British Politics, Libertarians and LPUK
This post will be long; for that I offer a warning, but no apology.
I haven’t been a member of LPUK for about a month now, and after Anna Raccoon’s devastating post on that party’s current leader, it seems unlikely I will be again. Personal responsibility is crucial to almost every successful formulation of libertarianism, but according to Raccoon’s post, the current leader of LPUK is utterly irresponsible. More than a bit of a problem, I would argue.
Of course there may be those who argue that I’m judging based on only one side of what will probably be a vicious argument. But the facts presented in the post fit the facts as I have observed them, and the whole post has more than a ring of truth to it. And it is a thoroughly depressing truth.
LPUK now appear to have two choices. Either they can ditch Withers and elect a new leader (Christ knows who, and doing so would enhance the perception of a party in crisis) or they can keep him on, and become increasingly like a version of Veritas without the unique selling point of having a celebrity as leader. Neither fate is particularly edifying; it is more than possible to see the Libertarian Party of the UK as entering terminal decline.
But there’s another reason why I don’t much care about hearing both sides of the story. And it’s this: the accusations about Withers are just the icing on the cake for me. The reality is that it is easy for LPUK to enter terminal decline, and easy for it to wink out of existence. And the reason for this is simple – they have made startlingly little progress since they were formed. The party, when it has contested elections, has done beyond poorly. And this is a crucial, debilitating problem. If you can’t credibly contest elections, then the media won’t care about you. If the media doesn’t care about you, you can’t win elections. And so the vicious circle continues, and LPUK remains a largely virtual entity, incapable of the sort of practical action needed to make a genuine political impact in our deeply flawed democracy.
In fact, LPUK are a standing rebuke to those who wax lyrical about the importance of the internet in modern politics. The internet has a role to play, for sure. But if your party was formed, largely managed and supported through the internet, then you have a problem. In a constituency based electoral system such as ours, you need to have constituency organisations that are building support across years, doing the endless (and endlessly tedious) work of canvassing on rainy Saturday mornings. If you are largely an internet organisation, you don’t have that. In fact, the internet becomes as much a virtual prison as it does a virtual tool. After several years in existence, LPUK have remarkably little to show for their efforts. And for all the talk of a resurgence under Withers (a resurgence surely dead in the water now, if it ever truly existed) the party has a mountain to climb, and seemingly precious little resources to allow it to do so in order to get anywhere. The odds were stacked against the party before this scandal (if we can call something a scandal that precious few people in this country will really care about). Now proper political influence seems further away than ever before.
There will be some who will crow over my acceptance that LPUK are not going to go anywhere; the sort of libertarians who have always argued for entryism into the main political parties now have every right to say “I told you so”. Except their victory is pyrrhic, and their laughter hollow. Because there is no natural home in British politics for the genuinely libertarian.
Anyone who argues that libertarians have a natural home in one of the main parties (by which I mean a party larger than LPUK; a pretty minimal hurdle to overcome) is simply wrong. We can ignore anyone who says that libertarians have a natural home in the Labour party as utterly delusional. The same for anyone who might make the claim that the Greens have something to offer libertarians. Their environmental and economic policies could only ever be implemented through draconian state intervention.
Which takes us to the Tories. So many professed libertarians seem to reside in the Tory party, and I don’t really understand why. The Tories are deeply socially conservative. And there is nothing libertarian about social conservatism. In fact, I have a little litmus test I always use when I think that the Tories are a good idea. I think about whether I could honestly vote for the policies they championed at the last election. Then I think of their National Service plan, and remember why I don’t vote for them.
The same for UKIP. There are some who would make UKIP a libertarian party. Sadly, I think they are in an ineffective minority. And to emphasise that point, I can always remember something like their proposed ban on the burqa to reassure me that they are often little more than the right-wing of the Tories in self-imposed exile.
And the Liberal Democrats? Well, I had hope when Nick Clegg was elected. And it lasted for about five seconds. He’s an apologist for the Tories with, according to his writing in The Orange Book, staunchly Europhile leanings (albeit with a reformist bent). Not an intolerable position, but hardly libertarian either. And his party is fatally flawed in my eyes because, as vast swathes of the party has shown since they gained some real political power, far too much of it is still social democratic, and thus Labour supporters who can’t quite bring themselves to be Labour.
Which leads us back to LPUK. A tiny party that has spent most of its life fighting for survival, rather than for power. And I want to stress this point – the alleged behaviour of Andrew Withers is just the tip of the iceberg. The party is sinking; which is hardly surprising, since it has always struggled to stay afloat.
But whatever. I don’t need to be a member of a political party. In fact, a spell as an independent is very, very appealing. I wish LPUK the very best – and they’re going to need all the goodwill they can get over the coming days, I rather think. But no more money from me; no more links; no more support.
And that’s that. LPUK is done, as far as I’m concerned. Finished.
What’s next?
Labels: Cameron, Clegg, Coalition, Green Party, Labour, Lib Dems, Liberalism, Libertarians, LPUK, Tories, UKIP
21 Comments:
I think that part of the problem has always been that those who have the enthusiasm to go out and canvass don't want to do so utterly in vain—so they swallow their principles and do it for one of the Big Three.
And, of course, your points about the internet are entirely correct.
DK
Canvassing is a pretty thankless task at the best of times - when you don't think it will lead to anything it becomes largely unbearable for many.
Which is one of the many problems with our political system - intervention (or even just participation) in it has now been reduced to handing out leaflets in suburbia on a Saturday for many.
TNL
I've had my issues with LPUK and even with one who comments here but that doesn't mean I don't support their general thrust, even while urging people to ditch parties in the UK.
LPUK was a nice idea and still might be one if they could get the egos sorted out. In terms of electoral acceptance, that's always going to be an issue with the Libertarian brand name, which has been muddied by the opposition.
You had a party which had a professional looking site, speaking of "the rule of law" and then you had the libertarians themselves who, by definition, are independents.
Libertarianism is becoming more crucial as time goes by and the Statists assert their control. You seem to say, NL, that it is better to do this individually and not as a party.
Time will tell.
The LPUK actually had (to me) a surprising number of people who weren't barking mad. It was meeting one or two of them that induced me to join against my better judgement.
Libertarians have a particular difficult with political organisation - as I wrote once, "For a libertarian to accept that he needs to fully engage in the political process, he has to accept that there is more to politics than policy — that who has power is an important thing in its own right. Once you believe that, you are no longer a libertarian." You can't believe what libertarians believe, be sane, and devote your life to politics. The notably-sane LPUK people turned out to have lives and careers and things.
The historically less-mad of the two Libertarian Alliances is also currently close to an acrimonious split. Other fringe groups have similar problems -- the BNP has been held in some kind of order by Nick Griffin for many years, but as he is weakened by legal action, that seems to be falling apart also. Your reference to Veritas is also on point. Fringe electoral politics is entirely a game for nutcases, crooks, and the acutely naive. (Even mainstream politics has a good supply of nutcases and crooks, let it be remembered).
The historically less-mad of the two Libertarian Alliances is also currently close to an acrimonious split. Other fringe groups have similar problems -- the BNP has been held in some kind of order by Nick Griffin for many years, but as he is weakened by legal action, that seems to be falling apart also. Your reference to Veritas is also on point. Fringe electoral politics is entirely a game for nutcases, crooks, and the acutely naive. (Even mainstream politics has a good supply of nutcases and crooks, let it be remembered).
Frankly, that is brilliant. A certain amount comes past my inbox and it confirms this statement above. If the libertarian is a bit volatile, difficult to tame and place inside a party structure, then perhaps the party structure itself needs to alter.
Case in point - there was a Blog group which imploded for a number of reasons but one was the attempt to impose an iron discipline on a disparate bunch of individuals.
A second blog group was formed later and it had no rules and no hierarchy. It worked fine but lost its raison d'etre in the end.
Members concluded that it has run its course. Lessons here or is it necessary to have a formal party which will lose its deposit?
In all honesty I'm not sure whether the message of libertarianism is best communicated through individuals or some sort of a party structure. I am pretty sure that LPUK is dead in the water, though.
I am also sure that, like all small parties, LPUK has its fair share of loons, crooks and the vainglorious. It also has some thoroughly decent people in it, a number of whom I would call friends.
The problem with the party is about the nature of the people who join a tiny, fledgling political organisation - they tend to be idealist (and I'm including myself in this description). So the party ends up in endless debates about policy and ideology (what exactly should the party's position on incest be was one question debated in the forums early on) while the operational side was neglected. There were some organisers, but far too many more armchair ideologues (again, myself included). And the sad fact is that you can have a spiffing new website up, but if you don't have a chance of making an impact in core constituencies, you ain't got a hope of getting media attention or real political influence.
Of course, modern politics is dependent on parties (although I really wish it wasn't) - but it is also based on the dominance of three (or two, really) parties. Look at how long it took the Green party to get a seat in the Commons. UKIP are still trying to figure it out. Which means that the odds were stacked against LPUK even before it turned into a talking shop.
So I don't know what is best for libertarians here in the UK. I know some people who have left the LPUK, I know some who are staying, and some who will rejoin. All I can do is speak for myself - and that's to say that I'm going to be in the outside looking in for a while. Or to be more positive, an independent.
TNL
TNL, the other big problem with "idealist" types is that they find it very hard to compromise on points of ideology in order to agree a common position. The more ideological a party the more likely it is to split into warring factions. The only things that can temporarily arrest this process are a charismatic leader who commands the personal loyalty of the members or a run of political success. When things are going well the different ideological factions all believe that their moment of destiny is at hand, so they work even harder for the success of the party. When things are going badly they turn on each other. So a small party full of ideological individualists is always likely to disintegrate long before it achieves any political success.
Andrew,
The inability of ideologues to form some sort of meaningful consensus is undeniably true, but it is also more than possible to overcome. Just look at the harsh, divisive debates that made up much of the Russian Marxist movement prior to 1917. Didn't stop them from taking over a substantial part of the world.
Likewise, libertarians in the US have combined to make Ron Paul a notable candidate for the presidency - no mean feat. In short, Libertarians can agree.
Which LPUK also shows. I remember the original debates in the forums that were often heated and angry. But the party still managed to agree on certain core policy proposals. The problem isn't so much a failure to agree. It's changing that agreement into meaningful political action.
TNL
Not that it's any of my business but isn't all practical politics founded on compromise? So long as some libertarian-inclined folk are unprepared to compromise, the only option is a small party of absolutists. And this is always vulnerable - as we've seen with left-wing minority parties like the BNP and WRP - to being captured by nutters, narcissists and fantasists.
Where the left are successful is in pulling together coalitions around individual campaigns and issues (occasionally, as with Ken Livingstone's first campaign for Mayor of London).
By way of suggestion - perhaps uncompromising libertarians should look at places where achieving political positions is easy.
I'd like to know what exactly did people expect of the Libertarian Party? Was it supposed to leap fully formed, fully armed like Athena from Zeus? It was always going to take a long time to get anywhere. It was always done in the teeth of what we all knew about the political arithmetic.
For libertarians to involve themselves in politics, there aren't that many options. Forming a party of our own was one of those options, and only those who wish to join other political parties have a reason not to join.
I don't give a fuck about Andrew Withers. He will be gone very soon. What bothers me is that for every party member, there are ten saying 'oh, I was a party member, but it wasn't what I thought it would be' or something along those lines.
Fine. Let the work that was done go to waste. A foundation was dug, and then all the workmen drifted off, apparently because they didn't realise the amount of work that would be required. Libertarians gain nothing from the party going down the toilet, it just puts us back to where we were before.
Simon,
You're right - practical politics does involve compromise, and there was a compromise within the party (for example, I'm not a fan of their immigration policies, but compromised on that). The problem LPUK has is the practical side to practical politics though. There has, for whatever the reason, been precious little engagement with the practical side of winning elections with LPUK.
TNL
Trooper Thompson
And where precisely it the party now? Even ignoring the Withers situation (which should be dealt with swiftly either way) the party is hardly in rude health now, is it? In fact, its chances of making any meaningful impact on British politics even at a local level is nil.
There may well have been some who believed the party would leap, primed and strong, into the political breach and already have MPs and a clear identity in British politics. I was not one of them. You can check through my writings on LPUK if you don't believe me. I have argued that it would take decades to get an MP for the party. That's fine - that's politics in our country.
The problem I have is that the party - despite having been around for years now - is still no closer to that goal. There is no meaningful plan to win seats in place, no organised constituency parties, no clear, electorally attractive PPCs in place. At this rate, the party will drift into the next election just as it did into the last - hopelessly unprepared to fight. And guess what? The first MP will still be decades away, and the party will have a wasted decade behind it.
For all the talk of a resurgence under Withers and about the bright, new, sparkling website, there is precious little to show for years of existence and four party leaders. You talk of throwing foundations away - the party could wink out of existence tomorrow with precious little ceremony and unnoticed by the real political players in this country. I saw one estimate from a party member that there are 7-12 active volunteers in this country! 7-12! Truly the proverbial drop in the ocean.
I don't know what the future holds for libertarians in this country - in fact, I feel pretty depressed about that future. But I am increasingly sure that whatever way we win political influence in this country, it won't be through LPUK.
TNL
TNL,
I understand what you're saying, and if the party dies, then I'm not going to shed a tear, but I still think that it's worth trying to make something of the party, if nothing else as a way for libertarians to know each other. You've said that it would take decades. Well, then, it's still early.
"There is no meaningful plan to win seats in place, no organised constituency parties, no clear, electorally attractive PPCs in place."
Right, but don't you see you have a responsibility in making that happen? A party is a collection of individuals. Anything that gets done is done by individuals. Did you organise a constituency party? Are you putting yourself up as a PPC?
It's like you're hurt that it hasn't worked out well, but I think the main problem is that libertarians haven't really tried that hard. This situation is an opportunity to start again, building on what has been done, which ain't much I know.
Well, yes, it is still early - but the history of the party is measured in years, not weeks or months. And its achievements to date are, as harsh as it may sound, no different to what they would have been had the party been started yesterday. Of course, that would all change tomorrow. But I think I can be forgiven for a certain scepticism about the party's potential to make an impact. When the party started, I reckoned it would take 15 to 20 years for the party to get a seat in Parliament. Today, several years later, that estimate hasn't changed. The party has got nowhere, effectively.
As for setting up a constituency party, nope, not done that. Don't want to be a PPC either (can't imagine many worse fates than being an MP). As I have alluded to in the comments here, I have been an armchair supporter at best. But I make no apologies for that - I have very little spare time and, as DK mentions in the first comment on this post, I don't want to spend it canvassing "utterly in vain".
And yeah, that's the vicious circle for the party. It needs people to canvass to get anywhere, but people are too busy to canvass with little chance of success, so the party doesn't get anywhere, meaning people won't canvass. Identifying the circle is crucial - overcoming it is also essential. On that, though, I (sadly) have no ideas.
And then there's the problem of co-ordination. There is really very little point of me opening a constituency party. I live in west Leeds, in an area that is Labour through and through. It even elected a po-faced, Nu Labour drone at the last election. The party needs to work out where it is most likely to make an impact, and set up constituency parties there. The South East would be the best place to start, IMHO, since a reduction in tax platform there is more likely to hit home than anywhere else in the country.
I'm not hurt that the party hasn't got anywhere, more frustrated. I believe in libertarianism, and I want to see it represented at the highest political levels in this country. But the problems of LPUK may well be insoluble, and so I think our efforts may be best placed elsewhere.
TNL
Some excellent comments above and sometimes it's hard to have perspective, particularly at difficult moments like these.
All small political parties have teething problems and the objective of LPUK is not to try to herd the cats but to give them a place to purr. Only a fool would ever think that a libertarian party can ever win power, and why would we want it?
But the point about the Greens is well made. Without winning much in terms of elections they have influenced the political debate to the extent where we all dance to the tune they wrote.
Libertarians should not give up on LPUK. We have a small but growing team of activists busting with enthusiasm and most of them are very nice people.
That's clever.
http://lpuk.org/2011/04/the-way-forward/
I think Trooper Thompson has a point. Rome wasn't built in a day and new parties, unless they have something about them that makes them immediately newsworthy or a lot of financial backing or both, are inevitably going to struggle to get going long enough for the MSM to notice. UKIP had the ever contentious issue of the EU to make it noticeable, especially when it was sharing the anti-EU limelight with the relatively cashed up Referendum Party. LPUK just doesn't have anything like that going on and has little choice but to take the attitude that it's in a marathon rather than a sprint - and if you look over your shoulder that's the start line a few hundred yards behind you.
LPUK's lack of electoral success is depressing, sure, but the Liberal Democrats (the Australian ones that is, not the illiberal and undemocratic British variety) have been around since 2001 in a country with more frequent elections and have yet to do better than 4% of the vote in a rural by election in 08. Even that was only the first preference vote and since it was lowest they were the first party eliminated. At the federal election last year the handful of candidates for the House of Reps came nowhere and Senate candidates got about a couple of hundred thousand votes, which actually wasn't bad especially with an unlucky draw for ordering on the ballot paper but was still nowhere near enough to get a seat. LPUK might not be doing any better than the LDP once it hits the unripe young age of 10, and of course it might not be here then (but hopefully it will), but we have to face the fact that coming flat nowhere is going to be its lot for a while yet.
Ken,
Thanks for your observations. I clocked The Way Forward when it came out the other day. I think the party has done the right thing when it comes to Mr Withers (whatever the outcome of the internal investigation) and it was good that it moved so promptly to do something. However, I'm still not convinced that the party has a plan to move itself forward more strategically.
I'm intrigued by the comment you make about libertarians not wanting power. Why would they want it? To dismantle the state, or at least strip it right back. I thought that was the point of the party - to contest and (maybe one day) win elections.
Don't get me wrong, there is a place for a dedicated Libertarian pressure group (indeed, that's what I've been thinking about over the past couple of days since I wrote this post). But why make it a party? A party is restrictive by its very nature - most parties do not allow their members to be in other organisations. So by being a party, you are eliminating Libertarian fellow travellers who happen to favour (whatever the reason) being a member of another party. That strikes me as counter-productive if you want to win influence. Yeah, I know the Greens have impacted on public opinion, but as the election of Ms Lucas shows, they also want real power.
But maybe this is the problem at the heart of LPUK - it doesn't know what it wants to be. Hopefully it will sort out its identity, and if it ever does become a tangible political influence as a pressure group or political party, it will get my support.
If, of course...
TNL
Angry Exile,
Couple of points:
1. LPUK was formed during, and partly in response to, one of the most illiberal and draconian governments this country has had to endure in decades. There were no shortage of issues that the party could, and should, have made a fuss about to get attention. ID cards. Increased detention periods. Police gunning down innocents on the tube or in their own homes. For whatever the reason, these potential campaigns sailed right past the party. But they were there.
2. I know that Rome wasn't built in a day, and I've been saying throughout all of my writings on LPUK that this is a project of decades, not days. But my point is that, after several years in existence, the party is still pretty much nowhere. If there were, say, three constituency parties in place ready to fight (and no doubt lose badly) elections, I'd be more convinced that the party is going somewhere. But they aren't. But oh look, there's a new website. With the best will in the world, whoopie-fuck.
The party needs a strategic plan to start building power bases in constituencies where it might one day win. Otherwise, it is whistling its way towards oblivion. I hope it comes up with a strategy, I really do. But after years of not only not getting anywhere but not even trying, you'll have to forgive me if I don't rate its chances of even reaching the level of the Australian Liberal Democrats in 10 years time.
TNL
@ Nameless Libertarian
But why make it a party? A party is restrictive by its very nature - most parties do not allow their members to be in other organisations. So by being a party, you are eliminating Libertarian fellow travellers who happen to favour (whatever the reason) being a member of another party.
Indeed.
But there is kudos for the whole libertarian movement in having a formal libertarian political party, sanctioned by the Electoral Commission, fighting real elections in the real world. Of course there is also a role for pressure groups, think tanks and individual bloggers but a party is useful because politics is run on a party system.
But just because we are a party does not mean that we have to copy the structures and modus operandi of other parties. I think this is one of the areas where the initiators of the party went wrong (we are a party, therefore we must have a Party Leader, exclusive members and a party line on everything) and there is an argument the the Libertarian Party should reinvent itself with more libertarian structures within which to run it.
I should point out that these are my personal opinions (though I do not expect to be subjected to an NCC show trial for expressing them!!!!)
Ken,
Of course - I'll take what you say as your own personal opinions rather than those of the leadership. And it would be remarkably unlibertarian for anyone to frown on you for offering a personal opinion...
I think you're right - the party doesn't have to plough the same furrow as the main parties. Indeed, a more natural, organic growth may be better for the party. That would be a more radical offering than perhaps what has been offered by the party to date. And certainly, given the results and the progress made to date, it may be no bad thing if the party tries something that goes against the grain and is a bit radical. And yeah, a bit more libertarian too.
TNL
I knew Mr Withers when he was 25, when according to him he was a millionaire. At the time he was working as a clerk in a plant company. He left his job on his 25th birthday, ditched his then wife, who he had knocked sink holes in. Then he started his career as a serial con-man. This included, becoming treasurer of the club we were in and managing to get around the 2 signature requirement thus allowing him to access funds. Sounds familiar. I have lots on this scoundrel but it seems he doesn't need my help to hang himself. I would love to contact Anna Raccoon but cant find a contact.Why you guys who paid subs to this party are not going to the police is beyond me.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home