I’ve been meaning to comment on this too. Not sure if it belongs here or in the alternate names thread, as my comment isn’t really a critique of the proposal, but here goes…
I’m continually baffled by this. I mean, I get that people think it’s a silly name, but if you know the policies are good, and like what we’re about, why not vote for us regardless of the name? It is, after all, a secret ballot. Nobody’s watching…
That’s Antony Green’s problem, not ours. Assuming our goal is to get elected, then we need to be elected by the people. We do not need to to appeal to the existing political establishment’s ideas of what a sensible name is.
Actually, IMO, as I mentioned earlier, any even slightly unconventional name is going to be better than a “normal” political party name, because (if you’ll forgive a sweeping generalisation), everybody is sick of the political class and its games. We are not those people yet, we haven’t been eaten by the machine. We should make that fact obvious.
Yes, and peopl do secretly vote for us. You’ll never know who they are, even though I do, because they fear it would ruin their career or other nonsensical fears. If people in high places won’t advocate for you, you’re already screwed.
It is entirely our problem because we do not have the media vehicle he does. In fact, our tax goes to him so that can he can tell us we suck. That’s the system we exist in, and this is why I’m asking what benefits keeping the name provides, because all I really see is negatives.
I suspect no matter what we choose, it’s going to be unconventional one way or another.
I dislike both Libertarian and Left being in the name, I feel like both words are poison, but I do not really have a better option.
I have a few friends/family that wont join or do anything with the party because its called “Pirate”, if it was called Libertarian Left it would not only be avoided but also laughed out of the room. I probably wouldn’t be as enthusiastic about my involvement with the party, and I admit that’s shallow, but its there none the less.
Pirate is exciting and explicitly stands out, immediately edgy and counter-establishment. We need to capture some of that spirit still if we do change the name.
Unfortunately Australia has a long history of shit parties that have poisoned a lot of terms, like democracy and progress, and The LPA have ruined the term Liberal in Australia.
I think we do need a name change, I think we have out grown Pirate, but I shudder at the thought of Libertarian Left and have no better name I can provide.
I think we are open and inclusive, a name that resonates that would be great “Left” puts a great big exclusion on us.
I did think jokingly about The Conservative Party of Australia in a countenance to our conservative Liberal party… but I think that is petty…
I’m excited about the opportunity to be Purple, and given the greens party is serving as a great name for them, could we not be “The Purple Party” We keep the P then
I don’t think you will find anyone who is very resistant to change the name, or even agree that we must change it, but squabbling over the actual name is going to be long and tedious.
Only if there’s no actual process put in place to actually decide a name.
A motion was carried by the National Council to put an online strawpoll to the members about changing the name in general, which should be done sometime in the next week, which should give us a fairly good idea of whether the Party has the appetite for a name change in principle.
Assuming that goes well, a proper process of proposing name changes will be devised. At this stage, I am thinking about doing a preferential ballot of various proposed names to see what the general consensus is based on what people have thrown in so far.
At that point, we know how the Party feels about the various options presented, without fear that it’s an actual binding vote. Saying “this is the best of the names proposed” in that case wouldn’t mean “this is the name we’re going to have to use”. It might result in several people riffing off it and finding the perfect name.
The idea is to iterate over this process until we see something that more than two-thirds of the Party would be proud to have, and I think we can manage it before July.
I am pretty solidly opposed to such a short time-line. There is an extremely high chance of a Double Dissolution on July 2. I don’t think that having a fight over names, that will necessarily be going on through the election campaign, is a good use of energy.
It will suck oxygen from issues we want to campaign on, it will suck energy from the campaign itself. Our candidates will most likely be quizzed about it when they should be talking about the right to privacy, the TPP and the need for government transparency. People feel passionately about what we are called (myself included) and will divert energy that could be put into getting our ideas and policies out, into arguing for whatever the hell they want the party to be called. Some people may also be reluctant to campaign while we are going through a high paced identity crisis that directly coincides with the election.
I personally would rather leave the debate until after Congress because there is so much on our plates between now and then. That said, if people are eager to have this sorted before Congress, we can push the name voting (assuming people want to change names) to the week before, and the final name can be discussed and voted on in Hobart (or online for those of you not traveling down). It wouldn’t create anywhere near as much noise as if the debate was in full flight during the election.
Hi Frew,
I totally agree with you. I think that we need a solid identity before an election and having this issue over our heads would prevent us from starting early on a campaign, because the name could change in the middle.
Even though I personally don’t like the Pirate Party name very much, it has still been good enough to bring us together.
It would be better for the party if we just totally ruled it out until after the election. I would even be inclined to put forward an early vote “should we put the name change issue off until after the election?”.
Unless we just do a change of name vote now of course.
The sooner we can agree to a consistent name before an election, the better. We can’t start campaigning until we know what our name during the election will be.
We won’t be changing the name before the election.
The only part of the debate that will be finalised by the election will be the vote on whether we should have the debate at all, which should happen in the next week or so.
We have Congress a few weeks after the likely election date, so assuming the first vote passes, it will be discussed further that the Congress and a final list may be drawn up then for a vote (it will depend on how the debate goes between now and the end of Congress for the exact timeline to be decided).
Assuming we settle on a new name, there will be a final vote between the proposed name and the Pirate Party sometime after Congress.
If the new name is to have an evidence-base beyond party members’ preferences, then sample the electorate to find which name works for them.
Proposed event-line:
A referendum of name change (without specifying a particular new name) to ensure the whole party is on-side with a rebrand, for the reasons you have outlined.
Development of list of acceptable names.
Survey electorate to gather evidence on voters’ views of names.
Announce top “new name” candidates for party vote.
Where can we get an understanding on the position of Pirate Party Australia in relationship to other Pirate Political organisations globally and any participation of global forums / groups / collectives etc. ?
This guy just clicked through each of the parties to make a short summary.
Here’s ours:
The nerds reading this are probably familiar with the Pirate Party – an Australian version of the Swedish and now global (but still pretty fringe) movement. In Iceland they’re actually one of the main political parties. Their main reason for being is copyright and patent reform and free sharing of knowledge. The heavy tech involvement also means they have a much stronger grasp on tech issues than most other parties. They don’t like data retention and really hate censorship. They love to arc up when these topics are talked about.
So I think that this guy is an excellent example of what “most” people (who are savvy enough but not looked into the party in great detail) think of the party:
Connected to Iceland/Sweden (i.e. not really Australian)
Copyright and patent reform, support free sharing (Which is true, among other things)
Only Policies that are in the interests of Copyright Infringers like data retention & censorship (Which is not true, we support Freedom, and would much rather fix copyright than to commit Copyright Infringement)
We will always have a legacy as part of the Pirate Party movement and core values from this, but we are as Australian as any other, and the Platform has clearly outgrown the “Pirate” moniker as it’s primary means of identification. It is mature enough to stand on it’s own.
This has made it clear to me that a name change is necessary to do, when the time comes after election.
I’m a firm fan of the Pirate name for a number of reasons:
The connection to the Scandinavian movement is a positive thing. To be blunt, I prefer being a part of something that is a movement, rather than a member of a fringe-y micro party. Particularly when the story of these parties, in the Nordic context, is the rejection of the parties that have dominated politics for the last few decades. What a great thing to be a part of! Especially given the success of the Icelandic Pirate Party.
Leading on from this point, the “Pirate” name says to me, given that the Icelandic party has a female leader, that the PPAU’s policies would tend to be progressive.
While ‘Pirate’ may currently have limited connotations (‘they’re only IT people’, for example), it needs to be remembered that this was a problem/situation faced by the Greens for many years - the perception of being a single-issue party. But this is something that can be redressed over time by gaining popular awareness of the movement.
As a general principle, I think it’s better to take a firm, fixed position and persuade people around to it, rather than trying to pick some “general” name that will sound appealing to as many people as possible.
Could this be made optional preferential? I suspect a significant number of people voting for “Left Libertarian” would prefer “Left-Libertarian” to “Libertarian Left”, but that’s just a hunch. Does this website allow automated optional preferential or round robin? Sorry if this is common knowledge, I’m new here.
A sort of odd idea, but we could always just combine the words to be ‘The Leftarian Party’, make our own word to suit our needs. A little more abstract but it’s original and sort of conveys the ideas.
I’m just so surprised that a name change is seriously being contemplated. “Pirate Party” links us to an international movement. I can’t see how it’s any more “silly” as a name than the Sex Party, or the Greens. Perhaps the Sex Party is a good comparison: the name could be criticised for being frivolous or unserious, but over time - combined with consistent campaigning - the fact that it stands out so much has provided an opportunity for that party to gain some very solid public awareness of their policies. I don’t believe that the sort of people who see “Pirate” and say, “what a stupid name!”, then think nothing more of it, would be the sort of voters who would vote for any non-conventional sounding party, even if it was called “Equality Party” or “Left Libertarian” or what-have-you. I just don’t think that we should be tailoring our name to dismissive, conventional voters like that, in the first instance.
I hate to bring in brand recognition to a political discussion, but “Pirate” is a much stronger brand than the vague (and contestable) descriptors of a party’s place on the political spectrum that have been suggested in the forums so far.
I am of the opinion that we will not garner any more ‘respectability’ with a name change that sounds like it was chosen through a focus group to please everybody. Better to stick with a name that has history and a philosophy behind it, then gain the desired trust and gravitas through the sorts of strategies that have been proposed and discussed in the Party Strategy thread.
Reflecting on my recent experiences HTVing, my preference is definitely to remain as the Pirate Party. The Pirate brand put HTVs in hands.
Several times people who’d refused all the HTVs before me said “No thanks… wait, Pirate!? Lol what’s that about?” I’d give a short spiel and the HTV and then “hey, these are actually good policies!”
I can’t see any generic sounding name creating such curiosity.
So… I will vote to remain a Pirate.
…Unless we rename ourselves the Troll party or something equally ludicrous.
