Personally, I think that spinning the party to the NGO and political party is a good idea on paper, but the logistics of the party alone are already a nightmare. Adding the NGO is only to make things more difficult in practice.
Also - LibLeft? Seriously? It doesn’t exactly scream originality, does it?
A more appropriate name would be something like “The Solutions Party” (Obvious) or “The Oreo Party” (Because like an Oreo, the world is complex, multicolor and fragile)
“Liber” is the root of the similarity. Voters will think that “Libertarian” is somehow associated with “Liberal”, and is what happened at the 2013 election. If we are voted under the “Libertarian” base name, I don’t want to feel that we duped people, even if inadvertently, into mistakingly voting for us if they did not intend to do so, but did so because of a similar name and not think twice about it. Although it’d be good times that we got the vote, but I don’t want to feel like we’ve misled people based on the issue of a similar name.
I don’t see why our name is our problem, particularly in this instance. Perhaps we need to improve on brand promotion. If we want people to talk to us rationally, we need to attract them. We need to sell ourselves in a way to convince them that the “Pirate” name is for real. I don’t feel a name change will work. A name change will give the impression that we faltered somehow with the Pirate name. I joined partly because the name stood out, and for its modern appeal. A re-label to where we stand on the political compass feels generic.
Using this opinion, if we were to adopt this as part of our name, this is how I feel people will see us:
Are we trying to rebrand ourselves to be more popular? The argument seems to be: “Libertarian left doesn’t really mean anything but people will think it’s serious and therefore will vote for it.”
“Labor” is also meaningless, possibly more so. It’s tied to a movement, and that is why it has credibility. That credibility had to be built over time, but it happened, and that’s why it is lasting. Enough people have fought that fight. There are a lot of people today who agree that copyright is bullshit, and “Pirate” is the best name to associate with that. The real question is: Is this the party of that movement?
If you see this party as a tax policy, privacy policy, and maybe some other things, “LibLeft” sort of makes sense. If you see this as a party dealing with culture and copyright and freedom, “LibLeft” seems like capitulating. We’re essentially saying “Let’s just disband the pirate party, but we can start a new party with a bunch of the same policies.”
Personally, I’m only aesthetically liberal left. It’s the closest thing on the spectrum which fits me, but I’m not an actual “liberal left” person. I don’t “believe” in the dogma. I don’t think political parties should have dogma. I think that’s how politics was ruined and huge amounts of money gets wasted. Being a party of dogma means being a party married to our policies. Being a pirate means “we don’t know, but we’ll find a solution, and this is the kind of solution we like.”
I started a different thread explaining the motivation for this proposal to give everyone some perspective as to why this has been proposed. Posting a link because much of it is very relevant to this discussion. 
As an affiliated but distinct entity, I think the NGO would be much easier to operate than the Pirate Party. More than half the bureaucracy would be removed. The digital rights arena is current dominated by the ineffective Electronic Frontiers Australia (which does not hold a candle to the Electronic Frontiers Foundation), and the equally ineffective Australian Digital Alliance which seems to spend most of its time being so damn moderate it achieves nothing.
I think ‘Libertarian’ is sufficiently different from ‘Liberal’. Let’s not forget that the LDP literally uses ‘Liberal’ in its name.
I think more to the point is that we appear to have outgrown the name ‘Pirate Party’. Unfortunately ‘Pirate’ hasn’t become synonymous with ‘Left-Libertarian’ (despite the Pirate ideology being very clearly a left-libertarian ideology). Perhaps that could be improved upon, especially as most of our policies are now drifting away from what used to be called the ‘core’ issues, and many of those issues are now being resolved outside of the political arena.
So the question really, in my mind, comes down to whether the label ‘Pirate’ is actually the best label for us considering our now-extensive policy set and the future directions of the Party.
So the name should be as reasonably:
as is possible to make it?
Not convinced that there actually is a general understanding of this word based on my interactions with people over the last several years. Responses vary from “never heard of that” to “I like freedom” to “there once were crazy right-wingers, run away!”.
It’s not so cut and dried, hence my proposal in the first place.
That’s what makes this proposal a fairly difficult name. Also, we’re not a bank trying to sell a mortgage.
Pretty sure Libertarian Left covers off our entire platform.
It’s what it says beyond the platform that’s the problem.
While we’re at it, I’ve been looking for a term to convey the freedom aspect. Haven’t found anything that doesn’t smell too much like “Tea Party”.
Please enumerate what you believe the proposed name “says beyond the platform” so we can better understand your position.
In other news, an article about a new forming party called the ‘Wellbeing Party’ has a quip about us in it:
The electoral commission’s register of political parties lists the Pirate Party Australia and while it appears to be a force for pirate shirts as worn by Jerry Seinfeld in the sitcom, it is a movement against “draconian copyright and patent laws” and protecting civil and digital liberties against piracy.
First, you were warned:
Then, you showed that you already knew:
What impact on your case do you anticipate from your trolling?
Returning to honest discussion:
If the only option on offer is the one upon which you seem fixated, then I won’t vote for change. If the Party is renamed as you wish, then I believe we will lose members. It’s highly probable that the name will attract members that you won’t particularly want.
You’ve rejected all reference to common usage, clinging instead to narrow dictionary definitions. We’re the Pirate Party; how often do you rob ships at sea? Are the Liberals really liberal?
Tarnatiger Copter put it well:
If the Party really needs a new name, then it doesn’t need to reflect our policies or position. In fact, we’d be more nimble and flexible if it doesn’t.
Going to ignore the goading and get to the crux.
The only “restriction” that left-libertarianism imposes is no authoritarianism and no right-wing nonsense. It can’t get more nimble or flexible insofar as meeting the requirements of the party’s current culture and ensuring it isn’t restricted in the future without evolving into something it should never be.
I don’t care if—regardless of what the name changes to—we lose members. If they’re in it exclusively for the name, they’re in it definitely for the wrong reasons. I’ve spent the best part of 8 years on this party, so I’m not some nobody nom de plume trying to assert a point for no purpose than to gain attention. I want the party to grow going forward and it has largely stagnated in its current form. I will continue to argue for my proposal otherwise there would have been no reason to propose it in the first place.
Go read over @Frew’s post and see someone else who has spent just as many years on this organisation making the point about why the change is necessary.
Are Left Libertarians really right-wing?
Also because I just can’t let this go: the Liberals are liberal in the sense they named themselves; see economic liberalism.
It’s also worth mentioning, I think, that libertarian doesn’t actually have an established connotation in Australian politics. All the more reason for a truly left-libertarian party to grab hold of it.
The negative connotations attached to it do not seem to apply outside those familiar with American politics. Every example of ‘bad’ libertarianism raised comes the United States.
I am confident that the negative connotations of ‘libertarian’ would be tempered by the word ‘left’, and that anyone with a knowledge of libertarianism would know what left-libertarian means.
Of course they are not the same, but ‘social equality’ is the constitutional principle to which ‘equity’ best relates.
It would seem quite a bad decision to cover less than half of what the party stands for. ‘Libertarian’ would be far better than ‘equity’ if we took that route: we are, after all, a civil liberties party. It is the completeness of ‘left-libertarian’ (or other arrangement of those words) that makes it so attractive.
I think if we are to move away from Pirate Party, it should be towards a name with a similar completeness as what has been proposed.
OK, but we do actually get news of US politics over here 
Those bad examples are going to stick with people.
Incidentally, there appears to be a Libertarian Party of Australia, although AFAICT it’s never been registered with the AEC (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_of_Australia and http://libertarian.net.au/)
Neither the American or Australian libertarian parties have ever achieved enough momentum to get significant local attention.
And by ‘significant’, I mean ‘more than us’.
Sorry, I should have been clearer. What I meant by getting news of US politics over here was that every time some gun nut, climate change denier, Ayn Rand disciple, selfish bastard or other crazy who happens to identify as libertarian pops up doing something nutty, we hear about it, and it taints the term.
I know qualifying it with “left” makes that go away if you take the time to think about it, but the base term is still overloaded with ugly cruft. It’s a shame when that happens to an otherwise useful word…
Which is rare. ‘Libertarian’ is not as loaded as people think. There would seem to be a good opportunity to reclaim ‘libertarian’ (although, as I’ve indicated, it would be more of a claim).
Perhaps not the name, but the connotations of the name.
If Libertarianism doesn’t have right-wing associations, would you need the modifier?
I raised the question of Libertarianism with a group of acquaintances. A couple of farmers, a retired coal miner and some in metal trades; not inner-city sophisticates. The name that came up repeatedly was David Leyonhjelm. For those not familiar with the senator from NSW, his record can be summed up:
guns good;
wind farms bad.
Sadly, for those who might want to believe otherwise, the electorate is quite familiar with the connotations of Libertarianism in Australia at this point in time.
I fear you’re suffering Confirmation Bias; subconsciously turning a blind eye to that which doesn’t support your case.
Doesn’t the mere fact that you need to temper the term trigger any alarms?
You haven’t established that any new name needs to cover any part of that. Do we need a description or a brand?
In Pirate Party, we have an established brand. Moving away from that will be costly in many ways.
If you see the party as one of extreme individualism and small government, then your chosen name is appropriate. Potential confusion with the Libertarian Party will probably be no concern.