If you manage to get through this post, please don't miss reading the comments section.
There is the issue of the posts on this blog and comment has been made that the long posts, the serious posts, are buried in the flurry of other, shorter posts and no one can either find them nor wants to read them when they're found.
That's fair and though it shouldn't affect RSS reading anyway, I'm going to try to put the main post up late morning and put two either side - that's the theory. In line with this theory, it would be nice to get some feedback on the problems of the Libertarian Party of the UK and I'd rather not wait until tomorrow morning.
It begins with the Norwich North result and Chloe. My political stance, for those who don't know and who care, is here.
The moniker - Libertarian Party
1. There was Chloe herself and her victory, that was a factor in itself. A pretty child, however talented, will tend to score, these days, over either a seasoned campaigner or an up and coming young man, particularly given the general disgust in the country over career politicians.
2. LPUK is new - hell, look how long it's taken the UKIP.
3. People simply don't want serious politics in the middle of a British summer and LPUK is a serious party, with serious policies. People have had a gutful of seriousness.
4. Then comes a deeper problem - the name. Just because we in the sphere tend to be mainly libertarian in outlook, my mate puts the point of view that none of us are truly libertarian. If we were, we'd have a Wyatt Earp attitude to law enforcement and a dog eat dog situation in everyday life, again a bit like the image of the old American wild west.
It doesn't wash in Britain and while most of us in the sphere are comfortable with the libertarian tag because we understand it and are politically aware, I saw people uptown today who simply would have fear at the idea of libertarians running round with their anarchy. It would take an education campaign to overcome the baggage of the libertarian tag, not unlike "libertine".
That LPUK are nothing to do with that image - they failed to get across to Norwich North. Pretty politics is another thing - we can't get enough of that e.g. Caroline Flint before shooting her self in the foot.
5. Americans might go for a Libertarian Party - the Brits won't.
The brouhaha over the Rogue Commenter at the LPUK site
No other party has this problem - only LPUK, by virtue of its name and policies. Labour would just delete the comment by the Rogue Commenter and that would be that. Ditto the Tories:
1. The Libertarian Party is ... well ... libertarian.
Do they delete an attack on Chloe Smith or do they not? I believe that Ian and the big wigs simply have it in the offing pending discussion - this is my surmise. By all reports, the comment was way OTT and worse than that - unprofessional and yet, can they afford to alienate their base by deleting?
2. It wasn't the points made about Ms Smith, which might well or might not have been true. It wasn't the hard hitting nature of the comment. It was the ad hominem, which most serious bloggers nowadays refuse to countenance but even more - LPUK, before a general election, cannot afford not to appear to be a serious party.
It was the aggression, the less than gentlemanly language and the way it zeroed straight in on a personal level.
I'm fisking the whole time on this blog. I've said some terrible things about the bankers, the gay mafia, the feminazis and the EU. Yet I don't do it with a potential and rival candidate for a position.
Therefore, LPUK is between a rock and a hard place.
Citizen's basic income
This is a bit O/T but I'd like to know where LPUK stand on this, without having to wade through pages of policy to find it. It might anger Ian [Parker-Joseph] but it's possibly the attitude of many people as well and therefore is a factor which needs to be taken into account - the realpolitik of short available time and short attention spans.
Let me tell you what Citizen's Basic Income would do for me. If it was at £7000, then that would cover my basics. Therefore that fear factor disappears and I can go out, take greater risks and seek for what I'd like to do far more assertively. I really would. Knowing I could always fall back on the CBI, I'd go for it as if there were no tomorrow. I believe I'd succeed.
It's not perfect but it's a start and if fazed in, would help with the welfare state problem we currently have.
At the risk of lengthening this post, Lord T has taken up the libertarian question on his blog and it really deserves a read. There are issues IMHO which need addressing before next May and it's LPUK's best chance. Here are some issues to address:
1. Why, IMO, [are] the people ... just not ready for Libertarianism? It’s not that they don’t want it it is just that they are scared of letting go of what they know as they see Libertarianism as Anarchy and are frightened.
2. I [Lord T] am a UK Libertarian yet even I wonder what is going to happen. It is clear we can’t go from a welfare state to a Libertarian paradise overnight and yet nobody is clear on what it means to them if the voted in the LPUK.
3. Until Libertarians actually look at the process and define the first term in office, what it will do, what changes it will make during its first, and potentially only, term then people will be unsure, better the devil you know than this bunch who want to remove all controls and bring anarchy to the UK. We need Libertarian Lite which is a stepping stone on the way.
4. I think that the first step is to prioritise the easy wins, Tell plod to go back to Peelian Principles, and sack every outreach coordinator, special advisor for short people, long people etc. and social worker in there. Then, get every Quango to list what they do on an A4 piece of paper including costs and benefits.
Do read the whole thing, as the tone is clearly that of not wanting this golden opportunity missed.