Lunatics and libertarians
Friday, May 20, 2011 at 21:50 I must declare an interest.
Last year I helped libertarian bloggers Anna Raccoon and Old Holborn get smoker-friendly landlord Nick Hogan released from jail.
It was an exhilarating few days. Anna (aka Susanne Nundy) was friendly, professional and true to her word. Her description of Old Holborn, who led our raid on Salford Prison, is spot on:
I have a lot of respect for Old Holborn, he is a maverick, he is irrepressible, tiresomely energetic, and the original loose cannon. Hence I have a soft spot for him ...
Working with Anna and Old Holborn was as close as I've come to what some might call the "libertarian fringe". I enjoyed the experience but having dipped my toe in the water I wasn't tempted to jump in.
Today, via Dick Puddlecote, I discovered on Anna Raccoon's website this extraordinary, epic post.
The first half made me laugh out loud. Beautifully written, it's the funniest thing I have read in ages.
The second half was more disturbing and made me fear for several people's sanity.
Dick asks: "So what now, then? All over to UKIP?"
If I was Nigel Farage I'd be pulling up the drawbridge and dropping the portcullis.
Reader Comments (16)
Only today??? Where you been?
Dick Puddlecote's a Libertarian and he's not a loon. It's a shame that the sane Libertarians had their hopes for something great shattered by nutters.
I think they'll either move to a more Libertarian party than the LiblabCon or create something new from the ashes.
Simon,
This reminds me of your comment "Libertarians ... like herding cats."
Well, actually, herding cats is more achievable than than herding Libertarians (I have no evidence to back this opinion up apart from the fact that cats can't read), and herding proper anarchists (not the ones that riot for more state control) is impossible.
Long live Libertarians and long may they refuse to impose their will on others - just like proper anarchists.
Good on them.
I read this post, agahst, a few weeks ago. While I certainly felt for Anna, I did have a sinking feeling for the Libertarian movement. I remain convinced that a Libertarian party - under sane leadership - could be a force in politics. Unfortunately the tag 'Libertarian' has been sullied. The UKIP could perhaps take on the role - but it would mean divesting itself of its vehment anti EU position (if there was a strong anti EU feeling in the UK as typified by the tabloids, they would be doing much better in the polls than they are). I'm not suggesting the UKIP drop its EU position completely - but it it needs to re-position itself as more of a small government, pro-business and anti Nanny state party - a bit like the Tories used to be. I think many UK voters accept there is a lot to be said for EU membership - free movement of labour (around 2 million Brits live in the EU) easy immigration controls (imagine having to queue at Charles de Gaulle in the non-EU queue - it'll make weekend breaks in Paris difficult) as well as increased export regulations for UK businesses.
That said, I think many would agree that the EU has to be boxed in. If the UKIP adjusted its position to reign in all government - and that includes the EU - as opposed to total rejection I think they would garner more support and this would only serve those who strive for a libertarian agenda.
I know I've digessed to the EU (sorry Simon) but for our aims - which we share on this blog - a more electable UKIP would serve our purposes better. There are votes to be had on the Liberatarian position - and also better narratives to fight elections on. Single issue parties tend to be seen by the electorate as a bit nutty. Most voters are bright enough to say that there are many issues that have to be weighed before casting a vote - and voting for a single issue party is a waste. If the UKIP broadens its approach it'll be seen as a more sensible and intelligent party more worthy of our votes.
I disagree with Mark. I don't think you can draw any conclusions about people's feelings on UKIP's stance on Europe from their placing in elections. The fact remains that in many areas people don't get a UKIP candidate (in the elections a week or two back I had three Tory candidates and one Labour - no UKIP). Secondly, there is the whole danger of tactical voting. If you live in a marginal, do you vote UKIP because you believe in them or do you vote Tory to keep Labour out? Thirdly, don't forget about Party allegiance. In a country where 40% of the population would STILL vote Labour you can't underestimate the "I'm voting for who I've always voted for" effect - there are a large number of people who hate the EU but who would never vote UKIP. Finally, you mustn't forget how tragically ill-informed some people are. They do not know who UKIP are or what they stand for. Don't underestimate how many people even know who is in Government at the moment..... I doubt I'd be far off if I said one in five of our population was unaware of the Coalition. The fact remains, when people are asked if they want in or out of Europe, the majority agree with UKIP. That said, they need to defeat the aforementioned barriers to getting votes before they get anywhere. That said, let's not forget they came second in the last Euro elections and got a decent percentage of the votes (was it something like 25%)..
I don't have a choice.
My new Conservative MP rushed to vote against Mr Nuttall's Bill, to ensure that the elderly and the sick remained outside without adequate shelter.
If I voted for him again, I would be complicit.
UKIP do seem quite half-arsed in their approach, though and it is irritating as so many of the things they could do are relatively easy and relatively cheap to put right. Simon is right about a lack of intellectual core - while I feel that one of the strengths of UKIP is that many of its candidates (and members) are working-folk - business owners, professionals, tradespeople etc - people with experience of life so that many of its policies seem to be based on "common sense", I agree with Simon that it needs an intellectual wing. This could easily be achieved by forging links with pre-existing think-tanks like The Freedom Association, the Adam Smith Institute and others.
There are also a number of trivial things it could do which would help immeasurably - like a new logo, a new colour scheme etc. I know it's all very "LibLabCon," but rebranding really would help them. And I suppose I agree with Mark on one point - while I DON'T think they should alter their stance on Europe, they could do with changing the way they present themselves, focusing more on "Small State" (whatever that State may be), rather than wholly "We are against the EU." If they promoted themselves as the party of common sense and personal responsibility they would possibly get far more votes than they do now where they can be dismissed as Little Englanders. That said, they are the closest thing we have to a libertarian party and they get a lot of votes. So while they're flawed, they are still getting my vote.
One final thing - it really is a shame they can't change their name. The whole "UKIP" thing doesn't roll off the tongue and it is far too easy for a lefty media to portray them as "little Englanders" at best, or as some kind of nationalist party akin to the BNP, at worst. Unfortunately, it would be suicidal to do that now. They're the 4th biggest party in UK politics and as mentioned before, they pull in millions of votes. Still a shame, though.
We new people to UKIP - the disaffected LibLabCon - are there Simon in the main because of the issue of freedom of choice.
So now we are dismissed as nutters BY OUR OWN SIDE, should we just give in, take the ban lying down, quit smoking to be "normal" and go home wondering who the hell, exactly, speaks and represents us - certainly not the LibLabCon but some would still have us give them our support when there is nothing in it for us. Why?
My vote and support is UKIP or none. Is sanity and intellectual ability ONLY something that can be found in the LibLabCon where any old piece of third hand scientific rubbish is taken as fact by the likes of Cameron, Millibland and Cleggy - people too thick to see through the scam.
Honestly, it is days like this and posts like this that make me wish I'd never got involved in this whole charade for that is what it is. I've wasted far too much of my precious unpaid time on it as it is.
Cards on the table - who really cares about freedom of choice and denormalisation so much they are willing to take chances and vote for a party that supports them?
Oh what is the point.
Well, I'm not as pessimistic or emotional as some contributors on this site. The only problem I see with the smoking issue is the acceptance of SHS, simply that. Without that, nothing stands and it's back to the drawing board for the puritans. On this issue, I'm optimistic.
The main thing that concerns me, these days, is the smoking ban. I'd give my vote to Marx or Genghis Khan if they stood on a platform of amending or scrapping it. I am, therefore, interested in this emergence of 'Blue Labour' as Maurice Glassman has stated it went too far. And I'm a Thatcherite.
I think that it’s inevitable that when the major parties offer so little difference in terms of the day-to-day life of the average “man in the street” – they all want more power over the way we live, they’re all money-grubbers, and not a single one of them could organise a bunk-up in a brothel – then single issues like the smoking ban and the in/out question of EU membership become deciding factors in voting behaviour rather than just one of a number of issues which the electorate can consider before casting their votes.
I think that UKIP’s anti-EU and anti-ban stance gains them more votes than is realised, simply because these things have become the only ones which people can vote on and be fairly certain that some change will occur. At heart we all know that all other important areas – education, immigration, transport, health, law enforcement, defence – will almost certainly remain pretty much the same to all intents and purposes after any election as they were before, regardless of who might or might not be running the country. So I think that if UKIP were to ditch their flagship anti-EU policy, they’d be cutting off their nose to spite their face. Ironically, the only people who could change this situation are the major parties themselves, by actively offering us some choice, rather than more of the same, just with different coloured rosettes.
Look at senior Labour and Tory politicians and you will see some irrefutably clever people.
Ok name one?
@Frosty
David "two brains" Willetts and Michael Gove for the Tories.
UKIP with some exceptions do appear to be nearest to a libertarain (small 'L') party. Godfrey Bloom MEP, I presume Nigel Farage and other UKIP'pers like Tim Aker promote the ultra libertarian Austrian School of Economics, which is basically the Institute of Economics creed. Nigel Farage suggested on Radio 4's the decriminalisation of drugs and a Royal Commission to review it. BTW Nigel is back to his Rothmans.
Here is a video of Nigel being interviewed at the IEA by Mark Littlewood on his libertarian principles and beliefs. My question on smoking is at 30 minutes.
http://www.iea.org.uk/multimedia/video/an-interview-with-nigel-farage-how-free-market-is-ukip
Whilst I agree that UKIP needs to broaden it's appeal it is worth pointing out that they have been the only party to demonstrate a healthy scepticism for the man made global warming (sorry, climate change) religion. This must be the biggest scam ever.
No other party even questions this elephant in the room. Go UKIP.
Mark -
Re:
"I think many UK voters accept there is a lot to be said for EU membership - free movement of labour (around 2 million Brits live in the EU) easy immigration controls (imagine having to queue at Charles de Gaulle in the non-EU queue - it'll make weekend breaks in Paris difficult) as well as increased export regulations for UK businesses."
Each one of which may be subject to treaty, negotiated between those states which wish to participate.
None of which requires 'membership' of the monstrosity known as the 'European Union'.
Please let us not perpetrate the euro-philiac myth that it does !
Pat -
I sympathise with you entirely.
I doubt very much, however, whether Cameron (First Class Degree in PPE from Oxford) and his mates are 'thick'. I almost wish they were: they might make some 'mistakes' in our favour occasionally !
It's much more likely that - rather than actually believe the nonsense they spout - they (at the leadership level, that is) find it 'politic' to pretend they do. This would at least explain their apparent imperviousness to all our counter-arguments.
The stupidity probably applies almost exclusively to the camp-followers, the go-along-to-get-alongers, the media goons, and the enforcers. And a huge swathe of the Electorate, alas.
'Brightness' has never been a quality that impressed me that much. Tony Crosland - much-beloved of the Radical Chic at one time - was undoubtedly 'bright', but his vindictive assault on grammar schools is one of the greatest tragedies of post-War politics.
No, it's Honest Politicians we need - not intellectual plate-spinners. And if that means we have to endure a little colourful crankery - who cares ? Anything, rather than the bland, uninspiring, soul-less, and (ulimately) oppressive architecture of the New Politics, and its passion-free managerialism.
Frankly, I have greater sympathy for the dolts who still believe in Man-made Climate Change than for those who (say) 'support' the likes of Nick Clegg. It's quite beyond my comprehension.
Depressing - isn't it ?