Broon Coo and his speech: What ought a British Libertarian Party to do? Naming it. (Part 4)


First, I just want to thank all you people who have commented these last few days!

It’s a lonely business, this Libertarian number, so it is to be sure, and it’s gratifying and makes our day to know that there’s a few people listening. We didn’t know anybody loved us, and so now we will try to blog better than before. 

Now to business. This morning’s papers that I have seen, the wobbly-Torygraph and The Sun seemed to have been paying attention down south. The Torygraph nutshells Brown’s objective, which IMV is “the end of party politics”. No other parties got a mention from him at all, which says everything about the Tories – remember Blair’s annual and frenzied rantings and ravings about the “FORCES OF CONSERVATISM”? You oculd beforgiven today for thinking that he said “I am the State” (implied), and “I will stand up for you” (he DID say that last bit verbatim.) He’s all the British people need, says this Prime Minister.

The Sun picked up that “Europe” got 12 seconds, and a referendum got none. It’s slightly encouraging that Britain contains yet enough people to make a fuss about this point. I know that all Statists have Hearts of Darkness and can’t be trusted to deliver your daughter back home by 11pm as they promised: but His intention to not hold a referendum on the “revised” (or not revised, as those European chaps so disarmingly honestly tell us all) “Treaty” (“constitution”, “scrap of paper”, whatever it may be called next) is too blatant even for a nation hooked on “Big Brother” and “slebs“.

So what now? Why don’t we just have the trailed election, get on with the job of placing the other parties in the mincing machine as He thinks we will, and focussing the debate we’re having here on this blog, about what the “opposition” ought to look like and do – since there won’t be any except Libertarians? I like, tediously, to keep reminding people that Paul Johnson predicted the death of the old orthodox Conservative Party, and that it would occur about now.

We stand at a point where the State, personified by the smiling, bespoke-suited, newly-redless-tied Broon is saying “trust me”. Perhaps He believes it Himself: well he might – he was a “student activist” after all, like Peter Hain, Gastriq Ali, and all the others now in high places. (Perhaps I should have paid more attention at the time, and done it myself.)

I’m forced to conclude that the poor, benighted, overtaxed, over-regulated British people need a British Libertarian Party. There’s no hope of any other principled, logic-based opposition to all this stuff going on in Britain in particular. Nobody’s even told them the truth which IMV is it’s supposed to be their punishment for what this crop of Marxists thinks their ancestors did wrongly. Destroy their culture, erase their history from memory, make them permanent state-clients with “entitlements” that can be turned on or off. no more meme-diaspora from here, then!

Ought it to be called “Libertarian”? I think not. First, it sounds too much like “Libertine”, which the fascist left will quickly conflate it with in the “popular media”. Specially as a manifesto would be made to look – to readers of the News Of The World – like :

(a) their little Madeleine-McCann daughter lookalikes will be subject to sexual predation whenever they are sent out to play on the “estate” half-dressed as usual,

(b) the “streets” will become infested with “druggies”,

(c) everyone will go round shooting each other,

(d) there will be no “edducashun” as there “will be no schools”,

(e) there will be “no ‘ospitals” as the gumment will stop giving money” (“so you’ll all die ‘orribly!”)

(f) who’ abou’ the poor?

No. I don’t think it ought to be called “Libertarian”. Let’s not hand yet another harmless word, with meaning, to the fascists and statists and couch-TV-gurus, for them to lynch for us while we wait.

The policies should of course be libertarian. Otherwise what’s the point? But they could be made to look liberal, which is to say English conservative or “sensible”. UKIP of course tried to to this, and anybody who organised their smearing and destruction by saying they “had no policies” is a stupid **** or in the pay of the fascists which comes to the same thing. But UKIP took too long pissing about and so became vulnerable to attack, and also their early leaders probably did not trust each other (too late for them now IMHO.)

I’ve been on this instalment long enough, as my boy’s machine is hogging all the broadband bits today downloading somethingorother. Over to you all for names for the British Libertarian Party, said names NOT to include the word “Libertarian”!

About these ads

12 responses to “Broon Coo and his speech: What ought a British Libertarian Party to do? Naming it. (Part 4)

  1. Hmm. So, to go along with the Not The Labour Party and the Not The Conservative Party, you’re proposing the Not The Libertarian Party. Or the Old Conservative Party. Will anyone fall for that? And if they do, what can Not The Libertarian Party offer me, a libertarian? Sure, I want to vote for some policies which are hmm Thatcherite, but let’s remember the good bit of Thatcherism (free markets, la de da) was, er, libertarian/classical liberal. But I’ve no great desire to vote for a Not The Libertarian Party who will adhere to old conservative social values, to please the old dears with blue rinses and the retired colonels in the Shires.

    A libertarian party, any party, is only any use when there is a mass of people ready to support it, and who think it can win a parliamentary seat. Or a council seat. Or anything.

    Libertarians need to figure out how to generate a groundswell of public support. Until then dreams of forming a government are just wishful thinking. That means winning the argument for libetarian social values as well as libertarian economics. A Stealth Conservative Party will not only not bring us closer to libertarianism, it will also gather few votes and thus be an energy-sapping distraction. I don’t think it’ll even get many votes from libertarians. What’s the use?

  2. Ian B,

    Oh ye of little faith.

    THE REAL POLITICS IS NOW BETWEEN THE AUTHORITARIAN AND THE LIBERTARIAN.

    Its stark, its simple, and its true.

  3. All right. I take your point. I’d liketo call it theBritish Libertarian Party, but I don’t think we’d get three inches out of the door before being trashed. That gets us back to my post of yesterday, wherein I asked how “Libertarianism’s” meaning could be communucated fully, fast enough to enough people, without the Statists being able to upend the process in its infancy, like they did with UKIP.
    I do accept your other earlier points about liberal and libertarian ideas being generally positively thought of, if posed in isolation, under public choice etc.

  4. IanP (hmm, maybe we could cut the “libert” and just have an “Ian Party”?) I entirely agree. I’ve said it myself to other people; the divide of the 21st century will be libertarian vs authoritarian. In a sense, back to the old days when the Left actually stood for individual liberty, free trade etc vs the Right who stood for monarchy, authority, government control etc.

    Perhaps the primary job of libertarians is to promote that POV.

  5. David Davis; this is why I think talk of a party is premature. The issue really for me personally is how to “break out of the bunker” and get libertarian ideas back into the mainstream. Sp!ked online for instance generally take a libertarian POV (although ironically they’re ex marxists, lol) but they are providing a reasonably high profile presentation of many ideas which are libertarian.

    Anybody’s going to get trashed if they’re trying to muscle in on the status quo. If you show any signs of having some success (e.g. UKIP) you’ll be mercilessly trashed. At least if you call yourself a libertarian, you’re being honest and will maybe get a chance to say “no, you’re parodying libertarianism. We believe in freedom, democracy, equal rights for all, justice for all…” and then perhaps get a chance to explain why libertarianism can achieve those things when statism so clearly has not. In the personal sphere I’ve found this can have some success when talking with both left and right wingers if they’re not screaming loonies. Libertarianism needs to find a way to make itself a positive voice e.g. showing how libertarianism would help the poor of the third world by allowing them to haul themselves out of poverty rather than being trapped by a left-statist “aid” mindset. Or by saying that a free economy would reduce the *need* for welfare and benefits, rather than frightening people by saying you’d abolish them. Statism has caused unemployment and reduced economic success for ordinary people for a century now. Libertarianism, presented correctly, can offer them something positive; a free life in a wealthy economy in which society prospers both economically and socially too, as people are able once again to form their own free associations with the great clunking fist of government scaring them into personal isolationism. People competing freely and positively in the market, instead of negatively and destructively in a catfight for benefits and tax breaks. Etc…

    We need to show that statism causes the very harms it claims to cure.

  6. “I’m forced to conclude that the poor, benighted, overtaxed, over-regulated British people need a British Libertarian Party.”

    A number of we libertarian bloggers (and the like) have been discussing this very issue and we would be overjoyed if you would join us in this endeavour.

    Alas, I can find no contact for you on this site: if you are interested, will you drop me a line at dk[AT]devilskitchen[dot]net ?

    DK

  7. We should be what is on the tin,Libertarian, unlike the Labour Party which is anything but a party of labour

  8. We should call it “Common Sense”.

  9. We would soon be rumbled as a Libertarian party anyhow. Spade a spade.

    As a strapline, though, “The Party of Common Sense” sounds good, David.

  10. Roger,
    It is not a case of being “rumbled”, as we have nothing to hide. It is a matter of presentation. Maybe the strapline should be, “For Liberty and Responsibilty”, or something like it…? I do think that we should avoid the word “Party”. A “Party” traditionally seeks State power. We do not. We seek to destroy State power, and should distinguish ourselve accordingly.
    Best, David

  11. Okay, another 2 penn’orth.

    If there’s to be a party, it should arise from a broadly agreed goal. It’s all very well to say “for libertarians”, but just as socialists differ and conservatives differ, “libertarians” differ too in what specific policies they desire. For instance, some may be much more radical than others. Some may seek to privatise schools; others may want voucher systems. And so on. There needs to be some coherent discussion among a broad group, otherwise it’s one or two people down the pub deciding to start a party for themselves. The Robert Kilroy Silk party, whose consituency consists of, er, Robert Kilroy Silk and, perhaps, a handful of other disturbingly orange people.

    One possibility might be a forum on the Internets(TM) for the purpose of discussing policy. IOW, I’m suggesting coming up with a manifesto, effectively, and *then* think about whether any political support at the polls can be had for it.

    Any political party who wants any success needs to be standing on firm policies and needs to be sure of them, and needs to be ready with answers to awkward questions, which the opponents will go for the jugular with. Many libertarian policies/ideas will seem very radical to people used to statism.

    Just wanting to go back to the good old days and abolish political correctness isn’t good enough. It’s too vague. It’s not even particularly libertarian. On that issue for instance, we must remember that conservatism has a long history of its own political correctness. Modern PC says you can’t say “spastic”. Con-PC denies you the right to talk about taboo body parts, sex and say bad things about the little baby Jesus.

    So, in general, before you create a Libertarian Party, you need to define what it stands for. Pointing people at the works of Rothbard and saying “that kind of thing”, or conjuring vague images of Britain’s past isn’t good enough.

    A web forum, not entirely free-form but focussed on discussing the meat of policy issues, would I think be a very good start. It might sound a bit feeble (another web talking shop, sigh) but there doesn’t seem to be any focus for a British Libertarian Movement to get involved with at the grass roots level. There isn’t a British grass roots libertarian movement at all, really. We’re coming from a long way back here.

    And, indeed, I say “we” as this is a libertarian blog and I self identify as libertarian, but I’m still entirely unsure even if the small quorum here agree much with each other on any specific policies.

    Like I said, just my tuppence ha’penny.

  12. As Chris Tame said about 30 years ago, over dinner one night in the Chicago Pizza Pie Factory – “There may be two Libertarians on the planet who agree about everything, but I’m not one of them!”

    It could be that the Lowest Common Denominator of policies that “Libertarians” could agree on is @Conservatism@ . That would be a start in my view. As I have been saying all along, conservatives are effectively disenfranchised at the moment, since @their@ party has been hijacked away from them by some lefties.