attaining thought leadership, as the current cliché goes – without alienating its core target audience of Conservative voters. (I assume you're looking for real change, rather than political power for yourselves, because I really don't believe you'll get elected).
There has to be a way to square the circle, or we might as well just give up. After all, in another twenty years the combined effects of the BBC, our social engineering education system, and the EU will have removed any will to do otherwise.
J
But we can't ignore marketing, because if we do we'll all lose. There are ways and means by which the Libertarian Party can influence events - attaining thought leadership, as the current cliché goes – without alienating its core target audience of Conservative voters. (I assume you're looking for real change, rather than political power for yourselves, because I really don't believe you'll get elected).
Oh, I am looking for real change. It doesn’t matter who is in political power for me, as long as Libertarian policies are implemented. However, this is simply not going to happen through the Conservative party.
Also, LPUK will not be looking to alienate Conservative voters; rather, it will be looking to take them away from the Tories. And from Labour, the Lib Dems, UKIP etc. Yes, part of that process will involve criticising the Tory party (and God knows the Toynbee Tory party needs criticising) but the way the party positions itself is crucial. It shouldn’t be directly attacking the Tory party, but rather pointing out the limitations of that party before offering a real political alternative.
In many respects it is staggering that a party like the Tories, who are so deeply mired in the status quo and who are so innately conservative, are able to claim to be the Libertarian alternative in this country. But until the inception of LPUK, they were. However, they are no longer the Libertarian option. Now we have a Libertarian party.
I don’t doubt for a second that it will be very difficult for LPUK to get elected and to get into a position of power. However, these difficulties should not stop the party from trying. And Libertarians should not have to compromise by going with the bloated, statist and deeply conservative Tory party.
TNO
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home