ACT, Libertarianz, Freedom Party, Liberal Party, whatever name there is for the future of those at the libertarian/freedom oriented end of the political spectrum is not important right now. What is important is that those of us who share some fairly core values and principles agree to sit down and talk.
The options that have been taken up till now have been somewhat spent. ACT has long been the pragmatic option, but until 2008 was never part of government. In government, many (including myself) believe it under-delivered, and certainly the strategy taken by the leadership the past few months has been an abject failure. I wont repeat my previous views on this, but needless to say ACT as a liberal force for more freedom and less government cannot limp along simply led by John Banks to the next election. I suspect even he realises that the status quo isn't sustainable.
To be fair to Libertarianz, every election since the 2002 administrative debacle has been an improvement, both in campaigning style and result. Yet without getting virtually any media attention or having enough money to buy advertising, it struggles to get heard. Even when it had its peak in 1999, it was due to Lindsay Perigo’s leadership and presence on a nationwide radio station.
Yet this end of the political spectrum has been sadly filled with the sorts of chasms and arguments that are not entirely dissimilar from that of the far left. It occasionally has been a little like the Trotskyites vs. the Stalinists vs. the Maoists. ACT has blamed Libertarianz for being too purist, Libertarianz has blamed ACT for being soft sellouts and others have said that Christians have felt excluded, along with non-objectivists, or even those who are conservatives in their personal life and have conservative values, but don't believe the state should impose them. Bear in mind I’m an objectivist libertarian and Libertarianz member who
has voted Libertarianz four times and ACT twice since MMP came along.
The bare faced truth that needs to be admitted is that there is a difference between seeking to win Parliamentary representation and influence, and to be a lobby group that seeks to influence more widely than that. Those on the left, including the environmentalists are expert in doing this, having set up a number of moderate to high profile lobby groups that focus on specific issues.
Those of us who want less government, need to do more organising, less in-fighting and recognise the difference between running a successful political party, lobbying on issues and being movements of populism or philosophy.
I agree with Peter Cresswell that those of us who are freedom lovers need to start talking.
So I suggest there be a conference of some sort in that light.
The default invitees being senior members of ACT and Libertarianz, and others specifically invited by people from both parties (who may come from National or elsewhere inside or outside politics). It should be a session to think, not necessarily to decide what to do, but to spend time to chew the fat and provide the catalyst to do more thinking, before acting. It shouldn't be a session to grandstand or for publicity seekers, but a serious closed conference. It wont be to make final decisions, but to make substantive progress on what to do next. It should form the basis to produce proposals for discussions with existing party members, and to reach a conclusion within a year.
The agenda should be as follows:
- Introductions ;
- What sort of objectives should exist for a political party of freedom;
o Principles and values;
o Political goals
- Understanding philosophy (where do our principles and values come from ((intention to understand, not debate, how different people came to the freedom/liberal/libertarian end of the spectrum));
- Key policies and issues (identifying policies that unite us, and those that divide us. Not looking for detailed discussion about tax rates, but to establish common ground and to understand clearly the issues that cause some of us problems and finding a way to address, discuss them);
- What’s right about ACT and Libertarianz, and what is wrong;
- What a successful party of freedom would look like, campaign like, and focus on;
- What to avoid (Open, frank and honest discussion about what a future party should avoid);
- Options (revitalising ACT, strengthening Libertarianz, starting from scratch, rebranding and merging) with the objective of narrowing down preferences to two;and
- Next steps (widening discussion with respective parties, another meeting to create concrete proposals).
This should happen next year, around mid-year (so people will want to stay inside). It should be good willed, good natured and well disciplined. It shouldn’t just be a meeting of suits, or a meeting of loud mouthed angry ranters, but a meeting of good people, with good intentions, who have by and large, shared values, but haven’t been talking from first principles and objectives with each other. Bear in mind also that what may finally come could be a two pronged strategy - one involving a
political party, another involving a think tank/lobby group (or two?).
The most important thing of all, for everyone, will be to listen.
In advance of that, those of us in ACT, Libertarianz, and indeed freedom oriented members of National, ALCP (and others if they find themselves in a less conventional political home) should sit down and talk amongst ourselves, and with each other. It is time to rise above the morass of noise, detail and personality clashes. Nothing should be in or out, but it should be obvious that unless there is a consistent belief in there being less government and more freedom, then we will get nowhere.
It’s time to not be too solipsistic and realise that this election less than 1.5% of the public voted for parties that expressly espouse less government. Many of us have been doing this for some years, but we also have eager, hard working and enthusiastic young people who reject the mainstream view that the answer to any problem is automatically that the government should do more. Let’s do it for them, do it for us, do it for the country we want New Zealand to be - I believe that at the very least it means free, prosperous, optimistic, where people are judged not by their ancestry, sex or background, but by their deeds and words. A country where being a tall poppy is not something to sneer at, but something to celebrate and aspire to.
The conservative right has got its act together, and has built a highly credible platform that could cross the 5% threshold in 2014.
We must do the same, but better.
Who’s with me?
P.S. The reports that John Banks is talking to the Conservative Party to consider some sort of relationship, simply exemplifies the fact that ACT is finished. LET Banks take whatever is left of ACT with him, let him go. He'll never win Epsom under that banner. I'd don't need to say the three word phrase that starts with "told", but I am SO glad I did not vote ACT to be represented by Banks. It isn't schadenfreude at all, it's just frustration when this whole debacle is res ipsa loquitur.
Who’s with me?
P.S. The reports that John Banks is talking to the Conservative Party to consider some sort of relationship, simply exemplifies the fact that ACT is finished. LET Banks take whatever is left of ACT with him, let him go. He'll never win Epsom under that banner. I'd don't need to say the three word phrase that starts with "told", but I am SO glad I did not vote ACT to be represented by Banks. It isn't schadenfreude at all, it's just frustration when this whole debacle is res ipsa loquitur.
