The (False?) Phoenix of LPUK

Over at their website, whoever is running LPUK these days is arguing that the party is rising from the ashes of the scandal and infighting that befell (and damn near destroyed) it earlier this year. They do so in a poorly written, misspelled and completely unsubstantiated post. It does make me wonder who is still supporting that party and precisely why they are doing so, given everything that has happened this year. Still, each to their own, I suppose. But I can't help but think that Libertarian Home represents a far better destination for former LPUK members than whatever hollowed out shell of that party still exists.

On Being a Member of a Political Party

LPUK is dead. Long live LPUK*.

Since leaving (well, not renewing my membership after they failed to let me know my membership had expired) LPUK, I’ve been faintly surprised that I’ve not really missed being part of a political party. And as a result I’ve actually reached the conclusion that not being a member of a party is actually the way forward, for me at least.

It isn’t the cost factor (although the fact that LPUK apparently managed to piss away so much money makes me reluctant to spend my hard earned cash on a membership fee for that particular party) or the fact that no party truly represents my views. Rather, it is that being a member of a political party requires a certain amount of compromise. You have to accept not only that the party won’t perfectly match your ideological views, but also accept the leadership of potentially unpleasant people (seriously, how did anyone remain a member of the Labour party when the ghoulish and utterly odious Brown was leader?) and accept the tactical and strategic mistakes of that leadership. Yeah, I know that some will argue that part of being a party member is assisting that party in trying not to make mistakes in the future at the same time as attempting to adapt it to your own views. However, I reckon that people who believe that can actually happen are both more optimistic and have far more time on their hands than me.

Besides, I’m rather taken with the idea of a political gadfly; someone who zips from issue to issue, explaining their views as they go without having to take and/or defend a party line. Indeed, I’d argue that the pace and diversity of modern politics and that issues that arise from it defy hierarchical and bureaucratic party structures.

Of course, some will answer this by questioning just how I – or anyone else who adopts a similar position – hopes to have any political influence outside of a political party. Put simply, political parties represent the main way politics is done in this country – how can I expect to have any impact without being a member of one? Well, I’ve been the member of a major and a minor political party, and still had no real impact on politics in this country. I’m basically in the same position regardless of whether I’m a member of a party or not; the main difference is not having to shell out my hard earned cash to get a card saying I’m a member. So I’d rather not, if it’s all the same to you.

So party membership; thanks but no thanks. I’ve better things to do with my time and money.

*I’ll warn anyone who still believes LPUK has anything to offer one piece of advice – if it resurfaces with the same team that led it to the brink of destruction you want to avoid it like a particularly virulent and unpleasant plague.

Anyone know what has happened to LPUK?

Not that I want to rejoin or anything - perfectly happy not to be a member of any political party in future - but rather because I'm planning to update my blogroll and if the party has finally gone to political heaven then there's no point in it or its redudnant blog having a link here.

The Strange Death of LPUK...

...and looking to the future.

In a moment of what looks like outstanding petulance from a (former) party chairman, LPUK is felled by its own leadership clique:

Final closure: de-registration papers have been received by the Electoral Commission this morning. When they have been processed, LPUK will cease to be a political party.

And the reason for this? The leadership seems more willing to destroy the party that open the accounts up for a bit of scrutiny. Which is ironic when you consider that one of the reasons why the party was formed was to campaign for more openness in politics.

A word of warning, though, for those people who have been predicting an acrimonious breakdown in the party since its inception: before you start your "I told you so dance", remember that the confusion in the party has been massive over the past few weeks, and in particular over the past few days, so there is every chance that half the party will claim that it is finished while the other half claim it is still a going concern. Clarity is something surely lacking in all aspects of the Libertarian party at the moment. (As if to prove the point, while I was writing this post, there has already been a counter claim that the party is not finished. Way to go, people.)

But if the party is truly dead and gone, then two things are going to happen. FIrstly, they'll be a lot of blame to fling around. Some of it will probably end up heading in the direction of Anna Raccoon and perhaps even blogs like this one, which have been fiercely critical of LPUK of late. That would, of course, be blaming completely the wrong people. Besides, any party that can be felled by a few blogposts really isn't a credible political organisation.

No, the blame lies with a leader who was utterly irresponsible, in particular with the finances of that fragile organisation. It also lies with a chairman who, when faced with serious allegations about the party finances, decided that a vapid, banal report determined to blame just about anyone else other than the leadership clique was the best way to cope with that problem. Ken Ferguson's insider account of the past few weeks is a startling read, and a damning indictment of an incompetent and incapable leadership - and, if I were a senior member of that party,that report would leave me wondering whether a police investigation into the finances would be the best way to move forward.

The second thing that is going to happen is that the supporters of the party who aren't utterly disenchanted with politics after this whole sorry farrago will have to decide what to do next. Joining UKIP isn't a credible answer, in my book - mainly because they aren't a Libertarian party. Likewise, forming a new party is probably not the answer - even if a constitution was put in place to try to stop this sort of thing happening again, a new party would still have the crushing problem of being staffed and led by interested amateurs with other jobs that would make their political efforts, at best, part-time. A party needs paid political professionals, and for that it needs a decent amount of money. That will only come when the issues it represents have been forced into the limelight.

So the best thing the (former) party's supporters can do, in my opinion, is to do everything they can to raise the profile of libertarian (and liberal) issues in this country. Attend things like this, support organisations like this, and contribute to joint ventures like this. Then, when a genuinely liberal alternative has been brought to the attention of a much wider audience than the libertarian wing of the blogging world, it would be time to form another party.

The LPUK Fallout

Let's pause for a moment and look at the LPUK "investigation" into their (former? - there seems to be some confusion on that point) leader, Andrew Withers. The report is available, and it is a startling document in almost every way possible. Startlingly poor, that is. It has all the credibility of Richard Nixon promising that there would be no whitewash in the White House.

For me, a report by a political party into the potential wrong-doings of its leader should (a) challenge the allegations head-on and (b) reach some sort of conclusions. This dunder-headed report struggles to do the first; it utterly fails to do the latter.

Throughout it, there is a sense of incredulity that certain basic things, particularly around finances, have not been done. It also adopts a very aggressive tone towards Anna Raccoon (who decisively dissects the report here), who initially alerted an apparently clueless party to the behaviour of its leader. It also takes time out to have a pop at a former leader*, for no other reason than he happened through no control of his own to become embroiled in this disaster for the party.

But those issues do not represent the biggest problem with this report. That comes with the conclusions - which are little more than a set of potential areas for future investigations. Was there a breach of the Data Protection Act? You fucking well tell me - you did the investigation. Is Anna Raccoon's timeline accurate? Again, you tell me - although quite how you're ever going to reach any conclusions on that point is utterly beyond me given the party's self-confessed ineptitude when it comes to pretty much any bit of admin. And the ongoing lack of clarity around financial issues is terrifying - how could any new members, or former members like myself, ever have any confidence in rejoining the party when we don't have the first clue about where our money would be going?

Now, more than ever, the future of the party hands in the balance. There seems to be a lot of anger from grassroots members, despite the decision by Withers to stand aside. There's going to be a new leader, I hear - with the name Max Andronichuk (who has made the occasional cheer leading comment for LPUK on this blog) being mentioned quite a bit. But it also has been hinted that he is Withers' preferred choice of new leader, which in my eyes (rightly or wrongly) automatically raises a lot of questions - after all, should the party right now be taking the advice of Withers of all people?

Besides, leadership isn't the party's main problem - there is now a substantial credibility gap between what the party initially aspired to (a new, more transparent kind of politics) and what it has offered (the very opposite of transparency). A new leader is the very least of the party's worries; basic financial procedures and some sort of transparency about the way the party conducts its business are far more important. And yeah, it's difficult with volunteers manning the party etc etc ad fucking nauseam. But when it comes to fundamental points like the voluntary financial contributions individuals make to the party, a basic level of professionalism is not too much to ask for, surely?

It is very telling that the party's most noticeable event to date isn't a campaigning or electoral success, but rather an utterly depressing tale of ineptitude and irresponsibility at its very heart.

*Ok, let me declare an interest here - I like Chris Mounsey. He has always been encouraging when it comes to my blogging, and he's a good chap to go for a few beers with. But that's precisely why I feel the report if being utterly pathetic when it deals with him. For all of his flaws, he's open and honest - he has a certain level of integrity that appears to be lacking in the current party leadership. He also - when I last caught up to him face to face at the end of last year - expressed no problems (or "issues") with the end to his time running the party leadership. Quite the opposite, in fact. So the decision to make him, in part, responsible for the scandal that has engulfed (and may yet destroy) the party is yet another alarming lack of judgement in a leadership that has already shown precious little judgement to date.

Towards a Libertarian Union?

Ok, so, following on from my pessimistic post from the other day, what next for UK libertarians? I’m not going to rehash my arguments about why I think LPUK is screwed. What I will point out is this – the members of and advocates for the party who approach a realistic position are those who, like me, would argue that any real success for that party lies in the distant future. And given the constant encroach of statism and its advocates, the question is pertinent – what do libertarians do while waiting for LPUK to get up and running/do if the party disappears?

We can find a clue in the Rally Against Debt. A grassroots campaign started by two UKIP members has grown massively in a very short space of time. Indeed, its growth is something that LPUK could, and perhaps should, be jealous of. Why has it been so successful? In part, it is about topicality. Debts and spending cuts are at the heart of the debate raging in British politics today. But there is another reason. The rally against debt is not party political, and thus it is not exclusive. It can attract people from the Tories, the Liberal Democrats, UKIP, LPUK and independents. Whereas a political party can only really attract those with no other party affiliation, or an affiliation that they are happy to sacrifice. That automatically limits its potential. So topicality and being inclusive rather than exclusive. What sort of organisation could allow for that?

It occurs to me that some sort of Union might be the way forward (or Federation, for those right-wingers who can’t cope with the idea of Unions). An organisation that can offer people membership in tandem with membership of other organisations – just as members of Trade Unions can be (and often are) members of the Labour party. But rather than offering representation in the workplace, this could be an organisation that fights for its members in the pursuit of liberty. As a Federation/Union, it could do things other than fight elections directly. It could offer support to campaigns run by other organisations (like No2ID, the IEA and the Adam Smith Institute) and highlight events like the Rally Against Debt. At the same time, it could run its own campaigns. It could also have spokespersons on crucial issues and topical events – for example, an organisation that might offer Tim Worstall as Economics Spokesperson and Chris Snowdon as Health Spokesperson (or at least debunking the spurious claims of health “experts” spokesperson) would be pretty formidable. And it could do so without demanding they join a particular party. Likewise, it could attempt to attract high-profile libertarian politicians to write for it on occasion.

But where it could be most formidable is through having a dedicated band of volunteers who could work on behalf of libertarian leaning politicians in election campaigns. Politicians like Douglas Carswell, Steve Baker and Dan Hannan. And LPUK, if they ever become credible contenders in elections. On the flipside, it could also campaign against egregiously statist politicians. A host of Libertarian inclined people pounding the streets in Ed Balls' constituency arguing against his re-election could make all the difference, for example. Indeed, the organisation could replicate the influence of the Tea Party in America (albeit without that organisation’s occasional lapses into insanity). Not backing one party or running its own candidates, it could instead offer support to any candidate it perceives to be a champion of liberty.

Of course, it wouldn’t be easily achieved. Getting libertarians is, as numerous people point out, like herding cats. And there would be a need for the organisation to be professional at all times. There’s no point it being a super-swear-blog; candidates should want to be associated with it, rather than embarrassed by it. But a looser organisation than a political party, one more able to choose what battles it fights, might be able to circumvent the inherent anti-small party biases of our political system. A powerful, grassroots pressure group that can make or break candidates in constituencies maybe far more effective than entryism into an existing party or LPUK. The aspiration would be to have a UK based version of the NRA or a major Trade Union (albeit not necessarily with the core beliefs of either). It wouldn’t be easy, but it might just be worth it.

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?

LPUK Civil War

Well, I'd heard whispers that all was not well at LPUK towers, but this post is - for a small party like LPUK - explosive. In fact, my first thought is that it is difficult to see how the party will survive this.

Still, at least it answers this conundrum. No renewal of my party membership. Obviously.

UPDATE: I've got more - a lot more - to say about this. Watch this space.

To LPUK or not to LPUK?

Just had an e-mail* from LPUK to tell me that my membership of that party has expired - apparently an admin error meant they forgot to send out a renewal reminder.

Now, I'm in two minds as to whether I should sign up for another year of membership. On the one hand, they are the only party in this country that I could be a member of, since they are the only party that truly challenges the statist status quo. On the other hand, I don't have the time to be an active supporter and, with the best will in the world, there is little danger of them being credible political contenders in the near future. Plus, I'm not as well-off as I was when I first joined and while the membership fees are far from exorbitant, I still don't have much money to spare. So I'd thought I'd ask the readers of this blog for their thoughts.

It is worth stressing that I'll decide what to do myself pretty much on a whim in the not too distant future: this is not a democratic exercise where I follow whatever the majority of any commenters think I should do. And it is also worth pointing out that I'm not looking for other parties to join; no other party is Libertarian, and you can take your entryism and shove it where the sun don't shine.

But anyway, let me know what you think. If you so wish.

*Actually, it may well have been ages ago on the grounds that the e-mail went to my blogging account which I only infreqently check, and ended up in the spam folder which I almost never check.

The Future of the Libertarian Party

Andrew Withers has published his platform as part of his bid to become leader of the Libertarian Party. There is a lot of good stuff in it, although I don't quite share his faith in constitutions. Such documents do not defend freedom any more than the unwritten constitution we currently have - you only have to look at what the US constitution has been used to justify to see that. However, I think it would be good for the party to have a clear vision in order to develop.

And it also needs a clear plan of attack - something that I feel has been lacking thus far. Whoever the new leader is, they need to ask themselves some crucial questions.

Firstly, where is the party going to stand? Only the major parties are able to stand everywhere; more minor parties (particularly those with limited finances) prioritise certain areas over others. How did Caroline Lucas win in Brighton? Because the Green Party focussed a lot if its resources in an area that was very likely to vote Green in sufficient numbers to return an MP. The Libertarian Party needs to do the same - work out where it can win. Then build up organisations in those areas that can campaign on a weekly basis - getting leaflets out and so on. If I was the party leader, then I would choose 10 constituencies to focus on, based on high party membership in those areas and a general demographic likely to be open to the messages of the party. And then I'd get ready for the long-haul; the party won't win a seat at the next election and, most likely, not the one after. It will be a slow process, and will involve a lot of political grunt work. But that's how seats are won in this country.

Secondly, who is going to stand? The party needs to have credible candidates. Sure, they don't need to be Blair clones - the sort of middle-aged, middle-class PR obsessed clones currently running all three major parties. But they do need to have gravitas, conviction and a certain eloquence. They also have to be personable, since the party can only win locally at the moment - meaning that any candidate needs to be able to win over the locals. Now, I don't believe there are any natural candidates, and those chosen will need the time to develop and hone their skills. But working out who are the most electable candidates to stand is an essential part of the process.

Thirdly, where's the money going to come from? The party members give a lot, but their resources are limited. Instead, the party needs to find a way of getting money not only from existing and new members, but also from other sources. One way I would suggest is to run campaigns and ask people to contribute to those. An example from the past: running a campaign against ID cards could have generated extra revenue - "contribute and we will fight this incursion on our liberties". The money could come to the party - without people necessarily joining.

That said, the single best way to raise money is to get new members. And the best way to do that is through publicity. I don't know how to get that publicity, though - PR is not and never will be my strong point. However, one idea that does spring to mind is appointing/electing spokespersons in key policy areas - people who can fire off curts missives about/deconstructions of statist proposals. I'm not talking about people making policies on the hoof, but rather getting the daily attacks on statism seen throughout the Libertarian blogging world out to the wider media. Start getting attention by showing how the party is different to the mainstream.

Fourthly, who's going to work for the party? Because the party needs to start becoming professional, and that means people working full-time for the party. One of the things that bothers me when I read criticisms of the party is the failure to understand that its leaders run the party and work for a living. But there comes a point when the party needs people working full-time in its interests. Maybe there are people out there who can afford to do so voluntarily; failing that, the party needs to get the resources to employ people. Which goes back to the third question - the party needs to find the money to be able to afford this.

At the risk of being harsh, the party at the moment is the preserve of interested amateurs. Unfortunately, in the era of the professional politician and the 24/7 news cycle, that simply isn't going to work. The party needs to become more professional, more focussed and more competitive if it wants to move up to the next political level. And that involves not just ideological strength, but also organisational and strategic strength.

Disgruntled Lib Dem Supporters

It seems that Liberal Democrats are finding out the downside to power, and don't like it one bit:

Nick Clegg is suffering a fierce public backlash over the coalition's VAT rise, with almost half of Liberal Democrat supporters saying the tax U-turn makes them more likely to desert the party.

A YouGov/Brand Democracy survey, which will alarm already restive Lib Dem MPs, shows 48% of those who voted Lib Dem at the election are now less inclined to back them again as a direct result of the increase in VAT from 17.5% to 20%.

Well, I voted Lib Dem at the last election (lack of a Libertarian candidate y'see) and I'm not a big fan of the VAT rise. I understand the logic behind it, and I can understand why they did it - had I been in a similar position, though, I'd have favoured spending cuts every time over tax rises. I can also understand how some Lib Dem voters might feel betrayed - Clegg and Co were very adamant on where they stood on a VAT rise, but in power they have done the exact opposite of what they campaigned for. Yet for any seasoned political observer, a newly empowered politician u-turning is the very definition of plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

As for disgruntled Liberal Democrat voters, well, there is no real point in changing their support to one of the other main parties. After all, the Tories are the dominant power in the coalition that introduced the VAT increase, while the Labour party are the people who made the VAT increase and all the spending cuts pretty much inevitable with their idiotic, spendaholic policies. So the choice is either for Lib Dem voters to stay put, or look to one of the minor parties for a better deal. And if there are Lib Dem voters looking for a party committed to lower taxes and greater freedom within this country, then there is one obvious smaller party that they could transfer their allegiance to...

Who to Vote For?

So, the election is coming. And the question for anyone who doesn’t blindly follow a party without thinking is who to vote for.

Of course, ideally I’d be able to vote for the party I am a member of – the Libertarian Party. But that party is still very much a work in progress, and realistically a lack of candidates means I won’t be voting for them at this election. Which leaves me in the very unedifying and utterly depressing position of trying to figure out which of the useless main parties should get my vote.

Now, I don’t expect one party to absolutely represent my views. I don’t agree with everything that the Libertarian Party says or does. A certain level of pragmatism and compromise is required if anyone wants to be a supporter, let alone a member, of a political party. The same is true of voting. You can’t expect the party you vote for to represent you in every possible way.

Yet I feel so detached from all the parties vying for my vote that it seems next to impossible to choose who should get my vote. Each party appears to be craptacular in its own way. To break it down a bit:

The Labour Party: Well, voting Labour is moronic, as I've explained before.

The Tories: Despite being an ex-member of this party, I can’t see what the Tories actually stand for. Other than not being Labour. And when you throw in their tendency to drift towards social conservatism, it becomes very difficult to rationalize giving them my vote with being a Libertarian.

The Liberal Democrats: They have the most misleading name in history, since they are neither liberal nor democratic. And for every commitment they make to liberty (such as opposing ID cards), there is a corresponding drift towards pathetic left-wing, bash-the-bankers rhetoric. Besides, any party that contains social democratic choppers such as Vince Cable and Simon Hughes is not worth considering for more than about 13 seconds.

UKIP: Despite occasionally posturing as a libertarian party, UKIP come across (despite a handful of reasonable members) as a bunch of Tories rejected by their natural party for having a bee in their bonnet about Europe. Don’t get me wrong, I have no issue with their basic policy on Europe. But I struggle with ideas like banning the burka. It is the sort of mindless attempt at populism that completely undermines any rhetoric about being a party of freedom.

The Green Party: Yeah, because I can stomach the Green Party’s mix of socialism and reactionary politics without wanting to chunder. Oh, wait…

The English Democrats: As far as I can see, this lot are like UKIP, but 50% less professional and 75% more loopy. So that’s a no, then.

The BNP: Given I am not a nationalist, socialist or racist, this bag of simian misfits is the worst of all the options. Voting Labour is moronic; voting for the BNP is repugnant and moronic.

So where does that leave me? On the one hand, I could vote for the person I believe would be best able to represent the issues in my constituency. But I’m not planning to live here in the long-term, and I would hate to have a vote for a competent Tory candidate, for example, being construed as a vote for the utterly incompetent and lacklustre Tory leadership.

For the first time ever, I find myself in a position where I don’t know who to vote for. Maybe that will change in the run-up to the election, and one of the parties listed above will inspire with their campaign. But as things stand, that seems about as likely as Gordon Brown stepping down from his job tomorrow, and admitting that he just wasn’t up to it. And I keep on coming back to the option of spoiling my ballot paper. Hell, I’ve even worked out how I would do it – drawing a box at the bottom of the ballot paper and writing “none of the above” next to it – and giving that option the dubious benefit of a wasted vote.

DK has produced a round-up of the best of the Libertarian blogging of the past week (or so), and it is well worth a gander. Hopefully it will become something of regular feature...

LPUK: A New Leader

So, the Libertarian Party has a new leader - Mr Chris Mounsey. Many of you will probably better know him by his blogging alias... Now, some might worry about having a leader who uses the occasional cuss word in some of his blog posts. I personally think DK will make a fantastic leader. He is one of the founding members of the party, and he has travelled the country (often at his own expense) spreading the Libertarian message. He is eloquent and passionate about the cause, and that is to be valued as the party looks to grow its base and become a credible force in British politics.

It is also work giving a tip of the hat to outgoing leader Ian Parker-Joseph. I remember when LPUK was noting more than a message board on the internet. The fact that it did not die at birth and has become both a party capable of contesting elections is something that happened under the leadership of Ian Parker-Joseph. And it is always worth keeping in mind that the UK's Libertarian party is not like the larger political parties. Those who run the Libertarian Party do so whilst holding down other jobs and having to deal with a whole host of other commitments. Leading a political party is massive challenge even for paid political professionals; the fact that the Libertarian party has managed to consolidate itself as much as it has done is a testament to the hard work of the likes of Ian PJ.

But anyway, onwards and upwards. I look forward to seeing what plans the new leader has...

Cameron's Questions

Apparently, Cameron's speech was trying to answer three questions: why us, why now and why me? No doubt Cameron managed to do a sterling job in his speech of dealing with these questions, but I have my own answers. That, possibly, are a little bit more cynical.

Why us?

Unfortunately, there isn't anyone else. Quite simply, just the Tories can possibly replace Labour. The Libertarian Party, UKIP, the Greens - even the Liberal Democrats - are crippled by the nature of the two party system and are simply not able to transform themselves into a likely contender to replace Labour as the government. The Tories aren't in a position to win for any other reason than the pendulum that swings between the two parties in our two party system is finally swinging back towards them.

Why now?

For two reasons. Firstly, the whole of the Nu Labour project was a massive confidence trick. It had no idea about basic economics, and its leaders took as much money as they could from the people to fund projects they quite simply could not afford. All the talk about increasing spending was actually about taking risks that the government could not fund and therefore could not afford to take. Now that confidence trick has been rumbled. All the prophecies about the government not leaving enough for a rainy day have been shown to be 100% true. The Labour party built two election victories on a fraud in the economy. They were caught out. The damage they have done to a now near bankrupt country is plain for all to see. As a result, they are about as popular as smallpox. That's one of the reasons why now is the time of the Tories; everyone hates the fucking government.

And on top of that, the Labour party have chosen perhaps the worst of their Trinity of Evil (Brown, Harman, Balls) to serve as Prime Minister. Despite him not winning any sort of election to become Prime Minister. Despite him having all of the personal warmth of a particularly nasty ice age. And despite him consistently showing in the polls that the people of this country that the people in this country would rather have a over-ripe turd in a suit as Prime Minister than the "Right" "Honourable" Gordon Brown.

Why now? Labour lied to the public for 10 years, bankrupted the economy, and made a fat, misanthropic puff adder Prime Minister. The surge towards the Tories isn't about how much people love that party. Rather, it is about their determination to get the hell away from Labour before they accidentally launch nuclear weapons against the British people and thus complete their task of utterly shafting the United Kingdom for decades to come.

Why me?

Well, you gave a better speech than David Davis a few years ago, Davey Boy. Simple as that. It meant the Davis campaign for leadership floundered, and you became the favourite. Had that not happened, then Davis would be leader now and you would be Shadow Education Secretary or something. Pure bloody chance made Cameron Tory leader. Nowt more than that.

And there is nothing historical about the Tories standing poised to be the next government; there is nothing particularly exciting about it either. The fact that they have come back from the political wilderness owes far more to the egregious incompetence of the Labour party than anything else. People want the Tories now simply because they are the only party in a position to replace the hated Labour government. Put very simply, this is the 1997 election in reverse.

What's the Best Result for Libertarians at the Next General Election?

Whatever happens next year, the General Election will not see a Libertarian - or even a Libertarian leaning - party in power in this country. Whilst the Libertarian party will fight some seats, it will have to focus on simply achieving a modicum of electoral success rather than setting its sight on power. A Libertarian government will hopefully happen one day; as it stands, that day is still far, far away. So the question has to be put - what would be the best result for UK Libertarians in the 2010 General Election?

Obviously, a continuation of the Labour government would be a disaster; not just for Libertarians, but for the country as a whole. Labour have bankrupted us, undermined our troops fighting in hostile environments, and treated civil liberties as a problem that needs to be legislated out of existence. Labour have been like a virulent wasting disease for the UK; they will leave our country as a fraction of its former self, and in dire need of radical reform to make it healthy again. No, more from the Labour party is an utterly horrific idea.

There are, of course, "Libertarian" Tories who will tell you that the best bet is to hope the Tories will get in. Whilst I dare say that the Tories may increase economic freedom a little if they win power after the next election, I can't see them being that economically radical. And everything indicates that any future Tory administration will be just as socially conservative as previous Tory administrations. The Tories may increase your economic freedom, but they will have no qualms about sitting in judgment over how you live socially and what your moral beliefs are - you can look at pretty much any pronouncement from IDS to illustrate this. Once again, it is worth noting that the Tories are not Libertarian, and it is naive to expect them to behave in a Libertarian way.

Finally we have the Liberal Democrats. Of course, they're not going to be able to form a government after the next election, but even if they could, a Libertarian can't hope for a Lib Dem victory. Their curious mix of right and left-wing policies always leads to the conclusion that the Liberal Democrats are political gadflies, constantly trying to triangulate between the other two main parties. And any close analysis of their politics shows them to be neither Liberal or Democratic.

Therefore, none of the above would the most appropriate choice for a Libertarian looking for the best victor at the next General Election. Unfortunately, one of those parties will form the next government. Or will have to share power with another of those parties.

Which is what I reckon would be the best result for a Libertarian after the next General Election; a coalition government. Preferably between the Tories and the Liberal Democrats. Sure, a coalition government would prevent any radical policies being implemented, but that is rather the point. Any radical policies after the next election will probably increase the power of the state; therefore, a coalition government could prevent the sort of statecentric radicalism - that forms the post-Blairite consensus - from wreaking further destruction on the UK. Furthermore, the social policies of the Lib Dems would help to neutralise the social conservatism of the Tories, just as the social democracy of the Lib Dems would be offset by the natural instincts of the Tories. Whilst those two parties struggled to make a coalition work, anti-statist parties like the Libertarians could build up their profile and work towards becoming a viable political force.

Ideally, the next government would roll back the frontiers of the state. Since that isn't going to happen, the best a Libertarian can hope for is some sort of paralysis in the next government, and a coalition would be the best way to achieve that.

Clegg and Change

It doesn't happen often - mainly because the guy is amazingly silent for someone who runs a major political party - but I happen to agree with something that Nick Clegg has said:

"The Tories simply believe it's their turn, that they don't have to work for it, they don't have to prove themselves."

Spot on, as far as I am concerned. The Tory party is still sitting tight until they can stroll back into power. The political pendulum, which swung so hard against them in 1997, is now swinging back in their favour. They no longer need to make a case for being elected, and as a result they don't even try.

And Clegg goes on to talk even more sense:

"If you want things to be different, really different, you have to choose different. That's our message."

It is my message as well. If you want something different, then you do have to choose something different. Unfortunately, I rather think that my idea of what is different and Mr Clegg's idea are radically different, and represent the point of departure. Clegg is trying the tried and tested technique of positioning his party as the real alternative to the status quo. Unfortunately, these days that fools practically no-one. There is nothing in the Lib Dem platform that isn't replicated in the manifestos of the other parties. For example, they are making a big fuss about spending cuts at the moment - just as the other parties talk about cuts. And the complicity of the Lib Dems in this summer's expenses scandal shows just how much they are caught up in and part of the status quo. They are resolutely part of the post Blairite consensus that both dominates and cripples British politics today.

There are small parties and new political movements that are growing in influence in this country. If you truly want change, then support/vote for them. If you want real change and a proper break from the bloated, statist status quo, then support the Libertarian Party.

Unfortunately for Mr Clegg, the Lib Dems do not represent change on any level. Still, at least he was right about the Tories.

Lib Dem Defects

News reaches my inbox that LPUK now has a City Councillor after Gavin Webb defected from the Liberal Democrats. In a press release he says:

"The party, like the Conservative and Labour parties, has become a party of the establishment. It has unfortunately firmly wedded itself to the belief that there are primarily government solutions to the problems facing our country, and in the process, they are adopting policies that undermine our rights and freedoms as individuals... There is however one political party - the Libertarian Party - that believes in giving responsibility back to individuals over their own lives and their own finances; and it is this party that I have now decided to join."

Yep. If you actually believe in Liberalism and Democracy, you'd be best off in the Libertarian Party of the UK. The Liberal Democrats have an optimistic name but time and time again they show themselves to be anything other than Liberal or Democratic.

Genuine change won't come from within the establishment, and therefore won't come from the main parties. If you want geuine change then you could do far worse than joining the Libertarian Party.

(Not) Writing for LPUK

I do wonder how this is going down - rules and regulations for the LPUK blog. And the rules may eliminate many of the typical Libertarian bloggers:

Code of Practice

1. Posts must not contain swear words

2. The basis of a post must not be a personal attack

3. A Member must not publish more than three posts in a day

4. Posts must focus on UK politics or Libertarian issues

Of course, for those who don't obey, there are consequences. Ho hum.

I'm not going to be applying to write for the LPUK blog. Partly because I like swearing, partly because I am not above the occasional personal attack but mainly because I struggle to find inspiration for this blog most days. Every time I try to write for another website, I end up doing bugger all. If I ended up writing for a blog that is determined to limit the output, then - frankly - bugger all is going to be an optimistic view of what will happen. 

And as for the rules? And the consequences? Fair enough. LPUK badly needs to become much more professional, and part of that process is managing their blog. It is censorship; but it is censorship on something they own. They aren't stopping people from saying what they want; they are just restricting the usage of their blog as the mouthpiece. 

If you don't like the rules, don't contribute.

LPUK Moving Forward

There's a bit of an autopsy a debate over at the LPUK blog about the crushing defeat suffered by the party in the Norwich North by-election. Now, I've already commented on this, but I think there may be some validity in offering some further thoughts on it now it has the chance to sink in. And, more importantly, offer a personal perspective on how the party moves forward.

Now you might ask why I, the most passive of LPUK "activists", sees fit to comment on the electoral future of the party. And what do I know about politics and, in particular, fighting elections? Well, I've got a background in politics. I have a A-level in the subject, a degree in it and will be starting an MA in it in September. And I also have practical exposure to the process of winning elections in this country - back in the dark days when I was a Tory party member, I was part of the campaign to successfully elect two Tory MPs in the hostile days of the 2005 election. I didn't manage those campaigns or play a senior role, to be sure. But I was on the ground with my eyes and ears wide open. I wasn't at Norwich North but I have an idea of what it was like, and what successful candidates need to do to win not just there but across the country. 

So - and feel free to disagree - this is what I think LPUK should do to move forward from this poor result. But before we talk about that, let's take a look at what the party shouldn't do. 

Negative Actions After Norwich North

It is tempting for any party who has suffered an electoral blow to turn in on itself. Just look at what the Labour party - the party that has been in power for 12 years and is a formidable election machine - is doing this morning. But there are some things that LPUK shouldn't do:

• Deny what happened. We lost, and we lost badly. No amount of spin can change that, and it will only disillusion those members who were hoping for a much better inaugural result.
• Play the blame game. It wasn't Burridge's fault, it wasn't the fault of the ruling elite. I have an idea of what caused this defeat, but blaming the part-time candidate and the part-time leadership of the party is both counter-productive and a bit of an insult to the people who give up their free time to fight for the Libertarian cause.
  
• Get lost in ideological arguments. As we will come to see, I don't think the people of this country really know what the Libertarian message is. So if one thing is going to alienate them further, it will be watching the fledgling LPUK turning in on itself and arguing over its own identity. All parties contain people who aren't ideologically identical; constant arguments over those ideological points are electoral bromide.
• Under-estimate just how long it is going to take. For LPUK to get into Parliament will take years, if not decades. Pisser, isn't it? But unless we strike it really lucky, we are going to have spend a long time doing the grunt work. And Norwich North would seem to suggest that we aren't going to strike it lucky. 
• Forget we are right, and that Libertarianism is worth fighting for. We lost. Badly. Yeah, but we still have the right solutions for this country. Now we need to go on with the battle to communicate those values and win votes. 

In summary, as others have pointed out, LPUK needs to take it's electoral kicking on the chin, and learn from it. At least we contest elections now. We just need to work out how to do it well. 

Identity, Internet and the Media

Identity: no, I'm not going to talk about "what is a true ideological Libertarian" or anything else like that; as I've already said, it is beyond counter-productive to get lost in such debates. No, we need to get some sort of identity out to the British people. Because, as harsh as it sounds, what Norwich North shows is that few people know us, and even fewer care. 

Now we can blame this on different things. It is difficult to explain to a population used to the main party consensus what being a Libertarian means. It is difficult to get a distinct public profile when another party calls itself Libertas. And it is definitely difficult to overcome the bias of the media. But guess what? If we are going to succeed, we need to be able to do all of that. 

If there is one thing that LPUK seems to be good at, it is the internet. LPUK has a much higher profile on the internet than anywhere else. Hardly surprising, it is a party that was formed on the internet and has grown through astute use of that medium. And if you need to get a hundred Happy Warriors for LPUK, you can find them on the internet, all ready to go. Yet the internet is a limited medium when it comes to fighting for votes in individual constituencies. The internet is still mainly used for shopping and porn; choosing a vote isn't the main reason for people to log on. 

There is a role to play for the internet, in terms of identifying and communicating with supporters. But it can't be our primary tool if we want to get better known. 

Getting a higher media profile is crucial. The difficult thing here is exactly how to do that. The media barely has time to report properly on the main parties who have a chance of reaching triple figures in the polls; it is never really going to focus on those who can't even reach that level. The reason why we were beaten by the Monster Raving Looney Party - a party that is the very definition of pointless - is because they have been around for far longer. As a result, they have a far larger media profile. People have heard of the Monsters, which is why some idiots vote for them.

Unless you get a high-profile candidate on board - and witness Kilroy-Silk's impact on UKIP for how badly that can go - then it is the long haul with the media. You will only win them over when you start winning votes. Which is where the real grunt work comes in. 

Individual Constituencies

If this was a presidential campaign, then LPUK could use its internet presence to get more leverage and more support. Problem is, Britain is divided into individual constituencies, effectively neutering this advantage for LPUK. I could link to well over 36 UK Libertarian websites very easily; when the party started in Norwich North, it had 2 members. 

Which is what I mean about the grunt work. Winning elections doesn't start when the election is called; electioneering starts far earlier. In fact, it never, ever stops. The Tories who I observed win in 2005 were out every Saturday morning and selected evenings in the week canvassing and leafletting for the four years before the election. People knew about them because they went to community events, and campaigned about local problems. We can have a national identity, but we also need to explain why, on a local level, people should vote LPUK. 

Chloe Smith won in Norwich North not just because of her by-election campaign, but also because of the campaigning she did before that election was called. 

The reality of British politics is that next Saturday, Thomas Burridge and the LPUK members of Norwich North need to go out and start knocking on doors. If they wait for the next election campaign, it will be too little too late. Getting support is an ongoing process. And guess what? When parties start getting interest from the locals, they will start to attract the attention of the local media. And it snowballs from there. 

Selecting the Constituencies to Fight

Unless I am very wrong, then LPUK can't fight in every constituency in the country. Instead, it needs to select where it wants to concentrate its firepower, and where it wants to do the grunt work of building a local profile and gaining, bit by bit, local support. 

I don't know quite how to select those constituencies, but a few things do seem obvious to me. Firstly, constituencies where there is a credible, local candidate to fight seems like a good idea. Also, where there is some sort of a local party machine, ready to give up some time, is another important consideration. Finally, we need to assess where might be most receptive to LPUK's message. 

The party cannot, and should not, choose whether party members can run for Parliament. However, they do have to make the harsh choices about where the resources go. Even the main parties don't fund some election campaigns to any great extent. My experience of the Tories shows that they threw far more money and effort into Wimbledon than Southwark. Because they had sod all chance of winning in the latter constituency. 

Also, the party should encourage people to run in local council elections. It is a great way to get local support, and far easier to get people elected. Plus, it is a great litmus test of whether resources should be ploughed into a particular area. If you can't win locally, then you have to wonder whether you can win nationally. 

Conclusions: Being Professional

The above won't be news to some, and the party leadership is welcome to take or leave the advice as they see fit. But I reckon that, whilst there is nothing to celebrate in the Norwich North result, then there is no reason for despair either. The result is part of the process of passionate amateurs becoming credible election winners. 

Norwich North should be a case study - Thomas Burridge and the local party should campaign as much as possible for the next year for the General Election, and win several hundred - at a push, several thousand - votes. Then they push one after that election, campaigning all the time, making the case for LPUK locally. And then - in several years time - they come to an election where they are credible candidates for power. It could stretch into decades, but unless LPUK wants to give up the fight right now, it needs to realise it will take a long time to win national seats, let alone national elections.