Dead hand of paternalism? Free market refoms? For a brand new party, this all sounds very 1980. You are standing up and saying that government should start doing what government has already been doing for past 30 years, only pretend its new, that way we can ignore its consistent failure. Do you seriously think there is any value in trying yet another new spin on the utterly discredited politics of Thatcherism, particularly when the two major partis do that every six months or so anyway?

More than that, you seem to be part of that numberless chorus that defines economic liberalism as the narrow set of policies the Liberal Party held in the mid-C19th, rather than the goals that led it to adopt those policies when they had been untried, and to retreat those policies when they had been tried and failed to deliver on those goals.

Wow…err…good luck.

in other words- you are disaffected and incredulously dim liberal democrats. You have decided that the liberal democrats do not have sufficient funding or influence, and so your response it to create a new party with no prospects, no money and no funding ( and a horrible website – you could not even get the one thing that it is cheap to make right). For some reason you think it will be easier to create a completely new brand with no money than to help move forward an existing one.

Your logo appears to have been taken of a health and safety warning sticker and 4 members of your front bench are still at school. Grow up and stop you ego trip and rejoin the liberal democrats

If this is a party, not a pressure group, then your political strategy is important and not just your policy agenda. After all, how do you intend to bring about your policy agenda. Alasdair’s challenge@3 seems a pretty fundamental one.

- How many candidates do you plan to field at the next General Election? Where will you focus most heavily? Do you plan to contest local election seats too? What are your other non-electoral means to establish a presence.

- How long do you anticipate that it might take to establish a presence greater than the Green Party, or the Liberal Democrats in British politics?

Well, there is some naivety here (like making land owners pay tax on their properties and then not expecting that cost to get passed on in rent) and it’s clearly very close to either the Lib Dems or the Libertarian parties depending on your outlook…

…but all the best, it’s nice to see more young people getting this actively engaged in politics. I hope your enthusiasm translate in to some measure of success.

Some nice policies, but the party’s website says you want to “liberalise the NHS”. Does this mean introducing market forces into our health system? If so then sorry but you wont get my vote.

I do also notice from your facebook page that about half your front bench team seem to go to Whitgift School. Perhaps having others would help spread the word.

Surely if one believes in ‘liberalism’ one is a ‘liberal’ not a ‘liberalist’? On the substance, I’m not sure I recognise what you describe as ‘social liberalism’. Where is the economic egalitarianism of social liberal philosophers like John Rawls or Ronald Dworkin?

I came across your manifesto a few months ago.

Decided the name “Social Liberalist Party” certainly did not mean what I hoped it meant (socialIST liberalist party).

Decided your policies were all existing mainstream policies already.

Decided you were just playing at politics.

Decided that actually you were pretty right-wing bunch.

Now wondering if you’ve been allowed to post on Liberal Conspiracy because you have liberal in your name.

So, essentially, the Liberal Democrats are not a party on a par with the big two, thus it would be a better idea to abandon what framework (and, under Clegg, ideological consistency) you WOULD have in the LDs and create a completely new party half based out of one school?

What?

Seems to me you’re just a bunch of naive AS Economics and Politics students who are painfully aware you lack the committment to rise in another party, yet still think you can get somewhere through creating a new party.

Also, you say that you want to make the public sector serve the public through the ‘free market’. How in blazes do you expect that to work without for most intents and purposes privatising the damn thing?

It is obviously a joke.

LOL

The use Liberalist because I do not think the electoral commission would let them call themselves the Social Liberal Party.

Basically yes, they are a small number of students who have decided that running an awful website, turning up to some meetings on Land Value Tax and producing pompous policy documents is more fun than actual politics. How many seats did you contest at the last local elections? Have you done any campaigining other than trying to recruit people? So far as I am aware the answer is no and none.

What roots do you have? Because believe me, when you actually contest an election you will be in for an awakening.

I don’t really feel the need as other posters do to criticise your policies, because you don’t do much else beyond navel-gaze about them. When you actually win an election, anywhere, then perhaps we will treat you as a party. But so far you remain content to play at being politicians without actually doing it.

It’s nice to see tribalism doesn’t just apply to parties, but to the established pecking order as well. I think this SLP should be honoured that they’ve managed to bring up enough hatred and bile from people in this thread, surely a sign that you’re making an impression at least.

Lee, it’s not some tribalistic reaction, it’s just that the SLP are bloody stupid on so many levels.

I think what I am most curious about is, why did you start a Political Party?

Are you hoping to make gains locally first by really engaging with your local area, because a small party could do that.

Or are you aiming to take advantage of the general disaffection affecting politics at the moment to get a broad but narrow bed of support?

In either case, I’m not sure a Political Party is the best vehicle for you, why not start a blog like this? or a campaign group like 38 Degrees? or a pressure group or think tank like those that abound everywhere? I’m curious as to what makes someone set up a party like this

Essentially agree with Edward. If we had a post from say, the continuing Liberal Party, then there would certainly be criticism. Well, we may well be critical, and in the case of the Liberal Party say “but, um, Lib Dems?”. However, they understand what it is to contest elections. They know they won’t be winning parliamentary seats. They wouldn’t post that they are in a stronger position for government than the Lib Dems, they would just attack on policy. Sure, we would argue, but the sheltered naivety would not be on show. Thats the issue here, not their size- I’ve happily had serious debates with members of tiny sects on the left.

Whats different here is the mixture of incredible naivety, spurious reasoning and not really understanding what constesting elections really means. To be frank, the only reason I think people give them any time at all is because they are young- if a bunch of 40 years olds did this then I am sure. Given both myself and Joseph are also young, we have no desire to see people humoured on such grounds.

Of course, the individuals involved do have more interest in electoral politics than most. Thats why we shouldn’t humour them down a self-indulgent cul-de-sac, we should be honest about what a nonesense it is in the hopes they will choose a more efficent way to contribute to politics. Heck, there are so few members of the old Liberal party they may as well just join that. They could have a go at some real policy debates at their assemblies, not just building a party for them all to agree in.

Oh, and if you do decide to take it seriously, just pick a council ward which only one party really contests and in which they do not pile up a huge number of votes. Then, you might have a chance of, well probably only a second place after some time if you throw everything at it. But you would be contributing to helping making elections competitive and thats a good thing. Its just you could do better.

“Lee, it’s not some tribalistic reaction, it’s just that the SLP are bloody stupid on so many levels.”

So are plenty of parties, the difference is they are controlled by people that actually think they know it all becauseof their years, and this group is young and is obviously politically engaged. If their policies aren’t good then let’s engage and improve. It’s a damn better option than ridiculing them because they’re schoolish age.

Joseph is of schoolish age. We are ridiculing them because their proposed new party is ridiculous and doomed to fail. If they weren’t of schoolish age, then they would also be ridiculed.

They have contested no elections, but have a “front bench team”. Why? Even the Greens and UKIP don’t have a front bench team, and there are real elections where they are a serious force- theres no reason for small parties to have one. Except it gives more people to waffle on about policies. Policies which appear to lack much in the way of either a democratic process or an effort at an evidence base. And which are to be implemented though… winning elections… which they have no hope of contesting.

As a party its a ridiculous prospect. Thats just a fact, and as a young person myself I don’t feel any need to pretend otherwise- as if young people involved in politics should just get a free pass.

This reform also bypasses the “Not in my back yard” attitude.

Please explain how.

I guess the idea is that tax cuts on the basis of development revenue would see more enthusiasm for development.

My view: implausible. After all, tax cuts appear to be universal so those nearest development are still net losers. Plus, the tax cut is not predicated on any specific development so the collective action problem immediately emerges.

Also, raising revenue by doing that assumes constant new builds, otherwise how would it work? But is that sustainable- just look at the commercial property crash, even worse than the residential one. All you appear to be doing is encouraging councils to be complicit in blowing bubbles.

“As a party its a ridiculous prospect.”

From your view, the idea that because you find it ridiculous that they should shut up shop and go join another party is ridiculous in itself. They obviously don’t feel at home in an existing party, and this type of move, potentially, is infinitely more beneficial than to set up yet more “think tanks” and blogs.

Well I don’t think spending a lot of money to place last in a handful of seats is very worthwhile at all. You and they are entitled to disagree, but I don’t see any reason why if they post about it on a public blog known for its debate I should be obliged to “engage” rather than actually express my views.

I like the cut of this group’s gib, and ideologically, it has some similarity with Will Wilkinson’s idea of liberaltarianism: http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/05/30/liberaltarianism-back-the-future/

(essentially, the usual enlightenment support for substantive freedom and equality combined with the economic competence that libertarianism emphasises)

Sure it looks like a pressure group now, but the Greens started out that way and they now have to be reckoned with in non-First-past-the-post election, and have altered some of the priorities of the main parties. As party affiliation itself becomes less important in the coming decade, these sort of groups might make more of a contribution.

Wow – a surprisingly positive response!

I’m gonna try and respond to everyone, although not in just one comment – please forgive me (and shout at me) if I miss you out.

1. Gregg, what about ID cards, DNA databases, excessive bureaucratic targets? There’s a lot of paternalism to get rid of. If you’re not economically liberal though, then let’s agree to disagree.

2. Lazy Students – Thanks!

3. Alasdair – I’ve never been a LibDem. Some members have, most haven’t. So what if some of us are still at school?
If this was really an ego trip, we’d have joined major parties. We formed this party because they’re policies we believe in.
OK, I admit I may have been a bit harsh on the LDs, and I got (rhetorically and otherwise) carried away when asked to criticise the other parties a bit in this article. I apologise for that. I never mentioned funding or influence.
As for the logo and the website, some people like them, some people don’t – they’re hardly the things to be criticising so vehemently.

4. Sunder – It could turn out that way. I admit we started out rather naively. The party’s evolved quite a lot since then, and talk of electoral reform is still in the air, so we can wait and see what happens – there hasn’t been a big enough incentive to stop being a party though.
As for elections – the plan is to contest seats in the election after next, giving time to become better known and build up membership. We’ll see what happens.

5. Thanks Lee Griffin – as for the taxation point, the fact that it’s an overall tax cut would mean that even if it were to be passed on, the overall effect to occupiers would be a fall in the amount paid. E.g. it used to be £120 to the occupier, it’s then passed onto the owner (presuming that they are not the same person for this example), and it’s also cut to a lower amount, let’s say £50 – even if the amount is passed on in rent, the occupier would still pay £70 less.
As you’ll have seen, the tax is funded by the LDAs.

6. Sneyton, yes and no. I advise reading the policy in full, but the fundamentals of a free and universal health service are still there.
Yeah, I’ll bear that in mind in terms of getting more spokespersons. Cheers.

7. Stuart, I think Tinter @ 11 answers your question.

8. Paul, Sorry for getting your hopes up. I wouldn’t say we’re right-wing though. Certainly not socially. The editors can answer your last point.

9. Joseph, my point about the LDs was the brand. You know the common yet infuriating phrase “I don’t really know what they stand for” – the fact it’s out there and very well known says a lot. As I mentioned before though, I’m starting to regret the fact that I put in any criticism of the other parties at all.

As for the rest, it’s rather presumptuous don’t you think? Whereas I may perhaps not have this commitment, I assure you that many of our members and pretty much all of the spokespersons certainly do have the commitment and the talent to do so. I’d hazard a guess at it being down to them wanting to be committed to something they actually agree with instead of something they pretend to agree with much of the time.

As for the last point, I’d recommend reading the policy for how.

11. Tinter, if it’s an awful website, please point out how we should improve it. “Pompous” policy documents? We can strip out the pomposity if you point it out to me – I certainly don’t want them to appear that way. If you mean that they’re pompous by virtue of their existence, then, well, I don’t see how a party can work without policies.
Yes, we’ve done lots of canvassing as well as recruitment. A mixed response of course, but nobody was expecting overnight results.
…and it certainly is fun.

14. Left Outside – because we started out with a few policies we’d like to see implemented. It then grew and grew from there. There’s certainly been a huge learning curve. The party is primarily based on policy, and just as with my answer to Sunder, there’s been no reason to stop being a party – we’ve enjoyed a growing membership, and some decent media exposure.

15. Tinter, I never said we were in a stronger position for government. (Incidentally, we apparently have more members than the continuing Libs). The main purpose of the article wasn’t to attack – it was to set out our stall, and that meant trying to make it fairly policy-heavy. Again, I’m regretting putting in any criticism at all.

16. Maybe we could do better, but let’s wait and find out. We’re clearly still too small in numbers to mount an effective campaign. I’m not quite *that* naive!

17. Lee Griffin, Hear hear!

….. is this a joke?

19, 20. Cabalmat and Tinter, it’s based on a proposal that you can read here: http://www.centreforum.org/assets/pubs/in-my-back-yard.pdf
We used the lower estimate, (adjusted down for the housing crash) which given by the author.

21. Cheers – that’s right, we don’t feel comfortable in another party. I hope it will be more beneficial

22. Good, glad you’ve been expressing you views – nothing else was expected.

23. Nick, thanks very much – your whole comment is spot-on!

26. Errr no.

Anton- I generally support LVT but I can’t agree with that document. I don’t think this thread is the place for a full debate on that however so I will leave it be. Hopefully someone will do a front page post on LVT at sometime in the future- something to fill the slower summer months perhaps!

Possibly I have been a little too combative, largely due to the implication you are better positioned that well, anyone else for winning after having contested no elections. You said you were asked to attack other parties? I think whoever leant on you to take that editorial line really did you a diservice, and if it was LC than asking for such sensationalism is really beneath them.

Yes, you do have more members than the Liberals, although given your membership is free I think its probably fair to say many of your members are “armchair members” of the least active sort. I still put it to you that joining the Liberal Party is a good plan- they can help you learn how to actually contest an election, and you should easily be able to get a majority in their Assemblies for your ideas. Everyone wins, plus you lose the vote-losing name and logo.

I hope you are having fun, but its still very hard to really take you seriously I’m afraid. Having a “front bench team” is, as I have put, more a self-indulgence than anything else. As a political party your aim is necessarily to gain influence by winning elections and you just aren’t running in a way to achieve that. If you don’t then while it may be fun to those involved, its of as much interest to the rest of us as a chocolate teapot.

Canvassing is reasonable, but you also must leaflet regularly on local issues. Steal the Lib Dems pavement politics style, its the only real way any small party can build a base- all small parties have ripped it off for a reason. Contest the next GE if you want but it will just be an annihilation- focusing on carefully targeted local government wards is the only way to go.

If you can inject a more competitive contest into some neglected areas then that will be a positive contribution. But I don’t have confidence in your overall serious desire to do that. I’ve encountered you before (both personally and your party) and the impression I always get is that enjoying talking about policy always comes first. But if you aren’t winning anywhere your policies, to be frank, are irrelevant and so why should I or anyone care? The Socialist Party of Great Britain has loads of pamphlets and policy, but that hardly matters. If you want me to take you any more seriously, then it will take more than policy discussion- you have to make it look like your policies might matter. Of course, you are not obliged to make me care- if you just want to run a party because its fun then thats fine! But when you post here I think its fair for me to assume you want more from me than that.

Websites should be clean, yours is cluttered, with an ugly design that looks 10 years out of date. Greens, Lib Dems, Labour, even the continuing Liberals all have fairly decent websites that probably repersents what you are aiming for. Yours is clearly a very amateur effort and it shows.

Tinter, I agree that it should be debated more.

I was asked to differentiate us from the other parties, but it’s my fault for agreeing and writing in criticisms. LC cannot be at all blamed for that, only me. Asking for what differentiates us from the other parties would not be sensationalism.

Having free membership gets more people involved, but as a percentage of the membership, I don’t see them as being less active than the other parties.

You’ve hit upon a big issue for us – yes, we may not be ready to contest elections seriously, but we need to build up membership, and doing that means developing our policies and getting those who agree with the majority of them to join. No we don’t just run the party because it’s fun, but because we want to see these policies being implemented. We’re a party run on policies, not just power-grabbing. If other parties were to take on most of our policies, then we’d have little reason to carry on as a party!

So far I think we’ve actually been fairly successful at getting our message out there and getting the party and our views known. You clearly are interested in us because you’ve devoted so much time to debating with us (and for that I thank you) and to looking us up! We’ve managed to get media coverage, a growing membership and a few articles in here and there on the platform of being a party – so even though we haven’t yet contested an election, why should that invalidate everything we’re saying?

As Nick points out, this is a long-term thing, and just like the Greens, we could grow into something bigger. We’re a fledgling group that’s not even a year old – contesting an election so soon would be repeating the naive mistake of most new parties, getting a tiny result and thus fading away.

In essence, you are criticising me for publicising the party before it has won an election and because it has no real influence through public office. However, how can we win an election if we have no publicity and nobody knows what we stand for? Slightly paradoxical really, and I think we really need to wait and see what happens. It’s much easier to recruit members to a party that is growing than to one that has prematurely been shown to fail by contesting an election too early.

Yes, I do want more from you – I want to persuade you of the benefits of our policies so that you can sign up and support a party with policies you believe in! If you support different policies, then that’s fine, but it’s still worth trying isn’t it?

Thanks about the website – It’s been through 1 redesign, and seeing as you still think it looks naff, it obviously needs more!

Re “frontbench” – I used the word in inverted commas on purpose. Of course they’re unofficial, and really just policy spokespersons, but is it really such a crime when you’re a policy-based party to have people working on improving and advocating specific sections of policy?

The name grows on you (and I prefer to call it the SLP anyway), as does the logo, which is meant to be a flame. Some members have floated the idea of using the same logo but as being dark blue with a yellow flame. Would that be better do you think?

(P.S. When have we met before? Was this at the LD fringe event? If so, then I really have to apologise for what was a pretty dire performance from me)

Don’t feed the Troll Party.

Well, Joshua and Anton, the reason I continue on is because of a personal geeky interest in how tiny parties go. I could also go on at length about the American Greens and Libertarians or the Japanese Communist Party, to name but a few. So please don’t take my interest as any sign of warmth I’m afraid, its just fun to have a debate on a specialist subject of necessarily niche interest!

I didn’t say it invalidated your policy positions. I said it made them uninteresting. Parties policy platforms are necessarily compromises, but they are supported as ones that can be implemented and thats why people are interested. If yours won’t be why would they matter to me?

No, it wouldn’t. If you are going to contest elections you won’t get better at it by sitting round recruiting and producing policy documents. Contesting in just one council ward where the other parties don’t do anything leaves the road wide open for you- its how all other small parties such as the greens get going. It takes time regardless so putting of starting is just shooting yourself in the foot… or avoiding the hard slog and risk that politics means. And if you can’t get anywhere in such a climate, well, then you need to think about things.

Well, I’m criticising you because I think you have no hope of succesfully contesting an election, and are not structuring yourselves to be able to do so, or engaging in the right kind of mindset to do so. As a small party, dealing with local issues like bus stop placement and potholes is more important than discussing Land Tax Reform, which votes know full well you won’t be implementing because you are on 0 MP’s, as oppossed to a majority.

And once again, policy based party… see, this is what I ridicule. Thats called a “doomed party”. History shows you don’t win elections on lengthy policy documents, though try away. Shorter messaging is what works with voters, and for a party they don’t believe is anywhere near government they aren’t looking for specific national policies. Theres nothing wrong with developing that if you want, but putting it as a central plank of your strategy is begging to fail.

Its not just the website thats naff. The logo and name are also terrible. Liberalist sounds ridiculous, and together they fit right in with the mish-mash of groups that mark the bottom of the Euro Elections performance. Oh, and SLP is the Socialist Labour Party… Personally, given the electoral commission has allowed a bunch of facists to register as the National Liberal Party I think you have been hard done on that though. Well, vice versa more likely but it still means one of the two rulings is a nonsense. Still will not get anywhere with that name though.

Well, I’m afraid I’m not so much a well wisher so I think I will stop indulging myself in giving out advice and let you get the last word in…

Tinter,
Isn’t it worth supporting policies you agree with? Isn’t that something we should have more of in politics? Call me an idealist, and ridicule all you like, but having a party based on policies is always a good thing, and should come first. It’s another part of the reason we were set up.

“Producing policy documents” – where does that come from? We only have the one manifesto which is updated occasionally. It’s not like we spew out the stuff!

I honestly don’t see how recruiting isn’t important. How can we get a good number of people out there and canvassing if there aren’t enough members?

With your second paragraph, surely that could apply to any party other than the main two, including the LibDems (other than at a local level)?

At least the Libertarian Party blowhards had a website which was easy on the eye…