Does anyone have any ideas of what demographic we should be targeting ?
My thoughts through a process of elimination are that the quadrant is centred around middle aged (25-50) educated males;
Conservatives are mostly 50+, influenced by religion, sceptical about science (arch enemy)
The Left are generally seen as more educated (or having pockets of more educated people)
Greens are strong with under 25, but i dont think they generalise about authoritarian vs libertarian, its more taken on a case by case basis.
The brand we develop should consider this (or a more accurate version) as the context which a new name will be judged.
If we are targeting more politically literate groups a descriptive name might not be a problem, but if we can come up with a name that has an initial appeal to the center it might help open the door.
Gender is not relevant, and the person who wrote this proposal (me) would fit squarely within the 18â25 age group, so your thinking might be a bit off. Specifically, I wanted a name that wouldnât have consequences for diversity like Pirate simply does. It evokes âIT people fuuuuâ which makes women think the culture here will be like that of an IT company (which, let me just say, is usually really fucking bad). It has never been that in practice, but convincing people is a different issue.
Our target audience is non-conservative non-authoritarian folks. Thatâs it. I donât think we need to target in any more detail that that because politics isnât a game for specific groups, and weâre not trying to sell a product for profit. You market specific policies in specific seats during election time to appeal to that constituency best, but thatâs not the same as building a â25 to 50 menâs only clubâ party. That would suck so very much.
I think the argument is backward. The name appeals to both groups: the literate know it means the not-fucking-lunatic variant of libertarianism, and the illiterate have no idea what liberal means, let alone libertarian, but arenât taken aback by it like Pirate and are more likely to engage as you seem serious compared to the other micros.
Also, the number of people Iâve spoken to in my time as a Pirate representative who would identify as âcapitalistâ and realise they arenât really was intense. Theyâd say âso, I think Iâm a right wing capitalist,â expecting me to explode at them, yet just got a âhaha, okay, why?â. Talk about their belief that people should get paid based upon the work they put in, etc. I ask simple questions like âdo you think people should be able to sit on capital and do no work, and merely make profit off the âriskââ? This usually resulted in âthatâs capitalism?!â People have no idea.
To not be descriptive in our naming simply makes it harder to explain who we are, which if considered deeply can be interpreted as an attempt at deception, which I think is contrary to everything weâve built to this point.
First up, I only partially match your designated demographic. I am attracted to the fact this represents a technology party and donât really, fundamentally, care what the party is called (I accept that neither criterion is necessarily usual.)
I regard those who go only by a party name as shallow thinkers, and if we are going to use this sort of reasoning we might as well plump for the âRALLY, RALLY FUN TIMES, VOTE HERE PARTY.â
(It could be I am just too cynical for anyone to seriously ask my opinion?)
I wasnt implying that we should be a specific demographic, diversity is a core principle of any non-conservative group.
Identifying our current demographic, or a demogrpahic we think is sympathetic to our values is useful for âmarketingâ, which is what election campaigns are all about.
A practical example is that say we paiid for some facebook advertising (which i dont know if we have ever done or not), it could help promote the current or a new brand to people who dont know us. We could target the advertising for a specific demographic that is more likely to respond.
Even if we dont advertise its useful to know where we stand from a diversity pov.
Just some interesting perspective from beyond our typical demographics, from my father and his partner, respectively typically Liberal and swing/personality voters - from their own admission neither are particularly politically literate in the technical sense, nor were they familiar with the term âLibertarianâ, but for context are both active in local politics and come from a marketing background. Both voted for the Liberals in lower house for the 2013 election, but PPAU in the Senate.
They both remarked that they were immediately dissuaded by the âleftâ part of the proposed name, stating that to them it implied âextremismâ / âradicalâ, and despite largely agreeing with PPAUâs policy base, state they wouldnât wish to be identified as âleftiesâ.
Some of their alternative suggestions were âLibertarian Partyâ, âProgressive Libertariansâ, âLibertarian Progressivesâ or âModern Libertariansâ.
Not making any particular judgement or evaluation of their comments & suggestions, just thought it an interesting perspective worth noting down.
I donât think âLibertarianâ works without the âLeftâ bit or âLeftâ works without âLibertarianâ.
Big L Libertarians, as in the Ayn Rand loving, tax hating, gun toting, radical capitalists are a long way from us on a wide range of issues. Essentially, we believe the State should provide healthcare, education and a social safety-net and they do not.
That said, libertarianism as a broad definition fits with our view of civil liberties and the importance of individual choice. We donât support censorship, drug prohibition or media ownership laws. We donât believe the State should have unfettered access to our information to protect us from terrorism or criminals because the State must have its power over individuals limited as much as possible whilst providing benefits for society. As often stated, âit is the government who should fear the people, not the people who should fear the government.â
From Wikipedia:
Libertarianism (Latin: liber, âfreeâ) is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment.
Libertarians generally share a skepticism of authority; however, they diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing political and economic systems. Various schools of libertarian thought offer a range of views regarding the legitimate functions of state and private power, often calling to restrict or even to wholly dissolve coercive social institutions. Rather than embodying a singular, rigid systematic theory or ideology, libertarianism has been applied as an umbrella term to a wide range of sometimes discordant political ideas through modern history.
We definitely fit under the libertarian âumbrellaâ, but firmly to the left of said umbrella.
The term âLeftâ has been damaged by the authoritarian strain of left wing politics, most notably through the various Communist Parties around the world and the (now waning) influence of Marxism. Even the Greens are more authoritarian than us (relatively), with support for media ownership laws and limiting free speech more than we believe healthy. That said, our outlook is firmly to the left.
From Wikipedia:
Left-wing politics support social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality. They typically involve concern for those in society whom they perceive as disadvantaged relative to others and a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished.
Our approach to social policies quite clearly fit in with this outlook. We donât support social hierarchy such as Monarchy or systematic inequality caused by discrimination and many of our policies are aimed at addressing inequalities.
As Brendan suggested in the OP:
Q: I think youâll lose the ârightâ for calling it left and the âleftâ for calling it libertarian. What do you think?
I think that is a reasonable assertion based on the traditionally narrow minded views of the mainstream media that paints Australian politics on a one-dimensional axis.
However, the argument falls apart very quickly as it becomes evident that the Party stands on a platform that significantly differs not only from the two major parties, but even the Greens and the LDP. We are an independent and unique party that is largely the only one that fits in the left-libertarian part of the political axis. I again invite you to consider the a left-libertarianism page on Wikipedia and see how well the Pirate Party fits within this broad quadrant of politics and how no other Australian party does.
Read the wikipedia entry. Whilst I donât know the philosophical backgrounds of every person in PPAU, where I do know where people come from, we all fit within the definition of left libertarian as stated. As soon as you mess with the name, you start to exclude parts of our current active membership base.
All of this said, I still like the name Pirate Party and would only want to change if the proposed name is better. Libertarian Left Party is IMO the first name that has been suggested that accurately encapsulates what the Party stands for and is decent. Iâm open to other ideas, but names like âSocial Democratsâ or âLibertarian Partyâ are much worse than Pirate Party and in those cases I would prefer our name remained the same.
Now this is an interesting question. On balance, I agree that a name change could be good, but I would take a different direction in terms of the name itself. Iâll come back to that, but the first question is why change at all?
Here are some of the advantages of the existing âPirateâ name:
It has currency in the digital rights community, being a well known global brand. That relative fame gives us a vote floor of around 0.5% (which dips only when weâre running against wikileaks). Itâs kept us consistently among the top tier of small parties.
The name stands out from the crowd and sparks interest among curious voters.
The name sums up our platform and what makes it unique.
It is a name and brand that lured a lot of us to join, so weâre naturally attached to it.
But then there are the problems:
Itâs hard to explain to people who arenât nerds. This risks us not being taken seriously enough and may mean our vote ceiling is not far above our vote floor. And of course âamong the top tier of small partiesâ in no way means electable.
The name could be an affront to people we ought to have on-side (creators and artists).
The global pirate movement is declining and the name could be losing its currency.
Digital rights issues are increasingly being decided by technological change and consumer choice, and not by political parties.
So fair enoughâthere is a reasonable argument for changing the name. My first thought was âProgressive Libertarian Partyâ; Brendan has suggested âLeft Libertarianâ and we have also heard âSocial Democratâ, âLiberty Partyâ, âDigitarian Partyââand various others including some at the Sydney meetup.
Before we pick the name though, we need to step back and look at the big picture. The whole game is about to change for minor parties. Senate reforms are passing which will attach optional preferential voting to a 14% quotaâthis will categorically lock out parties with little money. We are seeing parliament turn into a gated community for large publicly funded party machines and âoutsiderâ billionaires.
In this environment, the best (perhaps only) option for small parties is to run for state parliaments instead.
There are good arguments for this. The quotas for state senates are low enough to allow small parties through, if they can build support in the community. The resources needed to campaign are lower in state elections. Parties that get into parliament gain resources, staff, publicity, and generally stick around. Registering for state elections might be more difficult, but the flip-side is more clear air and less crowded ballot papers for the parties that manage it. (The exception here is NSW, where the requirement for groups to run 15 candidates has created tablecloths).
If our avenue for succeeding is at the state level, then it makes sense to look at which parties have already succeeded there. And this is where the name issue really matters. Here are all the minor parties which currently have seats in a state upper house:
NSW
Shooters party
Christian Democratic Party
Animal Justice Party Victoria
Local Jobs Party
Democratic Labour Party
Shooters Party
Sex Party South Australia
Family First
Dignity for Disability West Australia
Shooters and Fishers
There is a clear common factor here: every successful minor party has a name which is a âresonant phraseâ. All of the names appeal to an easily-understood cause and avoid reference to generic ideology. (yes there is the Democratic Labour Party, but that begun as an offshoot from a major party rather than something which had to grow up from the ground).
If we take an âideologyâ nameâeven one as technically correct as âleft-libertarianââwe will be going against the evidence about what actually works for minor parties. Broad ideological terms are poorly understood by the general public and would leave us struggling to punch through with a clear message. Weâd risk melting into the ballot paper as a generic party and being overlooked.
So if we change, I think we should pick a âcauseâ based name. There are various causes we could pick out from our policies. One is digital rightsâwhich we could use literally (Digital Rights Party), or slightly figuratively (Internet Party). The problem with that is that the digital rights voter base is small, and most of those involved probably know us already. Also, as noted, the future of digital rights is increasingly being fixed outside of the political arena.
IP-reform type names share many of the same problems.
I see a possibility in being called something like the Basic Income Party. Basic income is a much bigger cause now than when we first adopted it. The name and concept generate real energy and could infuse the party with a larger volunteer base. It could also draw members and help us get registered for state elections. The basic income movement has a long way to rise yet and if we rose along with it we may get the critical mass to break through in one state or another.
On the other hand, thereâs some controversy around basic income, and many other possible causes we could pick instead, so if you favour one then letâs hear it.
Thereâs also a middle path we can follow. Look at what the Christian Democratic Party did in marrying a cause (âChristianâ) with an ideology-type name (âDemocraticâ). A name like Basic Income Digital Society Party or Basic Income and Liberty Party (or whatever) would allow us to keep the punch-through but also have something which reflects our broader platform. We will have to think of something that doesnât sound awkward and make sure we put the memorable part (cause) first so people can find it on the ballot paper.
The risk in all this is that some other group will take on a version of our cause and/or name and split our vote (it would be particularly awkward if the other group got the name ahead of us). But to be fair, thatâs a risk weâll face to some degree with any name, including our current oneâwikileaks clearly split our vote last time.
Finally hereâs the ritual reminder that all of this needs to be considered at length by our members. The reception to our social media posts makes it pretty clear that the focus of our supporters is digital liberty, and they may not appreciate a paradigm shift out of the blue. We will need to retain our digital rights advocacy no matter what guise we take, and nobody should feel ambushed by any change or get a sense that the party is moving out from under themâor we could schism.
Thanks to Brendan for opening up this useful discussion.
Random Person: âOh, youâre a political party, whatâs the story?â
PPAU Member: âWeâre based around the core tenets of freedom of information and culture, civil and digital liberties, governmental transparency and participatory democracyâ.
Random Person: âOh, cool. Why Pirate?â
PPAU Member: âBecause a group with copyright reform as a core policy were always going to be called Pirates by, for example, the movie industry, so we claimed the name for ourselvesâ.
Random Person: âAh, I get itâ.
(Yes, I have actually had this conversation several times)
Now, change the name and play the second half of the conversation again:
Random Person: âOh, cool. Why Left Libertarian?â
LLP Member: "Because putting politics in terms of only left and right creates an overly simplistic binary which is incapable of expressing the full political spectrum. If, instead, we have two axes, and use left vs. right for economic issues and libertarian vs. authoritarian for government control over personal behaviour, we can much more accurately express someoneâs position. In our case, that means we support social equality (the âleftâ part) combined with individual freedom (the âlibertarianâ part).
Iâll leave the random personâs answer up to someone whoâs had this conversation recently (Iâll assume itâs also âAh, I get itâ), but suffice it to say Iâm not buying the âsignificantly easier to explain what left-libertarianism is than Pirateâ argument. IMO itâs about the same effort/difficulty either way.
FUD is a disinformation strategy used to influence people based on fear. Thatâs not what Iâm aiming for here. The âloss of a certain spiritâ has nothing to do with how I think weâll be perceived, and everything to do with how I, as a member, will feel if the name is changed. The Pirate Bureau of the Libertarian Left Party has all the spirit of a wet bar cloth. Call me a cultist or irrational if you like, but there it is.
When people join a movement, a political party, a sports team, whatever, part of the reason they do so is because something about that group resonates with them, and to a greater or lesser degree tends to mesh with part of their identity. An important part of that thing is the name of the group (people, myself included, along with being irrational, also tend to be rather tribal).
If I was shooting for FUD, Iâd have asked âhow many of our current membership will leave if the name is changed?â and âhow many people whoâve backed our crowdfunding campaigns wonât know who we are anymore?â
You seem to be assuming that a name change is inevitable, and that I am somehow obligated to argue either for Pirate, or for some other name. Iâm quite happy with âPirateâ myself, and, as far as Iâm concerned, no sufficient argument has been presented to initiate a name change in the first place, so Iâm not going to fall into this trap.
Despite the long list of arguments in the original post in favour of a name change, the only one that might hold water is âPirate scares people offâ. But who are these people? Potential voters? Potential members? Other groups we might partner with?
To be fair, I can actually see this being a problem in some circumstances, but itâs in no way clear to me how much of a problem it is in practice.
I am quite certain weâve all had that conversation several times, and it is great when it goes that way. The other side of the coin is that sometimes it will simply go: âPirate? What a stupid name!â and theyâll walk away, or theyâll obsess over the fundamental non-electability of name (which happens frequently, at least to me).
But I will agree that Pirate is easy to explain if given a chance.
I think this is unfair. Explaining the name does not require such a long response: âThe âleftâ part reflects our support for equality and government services. The âlibertarianâ part reflects our dedication to personal freedoms.â
I personally find that explanation more appealing than explaining âPirateâ.[quote=âtserong, post:30, topic:682â]
The Pirate Bureau of the Libertarian Left Party has all the spirit of a wet bar cloth. Call me a cultist or irrational if you like, but there it is.
[/quote]
I had assumed the NGO would simply be âThe Pirate Bureauâ (that is, the English translation of PiratbyrĂ„n).[quote=âtserong, post:30, topic:682â]
You seem to be assuming that a name change is inevitable, and that I am somehow obligated to argue either for Pirate, or for some other name. Iâm quite happy with âPirateâ myself, and, as far as Iâm concerned, no sufficient argument has been presented to initiate a name change in the first place, so Iâm not going to fall into this trap.
[/quote]
It would be helpful to have counter-arguments in my view.
That is true of almost any branding (or rebranding) decision.
My experience of talking Pirate politics with a variety of people from outside the party, is that there is almost never any disagreement on the substance of our policies, but they baulk at the name. âYou canât be serious with that nameâ, âI thought it was a joke partyâ, âArrrrrrâ, âDo you parley and stuffâ and âDo you wear costumes?â.
Itâs a barrier to entry for most of the population, and so a barrier to our growth.
I see you also describing this as âa gambleâ.
I agree. It is, but like the saying goes, âA ship is safe in harbour, but thatâs not what ships are for.â.
Safety is not what new political parties are for either.
Iâm not 100% sold on the proposed new name.
I prefer âLibertarian-Leftâ to âLeft-Libertarianâ.
I think we start from a cultural libertarian position, but care about equality and opportunity.
I think our policy base reflects this focus, in this order.
I think thereâs a huge portion of the population that has a generally libertarian outlook, but hates what that seems to mean on the right wing, capitalism obsessed, gun toting side of the arena.
The gap to the left of libertarian in the Australian political space looks like us.
Maybe the âLeftâ bit will draw in some disenfranchised and disillusioned ex-Labour supporters.
Maybe our openness and dedication to democratic process will feel like a breath of fresh air to them.
Whatever the name, the proposal is not to change overnight.
The name discussion itself is probably a great basis for public exposure.
âBrash new party stakes claims new territory in political landscapeâ
Thanks @Mozart and @AndrewDowning for the replies. I do see how the name âPirateâ doesnât have mass appeal, and can be a barrier to entry / barrier to growth. So the question there is: how much growth and direct influence do we want? As @piecritic and others have pointed out, the party has done a good job of getting issues noticed, and having other parties adopt our policies. Are we content to keep playing at that level, so to speak, and hopefully just keep growing slowly?
OK, here goes. Bear in mind that if the answer to the above question is âwe want mass appealâ, that probably trumps all these.
All the members presumably like the name
In the context of the Pirate movement, the name has a history/narrative. Whether or not the movement has tanked globally or in other places, thereâs still value in being a part of that narrative. It speaks of where we came from, how our ideals and such have developed.
âPirateâ in pop culture has connotations of âsticking it to the manâ, a mistrust of authority, a certain sense of honour, and so forth. These are good images at a time where many, many people are suffering from politikverdrossenheit (political apathy/disenchantment).
Bearing the above point in mind, actually, any even slightly unconventional name is better than something ânormalâ.
Changing the name is going to involve a non-trivial amount of effort. Re-branding web sites, re-educating our current supporters and others weâve dealt with in the past, placating any members who are really opposed to a name change ;), etc. Is the effort worthwhile?
I also have a specific argument against any name with the word âlibertarianâ in it. Itâs become too toxic. I know exactly what itâs meant to mean, but itâs going to scare people off.
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 doesnât exactly scream originality, does it?
A more appropriate name would be something like âThe Solutions Partyâ (Obvious) or âThe Oreo Partyâ (Because like an Oreo, the world is complex, multicolor and fragile)
âLiberâ is the root of the similarity. Voters will think that âLibertarianâ is somehow associated with âLiberalâ, and is what happened at the 2013 election. If we are voted under the âLibertarianâ base name, I donât 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 itâd be good times that we got the vote, but I donât want to feel like weâve misled people based on the issue of a similar name.
I donât 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 âPirateâ name is for real. I donât 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: âLibertarian left doesnât really mean anything but people will think itâs serious and therefore will vote for it.â
âLaborâ is also meaningless, possibly more so. Itâs tied to a movement, and that is why it has credibility. That credibility had to be built over time, but it happened, and thatâs why it is lasting. Enough people have fought that fight. There are a lot of people today who agree that copyright is bullshit, and âPirateâ 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, âLibLeftâ sort of makes sense. If you see this as a party dealing with culture and copyright and freedom, âLibLeftâ seems like capitulating. Weâre essentially saying âLetâs just disband the pirate party, but we can start a new party with a bunch of the same policies.â
Personally, Iâm only aesthetically liberal left. Itâs the closest thing on the spectrum which fits me, but Iâm not an actual âliberal leftâ person. I donât âbelieveâ in the dogma. I donât think political parties should have dogma. I think thatâs 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 âwe donât know, but weâll find a solution, and this is the kind of solution we like.â
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 âLibertarianâ is sufficiently different from âLiberalâ. Letâs not forget that the LDP literally uses âLiberalâ in its name.
I think more to the point is that we appear to have outgrown the name âPirate Partyâ. Unfortunately âPirateâ hasnât become synonymous with âLeft-Libertarianâ (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 âcoreâ 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 âPirateâ is actually the best label for us considering our now-extensive policy set and the future directions of the Party.
