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.

Saving Labour Through PR

Neil Harding, a man known for his lack of original thought and shameless embracing of all the Nu Labour spin that is thrown at him, has turned against Gordon Brown - even to the point of calling him a moron. Fair play, I agree with Neil absolutely. And it really is a sign of the times when someone like Harding turns against the Labour PM so angrily.

However, his solution to the woes of the Labour government leave a lot to be desired.

"If Brown or Labour really want a legacy or a totemic issue to change public opinion then proportional representation is the answer."

Solving the current economic woes of this nation might be a better legacy and way to change public opinion, but there we go. This sentence also cracks me up:

"Robin Cook stated that if Labour fail to change the electoral system while they have the chance that would be it's biggest failure."

Only in the world of Neil Harding is the phrase "Robin Cook stated" a valid reason for doing something, rather than, as it is for the rest of us, a reason to ignore that idea. But Neil does go on and offer other reasons for PR. It is all about being fair, see?

"While Labour may be heading for defeat and are clearly not the choice of the electorate to rule alone, neither really is there any real enthusiasm for the Tories. Do people really want a Tory government with a massive majority when only about 25% of the electorate will vote for them (around 40% of the vote)?"

And:

"If the Tories want more than 50% of the seats in parliament then they should have to win more than 50% of the vote."

Huh. Yeah. See, I don't have any real enthusiasm for a Tory government at the next election - other than them being better than the shower of shits currently running this country. But there is something really skewered about Harding's logic - yes, there is an argument for the Tories having to win 50% of the vote if they want 50% of the seats. But shouldn't the same be said for Labour in the previous three general elections?

In fairness to him, Harding is consistent in his advocating of PR. But I fully expect other Labour supporters to suddenly be converted to Proportional Representation - it is pretty much the only thing that can save them from an electoral kicking the next time we all go to the polls. That is the problem with PR (and one of the main reasons why the Lib Dems consistently advocate it) - it is the refuge of the losers, those who cannot win elections using the existing rules.

There are arguments both for and against the introduction of PR. The fact that Brown has fucked up the chances of Labour winning the next election should not be one of them.

Why NOT to be an MP.

People occasionally* ask me whether I would like to run for Parliament. Others, such as the Moai when I first got to know him, ask me when I am going to run for Parliament. And those people are often surprised when my reply is extremely fucking negative. And then they ask me why.

Well, this story, via Iain Dale, gives a good reason. The House of Commons, and the local party associations, come across as utterly odious institutions. Reading the article, you actually end up wondering why anyone would ever want to go into Parliament.

I have been involved in local politics, and have campaigned for three Tory candidates for Parliament (two actually got elected). I have seen amount of tedious campaigning and events that they have to attend to get into Parliament. I have first hand experience of the dull, self-important and back-biting people who gain positions of influence in local party associations** – those types who have to be appeased to enable selection and re-selection as a candidate for Parliament. And the whole process just leaves me cold. I would find it dull, frustrating and aggravating.

Once you get into the Commons, what great benefits do you gain? You have to keep on campaigning, keep on answering those constituency issues. But you are now part of a hard drinking, backstabbing, vicious old boy’s club – with cliques, pointless archaic rules and cripplingly anti-social hours. An old boy’s club run by bullying, self important whips.

And if your philanthropy is so strong that you still want to endure the constant headache of heading up a local party association and the odious environment of the Commons, then what, precisely, do you do to get your beliefs into policy? You need to be in a senior position in Parliament. So you need to shed everything that may be even slightly controversial, completely restrict your behaviour and interactions with others, and become a policy vacuum rather than a functioning politician or a real person.

Put simply, why would anyone want to be a politician in this country?

Along with a lot of other guff, Plato wrote in The Republic about Philosopher Kings. Now, the concept of a navel gazing philosopher as king of anything other than pontificating fills me with fear. But there is some merit in his assertion that the people who are capable of running a country are actually the people who run the country. The glaring problem with our political system is that anyone who might be vaguely capable of running the country is put off running***.

So the next time you wonder why our ruling class seems to be populated with the image obsessed ideological vacuums or the utterly inhuman then think about Fiona Jones’s tragic story and think about the hoops MPs have to jump through and the compromises they have to make to get to the top. Those who manage to claw their way to the summit of the political game are those incomplete human beings who are not capable of taking on the responsibilities they gain.

*I was going to write often. But that would make me seem big headed. And I would hate that…
**I am not saying everyone in a local party is like this, but some certainly are.
***I am not saying that I am suitable for running the country simply because I am one of the ones put off doing so. For the record, I could run the country. Just very, very badly.