Monday, 1 October 2012

“Can Libertarianz step up?”

The media has been talking up Libertarianz in recent days.  Mostly as a means by which to bash John Banks, but amidst Banks-bashing there are both truth and lies—and good points and bad.

No one could be unaware that ACT’s meltdown has left a yawning gap where a National coalition partner used to be. TV3, NBR and the Sunday Star Slime have all had pieces arguing once the corpse of ACT is finally taken out the back and buried then Libz, or a new vehicle including Libz, should be the next big thing. I’ve been arguing that the coming GFC2.0 and the failure of this National government to do anything to roll back the state makes it urgent.

As it happens, many liberty lovers agree—hence the forthcoming Liberty Conference calling for all freedom lovers to work towards a new “true liberal” bloc in parliament.  [Only four days away, book your tickets now punters!)

TV3’s piece appearing on The Nation, and featuring yours truly along several current Libz and former ACT members, argues “the ACT Party has stood by John Banks through the Kim Dotcom donations scandal, but it hasn't impressed core supporters.” Frankly, their disgust with Banks pre-dates that particular scandal—as a feral conservative holding the reins of a purportedly liberal party should disgust its supporters.


Naturally, to talk down John Banks the media needs to talk up our chances of a new freedom alliance. We’re happy to help them. But there is some confusion about what a new freedom alliance actually means.  Writing in the Sunday Star Slime, Simon Day for example, reckons “The Libertarianz party is ready to tone down its image in order to take advantage of the political hole left by Act.”

Peter Cresswell… believes the party is in need of a facelift [says Day], which could be revealed as soon as Saturday at their party conference in Auckland.
    “Project Act and Project Libertarianz have been failures," McGrath [sic] said. "The upcoming conference is a call for everyone involved to look at a new vehicle.”
    The party must join the middle ground while pointing to their goals if they hope to achieve any success, he said.

Actually, I didn’t say that, but I can understand why a media obsessed with image and “middle ground” would think I did. And I can understand why former Libz and ACT stalwarts like Deborah Coddington would be appalled to think we would.  I’d be appalled too.

But it’s not our image we’re looking to change. We’re not going to “soften out stance.” And I never use words like “facelift.” As I said to Simon, it’s the whole approach of all related parties that needs to change. For opposite reasons, Project Act and Project Libertarianz have both been failures--and Project ALCP continues to go up in smoke. Economic and social liberals from all parties—classical liberals, if you like—can learn from our failures.

Project ACT abandoned principle in favour of populism, and ended up losing both. Project Libz embraced principle over populism, and we’ve succeeded only in putting those principles on the public stage. That’s a big “only,” but not as big as we’d have liked when we started Project Libz seventeen years ago. For similar reasons, ALCP supporters have faced similar disappointment.

What I’ve been saying in recent months is that there is an opportunity from ACT’s collapse, and from National’s desperation for new “partners,” for the appearance of a new vehicle: for a Party of All the Talents attracting like-minded adherents from all parts of the political spectrum.  A party firmly based on sound principles,* promoting a small suite of popular policies that get us there one principled step at a time. **

As I see it, that’s what this coming weekend’s conference is about. To take the first step with new friends and old to make that happen.

Can Libertarianz step up?” asks Matthew Hooton in the National Business Review. That’s a fair question.

But we need to.


* * * * *

PS: Like Lindsay Mitchell I laughed like a drain at Bryce Edwards' complaint about Libertarianz:

“Part of the problem is that Libertarianz are just too damn principled, and all about promoting their core ideology," said political commentator and lecturer Bryce Edwards.

At least  they have some principles and ideology to adhere to, responds Lindsay.

Or would it be better if they had some political wannabe minor celebrities using the party as a personal vehicle. Or a leader who appealed to old ladies and racists. Or embodied any of the new religions like global warming, freedom from genetic engineering, or putting trees before humans. Or provided a hitching post for old religionists who cling to biblical ideas of sin. Or played to separatists and first-people privilege sentiments. Or were such a broad church as to be indistinguishable from the next broadest church.
Are these political entities Libz should be looking to emulate?

Put that like, you realise the opposition is really only paper thin.

* * * * *

* ACT’s stated principles were always fine, and should have been since they were written by Libertarianz founder Ian Fraser. The problem was not their principles, which could easily be the founding principles of a new party, caused problems was their inability to follow them up in any way that meant anything.

**Policies like my Environmental Judo policies. Or Peter Osborne’s Canterbury Enterprise Zone.


  1. All the best for the coming conference. (As I said on the NBR thread, I'm not a conference type: but Libz have my pen for what it's worth. And it has been great to see the amount penned for Libz in the MSM over the weekend. Libz have my vote, but hoping to see a classical liberal 'alliance' in place for 2014 .... And kudos for the private time you're going to loose, Peter, fronting it (and Richard).

  2. I was in Auckland a couple of weekends ago. I wish I had known this conference was on. I would have altered my schedule to be there this weekend.

    All the best for a great outcome.
    I'l make sure I read your blog regularly from now on.

    DyannT. Nelson

  3. I thought that 3 News piece was going to be good, then I realised it was just more leftist sneering. As soon as Richard McGrath mentioned Victorian England, out come the sneery accompanying visuals, underlining the stereotypical pollution and child labour, rather than the principles of common law allowing innovation, competition, and massive creation of wealth. Even the tone of voice at the end was sneering.

    All the best at the conference. You'll be up against the unprincipled and mocking left at every turn. I really hope you hold your own and manage to keep those principles you're (we're) all being mocked for. You have my support and my admiration, if not my presence.

  4. You are going to need more than luck.

    Lose that Bridgman woman if you want to have any chance of success. She's trouble with a capital T.

  5. I trust the earlier floated idea of being in a coalition with The Conservative Party has been abandoned. Have occasionally read some of the "conservative" blogs, and they are simply appalling.
    (Includes calling WhaleOil and Cactus Kate leftist (sic))

  6. Before I can possibly consider Libertarianz, I need to know that all candidates have read and fully understood this piece
    until then don't call me.

  7. Rivoniaboy, what if we read it and disagree with some of it?

    Libertarianz now and into the future wont be taking a stance on religion other than it is a private matter and that the state will not support or oppose any.

  8. Richard McGrath3 Oct 2012, 09:18:00

    @Anonymous: I think it is safe to say Libz won't be merging with the Conservatives, though John Banks should.

  9. HIya there.Just like to say that the exposure on the weekend has brought you to my attention...halleljah for that as libertarianz could be what i have been looking for.ideas that i have read here are the ideals that has been my reality as the way forward for human kind.Will read more and get my head around it all.Just a you have an active group in the bop to make contact with. cheers Ross in rotorua

  10. One thing the Libz could do to win over more people would be to remove all references to that psychotic hack Ayn Rand. Rand even said she didn't like Libertarians anyway.

  11. @Ross: You could get hold of Fred Stevens in Rotorua (Google Fred Stevens Archicture Aotearoa), or Graham Clark in Tauranga (Google Graham Clark Brilleaux).

  12. An answer to the question in the title:

    ...unless something radically changes of course.

  13. Very exited about the upcoming conference. We as freedom loving individualist wild cat's will need to allow some herding in order to form a pack.

    Just for publicity sake I would love to see Kim Dotcom show up just to give Banks the finger. Also I hope to see Dr. Don Brash attend.

  14. Richard McGrath3 Oct 2012, 23:14:00

    @Dinther: Don Brash won't be there, but he is a good friend of one of the speakers.

    Breaking news is that we have secured Dick Quax to replace Cameron Slater (whose mother died a few days back) in a speaking role in the afternoon.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.