The thing about the name 'internet party' is this - It caters only to a small part of what the Pirate Party is about.
look at some of the victories of the Pirates. ACTA - sure some of that was 'online' but a lot wasn't.
How about the Data retention directive?Online, sure. But there was non-online stuff as well.
How about the NSA stuff? Much of that is NOT online.
Patent reform. Many Pirate parties have taken the lead on biopatent reform. Not very 'internet' is it?
Both Amelia and I have looked and researched CCTV - Again, not very 'internet'.
In fact, Mr Wales might want to read the US Pirate Party book "No Safe Harbor" (which, yes, you can get on the internet for free, like at The Pirate Bay) and when he's looking through it, understand how few really deal with the internet. Off the top of my head - electoral reform (and the mindset of the 'two party system', Corporate personhood, the TSA, surveilance-led circumstantial suspicion, the EFF's notes on the 4th Amendment. These are 'Internet' how?
I'm working on the second one still, and we have things like Bruce Schnieier discussing the effects of lobbying on the US Congress, more on CCTV survilence, etc.
The name "Internet" just doesn't fit. The internet is a tool, a collection of computers. "Pirate" is a state of mind. It would be like calling the labour party "the spade party" (for the miners) or the dockers hook party (for stevedores).
And frankly, there seems to be one issue that Mr Dotcom is most concerned about, and it's not privacy rights, or surveilance. That issue is Mr Dotcom. His Internet party is a well funded fad, a personal vanity that will die when he becomes bored of it. Were he serious about the issues, I'm sure he'd have been busy working on them, rather than 'hey, when I get my cars back, members of the internet party can go race them!". It's cheap theatrics, nothing more, nothing less, and the "Internet party" launch got him what he desired - media coverage.
It is almost an antipodean tradition, of course, because the Kimble is not alone in trying to use a political party for cheap self-promotion, at the expense of working on the issues. We are, of course, talking about London's most famous Agoraphobic, who repaid the vast amount of support the worldwide pirate parties gave him, by turning around and trying to get them to waste their resources, so he gets back in the public eye. And yet despite vastly more media coverage, his party only managed 0.1% more of the vote in last month's Western Australia senate election.
And in Australian elections, the order matters.The Voluntary Euthanasia Party got 500 votes more than the Wikileaks party, on the initial count with 0.67% of the vote. When they were eliminated, they had 2.8%. (the HEMP party went from 1.06% to 7.87% before being eliminated, as one of the last 4 parties) it's fun reading http://www.abc.net.au/news/wa-senate-2014/detail/
Getting back on topic, I suspect Mr Dotcom's isn't so welcome any more. One of the things some are working on is welfare reform. Some might view that as a foreign concept to Mr Dotcom, if not (allegedly) to his staff (http://www.3news.co.nz/Dotcoms-former-bodyguard-speaks-out/tabid/1837/ar...)
And if reports are true, and he's spent a NZ$1 Million.month on the Internet party (http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2014/03/revealed-kim-dotcom-workers-slave-wages/), then he will definitely have issues, Because to spend that much and get so little in return, well, let's just say I don't think the budget for all 16 nations of Pirates competing in the EU elections at the end of this month combined will top NZ$2 Million. Doubt it'd even top 1 to be honest. to contest 380 seats with a quarter-billion voters. Is it the Brewsters Millions election strategy?
Finally, there's just plain perception. You say 'Pirate" and people conjure up everything from johnny Depp down. It gets their interest. You talk about "The internet party" and the image people get is of Brian and Neville from accounts discussing baud rates.
The thing about the name 'internet party' is this - It caters only to a small part of what the Pirate Party is about.
look at some of the victories of the Pirates. ACTA - sure some of that was 'online' but a lot wasn't.
How about the Data retention directive?Online, sure. But there was non-online stuff as well.
How about the NSA stuff? Much of that is NOT online.
Patent reform. Many Pirate parties have taken the lead on biopatent reform. Not very 'internet' is it?
Both Amelia and I have looked and researched CCTV - Again, not very 'internet'.
In fact, Mr Wales might want to read the US Pirate Party book "No Safe Harbor" (which, yes, you can get on the internet for free, like at The Pirate Bay) and when he's looking through it, understand how few really deal with the internet. Off the top of my head - electoral reform (and the mindset of the 'two party system', Corporate personhood, the TSA, surveilance-led circumstantial suspicion, the EFF's notes on the 4th Amendment. These are 'Internet' how?
I'm working on the second one still, and we have things like Bruce Schnieier discussing the effects of lobbying on the US Congress, more on CCTV survilence, etc.
The name "Internet" just doesn't fit. The internet is a tool, a collection of computers. "Pirate" is a state of mind. It would be like calling the labour party "the spade party" (for the miners) or the dockers hook party (for stevedores).
And frankly, there seems to be one issue that Mr Dotcom is most concerned about, and it's not privacy rights, or surveilance. That issue is Mr Dotcom. His Internet party is a well funded fad, a personal vanity that will die when he becomes bored of it. Were he serious about the issues, I'm sure he'd have been busy working on them, rather than 'hey, when I get my cars back, members of the internet party can go race them!". It's cheap theatrics, nothing more, nothing less, and the "Internet party" launch got him what he desired - media coverage.
It is almost an antipodean tradition, of course, because the Kimble is not alone in trying to use a political party for cheap self-promotion, at the expense of working on the issues. We are, of course, talking about London's most famous Agoraphobic, who repaid the vast amount of support the worldwide pirate parties gave him, by turning around and trying to get them to waste their resources, so he gets back in the public eye. And yet despite vastly more media coverage, his party only managed 0.1% more of the vote in last month's Western Australia senate election.
And in Australian elections, the order matters.The Voluntary Euthanasia Party got 500 votes more than the Wikileaks party, on the initial count with 0.67% of the vote. When they were eliminated, they had 2.8%. (the HEMP party went from 1.06% to 7.87% before being eliminated, as one of the last 4 parties) it's fun reading http://www.abc.net.au/news/wa-senate-2014/detail/
Getting back on topic, I suspect Mr Dotcom's isn't so welcome any more. One of the things some are working on is welfare reform. Some might view that as a foreign concept to Mr Dotcom, if not (allegedly) to his staff (http://www.3news.co.nz/Dotcoms-former-bodyguard-speaks-out/tabid/1837/ar...)
And if reports are true, and he's spent a NZ$1 Million.month on the Internet party (http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2014/03/revealed-kim-dotcom-workers-slave-wages/), then he will definitely have issues, Because to spend that much and get so little in return, well, let's just say I don't think the budget for all 16 nations of Pirates competing in the EU elections at the end of this month combined will top NZ$2 Million. Doubt it'd even top 1 to be honest. to contest 380 seats with a quarter-billion voters. Is it the Brewsters Millions election strategy?
Finally, there's just plain perception. You say 'Pirate" and people conjure up everything from johnny Depp down. It gets their interest. You talk about "The internet party" and the image people get is of Brian and Neville from accounts discussing baud rates.