I believe you can tell a lot about a party from its name. Some of them are quite simple. The Libertarian party, LPUK, are Libertarians; they stand for small government and low taxes. I don’t much like the politics of the Labour party, but you know what you are getting when you vote for them. They’re the *labour* party, they are what they say they are, right there on the tin. In a world where politicians are more eager to sidestep real responsibility than solve problems, I think it’s important the public are informed on who they’re voting for. Most of the major parties have kept to the tradition of being honest with naming their parties after their principles, but now that paradigm has been broken by the DRF, the threat rises too from TPM in the upcoming election.
The three minor parties all have very dubious names. Some of them sound as if they are opposing factions in a middle eastern civil war; is that really the kind of attitude we need in Westminster? Nor do any of their names actually mean anything. Loyalist League? Loyal to what? The crown? The nation? That’s basically unionism. I can somewhat forgive them for the “league” part as it seems it’s more a product of uncreative forced alliteration than anything else.
The DRF at least say something meaningful in their name, these republicans obviously want “democratic” reform, allegedly. But what else? For a party to be legitimate it should have clear group of principles to staunchly stick to, not a single policy. I’m puzzled that they’re a “major” party now, they may well be major on one thing but they’re still a minor force to me. In a bizarre move this week they merged with the Party of Wales (Plaid Cymru), another party with a deliberately vague and entitled name. I suppose there was only room for one group of separatists in Wales. Why they must be called the “front” is beyond me, why not “democratic reform party”? Fronts are for battlefields, not democratic halls of power.
TPM are perhaps the worst of all, inherently arrogant and entitled. Who are they to say they represent the people with a mere two MPs? How can they be the people’s movement when nobody votes for them? An alarming policy of TPM is the abolition of the monarchy, not very popular with the people at all with only ~15% of British people in favour of morphing into a republic. If they’re a movement not a party, they shouldn’t have any business in Westminster; but rather mingling on the outskirts of a fragile and very left-wing student protest. Perhaps TPM designed their name as a substitute for their lack of real popularity among the people and their lack of movement towards number 10.
Why the concern though? My concern is three-fold. Firstly, the minor radicals should be honest with the British people. It should say on the ballot paper who they are and what they want. Every other major party has manged it. It’s deliberate deceit. Make no mistake, the minor radicals are ready to betray Britain and their promises if it benefits their power grab.
Secondly, when these parties rise to power, or seize it, they have the unique ability to interpret loyalty, democracy or “the people” however they wish. They can use their populist methods to justify a great number of wicked things, we’ve seen it all before. They can ping around the political spectrum with remarkable flexibility, laying waste to our constitution and leaving us principled moderates to clear up the mess after they’ve gone.
Thirdly, it’s power without purpose. In the devolved assemblies we have seen power without purpose manifest into chaotic decisions, notably in Northern Ireland. When politicians don’t have a purpose, they resolve to virtue signalling and creating haphazard legislation. If it wasn’t for the sound, moderate and sensible policies of the Classical Liberals, Scotland and Wales would be a mess. I thank the hard work of my party and its members every day for that. It isn’t the point though, the system should be designed so our precious constitution and way of life is protected from this madness, no matter who gains power. These minor radicals have no principles
Labour: Major radical
I noticed an ooze of confidence from the minor radicals this week, more so than their usual arrogance, and not just from the DRF. My suspicions led me to catch up with a major party with a history of dabbling in radical republicanism and nationalism; the Labour party of course.
I asked Sam, on behalf of the Telegraph, if Labour had plans to endorse any of the minor radicals. The reply was suspicious to say the last.
“Labour have negotiated with a variety of parties for endorsement deals.”
When pressed specifically on TPM and the DRF being in that variety, Sam declined to answer any specifics. I think it’s probably safe to say that the minor radicals have certainly been in negotiations with Labour and are most likely endorsed in some places. We could be seeing a lot more of them in Westminster come February. I hope my words are heeded and the British people don’t turn to populist nationalism, including the Labour party.
/u/BrexitGlory is a political pundit and reporter active in Westminster, as well as a Classical Liberal MP.
Model Telegraph 