Reform the Libertarian Party UK

It seems that what remains of the Uk Libertarian Party is making a serious attempt to move on from the carnage, destruction and eventual insolvency of the Andrew Withers era. With that in mind, Ken Ferguson, for whom I have always had enormous respect, posted this -http://lpuk.org/2011/05/ideas-and-suggestions-for-reform/ on the party’s official site. The invitation to all members and supporters to recommend ways in which LPUK can move forward is indeed welcome, and itself makes a refreshing change from the top-down fuhrer principle that has appeared to consume the party recently.

As a former member who remains a supporter, I have a few strategic and structural changes that would in my view benefit the party’s fortunes greatly. Here are eight moves that LPUK could make that would represent a shift in the right direction:-

1 – Monthly Online Publication of the Party’s Accounts

The root cause of much of the recent dissent within LPUK has been the feeling amongst a great many party members that it was time to be completely open and transparent about the way in which the money coming in was being spent. The divide over the whether or not the accounts should or should not be audited would have been completely avoided had a culture of openness already been in place. Of course, the names of the donors and recipients of money would be excluded from what was published, and any non-member of the party wishing to donate money would have this ‘open declaration’ policy explained to them before they parted with their hard-earned cash. Members would have no such concerns as they would be voting on the policy, which would only come into effect if a majority supported it.

We would also have an account for each region as opposed to one national LPUK account (see point 7)

2 – A Realistic Manifesto – Not a set of Pipe Dreams

Reading LPUK’s current manifesto is akin to scanning through a Utopian shopping list of the features of the ideal society. It always struck me as odd, as if those shaping policy did not quite understand what a manifesto was. LPUK need to agree some realistic mid-term aims and accept that zero income tax, universal private healthcare and education, along with many other current policies are light years away. By all means keep some of them (see point 3) as long-term aspirations, but on a separate page to the plan for government in the next four years or so. The manifesto should be a simple document, detailing some fairly radical changes that we genuinely believe we can implement within a single parliamentary term.

3 – Abolish the ‘Abolish Income Tax‘ Policy – the sums do not add up

None of us like paying income tax, so the pledge to abolish it may well be the most eye-catching and appealing policy currently on LPUK’s books. But then it prompts the predictable questions of how you’re going to pay for even the significantly smaller state that remains after a term of a Libertarian government? Candidates will get asked a variant of that question on the doorstep and would currently have to scramble around desparately for an answer. The reality is that as long as there are functions of the state that we are all agreed upon (namely law and order and defence from invasion), then there will be the need for at least some level of direct taxation to meet the costs of these requirements.

The party’s focus should therefore be on opposing ‘brain drain’ taxes, gradually cutting public spending and taking the least well off out of income tax altogether, which will also enable an unravelling of the bureaucratic minefield that is the tax credits system. Eliminating the ‘churn’ in terms of tax and benefits should also be a high-priority economic aim.

4 – Re-Establish Social and Constitutional Liberalism as Key Policy Themes

Over the last year or so, LPUK has become something of an ‘economics party’. This is understandable given the fiscal problems faced by the current government, but then Libertarians tend to believe in so much more than this. The danger of focussing on monetary matters is that of being perceived as a slightly more radical alternative to the Conservative Party or UKIP. The Tories in particular believe strongly in using the tax system to promote ‘correct’ lifestyle choices. They want to retain the status quo on drug control, are anti-immigration and vehemently support the monarchy.

LPUK needs to make its distinction from the Tories and UKIP absolutely clear so it does not end up being lumped in the same bucket as them by the uninformed voter. Doing so will also dissuade illiberal people who happen to believe in lower taxes from concluding that LPUK is a party they should join and look to influence. In practical terms. this involves promoting social, constitutional and economic liberalism with equal vigour, and adopting republicanism as a policy at the earliest opportunity.

5 – Ditch the Fuhrer Principle

LPUK believes (or at least is supposed to) in moving decision-making down to the lowest level. This means that any national leader of the party ought to be there only to fulfil an administrative role and face the media if and when necessary. The more power one loads at the top of any organisation, the less empowered, enabled and involved those at the grass roots will feel by definition. LPUK needs to build its base from the bottom up, and a top-down structure will not enable such a structure to flourish. Internal debate of policy, direction and where the party is going should be encouraged, not stifled, with the young, keen and talented given opportunities to develop themselves and the party as a result.

6 – Ongoing Review of Policy and the LPUK Manifesto

There is no reason why the manifesto cannot be a fluid document, with members free to recommend policies that should be added, removed or amended. The best way to encourage people into a political party is to give them a sense that they will be personally involved in decison-making. For example, LPUK could adopt a system that allows a member to make a suggestion, seconded by another member and then some sort of online poll to be announced and conducted. We have the technology now to get around issues such as duplicate voting, so why not enable a massive, completely clean break from the past and make LPUK the most internally democratic party out there?

7 – A Regional Structure to Support Candidates

The libertarian attitude of shifting power down to the most local level of course means moving responsiblity with it. Local branches of LPUK should be in charge of their own finances and fund-raising, paying the deposits of candidates and encouraging members and supporters from that region to back those candidates with time, money or whatever skill they bring to the table. This will have three positive effects. Firstly, members of a branch will have the ability to use their own initiative and work in a way that suits the strengths and weaknesses of active members within that region. Secondly, candidates will get support more specific to their needs, so no LPUK member should feel the urge to stand as an independent.

Most importantly, it will mean that any dishonesty or misuse of LPUK monies in the future will damage the party only on a regional level as opposed to a national one. Concentrating all of the dough in one pair of hands appears to have been at the root of many of the party’s recent difficulties.

8 – A Shorter and more Concise Constitution

Libertarians believe strongly in having as few rules as possible. They also aspire to have those rules written in such a way so that even a complete moron can understand them. However LPUK, a party whose membership has never passed 1,000, currently has a constution which resembles that of a mid-sized European country. We need to move towards a document which has a small number of clauses, all of which should be crystal clear and leave absolutely no wriggle-room for personal interpretation. What is ‘unconstitutional’ in party terms should be beyond doubt and not the subject of a tedious debate as was the case recently when Mal offered to stand in as temporary treasurer. We preach simplicity to the wider world and should also practice such principles internally.

That means, in the words of Edwyn Collins, “rip it up and start again.”

I will of course be sending this ‘action plan’ via e-mail to LPUK with a view to them posting it online. It will be interesting to see if they run this, and whether or not it helps to spark some the serious internal debate that it must be said is overdue. If the discussion of the party’s direction, policy and structure takes place in the manner that I know Ken would wish it to, then there is a glimmer of some hopeful phoenix rising from the flames of the inferno of the last month or so.

As a supporter of LPUK and liberalism as a whole, I sincerely hope that this happens, because amid the current statist monopoly in Uk Politics, a party with consistently liberal instincts spanning all issues is needed more than it has ever been.

By Darren Pearce

http://outspokenrabbit.blogspot.com/2011/05/best-thing-to-come-from-lpuk-in-months.html

Afghanistan, marital rape, women’s rights, secrecy and fake democracy

It has now been reported that implementation of a law concerning family matters for the Shia community of Afghanistan has been suspended after an outcry by western countries about its provisions.

This confused affair exposes the almost complete ignorance in the west of the nature of the society that they are involved in in Afghanistan as well as showing the corrupt and duplicitous nature of the Afghan government.

Afghanistan is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its own constitution guarantees equality of women, but the new Shia law is a viciously reactionary document permitting men to force sex on their wives, confine women to their homes, denying women proper inheritance and allowing child marriage. Karzai has tried to claim that western critics have a wrong understanding of the law because of inadequacies in translation. This is not believable, but if it were true it would be easy for him to dispel concerns by publishing the document immediately rather than keeping it secret. The law was passed by the Afghan government and signed by Karzai in conditions of secrecy which are an outrageous affront to democratic methods.

The Afghan constitution is supposed to guarantee freedom of religion and equality of treatment of all citizens. This Shia law is in clear breach of that commitment and it is reported that work is continuing on a family law for the majority Sunni community. The likelihood is that such a law would also contain seriously discriminatory and retrogressive provisions.

The truth is that Karzai is trying to gain favour with religious extremists and oppressive clan leaders in advance of elections. In this process he is prepared to ignore and contradict all the undertakings he gave to the international community in order to get aid and military support to overcome insurgency. There is no genuine democracy in Afghanistan; its government is corrupt and icompetent.

When the Taleban ruled Afghanistan they were guilty of disgusting crimes. Apart from oppressing women in the most revolting manner they murdered gay people and savagely maimed others in the name of their perverted justice. By giving hospitality and support to Al Quaida they placed the whole world at a much greater risk of terrorist murder than it would otherwise have been. It is right for the international community to have a presence in Afghanistan to ensure that there is no return to such an intolerable tyranny. What must be made clear to President Karzai and his government is that the undertakings given to take their country forward with the establishment of universal human rights and dignity are an absolute requirement and there can not be any backsliding.

Only those who commit themselves genuinely to democracy and progress are entitled to any support. The Shia family law must be scrapped immediately and the constitutional rights of women and children fully enforced for all communities.

 

 

Madagascar

It is to the credit of the African Union that it has refused to recognise the coup in Madagascar and it is right that the USA has suspended non-humanitarian aid. The swearing in of the coup President is illegal. It is in breach of Madagascar’s own constitiution and has not been endorsed by any authority outside the country. It is unacceptable that the usurper claims he will hold elections within two years.

There must be an immediate return to legality and democracy. Until that happens, the international community should cut off aid and all diplomatic support. The AU has an opportunity to show that Africa is not a complete basket case for proper government by isolating this illegal presidency in Madagascar and then facilitating a peaceful return to legitimate government.

Electoral Reform – Proportional Representation

Government should be elected by proportional representation

The nature of government is that it has coercive power. Ultimately the only thing that distinguishes a government from a private security organisation, or even a gang of armed robbers, is that it has legitimacy. Governments claim legitimacy from a whole range of different sources. Historically they tended to say that they had been appointed by God or that they had the approval of God. This is the divine right of kings and all its similar forms throughout the world. Alternatively the government may accept that it achieved power by force of arms, but that battle is a legitimate way to government. Not surprisingly, I do not accept such justifications. Most people would accept that a government must have some degree of approval from the citizens that it governs.. This approval is expressed in a host of different ways including democratic elections by secret ballot which I believe to be the appropriate form of representative government at this stage in the twenty first century.

Changing the system of democratic election will result in different outcomes in terms of the nature of the political parties and composition of government. With the first past the post (FTP) system in the UK, we have a small number of parties with a prospect of gaining members of parliament and usually a government of one party that represents fewer than half of the people who cast their votes in a general election. The main parties are very broad coalitions rather than being expressions of a specific ideology.

Where very proportional systems of election exist, there are usually many more political parties representing the different nuances of political opinion and there is a much greater likelihood that the government will be composed of a coalition of two or more of the parties. For a government to be able to genuinely claim legitimacy, it is my view that each representative in a parliament should be there by virtue of a majority of those voting and the government should be representative of more than fifty percent of the votes cast overall. Neither of these conditions appliies in our system so I do not accept that we have an adeguate democracy to give our government legitimacy. That means that I want to see constitutional change, but we should only be pursuing it by democratic and peaceful means.

Capitol Murder

There is a madman from Montana

in the Capitol today.

He has murdered two policemen

and scared debate away.

 

The seat of world democracy,

home of all that’s just and free,

is rattled by the rattle

of a crazy gunman’s spree.

 

High and mighty superpower,

frail in its deepest bower,

frozen by the manic glower,

as freedom’s price is paid.

 

Commentary

 

This was written some time ago, but the shooting in a university in Illinois near Chicago yesterday led me to post it again. It is one of the newsy pieces that I do. Gun use is a bit of a preoccupation of mine. The constitutional right to bear arms has always struck me as a bizarre ‘freedom’. I think that the British constraint on gun ownership is too intrusive on individuals, but to enshrine the ownership of guns into the constitution is odd in the context of the twenty first century.

 

I support written constitutions, but they are set in a particular historic time and that does present problems of how you entrench provisions to protect the constitution at the same time as having the flexibility to adapt to changing needs. The American right to bear arms was in the context of people’s militias and a newly emergent government whose writ did not run uniformly throughout the country.

 

I often have strong rhyme and rhythm in my poems, particularly with this type of subject matter. Although it probably smacks of Victorian melodrama, I think it is a useful way of gaining attention and it gives additional impact to the polemic.

 

I wasn’t sure about the changing rhyme scheme in the last stanza, but each time I come back to it the pace of the first three lines and then the sudden change for the value judgement at the end seems right so I have left it.

A Written Constitution for Britain

 Today Jack Straw has expressed his support for Britain moving towards a written constitution and that is welcome although I think I mean more by that than Straw does..

 Britain needs a written constitution placing it properly in an international framework of democratic and legal standards.

Above all, it is needed now because of the continual erosion of individual rights . Whether it is the continual extension of detention without charge on the excuse of the threat of terrorism, or the progressive sovietisation of our society through politically correct restraint on freedom of thought and speech.

Many people will say that we already have a written constitution through the mass of reference documents and Acts of Parliament that mould the decision making process of our executive and legislature. This really misses the point. For a constitution to be properly effective it needs to be contained in a single document widely known and understood by the public. It must also have its provisions entrenched sufficiently that it cannot be easily overridden or changed by a simple majority vote in parliament.