Let me have a confession here the first political organisation I joined at the age of seventeen,nearly thirty five years ago was 'The Campaign For Electoral Reform. Even at those tender years I realised that the political system we lived under did not reflect the diversity of political thought in the United Kingdom.
First Past The Post (FPTP) favoured one Fabian Social Democratic Coalition (Labour), against another conservative centre right coalition (Conservatives). Since then we have reached the stage that one soft left party (The Conservatives) are in bed with another soft left party (Liberal Democrats), opposing them is a increasingly hard left big State party (Labour). Not much of a choice if you are a Jeffersonian small state classical Liberal! Largely that choice has been denied me, I have successfully not managed to vote in one MP or Councillor in thirty five years that has reflected my views.
This is largely because I vote with my heart rather than voting for the least worst option.
So having been disenfranchised for thirty five years I am attracted to Proportional Representation, it was for this reason I joined the Liberal Party, unfortunately I found my local party was not very Liberal at all, I left when the Liberal Party was taken over by the Social Democratic Party, and became a fully fledged left of centre Social Democratic party, only paying lip service to Liberalism by retaining the word Liberal in the title.
We are now promised a Referendum on AV next May, as part of the price ticket for the Coalition. I do not think that Conservative and Labour Parties are going to vote for AV because they are quite happy with the current carve up.
Lets be clear AV is not proportional so it is not my first choice, but it is an improvement on FPTP. Therefore reluctantly I will support AV, as the status quo is simply not tenable any more.
AV does promise to-
At least make my vote count for something
Give smaller parties and Independents a fighting chance
I do not buy that it will make MP's more accountable, or that elections will be fought on areas that are important to me, or that it is anti extremist.
For that we need to have a root and branch campaign that truly takes back Parliament, that of a new Constitutional Settlement. We have nothing fundamental since 1688, apart from 'The Great Reform Bill of 1832' which was largely an adjustment to new economic realities. The Swiss in the meantime have had three rewrites of their written Constitution in that time. Central to their Constitution is the premise that State is subordinate to the individual.
At last year's Convention of Modern Liberty, the stage was packed with some notable thinkers and writers, and wannabees from the three major parties. I got the feeling that they felt it was something they felt that they should show up to. The best and most impassioned speakers came from the floor, demanding a new Constitutional Settlement. This was some six months before the Expenses scandal broke. I now just wish that the Convention had been held last summer instead.
Alexandra Runswick in 'The Citizen' writes that that she wants to see fundamental reform, advocating a Bill of Rights and the Protection of Civil Liberties, you cannot get either of these until you have a Constitution that puts the Individual above the State, sadly I think that 'Unlock Democracy's aims are far to limited. More along the line of 'we would like our masters to be nice to us, whilst we are being told how to live our lives' that treating people as individuals, who have a broad spectrum of opinions and would actually like to have some say in where their expropriated money is being spent.
To this end I am proposing that at this years Libertarian Party conference we change our name to the 'Libertarian and Constitutional Party', every policy that the LPUK expounds comes from the basic premise that the State is Subordinate to the Individual, that needs to be enshrined in a written Constitution that comes from the bottom up, not is forced on us from above. Cantonal/Lander Federal United Kingdom is the only thing that is going to hold us together. A centralised State creates torpor,corruption and malign influence and colossal waste. The Swiss Model is something I can recommend, and we need to extend our appeal..
It is time we wrote our first contract with Government in nearly four hundred years.
Thoughts ?
9 comments:
For starters is a bit of a mouthful and LCP is not the best acronym.
Secondly I think the party needs to focus more on developing our identity and branding, and changing names this early would make us seem more of a passing fad than a long term movement.
Finally I think it would make it harder to explain to people what our philosophy is, while the term libertarian is not that well known it is starting to be used more (was even used in today's evening standard!).
Should stick with LPUK imo
We need Constitutional Fumigation!
A change to, or an additional, alternate strapline could be another way, but the OP is right in that Constitutional change is really needed to put the State "back in its box".
Spoil your ballot.
Why only two options?
Andy has a good point, it's something that's been buzzing around the back of my mind for a little while now.
Libertarian is a word which is picking up steam, but it is still on the outside. We can't use the word Liberal in our name as this term has been appropriated by the Social Democrats, and if the Tea Party movement continue to pick up momentum over in the States, they will not hesistate to use the word Liberal as a stick to beat the Democrats with. It is unfortunately a word which is having its meaning changed to the exact opposite of what Liberal traditionally means. The actions of the LibDems here mean it is likely to suffer the same fate in the UK.
To add the word Constitutional would complicate matters, and I think turn people off. Not because they have any aversion to constitutional reform, it just isn't a pithy and easily identifiable concept to hang your hat on.
My suggestion would be to go the other way and shorten the name, substituting Libertarian for Liberty. An ideaology much more recongnisable than Libertarian, whilst remaining almos the same.
It would then give us a decent stick with which to beat others. We are too easily dismissed with a snort of 'huh, Libertarians' and a rolling of the eyes. Not so easy to do that with the word Liberty as the inference would be that to dismiss us would be to dismiss the concept of Liberty. And that those who argue against us are by definition not supporters of Liberty.
I don't object to the idea; but I'd second AJ's opinion.
I don't think it matters that constitutional change would be a key plank of a Libertarian Party government. That doesn't mean it should be inserted into the party name. By that logic it should be
The Libertarian, Constitutional Reform, Small State, Individualist, Economic Sanity and Privacy Advocation Party
"Libertarian Party" is a concise enough name name, is perfectly acceptable and fit for purpose. It's chosen now, reasonably established with its membership. Move on.
Let's also not make the mistake that many small parties do and become obsessed by inward-facing minutiae. We are not the People's Front of Judea.
Let's not spend time debating whether the party constitution should be changed so that it's clear that the secretary is always seated two to the right of the treasurer, unless the treasurer is not present in which case during the first half of the month the chairman will take on the role of treasurer, but only for seating purposes, the treasurer's non-seating-related duties will be taken on by the head of the committee, should he or she be willing. During the second half of the month ...
You get the idea.
I'm not keen on this myself, for the reasons already given. "The Libertarian Party" is short and to the point. We especially need to keep promoting the word "Libertarian" until we become an accepted part of the political furniture.
Guthrum,
IMHO I don't think we can have one (a libertarian party) without the other (a constitutional mandate and guide), hence this change is unnecessary.
I do however feel a contract with the United Kingdom, stating short and long term aims in 10 bullet points apiece, is something we can add to the start of an updated LPUK manifesto, followed by a FAQs page then the "meat" of the manifesto itself.
Heck why not make the title more vibrant, make the LPUK Manifesto a sub-header and sell copies on lulu.com?
NEVERTHELESS, THE CIVIL LAW is and must be neutral about who has a more noble or rewarding faith. The breakaway parishes ought to win every Office 2010facet of the lawsuit not becauseMicrosoft Office 2010 their beliefs or their politics are better, Microsoft wordbut because both lawOffice 2007and equity, along with common sense, are on Microsoft Officetheir side.Microsoft Office 2007 Not only does Virginia state law (the Division Statute)Office 2007 keyexplicitly apply to just such a Office 2007 downloadsituation as now exists, but the history Office 2007 Professionalespecially of The Falls Church argues against the claims of Outlook 2010the Virginia Diocese with which theyMicrosoft outlookhave disassociated.Microsoft outlook 2010First, The Falls Church wasWindows 7 founded, formed, and developed long before the diocese, or the national Episcopal Church, even existed.
NEVERTHELESS, THE CIVIL LAW is and must be neutral about who has a more noble or rewarding faith. The breakaway parishes ought to win every Office 2010facet of the lawsuit not becauseMicrosoft Office 2010 their beliefs or their politics are better, Microsoft wordbut because both lawOffice 2007and equity, along with common sense, are on Microsoft Officetheir side.Microsoft Office 2007 Not only does Virginia state law (the Division Statute)Office 2007 keyexplicitly apply to just such a Office 2007 downloadsituation as now exists, but the history Office 2007 Professionalespecially of The Falls Church argues against the claims of Outlook 2010the Virginia Diocese with which theyMicrosoft outlookhave disassociated.Microsoft outlook 2010First, The Falls Church wasWindows 7 founded, formed, and developed long before the diocese, or the national Episcopal Church, even existed.
Post a Comment