Tim Farron had a grilling yesterday on Channel 4 news from Cathy Newman on his personal position on some moral issues. There’s been some criticism of Tim for sounding a little bit evasive on this, and indeed suggestions have been coming into Voice for better answers that he might have given.
Now I don’t know exactly where Tim personally stands on this, but I have no reason to doubt that he is basically a liberal dealing with the sensitivities of the “traditional Christian” view rather than the converse. My apologies for use of these terms, no doubt there were and are many traditional Christians around who are sound on LGBT+ rights and abortion, and many old liberals who are not. But you know what I mean.
Wherever he does stand I do think he has a right to a view and a right to express it. It is difficult to believe in the value of free speech and debate and then say that some views should not be expressed and cannot be debated – and there is surely some territory on this issue which is wrong but not offensive.
The “do you think it is a sin” line of questioning is a little crass when there is biblical justification for all sexual thoughts to be sinful. Matthew 19:12:
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
There is a strong suggestion in this text that any sex has something sinful about it, and a sexless life is more holy if you are up to it. It is not such a popular view these days, and personally I think it shows a very unhealthy attitude. But it should be clear that sin is not something you can get out of by behaving decently and reasonably, it is a standard by which you are absolutely set up to fail only to be redeemed by the sacrifice of the innocent. (Another bad idea IMHO.)
I get the impression that asking a Christian to talk about the more debatable sins is like asking a Dr Who fan to talk about gaping plot holes, papier mache monsters and pointless running around in Tom Baker 4 parters. It’s snotty, it’s not really the point and it can be a little embarrassing.
Part of the Farron campaigning miracle is that he is, with good reason, seen among voting Christians as being out there in politics batting for Jesus, and although the “traditional Christians” among them may accept grudgingly that he is a liberal on moral issues, it does no good for Tim (or for the rest of us) to be disrespectful of their views. Newman’s line of questioning, intentionally crass on theology, was an attempt to provoke the disrespectful answer. That’s fair game in politics – she was doing her job well – and I’m not sure there is a very pretty answer, short of the theology seminar that Tim offered.
That traditional Christians take the view that people who are liberal on moral issues are not proper Christians, is unfortunate, but to be expected. A great many Christians set more store in the view that God loves us all just as he made us, and are, therefore able to take liberal positions. It makes me wince when I hear fellow atheists side with the former in order to discredit religion, rather than siding with the latter in order to promote liberalism.
I think an evangelical Christian who is liberal on “moral issues” is to be respected, because it is hard to do, because they are building bridges in what would otherwise be a more polarised and divided society, and if they have to paper over the cracks a little bit I would cut them some slack.
* Joe Otten was the candidate for Sheffield Heeley in June 2017 and Doncaster North in December 2019 and is a councillor in Sheffield.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Have resignations led to a rethink?
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
No, Leave didn't win the Brexit referendum because of Northern working class voters
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Geoffrey Payne
Richard Whelan
David Raw
Tom Reeve
287 Comments
Having thought about this overnight, I think my main difficulty is how it matches up with Tim’s voting record. Don’t get me wrong, I’d be very uneasy with these comments even if Tim had voted for same sex marriage, but as it is, I think it is even more legitimate to ask if Tim’s private views are impacting on his political positions. Joe is right that he has, of course, a complete right to hold these views. But it is also completely fair to question whether his views are influencing his votes, and whether he is truly liberal on social issues. It may well be that he is – but I think that we have to examine this, rather than wishing the question away.
I’m also surprised at how poor his answers were, given that he must have thought about his position at length over the years and had time to work out what he wanted to say if the question arose.
I felt so good after watching Tim’s speech broadcast from the rally – like things were turning around and improving. Now I’m really down. I feel kicked in the teeth.
Of course, Tim has “a right to a view and a right to express it”. The problem arises because he did NOT express it and left the impression (a) that his view is illiberal and (b) that he was hiding it. This is not just a minor failing. It’s at the very root of why some of us did not vote for him.
Just to be clear, William, Tim voted for same sex marriage and to keep the abortion law as it is.
Just to be clear Joe, Tim abstained on the third reading of SSM.
Could the Party at the very last arrange some media training for him ?
So abstaining on one vote, but otherwise voting in favour means that you’re secretly dead against?
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/05/20/interview-tim-farron-addresses-anti-gay-voting-record-and-calls-for-church-of-england-to-be-disestablished/
The point of this article is not to justify opposition to SSM, because Tim clearly supports it, but rather to explain why the questions were so difficult.
Thanks for the link Joe. I’ve read the interview before, but Tim comes across very well in it – and it is one very useful contribution to the discussion over Tim’s views.
I must admit I also agree with Simon.
Tim was never against the principle of same sex marriage. He was uncomfortable with some of the detail, including the appalling spousal veto for trans people which we managed to get rid of in Scotland. . It’s important to recognise that. Tim supports the the Act, he regrets that he didn’t vote for it at 3rd Reading and he also is in favour of the law on abortion staying as it is. I could not have supported someone who was not fully committed to LGBT equality – it’s too important for too many people I love and I know that he has their backs.
It might be worth reading Andrew Hickey’s Storify which shows that people in LGBT+ Lib Dems are very supportive of Tim.
https://storify.com/AndrewHickey/lgbt-reactions-to-tim-farron-s-interview
Any organisation is at its best when it has a mixture of liberal and conservative values to sustain and progress it.
The liberal democrats need to become a ‘broader church’ in order to accept that some do not agree with so-called mainstream opinion on certain issues. It was very sad when David Alton was alienated by the party due to his views on abortion.
The Bible is full of contradictions, so fundamentalists can swap quotes as the late Ian Paisley used to do. For instance Henry VIII found a quote about marrying his brother’s widow, while other quotes say the opposite.
The New Testament supersedes the old, but even the New Testament contains contradictory statements from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Jesus preached to Jews, but St Paul also preached to Gentiles.
Cathy Newman should have sourced her quote, because of the length of the Bible. Not evertbody has read it all. Not everybody watching her on television has a search engine at the ready.
Tim Farron should have stressed the democratic nature of the Liberal Democrats. This is not a party where the leader can be a dictator, although some journalists would find that quicker and more convenient .
This is the same trap that happened about the coalition. Our negotiating team talked to Labour and Tories. For the Tories William Hague (former leader) said that “If he (David Cameron) and I (William Hague) agree, that is it.”
In the Liberal Democrats the decision on coalition had to be taken by the negotiating team (including a former leadership candidate Chris Huhne) then by the parliamentary party, then by a special conference of elected delegates. The media knew this, but many of them treated the decision as if it were Nick Clegg’s alone. It was not, but even it had been the party would not have tolerated it.
A series of leaders have commented on this aspect. A recent example was that the federal conference was not content to oppose expansion of Heathrow, but opposed expansion of Gatwick as well.
MPs know, and Cathy Newman presumably knows, that the issues she was pressing on are decided by free votes in parliament. If they had been whipped votes she would presumably have asked different questions.
At federal conference we had supported equal marriage by majority votes, but we cannot bind every member. That would be both impractical and illiberal. In a party that tries to protect minority rights that would also be seen as undemocratic, or, in the jargon, majoritarian.
David Steel MP and David Alton MP took different views on abortion. This is nothing new.
Tim Farron said he is not the Archbishop of Canterbury, he is the leader of the Liberal Democrats. That is right.
Is the Bible right?
Is a gay sex sin
If this is going to be the tone of future debates everything will be reduced to the choice we made when electing the leader: Faith or Facts?
I thought TF handled Cathy Newman extremely well – explaining that the issues that she was questioning him on were complex and suggested that, if she wanted to explore them properly – C4 should put aside a much longer period for a theological discussion.
His explanation that liberalism is about providing freedom so that minorities and majorities [including Christianity] are not oppressed and coupling this to the fact that he is the leader of a political party not a religious group – seemed to more than satisfactorily cover the issue.
It is a sin to eat meat but no one is forced not to.
Actually traditional western mores on sex reflect more the philosophical view that the material is evil which owes more to the ancient Greeks than the views of the early Christians.
Very well thought out and argued, Joe.
This issue will, however, prove problematic for Tim and the party. I can’t help but feel that Tim needs to take advice on how to answer these sort of questions. We know he isn’t homophobic and that he’s a good liberal, but his answers last night did not come across at all well.
Tim voted along with 8 other male Lib Dem MP’s to change the termination of pregnancy act as it stands. He voted to shorten the time available to access abortion and also for a series of compulsory stages women would have to go through after a doctor had agreed the procedure, thereby making the window of access still shorter. Not one female Lib Dem MP voted for this amendment to the act as it now stands. This is fact as recorded in Hansard.
We debated this to death during the leadership election. As a Gay man, I suggest it’s time to move on. We should enthusiastically support our elected Leader who has repeatedly said he is keen to address the remaining issues of discrimination.
I don’t think people are seeing the bigger picture here. Many voted Tim and now want to try and justify it.
The point is quite a simple one. The Liberal Democrats are becoming a theological debating forum and not talking about Liberalism. That’s because Tim made a personal decision not to reveal the nuts and bolts about his religion and have a debate about this before or during the leadership election. Why people are blaming Cathy Newman about her theological stance I’m not sure. As if future voters are really caring about religious nuance. Hello – Cathy Newman’s job is to get to the truth and boy did she get to it – asking a question many were too polite to ask or warned about asking during the election.
So now the Liberals of all people have a leader with whom connecting is about relating to his religious principles not his political ones. That’s why CK was so clever. Whatever his form of Catholicism he made sure that he didn’t let it get in the way of communicating on political issues. Yet we were told that that was Tim’s USP – connecting and communicating with passion. Well he’s certainly connected with me. Badly.
There’s a reason that Campbell said `we don’t do God`. It’s because Blair wanted to hear Labour’s message unfiltered.
Most of the arguments outlined here are pretty weird to the mainstream public. Most aren’t religious with a big r – and if they are don’t force it on others or want to engage in some theological debate.
Whether it be fb or here people who joined a political party to discuss policies and campaign on them have been saddled with a whole load of miasma about theology. This will only get worse.
Sorry Lib Dems you’ve been sold a pup. At least under Nick Clegg you had someone with political faults that had power to change things. You’ve got someone now with personal faults (being uncomfortable in the modern world) who can change nothing.
No doubt people on here will start talking about how I should embrace evangelicasl or some such mind numbing `angels on pins` nonsense. It’s emotional correctness gone mad.
Bye bye Lib Dems – I won’t slam the door on the way out.
The difficulty was that he was not prepared to deal with the question head on. He could have said, his politics are based on one principle that he believes every person is of equal worth and dignity and should be free to do what they want, regardless of whether others see it as a sin, so long as that does not impinge on the freedom of others. He is not a theologian or an arbiter of what is sinful, it isn’t his role to make pronouncements of faith, and in any event does not follow all of the precepts in Leviticus himself. Or something to that effect. He didn’t really leave a clear impression that his views were not informing his politics.
John
People maybe more interested in religion than you think afterall aren’t there endless comments
about Islam on the web (the great majority show a complete ignorance of Muslims, Muslim countries
or Islam which similar to Christianity is very diverse).
The Liberal Party had strong links to Methodism. In fact I remember the old Methodists when I first joined
and one lady who wouldn’t buy lottery tickets because they were sinful. Drink of course is sinful. Countless lives ruined by alcoholism.
There is going to be a lot of debate on Social Liberalism in the days to come I shall make sure of it but the National Secular Society is not going to have it all their own way!
Liberalism is about creating the space for everyone to be free to be who they are, and to be the best they can be. It is not about enforcing adherence to the opinions of everybody. That kind of thought police absolutism is incompatible with liberalism.
Tim Farron may well regard gay sex as a sin. From a certain point of view and under one reading of the texts, it certainly would be sinful for him to engage in an act that could only ever be a crass physical thing for him as a heterosexual man. But that’s irrelevant. The point is that he isn’t dictating to me what I can and can’t do in the company of my partner and his stance on the wider equalities agenda is good. He’s on board with ending the spousal veto, his position on the various service refusal controversies is that if you’re selling you must sell to everyone and it is on these political questions and not whether he thinks sex is icky that I will assess him politically.
Suspect this is a rather better answer to the original question posed http://youtu.be/jYaewOBGybw
As I suspected the religious left have taken over the party. Everything will be measured through the prism of `sin` – social liberalism will now be a kind of religious fervour about morals. Good luck.
For me, it comes down to who you think your ultimate ‘boss’ is in politics. Whose will are you there to serve?
To me, representational democracy is the ultimate statement of faith in humanity’s ability to make decisions about its existence. If you enter electoral politics you are implicitly saying that your purpose is to serve your fellow humans and that you trust them to build a framework for right and wrong though debate and cooperation.
On the other hand, both the Education Secretary Nicky Morgan and also a former Lib Dem Parliamentary candidate in the seat where I live have each explicitly said in interviews that they see service at Westminster as a way of serving their God.
If you believe that a religion’s tenets provide correct guidance on moral, and other, questions then by definition you are putting that ahead of any view to the contrary that humanity might express.
Of the course, the way to square this circle is to say (and believe) that one form of service is the greater priority and – lo – no contradiction exists. But everyone who serves two masters has to know, in their hearts, what they would do if those masters make opposing demands.
The doubts over Tim are fundamentally about whether or not you trust which decision he’ll make when that happens.
The Lib Dems have become a theological debating society for the simple reason that the Lamb campaign repeatedly raised the issue in the leadership campaign. You can’t blame the media. They are just picking up on what looks from the outside as the only issue dividing the Liberal Democrats. Nothing of this sort happened when Charles was elected, or when Simon stood in 2006, because at the time the other candidates’ teams weren’t so stupid or self-centred or dedicated to a scorched earth strategy to make religion a wedge issue – or, worse still, the only wedge issue.
– “…The Liberal Democrats are becoming a theological debating forum..” is possibly the daftest comment I have seen for a while, but there are a number of competitors in this thread.
Some in the media have been diverted over the last few weeks by the negative campaigning tactics of the losing candidate during the leadership election. Rebuilding the party will be hindered by those negative tactics but not permanently unless there are some sore losers who persist in self-indulgent nonsense.
The party needs to wake up and remember the facts of the general election disaster and the need to move on and make progress in the way that local activists have demonstrated in council by-elections in the last couple of weeks.
A brief reality check for those who are trying to undermine Tim Farron —
We have 8 MPs. Only one got more than 50% of the vote in his constituency.
We came second in only 63 seats.
With hundreds of lost deposits it is going to be a long hard struggle to build up the party again.
Tim Farron’s victory over his opponent in the leadership election was very convincing (check back on the wafer thin majority of his predecessor if you need a comparison).
We should build on that convincing victory.
John “There’s a reason that Campbell said `we don’t do God`. It’s because Blair wanted to hear Labour’s message unfiltered.”
Yes that’s very true but it is also because Blair recognised (and berated) that if politicians talk about their religious faith in the UK, they are considered ” a nutter” (Blair’s word).
I am a Tim supporter and I know he is not a nutter (I also don’t have many concerns about his SSM views) but the general public have probably never heard of him in any detail so there is a very real danger that the media will find an unfortunate epithet for him, like Ed Miliband being labelled Red Ed very early on. That’s my concern when Tim admits to ‘asking God’ about major decisions. Yes many of us will realise that he doesn’t actually chit-chat to “God” but very many people will take it at face value and TV presenters and headline-writers are not going to be so nuanced.
The Party advisors and PR team need to nip this in the bud very quickly and Tim needs to develop a convincing narrative, otherwise it will be brought up every single time Tim appears in the media and Tim’s message will be drowned out. I would not want that to happen.
@Caron Lindsay
“Tim was never against the principle of same sex marriage. He was uncomfortable with some of the detail, including the appalling spousal veto for trans people which we managed to get rid of in Scotland. . It’s important to recognise that.”
Though this article suggests that Tim’s objections were not quite so LGBT-friendly as you suggest :-
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mark-gettleson/tim-farron-gay-marriage_b_7799256.html
Is the article factually correct?
What a curious comment John. I think you give your views away when you say “At least under Nick Clegg you had someone with political faults that had power to change things.” He did change things: he put the cause of Liberal Democracy back at least 40 years. Don’t try to damn the Lib Dems by trying to pretend things have just got worse. There is a chance now to start to turn the ship around, we don’t need people pretending the rocks were really nice place to be.
Andy Darley 18th Jul ’15 – 11:47am
“Of the course, the way to square this circle is to say (and believe) that one form of service is the greater priority and – lo – no contradiction exists. But everyone who serves two masters has to know, in their hearts, what they would do if those masters make opposing demands.”
Being someone with spiritual beliefs, although essentially of Eastern [Buddhist], surely those with none have a conscience [definition: an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one’s behaviour].
Whether this conscience originates from God, the Tao or is viewed as something entirely personal really does not matter – it exists in all of us and is likely to provide the same guidance irrespective of whatever we decide is its source.
Viewed from this deepest strata within us all – there is no conflict.
There is a fundamental distinction between the private and the public that should be respected. Whilst many of us might disagree with some of Tims personal views, we must respect that he has been unambiguous on what his public views are: In his capacity as a Lib Dem MP and Leader of the party, he will be motivated by liberal principles and a secular, scientific, approach. That should be the beginning and end of the discussion.
@ John Roffey – I think the difference is that when it comes from a personal conscience, rather than the commandments of the Abrahamic religions, it’s open to discussion, debate and possible amendment based on experience, new information and the influences of the people that you meet and interact with.
@ David Howarth – I personally grew extremely frustrated with the Lamb campaign for failing to raise the perfectly reasonable questions surrounding religion with sufficient robustness. At the start of the contest I was consoled by the knowledge that if, as always seemed likely, my preferred candidate was unable to overcome the odds we would at least have an equally impressive leader. By the end of it, the Farron campaign’s continual thin-skinned defensiveness and – frankly – tendency to whine ‘you’re all being unfair’ when faced with an entirely legitimate issue meant I no longer believed that.
There is a strange sort of pseudo-atheism at work which appears to believe that God has not really been abolished but merely shoved off to one side, and that if the name is mentioned, it opens up a keyhole for through which God can get back in and punish all the naughty boys and girls. It’s a bizarre type of magical thinking.
If God does not exist, then what religious people think of as “God” is nothing more than a shorthand designation for a complex of customs, habits, and ethical concerns filtered through individual predilections, experience, and judgements — which is a collection of mental equipment found as much in the atheist as in the theist. It is certainly not a bogeyman to take fright at. Can an atheist really believe that God leans over the shoulders of theistic politicians and whispers in their ears? (Can a theist really believe that?) Why quarrel over a name?
There is, indeed, a cause for concern in those fundamentalist communities where the word of a religious authority becomes the law for his followers. But that does not seem to be the issue here – rather, it’s a question of whether a religious believer is permitted to use a familiar language to describe how he thinks. I should be more concerned with the content of that thought than the language used to describe it.
Yawn.
Has Cathy Newman grilled Ed Milibad (or the 4 dwarfs trying to succeed him) on their personal moral positions? Or Farage? Or Cameron? Or Caroline Lucas?
This interview is tomorrow’s chip paper.
Tony Dawson
Atheists for Farron
Yes David Howarth! Worth adding, of course, that much that the Lamb campaign did was a dog whistle intended to make Tim’s life harder on the issue, even if they weren’t raising it directly.
For what it’s worth: I’m an atheist and bisexual, I voted for Tim Farron, and I do not regret it.
Now can we just get on with something else?!
TonyDawson
Why the anti-Labour abuse?
I cannot say either Clegg, Farron or Lamb strike me as towering intellects – nevermind the current resident of Number 10 and for Farage the least said the better
I think Miliband had enough focus and negativity on him during the campaign, some of it verging on the anti-semitic (in the sense of anti-Jewish) but you seem to continue to fight the old battles don’t you?
Personally, I want to know where the leader of a party stands on these questions – I, as an atheist, find ‘people of faith’ have too much of an easy ride on how they balance the positive and negative moral messages coming out of religion. I thought he was pretty poor in his response – which is a shame as he is a very engaging person
John
Social Liberalism is mainly concerned about economics, especially confronting so called neo-liberal capitalist thinking.
Liberals always had a strong belief in a separation of church and state, in others words religious beliefs are to some extent private.
***
On another point, there is no God in Buddhism
LibDems are the only party bringing together almost all minorities and joining everyone [we hope] to a future majority which agrees about the wider liberal values we all work towards. No-one is a perfect fit into any political category or party but members and voters decide to support a particular party because of its general attitudes. In 2015, Christianity is a minority – read the church attendance figures if you think to include ‘I’m CofE’ qualifies [without qualifying in what way] – and probably extreme Christian views will keep some from joining us. But Christianity itself should not bar any member from holding office in our party.
We all ascribe personally to a collection of principles which make us individuals, and our party would not be liberal if we dictated what everyone should believe. As a Farronista, I thought Tim’s replies were excellent for a party which needs a wider outreach and respects individuality – indeed is built upon it. Tim will encourage everyone to fight for those causes which join our individualities, which reach wider than the perceived grey suit members, bring us together in greater debates which mean more to millions of citizens, which foster campaigns which capture the imagination of the nation – and especially the imagination of future generations.
Bring it on, Tim.
@Andy Darley
Were you equally frustrated in 1999 and 2006 when these questions were not raised about Charles or Simon? If not, why not?
When Tim is presented with a moral dilemma in which party policy contradicts the teachings of his faith, what will he do?
Andy Darley 18th Jul ’15 – 12:27pm
“@ John Roffey – I think the difference is that when it comes from a personal conscience, rather than the commandments of the Abrahamic religions, it’s open to discussion, debate and possible amendment based on experience, new information and the influences of the people that you meet and interact with.”
Yes, but if the people we associate with tend to hold similar views – those which are not in accordance with our ‘true self’ will be as difficult to challenge as those that have reached us via a religious group or from the State.
In Rinzai Zen there is a koan which asks ‘what was your true face before your parents were born?’ – the aim of this koan is to root out any conditioning that has ‘blurred’ your true face. There is also another saying, for those who have trained for a while – if you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha – implying that if something said, that was attributed to the Buddha, conflicts with your true self – then you are to listen to the voice within – not what the Buddha is supposed to have said.
I suspect that nearly everyone who has a religious faith finds that there are aspects of that faith that does not gel with the voice within – and they adapt that faith accordingly.
g, why not think of one, and ask him? Obvs he is backing SSM so that should give you some idea. And God’s love for everyone is unlikely to conflict with liberals’ valuing of every individual. But I expect you could think of something.
Firstly Joe I think the link is broken.
Secondly, I first saw the debate kicking off on Twitter you could tell it was amiss as several parody accounts appeared to be taking Newman’s line (a good indicator she had screwed up) but when I watched it this morning I assumed Tim would have been in a car crash as he has tied him self in knots on the topic before.
But having seen it I with the parody Twitter accounts. I was supprised with how well Tim did with the questioning. Newman apparently doesn’t understand what Liberalism is, and the questions were obviously not intended to get to a serious point.
John Roffey
I suspect that nearly everyone who has a religious faith finds that there are aspects of that faith that does not gel with the voice within – and they adapt that faith accordingly.
This is true, and most faiths, especially Catholicism and similar, consider doubt and fallibility innate traits that are almost impossible to overcome so being in conflict between one’s self and one’s faith is not only normal, but forgiveable from a religious perspective. We are all sinners, let he who is without sin cast the first stone, etc.
However, born again Christians tend to be less forgiving of themselves and of others. They genuinely believe they are in direct communion with God and are doing his will on earth. Farron has stated this himself. He believes God directly instructs him as part of his plan.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/26/tim-farron-liberal-democrats-interview-gods-plan-for-me
I ask if he consulted God when considering whether to stand for the party leadership. “Of course you do, of course you do. Obviously you ask for His guidance.” Does he think God has a plan for him? “I think He has a plan for everybody.” I’m not sure what that means. “Well, God is sovereign. Dreadful things happen in this world, but that reminds us that we need a saviour. I don’t go round fixating that God has some major plan for me. Maybe his plan is for me to lose a bunch of elections and be humbled. God’s plan could be that some pretty brutal things happen to you. But the one thing I fall back on is that God’s overall plan is good.”
This is why it is legitimate to be concerned when faith and politics collide.
g
“When Tim is presented with a moral dilemma in which party policy contradicts the teachings of his faith, what will he do?”
Perhaps you could provide an example? You may be making assumptions about his faith that are in line with Newman’s but not with reality.
I am also rather concerned about how Sadiq Khan is going to be treated in his run for London mayor. Will he be expected to state what the correct Islamic view is on Women’s rights, homosexuality, the treatment of the Christians and Jews , then seperately the treatment of other religious groups?
This line off approach gets ugly really quickly.
For those who would prefer that this discussion ended – I am only labouring these points because there does seem to have been a pretty successful attempt, in recent years, for those in power to convince the population that their sole purpose on Earth is to a accumulate more and more wealth – when surveys have shown that for the majority, once a certain level of income has been reached – extra wealth does not bring any greater happiness – there are other facets of life that bring far greater rewards.
The only ones who want ever more wealth are those, essentially, warped individuals who themselves are driven to keep accumulating wealth and thereby deny an adequate amount to the vast majority.
Yes, I’ll join “atheists for Farron” as well.
Honestly this was a “have you stopped beating your wife yet” question. If Time had said “yes” of course everyone would have torn into him… But if he had said “no”, her next question would be “so you admit that you reject the teachings of the church that you profess to believe in?”
Like Robert Wormington, lets judge Tim on what he does, not on whether he thinks homosexuality is a sin… It is pretty obvious that he thinks many things are sins – after all, that is what all churches teach. It seems clear that Tim does not think it is his place in any way to impose what he may or may think about sin on other people. That is because he is a Liberal….
I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with David Howarth and John Tilley.
Sadly this debate was started by the Lamb campaign as a tool to undermine Tim. It failed. Now some have not accepted the result and shared the Newman clip on various threads. If Kennedy, a Catholic, had been asked a direct question on his religious beliefs, perhaps his response would have been a quip or one liner but what he thought personally would not have been queried.
Tim is the leader. If we want to reawaken as a broad-based party we have to move on and unite around him. If we want retreat to the margins as an irrelevant single-issue pressure group, then fine, let’s carry on talking about this issue ad nauseam.
The leader of our party has refused to say whether being gay is or is not a sin. Some LGBTI members have said they are ok with Tim’s response but I am not one of them.
There are many ways Tim could have answered the question. He could have just said no, he could have said his church held a view he disagreed with. But he choose to answer as he did and it seems even his defenders accept it left viewers of the interview with the clear impression Tim believes being gay is a sin.
I am sure he loves the sinner not the sin, but that’s no comfort.
Watching that interview I felt saddened and hurt. I felt judged as less by Tim’s comments.
If Cameron had failed similarly or any of the Labour leadership contenders then some of those colleagues defending Tim would be taking a different view. I don’t do my party right or wrong, much less my leader right or wrong.
@ John Roffey
Yes, I think that, as much as anything, is the real reason behind these attacks on Tim.
People cannot accept that their version of individualist Orangebook, Thatcherism was comprehensively defeated in May!
Absolutely – as John Roffey says.
All religions, as a core belief, agree to share resources for all people and all nature.
Obviously, to save the planet comes first – or there is no future.
What we are to do about those who refuse – to share their good fortune – is for another thread.
@ Phyllis
I am frankly nervous about any political leader that, as you say, “admits to ‘asking God’ about major decisions.” (Shades of George W) It’s not a game-changer, but equally let’s not pretend it isn’t a problem at all. It will make some people, myself included, very wary and the Channel 4 interview will have done nothing to allay the concerns people may have.
You know what everyone, I have had sex outside marriage! I admit it!
I am pretty sure that Tim thinks I have sinned (he probably thinks he sinned himself…). But you know what? I don’t let it worry me at all!
We are all aware that the potential division in the party was not about anything substantial – but the two former candidates have already shown they will work together and make a finer team than the media have yet accepted. Time for the members of our party to accept a united leadership and move on.
OllyT
I am frankly nervous about any political leader that, as you say, “admits to ‘asking God’ about major decisions.” (Shades of George W) It’s not a game-changer, but equally let’s not pretend it isn’t a problem at all. It will make some people, myself included, very wary and the Channel 4 interview will have done nothing to allay the concerns people may have.
Prayer and and considering moral questions are fine,. I’d do it without the prayer bit, but nothing wrong with politicians admitting to moral quandaries, it’s admirable even.
God always seems to tell people what they already think though. Which is unfortunate in many cases.
For goodness sake let’s stop self obsessing about religion and how many angels can sit on the head of a pin.
We are so lucky to have such a lively and hardworking new Leader after the May debacle – we are so lucky to have had three great local government wins in convincing fashion this week . We have a new leader who is radical, dynamic and a proper Liberal after all the fudging and shuffling of the last five years.
Tim’s private religious views are exactly that – private – to suggest anything else is illiberal. As an agnostic with Quaker leanings who likes to sing Methodist hymns, and who joined the party as a ‘red guard’ radical young liberal’ sixty years ago, my message is simple. Shut up. There are millions of folk out there in poverty….. There are dragons out there waiting to be slain. Let’s back Tim and get the party back in business again.
Utter nonsense about blaming Norman Lamb. Many people, myself included, were reluctant to pursue the issue in public; Tim has had a relatively soft ride. It is very telling that the blaming of Norman Lamb’s campaign is devoid of specific reference. Most question about Tim Farron’s brand of religion came from outside and I suspect these questions are likely to intensify.
The truth is that it is Tm Farron who has pushed his religion into the public space. He has done this from long before there was a leadership campaign and certainly nothing that I can see to do with Norman Lamb. As for Charles Kennedy, I was scarcely aware that religion was significant to him let alone what that religion was. None of which meant that he was less devout, simply that he chose to keep such matters personal. Simon Hughes is more of the Farron tendency and there were some anxious moments in hustings before he was elected when the issue of abortion was raised, but overall he has restrained his evangelism in the public space in a way that Tim Farron has not.
It is up to Tim Farron to find a convincing narrative and in fact in this interview, where Newman as is her way is more intent in firing shots and producing damage rather than attempting to elicit informative answers, Farron does seem to be in the process putting together a response that might work (but blows it with incomprehensible stuff about ‘redemption’).
It is absolutely not true that ‘the Lamb campaign repeatedly raised the issue in the leadership campaign’ or ‘this debate was started by the Lamb campaign as a tool to undermine Tim’. Tim himself has voluntarily put his religious views into the public domain, although now not clearly enough to dispel fears that he is being evasive. I am among those who worry about the impact this could have on Tim’s policy thinking as well as about the distraction for the party, and I make no apology for those concerns.
Disturbing interview from Tim, confirming my fears about him. His extreme views will go down like a ton of bricks with younger voters especially, my facebook feed is already full of people mocking how the lib dems have elected the most unliberal person imaginable. Not a good start to things. I have little doubt that if David Cameron were asked “is gay sex a sin”, he would say “absolutely not”. That’s the difference: a Christian who holds more mainstream values and a willingness to go beyond obscure bible passages vs a far more traditionalist, hardcore adherent to scripture. In today’s day and age, trying to sell the latter is not the easiest of tasks.
g “God always seems to tell people what they already think though. Which is unfortunate in many cases.” Have you any evidence for this. Other than it is what you think already?
@Sarah
That’s utter rubbish, as you well know. Why, for example, did Norman choose assisted dying as one of his main campaign themes? It’s not exactly an issue the public is clamouring to know politicians’ views about. It’s also a classic conscience issue. Do you have any explanation for its extraordinary prominence in Norman’s campaign other than it was chosen to get Tim’s religion onto the agenda?
@David Howarth
That’s an unfair criticism of Lamb regarding assisted dying. It is something he’s long expressed an interest in, and in the last 10 years it has become more and more of a hot topic. What with it being legalised in several countries now and the well known Purdy litigation, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to campaign strongly for a change in the law. Although by no means a priority for ordinary people in this country, I suspect many would welcome such a change in the law. I don’t think Farron needs any help bringing his religion in; he does it himself happily. Just look at that interview: he is actually coming out with bible passages rather than saying “yes” or “no”. Truly incredible stuff, I think Nick Clegg is going to be missed.
Sammy, are you really saying that assisted dying is a hotter topic than economic policy or public spending or defence or climate change or any of the many policy areas Norman could have put at the heart of his campaign? Come off it. I wasn’t born yesterday.
BTW when I was the party’s spokesperson on assisted dying in the Commons (2008-10) Norman didn’t once ask to speak to me about the issue.
Sammy O’Neill
Having met Norman on the hustings, he agreed that assisted suicide is a conscience issue. David Howarth is correct that the Lamb campaign raised a conscience issue to the level of a campaign priority.
The preamble to the constitution is quite clear that each person has the right to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.
So why do a vocal minority of Lib Dems have such a problem with someone openly self-identifying as a Christian in the public square? We’re a Liberal party, open, generous and against enslavement by conformity . That means there should be a space for Christians, Muslims, atheists and so on to express their views – even at the level of leader.
Nick Clegg openly told the world he was an atheist and that he was against assisted suicide. No doubt he upset a number of groups with his thoughts freely expressed but in a free society and liberal party, that’s what you get.
@David Howarth
Nope, I’m not. Hence my saying “Although by no means a priority for ordinary people in this country, I suspect many would welcome such a change in the law.”
In a party where moral/ethical issues are often seen as a priority/particular interest (be it rightly or wrongly) to members, I don’t see why it’s at all surprising that assisted dying would be an issue one of the leadership contenders primary focuses in an internal election. If he were running a general election campaign around assisted dying, then of course I’d think he was insane. But in light of the membership the Lib Dems have, it’s really quite understandable.
As for Norman never asking to speak to you, I don’t really see why that is relevant at all. It could have been for countless reasons. I don’t see how it undermines his commitment to the issue.
@Helen Tadcastle
I have no issue with people identifying as Christian. What I do object strongly to is having a lib dem leader who interprets that faith in such a way that they hold dubious views on abortion, seemingly think gay sex is a sin and harbour no doubt other associated views. It’s an unwelcome and unnecessary distraction from all other issues. Given the party has owed so much of its past success to young people and students, having Farron running round spouting such things is crazy. I can’t see a big student vote for a party led by a leader who holds and vocally evangelises such views.
g: “When Tim is presented with a moral dilemma in which party policy contradicts the teachings of his faith, what will he do?”
That’s a fair question. The answer is to look at his voting record. In 10 years as an MP he has been presented with this dilemma many times, and he has voted the liberal line every single time – with the single exception of the abstention at third reading of EMA (which he has explained and which he now regrets).
So I am confident that his views are liberal on all issues. However, this interview is a problem. He needs to clear it up.
Sammy,
Do you know how many of the Lib Dem members tracked down so far by the British Election Study in the period since the election have said that their most important issue is a ‘moral’ issue such as assisted dying? None. That’s zero. Out of more than 200. Lib Dem members are concerned about the economy, climate change, inequality, housing, political reform – the sort of thing you would expect them to be concerned about.
The reason Norman not speaking to me about assisted dying is relevant is the same reason it’s relevant he missed the third reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act and six other votes on equal marriage. These were issues chosen not because Norman is a particular enthusiast about them, but solely for their negative potential for Tim.
As A Quaker and a Liberal I am happy to admit that some of my choices reflect my Quaker beliefs. I’m a pacifist, I’m against having nuclear weapons, I favour the rich being taxed to help the poor, I want good housing for everyone and I believe everyone should be treated as equal. I also support same sex marriage, abortion, gay rights (Quakers were in favour of those long before they became fashionable). Funnily enough most of these positions are mainstream Lib Dem ones. I also pray and seek help in difficult decisions. Does that make me unfit to be a leader? I have been both a group leader, a met council leader and a parliamentary candidate.
This whole thread has been filled with people making mountains out of molehills. I really begin to wonder if many of the people taking part want to rebuild our party or not.
Can I suggest that those trying to paint Tim as some rabid evangelical go and stick their heads in a bucket of cold water and pipe down. Tim needs our help and support for the important task of rebuilding our party. If you don’t feel able to help, then for goodness sake SHUT UP.
I thought that interview was disgraceful and might complain to ofcom. If Tim was a muslim he would never have had the Koran quoted at him like that and been challenged to deny scriptures that he considered sacred.
Tim made it perfectly clear that he does not want the law to be used against homosexuality. If tim believes that society should tolerate gays and that they should have the same rights as everyone else then that is good enough, his personal views should not matter as they are just that, personal.
Does anyone know if tim will tolerate cannabis smokers and allow them to buy weed legally in the shops? This is very important for me, I would not vote for any party that wants to continue the oppression of smokers. Disapproving of something and believing the law should legislate against something are two very different things.
Ok – I’m going to be deliberately controversial and challenging here.
I have been a member for a few weeks (although a Lib Dem supporter for much longer. but from a distance)
Maybe I have the advantage in looking in from the outside with a fresh pair of eyes, maybe I’m simply been naive?
What I have observed for the last few weeks whilst trying to learn about how the contributors to Lib Dem voice think is the following:
The majority of contributors on here appear obsessed with detail, naval gazing, justifying long held (I suspect) positions and having deep academic debates about fine detail. All very depressing and not at all inspiring.
The party is apparently dominated (at least in share of voice here) by academics.
All that matters surely at what the voting public and potential future members PERCEIVE, regardless of what most people on here want to justify.
So, I wonder if it’s possible for everyone to take a giant step back and start looking around other sites/media to see how the first 24 hours of Tim’s leadership is playing to the people that actually are going to decide if the party flourishes or dies.
It may surprise many here, who take the time to move away from this site, that the first 24 hours have been inspiring but also littered with dialogue that will almost certainly ‘not simply blow over’
This Faith/Homosexuality issue could very easily get out of control very quickly, such that his excellent messages and inspirational style are not listened to.
The PR team and his advisors need to nib this in the bud really quickly and Tim’s responses (and the looking to the heavens and rolling his eyes thing) ironed out.
This is not being Illiberal, but simply essential PR in order to allow the more important messages to hit home with the electorate.
I really believe he will be dismissed by the public at large very quickly form which he may never recover, if these issues are not addressed quickly and decisively.
Sammy O’Neill
‘ I have no issue with people identifying as Christian. What I do object strongly to is having a lib dem leader who interprets that faith in such a way’
So you have no issue with a person being a Christian as long as they hold beliefs acceptable to you – a non-Christian (I am assuming). That is not subscribing to a liberal view point but an intolerant one. The party states clearly it believes in the right to religious belief and that goes for religious expression too.
Young people were more turned off by our stance on tuition fees throughout the coalition than any other issue. I don’t think young people are rabidly intolerant as you seem to assume. Perhaps religious literacy is lacking in schools today but for that we can thank the likes of Michael Gove and less than enthusiastic support for the subject from previous Labour governments.
Sarah Ludford 18th Jul ’15 – 2:26pm
Sarah, A simple look back through the pages of LDV over the last two months illustrate the emphasis that the Lamb campaign put on issues designed to keep religion in the spotlight during this leadership election. Perhaps you did not notice at the time?
This obsession with religious issues in politics was entirely new to Norman Lamb, who clearly was not at all worried about a mixture of religion and politics when he worked as a research assistant for Greville Janner MP the president and leading parliamentary spokesperson for The Board of Deputies of British Jews for the last 40 years.
stuart moran
“Why the anti-Labour abuse?”
My comments were neither anti-Labour or abusive. They reflect my view of the poor choice of Leader being offered to the Labour Party. I made no reference to intellectual ability. Political Leadership does not require too much of that particular quality in comparison to other capabilities. Of the .Labour 4, I think it’s fair to say hat three are pretty pedestrian. Yvette Cooper is a person whose abilities, though not policies, I respect. Unfortunately, she is hampered by carrying on her shoulders the taint of her husband. This is wrong but it will diminish her political stature considerably.
What would be abusive would be if I were, say, to suggest that you have mis-spelt your surname or had a pot-kettle complex. But I would not entertain such a thing. 😉
@Mike S:
“The party is apparently dominated (at least in share of voice here) by academics.”
Good job we’ve elected Britain’s most practical down to earth politician to Lead us then?
“I really believe he will be dismissed by the public at large very quickly form which he may never recover, ”
Mike, I can assure you that the only people who ‘dismiss Tim Farron’ are political opponents who then get thrashed by record margins by the most successful (and one of the most personable) INDIVIDUAL politician in the country today.
Tony Dawson
Fair comment – hope you’re right.
PS: re read my comment – apologies if it comes across as appearing impolite to any contributors here – it’s not meant too.
Just a mixture of frustration and a genuine concern 🙂
David Howarth, assisted dying was in the news because of Lord Falconer has brought back his Bill. John Tilley, I’m not sure the Greville Janner analogy is at all relevant or even apposite since Jews are – under caselaw – a racial as well as religious group and anyway I’ve never heard Janner opine on his religious as opposed to Jewish community views.
“Andrew 18th Jul ’15 – 2:00pm
You know what everyone, I have had sex outside marriage! I admit it!”
Well now you’re just bragging 😉
@David Howarth, could you tell us how many Lib Dems in the BES data put ‘more housing’ as their number one campaigning issue? I imagine the number will be very close to the zero that chose ‘assisted suicide’ but would be delighted to be proved wrong.
I suspect Norman Lamb chose to campaign on assisted suicide during his leadership campaign because he knew he would be portrayed as the safe, centrist, continuity candidate and wanted to show that he was actually a passionate liberal who wanted to campaign on headline-grabbing areas. It is also something that is coming down the tracks again, thanks to Rob Marris’s private member’s bill.
Accusing Norman Lamb of campaigning on that issue in order to force Tim Farron’s religion onto the agenda strikes me as slightly paranoid and unfair. Given that you and very many others on this thread are making the very decent point that we now need to coalesce around the leadership, it also strikes me as hypocritical for you to be attacking Norman Lamb, who I imagine we all hope will play a very big part in the party’s renaissance.
Sarah
That’s a bit feeble. A great number of rather more salient problems have been in the news since the start of the party leadership contest – Grexit, people dying in the Mediterranean and benefits and tax cuts to name just a few. None of those got to be the centrepiece of Norman’s campaign for week after week and leaflet after leaflet,
Tony Dawson
Milibad? Dwarves?
I understand that you are partisan Liberal Democrat
Your rather poor attempt at attacking my surname actually says more about you than me.
David Howarth, to be fair Grexit and the other issues you mention do not impact on individuals as much as assisted suicide, for the simple reason that we are going to die at some point.
Having said that I think Norman’scampaign was clearly targeted at Tim’s Achilles Heels. To pretend otherwise is just insulting to our intelligence.
‘SET’
‘ Accusing Norman Lamb of campaigning on that issue in order to force Tim Farron’s religion onto the agenda strikes me as slightly paranoid and unfair.’
Or accurate.
Stuart,
I object to the description of Tony Dawson as a partisan Liberal Democrat. Most of his contribution to this site is profoundly anti-Liberal Democrat.
David Evans
g “God always seems to tell people what they already think though. Which is unfortunate in many cases.” Have you any evidence for this. Other than it is what you think already?
The trite answer is that there is no God so the only instruction people who pray receive is from their own consciousness.
The less trite one is that it’s a process of decision making in which somebody uses prayer as a means to reflect on the consequences of the decision they’re going to make to best enable them to make the decision they consider correct.
Or, if you’re religious, God guides you, but to all intents and purposes you are still responsible for your actions.
@Sarah Ludford (EX-MEP)
I would have tremendously welcomed more of an analysis as to why you lost your seat in the European Parliament in May 2014, then how we recover from the near annihilation of May 2015, rather than attacks on people’s faith. Alternatively, you could take people with your Orangebook-style views, start your own party and see how many votes it gets…
SET: Housing was mentioned by 13 members, the same as climate change or the environment. The economy was top with 30. Inequality/poverty was mentioned by 18. Political reform+civil liberties and human rights was 16. I forgot to mention the NHS, which 12 members mentioned. (All numbers subject to minor revisions due to my feeble eyesight – I’m counting the actual responses, not a summary).
Phyllis: I agree with your conclusion.
I don’t understand why Tim did not just say ” no, of course I don’t think gay people are sinners. There are lots of things in the Bible which are no longer applicable in this Century because our understanding has evolved since it was written’.
Can I also make this observation:
I found the whole thing surrounding 30+ shags Clegg with Piers Morgan to be far more offensive to women and damaging to the party than any person’s view held about faith. I suspect the same people rushing to defend Nick then were some of the same people lining up to have a pop at Tim now….
Cathy Newman is a journalist looking for a story. When the Deputy Prime Minister was doing a seminar on mental health she turned up, asked about something else, and was booed by the audience.
According to a poll in the London Evening Standard of Thursday 16/7/2015 Sadiq Khan would lose to Zac Goldsmith by 6 points, but Tessa Jowell would win by 14 points. That implies first preference votes only with no mention of the other parties and no mention of the elections for the Greater London Assembly.
Writing in the Times Matthew Parris, a former Tory MP, criticised Zac Goldsmith’s independence and wealth, and preferred Tessa Jowell.
All the major religions have at one time or another come up with the same golden rule, Do unto others as you have them do unto you. In a multi-cultural polity such as Greater London that will be important.
It wasn’t being anti-abortion that alienated David Alton from our party, but his decision, some time in the late 1980s, to make it his Number 1 campaign issue. This turned him, in terms of perception inside the party and out, from a sound (and generally rather left-wing) liberal who was also a devout Catholic and anti-abortion into a single-issue obsessive. Abortion and other moral issues of conscience are not generally issues that determine how the vast majority of people vote. I do not see Tim Farron going down that route, and I find reprehensible the continued attempt to paint him as some sort of fundamentalist.
Another atheist (or more accurately agnostic) for Tim.
@me
I should have also mentioned 14 who cited staying in the EU
The issue of elections to the European Parlaiment should be on a separate thread.
Part of the issue is about proportionality, the number of MEPs to be elected in each region varies widely.
Mike S
Good post (speaking as an academic 🙂 )
You are right that Tim needs to reduce some of his mannerisms like staring at the heavens (for inspiration, his enemies will presumably say…)
I do happen to agree with David Howarth that with the exception of mental health, the Lamb camp deliberately highlighted issues of conscience over social and economic issues in his campaign (starting with forgetting to mention the Environment in his opening statement!). I thought exactly the same when the “free-vote” issue of assisted dying suddenly entered the agenda…Similarly the Farron camp (although perhaps not Tim himself, much) harped on about the pledge. I certainly did on these pages…
I think now is the time to put these issues firmly behind us within the Party at least. Tim is a Christian, and is not prepared to hide the fact. When asked about it he does his best to explain. He has obviously had some struggles over the years to reconcile what people have told him and what he has read about Christian beliefs with Liberalism, and Liberalism has in fact won on every occasion (but lets not expect him to vote to make abortion easier…). He seems to see Christianity as something that guides him and his personal actions, rather than as something that he seeks to impose on others. That is essential… It would be good if he good find a way to say “The idea that homosexuality is sinful is something that I believe the Church should re-examine”. But if he does not, that will not outweigh for me all the good things about him (and my daughter is LGBT)
Meanwhile though, if there are Party Members for whom Tim’s views on these issues (provided they have taken the trouble to find out what they really are) really do outweigh his views on everything else, then they are free to resign. But please, please do not use this issue against Tim if your real gripe is that he is not an “Orange-Booker”! Hopefully all Liberal Democrats will see that we should try to dampen this issue and in particular challenge views like “Farron opposed Gay Marriage” which I have seen on Guardian comments, for example
Richard Underhill “she turned up, asked about something else, and was booed by the audience.”
She was quite right to ask about that “something else” because that was a very serious issue which the Party dealt with very badly and still has not resolved.
I’ve lost count of the number of times Cameron has stood up to make a speech only to find there are other issues which journalists want to ask.
It was pretty disgraceful of the audience to boo her imo.
@ Phyllis
‘ There are lots of things in the Bible which are no longer applicable in this Century because our understanding has evolved since it was written’.’
This is probably because it is only Christians who let us say. are Bible-centred in their outlook, who use the Bible alone as their source of knowledge and understanding of Christian teaching. For example, Pentecostals.
Other Christians for example, Anglicans, will interpret the Bible not only using the plain sense but other senses for example as poetry or metaphor or using theological commentary and church teaching.
The idea that Christians simply look at a Bible passage then try to apply it literally without context or history and meaning for the modern day for them personally or socially is not true except for a small number of Christian fundamentalists. I hope this helps to clarify.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2015-07-16a.766.1&s=speaker%3A13371#g793.0
I agree with Joe. I don’t share Tim’s religious beliefs – but I do share his political beliefs – including his commitment to fairness, equality and tolerance.
I’m glad that I’m not alone in finding this discussion intensely irritating.
Someone above noted that Charles Kennedy’s religion was never raised as an issue. Thank goodness. If anyone had done, they would have risked the reigniting of sectarian tensions in Scotland.
Following on from that point, I note that the people who are attacking Tim for being a Christian refrain from attacking Muslims and Jews, or Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists, many of whom hold views that are far more illiberal than anything that has ever been attributed to Tim. Indeed, it is doubtful if any such comment would get past the moderator, and for perfectly sound reasons. So isn’t the attack on Tim a trifle bit unfair and hypocritical?
BTW, I uphold the right of anyone to say whatever they like about any religion, but I think those debates are best held outside politics. As a party, we don’t do God, and we don’t do down God, either. We just don’t talk about him with our Lib Dem hats on.
I am not a Christian, and I practice no religion. However, I agree with Tim on assisted suicide and abortion. You don’t have to be a Christian to hold those views. So might there be something defective in the anti-Tim narrative?
Oh, I almost forgot. Jimmy Carter said that he asked God if he could run for President, but he did not ask God to make him President.
Interestingly Ming Campbell talking about Tony Blair’s faith :
“Sir Menzies Campbell, the former Liberal Democrat leader, suggested that Mr Blair may not have been so politically successful had the relationship between his beliefs and his actions in office been better known.
“The public might have been less willing to give him the triumph of three consecutive general election victories if they’d known the extent to which ethical values would overshadow pragmatism,” Sir Menzies said.
Ok, here goes!
I’ve worked and campaigned with Tim for 13 years now and would like to add a couple of points here.
Firstly, Tim is definitely not Homophobic. He has friends and colleagues who are gay and he treats them just the same as anyone else. On other moral issues Tim does have conventional Christian views but he’s one of the least judgemental people that I know. Everyone who’s worked with him will bear that out.
Secondly, having knocked on thousands of doors, in numerous elections, I don’t think anyone has ever brought up the subject of Tim’s religion – other than a handful of people who have criticised him for supporting gay marriage (Yes supporting!) It really isn’t an issue in the constituency.
I do understand why this is being discussed and clearly we do have to deal with this in order to get the metropolitan elite (i.e. Humphreys etc)to move on, but it really isn’t an issue for the majority of voters.
Phyllis:
Ming Campbell is incorrect. The British people knew full well that Blair was a Christian. He made no secret at all of it, even though Alastair Campbell made a crass comment about ‘not doing God’. Well A. Campbell didn’t.
The fact is, Blair was elected three times. my own view is that Blair had a fixation with the US and an inflated view of his own powers of persuasion.
This is yet another attempt by you to link having a Christian faith with what you consider to be outdated views and being a Christian with the inability to make sound judgements.
It’s a caricature and not very pleasant. If that is not what you are trying to do then perhaps you ought to clarify.
@Phyllis: “I don’t understand why Tim did not just say ” no, of course I don’t think gay people are sinners. There are lots of things in the Bible which are no longer applicable in this Century because our understanding has evolved since it was written’.”
WHAT? I’d have thought that would have been obvious why he didn’t say that, because he doesn’t believe it. The bible is clear, homosexuality is (according to the bible) sinful. And as Tim is a deviout Christian you shouldn’t be surprised if he believes that! people have every right to believe religion and the lib dems need to be liberal and tolerant and accept people’s right to free thought and to believe what they want. Tim does not wish to use the law against homosexuals and he believes that they should have equal rights under the law and that is enough. So Tim is being liberal so why not be liberal yourselves and respect someone else’s right to think differently.
It’s almost like some in this party demand that everyone be brainwashed until they’re all thinking the ‘right’ thoughts.
@Sesenco Charles Kennedy’s faith was not remarked upon because he did not make it a core tenet of his positioning as l
An MP
Kathy Newman used her line of questioning to prevent Tim talking about LibDem policies that affect peoples’ lives. I don’t think she ever asked Baroness Warsi, if she spoke to Allah. Tim said that anyone who subscribed to liberal values should be a member of the party, which was open to people of all religions or none. I don’t think his answers were obscure., when he said don’t call someone else sinful before you have admitted to your own sinful nature. As I do not believe in any supernatural beings, sin is an irrelevant concept. Moral behaviour and the rule of law and my base lines.
It will be interesting to see whether commentators continue to ask Tim about his faith. The Christian establishment will take his side, and who knows the C of E will become the LibDems at prayer.
Interesting, this has made me think a little.
Am not TF’s biggest fan, and I don’t appreciate other people imposing their beliefs on everyone else, but I think he could help to square the traditional liberal strength in Dissent with the more secular approach of today. There must be room for Quakers, Catholics, non-believers, Buddhists, Hindus, etc etc in a liberal party, but the liberal freedom must be to dissent individually rather than to suffer imposed conformity. Tim might be quite close to that position.
Helen T is right to remind us that Charlie Kennedy was privately Roman Catholic, and Blair always was religious. Charles’ beliefs seem the more gentle and more worthily held for it.
James, no idea who you are of if you are a LIbDem, but if it makes you a happy bunny to think that I was entirely and personally responsible for losing my Euro-seat, go ahead, be my guest. And for the record, I have never been associated with any particular group in the party, I think I am pretty much in the midddle, so thanks very much but I won’t be leaving.
David Wallace not all devout Christians agree with everything in the Bible. My father-in-law is a ordained CofE Minister and very active in the church at a senior level and I can assure you he does not believe that gay people are ‘sinners’.
Helen Tadcastle
“The British people knew full well that Blair was a Christian. He made no secret at all of it,”
Well Tony Blair himself says he was prevented from talking about the depth of his faith:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7111620.stm
@David Howarth
You’re falling into a massive straw man argument here. I have never claimed that assisted dying is a key priority for the British electorate or that we’d win an election off it. I have instead stated that in an internal party election, I can see why Norman opted to push it in light of the interests/demographics of the membership. The Lib Dems are absolutely unreflective of the British electorate. I lament that fact hugely. I may of course be wrong, but I don’t think Norman’s interest in assisted dying is anything but sincere.
I don’t agree with this cynical viewpoint some on here seem to hold that Norman has engaged in some form of anti-Farron campaign focused on his religion. If he has, Farron has been incredibly helpful in doing it for him. He has put his foot in it hugely already, and to be bluntly honest if he has another interview or two like that above I don’t know how he’s going to be viewed as credible. As a point of interest, ask your new students in October about how they perceive Farron’s views on same sex relations he’s expressed in the video above. I expect the response will not be positive.
I didn’t vote for Tim. That he hadn’t got a thought through position on what would obviously be brought up by the press, and members, shows an astonishing degree of naivety. To compare his position with that of CK is not helpful: catholicism is a more nuanced belief system than is evangelical christianity. However, be that as it may, I shall watch TF very carefully – I’m a new member; it would not take much for me to become an ex-member.
how do I sign in???
It seems that wherever religious faith rears it s head it always ends in tears!
Sammy,
The figures I gave were for Liberal Democrat members, not for the public as a whole. Not even for Liberal Democrat voters. Members. Got it? You are completely and utterly missing the point.
I am a new member and I am feeling very diapponted right now. I voted for Tim and I still feel that Tim has much more to offer as a leader than Norman. However the C4 interview shows that Tim is seriously at risk of letting the media destroy him. He needs to get some good, media savvy advice right now on how to handle this issue. The answers he gave on C4 did make some sense to me but then I am a lapsed Catholic and a Lib Dem member, so I am probably not representative of most viewers. I don’t think most of the population will respond well to Tim discussing concepts of sin and using quotes from the Bible. I don’t know what he should have said instead but I am sure there are plenty of people out there wwwho can help Tim construct a convincing narrative that he is comfortable with but which also is acceptable to a majority of people. It is a shame that this has happened so quickly after his brilliant rally speech. Although I am concerned about his antiquated personal views on homosexuality overall I feel that Tim’s strong Christian ethos comes across largely as a positive – in every other way he seems compassionate, fair minded and not motivated by greed or personal power. But he HAS to sort out his response on this topic and learn to handle the media better than this.
Clare Brown, thank you. I agree with every word of your comment. That’s exactly what I have been trying to say for the last 24 hours! Spot on.
As you say, people have a different perspective if they are used to the language of ‘sin’ etc but most of us aren’t and these are also among the people Tim needs to win over. He needs some good advice on how to handle these questions, which lets face it, are a ‘trap’.
Just watching Tim on The Marr Show. Good points on not being ‘tribal’. Good points about the SNP. About gay rights, he is a bit better this time round.
It seems strange to me we are having this debate. As I think Tim said in the US you don’t get far unless you are a Christian or at least profess so to do. I am a Christian and hate the intolerance of the religious right in America, who forget God’s message of love.
Ironically many members in our local party are Christians. I feel like we are being fed to the lions by some in the Party. I see my faith as strengthening my liberal beliefs. This party is stronger by having people of all faiths and none. Let’s not get hung up on this subject.
I do agree that Tim needs to sort out his response. He wasn’t bad talking to John Humphreys. He isn’t running to be Archbishop and he and interviewers need to remember that.
Andrew
I guess I asked for it – apologies to all academics everywhere 🙂
Clare Brown
Welcome – how lovely it is to hear from another relatively new member – thank you for making your point much better than I did. Hopefully, a few new names will give more new members the confidence to start contributing here!
madmacs
“Ironically many members in our local party are Christians. I feel like we are being fed to the lions by some in the Party. I see my faith as strengthening my liberal beliefs. This party is stronger by having people of all faiths and none”
I agree entirely that the party is stronger having the diversity (including all faiths) and I am concerned you feel you are being fed to the Lions?
I really don’t believe that is true or the point that some of us (at least) are trying to make here.
I guess the point, as I understand it is this: regardless of what we all may think here, it is about how we are perceived outside the party (in order to attract more members and crucially votes).
Phyllis above appears to have put it perfectly, namely that most people don’t think this way or use this language.
Having a leader who is perceived as being ‘old fashioned’ and out of touch with the modern world (regardless of his actual views) could alienate many young members (gay, straight, religious & agnostic).
This is why the PR/media training, tight answers etc is so important.
In some ways it could be argued, it’s what separates the successful leaders from the also rans?
Passion is all very well, but it has to be tempered by a realism – namely, how what you say and the way that you say it, is perceived by the people you are trying to win over.
The best comments have come from those who said they are new members.
Fact Tim’s religious views have been seen by the media as his weak spot and they are not going to let it go and they going to keep pecking at it until it bleeds, Tim and his advisors need to work out their answers much better.
For those ex MEP and MP’s in both camps, get over the leadership result and stop posting nit picking arguments,we don’t have the time or engery to waste on what’s gone. As far I can see both Tim and Norman have said they will work together for the future of the party and Liberalism, if they can’t then we are in big trouble.
So it would be nice to hear no moaning and whining about who said what and get on with the job of building the party and beating our opponents.
Thank you David Wilkinson
Well said Sir!!!!
Many people seem to believe TF needs media training (not disagreeing) but didn’t anyone think to offer it to both leadership candidates before the result? A new leader comes under the most intense scrutiny during the first few days and that’s when a number of people form their impressions of someone they have likely never heard of till then. The Lib Dems as a party have been pretty naive not to have seen this coming resulting in much of the valuable media coverage now being centred on whether he thinks gay sex is sinful.
The C4 interview cannot be undone, what matters is what happens now on LGBT+ rights and other strands of equality. Ironically this row may be a good stimulus for gaining consensus around new “asks” to advance equality with stronger policies and public statements, both in terms of legal protection and moving forward public debate including challenging latent homophobia in sections society including parts of religious communities.
On the point of the Equality Act, I was opposed to this. My opposition was nothing to do with LBGT rights and everything to do with the enshrining of a hierarchy of equalities. The law allows public authorities to cherry pick just one strand of equalities and ignore the others. LGBT+ has suffered under this regime, and I would argue that race equality has sufferer even more. The abolition of the Commission for Racial Equality and local Race Equality Councils has contributed to race falling off the political agenda. This cherry picking of equalities must end. Public authorities must have a duty to tackle all forms of inequality simultaneously.
Mike S: I’ve been a member for 30 years now, and I can say that your analysis of the party is exactly right, and well summarised. We do love our tendentious arguments! It’s one of the features of the party that you will either tire of quickly and drift away, or (like me) you’ll come to understand that its just part of who we are and actually grow quite fond of it! 8=) Its important to keep it in perspective though. For the most part, the party is full of bright, intelligent thinking, The sort of pedantic arguments we occasionally get into online are just one part of our overall discussions. I think of it like a sort of endless family Christmas. Yes there are a few eccentrics around, some old scores being settled and ancient arguments re-fought all the time. But there really is a great sense of shared values and experience. And at the end of the day you can tune out of the discussions you want to and just focus on the things you want to hear. 🙂
I agree with you on singate as well, by the way. This is a fire that needs to be put out. I am encouraged by the interviews TF has done those morning, but he still needs to do more.
Here is a good article on ‘what Tim should have said’ to Cathy Newman,
https://scarier.wordpress.com/2015/07/18/unsolicited-advice-what-timfarron-should-have-said-to-cathy-newman/
I made an important correction to my comment (a missing word), which alters the meaning. I’m not sure why this has been deleted, as accuracy is important and I don’t want to be accused of something I didn’t mean!
Sorry, LDV! Seen you inserted the missing word! Apologies, just saw the deleted comment not the corrected comment.
Everyone who has posted on here should read this
http://jaekaygoesforth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/homosexuality-is-not-sin.html
Please can we have a thread on LDV on “Is homosexuality a sin” ?
We who are happy with the present situation should recognise that the party establishment probably feels somewhat hurt and in grief. They got most elecoral things wrong for four years and clung to theirt fantasy result until even after the votes had been made. Now their man has lost. The stablishment will now shift a bit with newer voices being heard, rather than the old and older hands..
It is swings and roundabouts, stuff happens. They will come round but in the meantime there will be these back stabbing tactics by a few probably up and until the party conference. After that I suspect things will be much better. Once there is an upward movement in the polls, which I am becoming more amd more confident of, it will all be forgotten.
Sarah Ludford 18th Jul ’15 – 5:43pm
“…Jews are – under caselaw – a racial as well as religious group and anyway I’ve never heard Janner opine on his religious as opposed to Jewish community views.”
What a very strange comment in the context of this thread or indeed in any context. What does it mean?
I am at a loss as to what on earth you are talking about, Sarah.
Is it unusual that I do not check “caselaw” before making comments in LDV.
As to Lord Janner, if you have never heard him on the subject of religion I can only assume you must have missed a lot of what he has said in the media, in the House of Lords and in The Knesset in recent decades. Perhaps you were in the EP at the time?
Phyllis,
Yes, good article, and some good comments on it too…
When I was young I used to find it amusing to tie Christian friends in knots over the inconsistencies in their faith, and in the bible. (Something I inherited from my father, who was a lifelong Liberal and was brought up as a Methodist, then turned Humanist, so knew his bible very well – he used to practically run to the door when Jehovah’s Witnesses called! And then engage them in arguments for a whole morning!). But as I have got older I have learned to live and let live, and respect Christians for the good things many of them do (while condemning completely illiberal fundamentalists). I think the nudgings of Faith often make Christians more prepared to actually do something about the injustices in the world than the rest of us… I respect that very much, and I think Tim Farron is very much that sort of Christian. In our disadvantaged communities it is religious organisations of all sorts who often are in the frontline of practical support, and Tim is ideally placed to work with them as successful Liberal community politicians have in the past. In particular I hope he can build bridges with the Islamic community that the Tories are busy burning (honestly! even if you keep all the Laws of Britain the Tories will be after you!), and I think his Faith will help him here… So lets look positively at the good things about Tim and his beliefs, and not join his many enemies in the press at picking at the scabs…
Clare Brown
I don’t think you need to worry because Tim conducted a good interview on the Marr show thins morning.
It has been pointed out by others that the role of the Leader will not actually be affected by his personal convictions and commitments.
Those who continue to be sniffy about them (one or two in this thread) are not very sympathetic towards religious beleif and any public expressions of it anyway. The right to religious freedom however and with that its expression, is a basic human right let’s not forget and these rights must equally be upheld.
Tim backs equal rights for all and said so unequivocally as the leader of the party and well before that.
MikeS
‘ I guess the point, as I understand it is this: regardless of what we all may think here, it is about how we are perceived outside the party (in order to attract more members and crucially votes).’
If that really is the case then I would suggest looking on the C4 facebook page where most of the comments are hostile towards the interviewer, Cathy Newman – and NOT Tim Farron. The posts there raise questions such as why are Christians being attacked in the media and in the Lib Dems? Indeed.
We really need to avoid being labelled as intolerant of faith as well as LGBTs.
Phyllis
I notice you didn’t reply to my point at the end of my comment, although in reality I’m not surprised.
Corrections to typos: ‘ this morning’ ‘ religious belief’
Helen Tadcastle
Actually I did spend a good 20 minutes writing a long response to you last night but I went to another window to look for a link to copy and paste and when I returned my draft comment had disappeared and quite frankly I lost the will to live at the point, and realised on reflection that your comment about me was totally unjustified, but I realised that you are seeing this issue through the prism of your faith. Finally, given our history on discussions about the Same Sex Marriage issue, further discussion between us is likely on this issue is likely to be as fruitful as those were.
I’m a new member and share the concerns of Mike S, Clare Brown, OllyT and others. Tim’s pouring petrol on the fire, stating he thinks we’re all sinners and our views on personal morality don’t matter. Anyone that thinks media training is going to help is missing the point – this is what he believes. David Howarth can blame the Lamb campaign all he likes, they’re not responsible for the facts and there’s plenty of evidence the media was aware of Tim’s faith/politics issues prior to the campaign. Lamb didn’t say these things to Newman/Neil, Farron is doing this himself, right now. If a politician speaks in normative terms I’m instantly wary and Farron can’t help it…it’s like he never read Mackie!! 🙂
Tim’s shown that religious topics make for a more controversial interview; a Lib Dem leader that said “Abortion is wrong”, abstained from the 3rd reading of the SS marriage bill, voted against the equality bill and voted for lowering abortion limits is going to have a hard time. This is why it wasn’t the same for CK, he never did those things so nobody questioned his beliefs, but I can’t think of a leader in the last decade whose beliefs weren’t explored publically (except Sturgeon perhaps?).
@ChrisB “Tim’s pouring petrol on the fire, stating he thinks we’re all sinners and our views on personal morality don’t matter. Anyone that thinks media training is going to help is missing the point – this is what he believes.”
Exactly, that is why I think he gave such a good answer. He told the interviewer what he actually thinks. He answered the question honestly and truthfully.
Notice that he didn’t tell the interviewer that homosexuality wasn’t a sin? Why not? I can only assume the reason is that Tim believes the New Testament and the New Testament clearly says that homosexuality is wrong and no where does the Bible say that homosexuality is OK.
Anyway, I’m pretty appalled at the comments from certain party members on this thread. After electing a man that has always been open about this Christian faith to be their leader they immediately start demanding that he lies on national television about his beliefs? Not fair… And not going to happen either. I suspect Tim also believes that lying is also a sin and won’t do it.
Liz Kendall and Ben Bradshaw are already piling in on this. It could be like tuition fees all over again.
Phyllis
‘ I realised that you are seeing this issue through the prism of your faith. ‘
Isn’t that just the same accusation used by some on this thread and yourself against Tim – that people of faith cannot use reason but parrot axioms from their faith without question. It’s an old caricature.
It seems to me that those with this axe to grind just keep grinding it on threads – to what end I do not know – except that it foments division, is unjustified and is intolerant.
Chris B
Norman Lamb wasn’t asked leading questions by a hostile reporter immediately after becoming the Leader. Oh and Mackie is not the only philosopher in the world from whom to take our ideas.
Check out the C4 facebook page and you will note that more comments attack Newman and defend Tim. They also question why Newman appears to be attacking Tim as a Christian. So there are other ways of viewing things.
@David Wallace,
If you read the article that Phyllis posted you will see that the author was suggesting ways in which Tim could have taken control of the interview and made the line of questioning look unreasonable, without denying his faith..
And it seems that this morning he is learning to do just that…
Andrew M: this is never going to be like tuition fees. Labour contenders are just trying to divert attention from the chaos in their campaign, which is turning into a huge suicide note… The Labour party membership who actually believe in something are finding hard to cope with politicians like Liz Kendall, who appear not to….
Some commentators suggest Orange Bookers should form their own party and see how many votes they get.
But we have just gone through that experiment over the last ten years and we saw exactly what the result was in terms of MPs, MEPs, councillors, members and votes. 8% maximum and very near total wipe-out.
Do not ask anybody else to leave the party.
We need to get people to join the party and back Tim Farron who is today saying the right things on avoiding UK involvement in the war in Syria, on Freedom of information, on the need for more not less social housing.
If anyone is in any doubt about the impact on the voters of the Orange Book approach topolitics, simply point them to the 2015 result in the Yeovil constituency.
@ChrisB
So you think there is no connection at all between what Norman said on the Sunday Politics on 16 May and what Andrew Neil asked Tim on the same programme two weeks later? Really? (To jog your memory Norman said on 16 May, “There will be differences between us. For example on the whole issue of diversity, I have been very clear and consistent on the issue of same-sex marriage. That for me is a fundamental principle of liberalism, that you should be able to love and marry whoever you want… There were votes where Tim took a different view or abstained; that is up to him and I respect alternative views but for me this is a really important principle.”). As a student of Mackie you should recognise a counterfactual conditional: What if Norman had instead said that the differences weren’t about SSM but about social mobility versus inequality or market mechanisms in the health service?
James and David Wallace: I have explained, I belong to no group or faction in the party, Orange Book or other. And it’s come to something when I – 34 years in the party – can be told to go off and join the Tories. I think I will end my rare foray into LDV comments, clearly all one gets is abuse.
To be honest I’m teetering towards staying yet I find some of the arguments here very offputting. Maybe I’m looking in the wrong place again and not talking to people on the phone.
Old hands seem to think that Norman Lamb `shouldn’t have raised issues of conscience`. I think the code there is `why did he make Tim’s life more difficult?` What’s actually wrong with asking tough questions? Or raising issues of ethics and conscience as a debating and election tool?
My own personal view was that Norman’s campaign should have been much tougher and really spelt out the differences as you would in any election. Perhaps this whole singate thing would have happened much earlier. Too much stepping on eggshells, too many controlled hustings and not enough Andrew Neil.
I got the feeling all along that the party wanted Tim to win as a quick fix `saviour solution` which is why there was such an effort to stifle debate. What I didn’t expect is a lot of theological handwringing but there we are. I don’t profess to understand its importance in peoples lives though I do understand the subject matter.
At the moment I’m tempted to stay – not for Tim’s sake whom I see as a flawed yet energetic communicator but for Norman and for the many issues tearing the country apart like ESA, BBC, Transport, Housing and yes Assisted Dying.
But it’s up to the party. If it becomes an all hail Tim rara circus where questioning is forbidden and doubting isn’t allowed then I’ll leave. Right now I’m tempted to stay as part of the awkward squad.
For the record, Norman Lamb has been vocal in support of law reform on assisted dying since early 2012 if not earlier. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9533091/Norman-Lamb-second-new-health-minister-to-call-for-reform-of-assisted-dying-laws.html
Also for the record, I attended a meeting of Norman’s campaign team and supporters where the religion question came up. There was a very clear decision there *not* to make this an issue, and absolutely no sense of attacking Tim for his religion. The anxieties around are where consequences of that might lead, which is a very different thing from attacking the religion itself. I wrote something for LibDem Voice on faith to try to draw the debate away from a sense that Tim was being attacked on this. I write as someone who is an Elder in the United reformed Church, regularly involved in giving retreats, and was Secretary of the East of England Faiths Council for its first five years.
I’m coming to this rather late and it appears to have degenerated into slanging, but…
– As I understand it, Tim’s position is that whatever his religious beliefs, there should be full equality before the law for all people regardless of sexuality, and that not only does he accept the SSM settlement, he may be prepared to go further. He is therefore certainly not the baying cliché of a Christian evangelical, and he is holding to a classical liberal position of advocating rights for those who are unlike oneself.
– For what it’s worth, I don’t think his public pronouncements on this matter are intended to curry favour with religious factions for votes. Whilst British Christianity is still at each other’s throats on the issue of sexuality, a considerable chunk of Christian opinion had genuinely thought that Civil Partnerships settled the matter and it did not need to be returned to, and there is a smaller faction that if the opportunity presented itself (though it won’t) would like to turn the clock back. Tim does not speak for these people, as far as I can see.
– I think Tim Farron gets that our country is now a Post-Christian one in which Christianity does not have the moral right to impose its beliefs and structures on the general population (whereas a good few of his co-religionists don’t). He doesn’t want to turn the clock back and is prepared to see his religion lose even more of its tools of social control. But he doesn’t want to shut up about his faith. This is an honest and, erm, disarmingly brave position, although it is problematic in a glib, reductionist media age, where there is no patience with nuance.
– We need to admit neither of our two leadership candidates were perfect, and a wider field would have helped us, but the election results and our rules prevented this. Norman was not unsullied by the Coalition and is not the greatest communicator. Tim seems to be occasionally risktaking to the point of naievety. Maybe there was no ‘perfect’ candidate who could lead this bewilderingly diverse and argumentative party?
TonyJ
“I think of it like a sort of endless family Christmas. Yes there are a few eccentrics around, some old scores being settled and ancient arguments re-fought all the time. But there really is a great sense of shared values and experience.”
Many thanks Tony – your wise advice helped me, especially the freedom to tune in and out – maybe taking things at face value a bit too early on?
Also the wonderful image I now have of you all sitting around wearing silly hats, blowing up balloons is great tonic for a Sunday afternoon 🙂
I suppose to be fair, you must all feel that a tidal wave of new members have descended on a funeral, wanting to drag you all off to the party, before many are ready.
Maybe ‘new & old’ will reach a productive middle ground before long where we can all help each other?
Helen
Gosh, I really hope I haven’t given the impression I’m anti-faith in any way. If so, I too need to tighten up my responses.
My point was around the language of sin, sinners and Tim’s apparent hesitation at how not to walk into the trap set for him.
I’m not expecting him, to deny his faith/views at all, simply to find a clever way of making the question/language appear unreasonable, and quickly moving on back to the real issues.
I actually do believe media training would help him here.
Very heartening to know that the comment stream over at the C4 facebook page is generally hostile towards the interviewer!
Helen Tedcastle 19th Jul ’15 – 2:10pm
Phyllis
‘ I realised that you are seeing this issue through the prism of your faith. ‘
Isn’t that just the same accusation used by some on this thread and yourself against Tim – that people of faith cannot use reason but parrot axioms from their faith without question. It’s an old caricature.”
Firstly, the fact that I recognise that you are seeing things from the position of being a person of faith was by in no way an accusation or an insult. You could equally recognise that I am many others are not used to the language of ‘sin’ etc and are seeing this issue “through the prism ” of atheism, agnosticism or whatever. I would not take that as an insult. It’s just a fact of life that we all come to these issues with our own “prisms”.
I haven’t accused Tim of anything at all. I’ve long been a supporter of his and continue to be so, see my posts on this and other threads. I’ve never said that Tim cannot use reason or that he “parrots axioms” and I’m perplexed as to where you have got that from.
I’ve been trying to make sense of it all because to me these are not issues that I encounter in my community at all, despite having practicing and ‘devout’ Christians in my own family. No-one I know has ever said in my hearing ‘ gay sex is a sin’ and it’s not the sort of language which has ever come into our vocabulary. Someone above said well that’s what devout Christians believe because it says so in the Bible but then you said earlier that only a handful of fundamentalist Christians take the Bible literally. That just supports what I have found in life, that some people take their religious texts very literally and others use them as allegory, metaphor, etc handed down to us by our ancestors, to help us make sense of a confusing and often cruel world. And there are people who fall anywhere in-between those two positions. I’ve no idea where Tim falls on this spectrum but it’s early days yet.
I have no idea what ‘caricature’ you are referring to let alone trying to make Tim into one.
Andrew 2.27pm
Thank you. {Sigh}
Assisted dying is not a liberal cause, it is an issue on which there are deep divisions .
It is an issue which their lordships have done the public a service by debating, albeit without making a decision.
Just imagine a young, disabled woman in a wheelchair speaking in parliament saying “This applies to me”.
It happened. She was against.
Sadly, money was a divider.
Those able to afford a trip to Switzerland took one view, those with less funds took another view.
The Human Rights Act protects the right to life absolutely. Please do not qualify it.
Phyllis
No problem! My mother was called Phyllis and it is not a name you see so often so I naturally notice your posts!
Our sermon at church today was about them and us. Let’s remember we are the us. Healthy debate is fine, but let’s remember we have common groups to oppose. I voted for Tim not because he was a Christian but because with eight MPs we need the best campaigner.
madmacs
Exactly 🙂
So, it turns out….. Tim Farron is an Anglican. How shocking.
What planet are you guys on?
There’s a minority in this party that is more damaging and contrary to its principles than Militant ever were to Labour.
I would need to assume that from the way Tim handled the question 1 – he was taken of guard for a question he should have been fully prepared for and 2 – he quite obviously thinks that sex between two men or two women is a sin.
Does it concern me that Tim thinks that when I have sex with another man I am a sinner absolutely not – why? Partly because I am not a Christian so I don’t believe in sin and I find it hard to be offended by something I don’t believe in. What does matter to me is that Tim will defend my rights to be equal to every other person in the UK and I feel that his record (with a few discrepancies) reflects a passionate belief in standing up for the LGBT community.
There are things that go on in straight people’s bedrooms that I don’t believe in but I would still defend their right (as long as they are not causing harm to anyone) to freedom of sexuality.
@ Phyllis
Many thanks for your comment. I appreciate it. It has clarified a lot and we’re not too far apart in reality. Feelings are running high at the moment but I’m sure things will calm down. Actually on other threads fairly recently, we have agreed on a couple of issues so although we are perhaps from different backgrounds, we can meet on common ground – even if it’s not every time. Regards, Helen.
Buy in haste; repent at leisure.
Denial may be a long river in Egypt, but it’s being exhibited in spades on this thread.
Not a religious person myself, but feel Tim Farron did okay trying to balance his faith with the difficult job of being Lib Dem leader. Seems, like a decent bloke. I’m absolutely certain that his decisions will be based on evidence and the good of his fellow citizens. It was an interesting interview, a little odd in that the interviewer seemed obsessed with tricking him into talking about vague concepts of “sin” or something.
From lot of comments I believe that you could never elect a Muslim as leader because of their stance on homosexuality and also the worth of women. It does seem, however, as only Christians get a hard time.
Would Tim Farron have been interrogated in the same way, and prompted a thread this long if he were a committed Muslim or Jew? If not, what is it that makes Christians fair game?
@ TCO,
What is being exhibited on this thread, sounds to me like sour grapes. If Norman Lamb had won the leadership contest, media commentators would have been attacking what they perceived as his achilles heel. It’s what they do.
Whatever one’s misgivings about Tim Farron amongst Liberal democrats, and it is clear that there are some, he won the leadership contest fair and square under the rules. So why are some posters wasting energy on a lost battle instead of getting behind him so that the party can move forward, creating policies that reflect important party values and opposing ones that don’t?
I have never made a comment about either of the leadership contenders, ( its not my place), but once chosen, my own view would be that at least one should give the successful candidate a chance. People who one might have reservations about for a variety of reasons, can grow into a role and surprise.
Jayne Mansfield 20th Jul ’15 – 10:26am
As so often you pinpoint the central issue. Well done, Jayne Mansfield.
If only others could see things as clearly as you.
How far will the press and media go?
Labour MP Liz Kendall was asked by the Mail on Sunday about her weight.
What should she say?
Go and ask John Prescott?
Go and ask Boris Johnson?
Workout with Serena Williams?
d seems to have descended a bit since I was here last.
A few points having viewed the video (elsewhere as I couldn’t get the link here to work) he fundamental problem is Tim manages to engage too directly with the question and also evade it (worst of both worlds), that is a habit of speaking to people as an MP in a personable way then having to transition to a leader. He will get better at it.
As the link from Phyllis points out the firsta answer should always be “liberalism is about…” “liberalism means…” “as liberals…” make the point about the party’s values then move on to any chosen response to the question of personal faith (though it shouldn’t be ducked).
As for some of the muck throwing on here (as someone who had no skin in the game, not taking sides):
I don’t see that this has anything to do with the Norman Lamb campaign, and I see his raising of the assisted dying as more of a dog whistle about being against the paternalistic school of thought you find in some rather than about religion.
As for the suggestion of those who would think less if someone’s religion teaches any action is a “sin” the word is loaded and reading too much in to it is not helpful, if you want to know what that means to someone I suggest you ask them personally not interpret the meaning.
For those who say he was wrong to talk in terms of “sin” I would point out that he did not start that topic of discussion and was clearly trying to avoid it.
I think there is a lot of ex-post facto rationalisation of positions and if the individual were different certain people would be on the other side. Just step back and think about some people may not want to be as hard line as they currently appear.
As for anyone telling other people to leave, it really is tiresome.
When I watched the clip back I was watching it with someone who is not a fan of evangelical Christians and from what they had read had low expectations but on seeing it asked “what is this, 1960 and worrying about JFK taking orders from the pope” this interview doesn’t play well but it does look like a sneering metropolitan media figure trying to mock people with faith. It wasn’t good but it wasn’t the disaster, the comments I have seen from people who have taken it as evidence of how terrible he is thought that before and were looking for justification.
JohnTilley
“If anyone is in any doubt about the impact on the voters of the Orange Book approach topolitics, simply point them to the 2015 result in the Yeovil constituency.”
Another tiresome argument, as I have replied elsewhere. Your argument is not justified by a constituency 120 miles from you, 2015 results need proper examination not simple glib comments based upon your pre-existing prejudice.
I’m with Jayne Mansfield at 10:26 and Psi’s final paragraph at 11:28 — sane responses to a niggling nuisance but ultimately a non-fundamental issue.
I agree with Matt (Bristol).
@jayne Mansfield “Whatever one’s misgivings about Tim Farron amongst Liberal democrats, and it is clear that there are some, he won the leadership contest fair and square under the rules. So why are some posters wasting energy on a lost battle instead of getting behind him so that the party can move forward, creating policies that reflect important party values and opposing ones that don’t?”
That’s pretty much word for word what I felt in 2007.
@kohn Tilley or the result in Hallam
@ Mike S, 19th July 4.56
“… the wonderful image I now have of you all sitting around wearing silly hats, blowing up balloons is great tonic for a Sunday afternoon … I suppose to be fair, you must all feel that a tidal wave of new members have descended on a funeral, wanting to drag you all off to the party, before many are ready.”
Oh that does make me smile! As a fellow new member, despairing at some of the comments on recent threads and trying to make sense of it all, reading this really brightened my day! Thank you.
So it’s now official…. LDV has turned into the Guardian comment section.
Are people serious that they think our leader should have a line on the sinfulness of an’al sex? Should we ask people their views on handjobs? The length of foreplay?
Perhaps everyone should start thinking about what the voters are interested in: having an economy that works for the many and not for the few and having top-class schools and hospitals.
This party sometimes…
“blowing up balloons is great tonic for a Sunday afternoon ”
Absolutely right, we had a great summer garden party in Tunbridge Wells, with balloons on the gate.
Andy Murray has won both singles matches in the Davis Cup against France, and the doubles with his brother. 3-1.
@Richard Underhill:
“Labour MP Liz Kendall was asked by the Mail on Sunday about her weight.”
She should have said: “I am obviously me heavyweight than the Daily Mail?” 😉
What is a “traditional Christian”? Christians are Christians without any label stuck in front. We are Christian because we accept Jesus as our saviour, not because of where we stand on political and social issues.
Ian, there are Christians (as there are atheists) on both sides of the equal rights argument, and I am using the term “traditional Christian” for want of a better term (apologies given in paragraph 2) for those Christians who invoke Christianity as a reason for opposing equal rights. (Clearly Tim is not one of these)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Ludford,_Baroness_Ludford.
“A longstanding opponent of capital punishment, Baroness Ludford has been pressing European drug companies not to supply executioners in the United States with sedatives.”
Steven Erlanger (April 30, 2014), Outrage Across Ideological Spectrum in Europe Over Flawed Lethal Injection in U.S. New York Times.
This campaign requires constant vigilance as attempts are made to circumvent the rulings of courts in various states in the USA.
It would be simplistic and wrong for commentatrors to say that the USA is a democracy which has capital punishment. Please see Amnesty reports. Some states do not allow capital punishment (legalised murder). Texas is the worst by far.
As a democracy the USA has numerous failings, how about introducing one person one vote for the Presidency? instead of filtering through an archaic body that does not even meet? How about dealing with gerrymandering? How about dealing effectively with the excess of money? Suppose these reforms were enacted, would there be different policies?
Psi 20th Jul ’15 – 11:28am
“…..Your argument is not justified by a constituency 120 miles from you, ”
Of really? So how many miles must it be before one is allowed to draw attention to the 2015 election result in Yeovil?
The fact is that the joint editor of the Orange Book saw his percentage support go down by more than 22%.
Are you suggesting that the Conservative, UKIP, Labour and Green candidates in Yeovil all increased their share of the vote because the voters were so enthusiastic about the Orange Book?
So. David Laws got 33% and Adrian Sanders got 33%. Your point is, John?
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged” tends to trump all the theological discussion about this.
I think John Tilley’s point was that our vote share fell further in Yeovil than Torbay. The fact both seats recorded a 33% share of the vote this time is meaningless unless compared to the 2010 result where our share was 55.7% in Yeovil and 47% in Torbay. Across the South West voters who had backed us in 2010 went Ukip, Labour or the Greens this time in numbers that gifted 24 seats to the Tories. Many whom I have spoken to since are not coming back soon so severe is their sense of betrayal that we went into coalition with the Tories and backed unpopular policy positions on student finance, welfare, NHS reforms etc. The fact their vote helped sack good progressive constituency MPs and helped secure a majority Tory Government does not register such is their anger with Clegg and our Party for the rightward direction we took. If we fail to learn this lesson and the need to find a positive narrative and a purpose based on a rediscovery of community politics, then we shall be condemned to political oblivion. John Tilley is one of the few alongside Bill Le Breton, Steve Comer, Peter Chegwyn, Tony Greaves and a few others who get it. The orange bookers never did. We tried it their way, can we please go back to the other.
As Adrian says Community Politics is key to any hope of recovery. Those who pretended that going into government and taking illiberal decisions as a sop to the mantra of “grown up politics” totally misunderstood the Liberal Democrats, their voters and British politics. Jo Grimond made it very clear in his comment “Liberals should be on the side of the governed, not the governing.” Nick, David Laws et al never looked anything other than totally comfortable being in charge of their little empires while David Cameron completely undermined them over five long painful years and they never saw it coming.
Those of us who are left have to rebuild, but it will not be easy, nor will it be certain, such is the damage already done. But it has to be done because a future without Liberal Democracy would be a bleak one indeed.
@TCO,
Are you saying that the person in 2007 was not given a chance?
We are now in 2015. Are you prepared to give the new incumbent the benefit of the doubt for the same number of years? If anything, he has a much greater mountain to climb.
I find this rush to judgement quite astonishing. Give the man a chance to prove himself or stop claiming to have a belief in ‘fairness’.
@Adrian Sanders @David Evans the younger generation feel more comfortable with a full liberal programme so that is the direction of travel. You may not like it but it’s happening so you’ll need to get used to it.
@Jayne Mansfield I repeat its not me who’s judging. I merely note that those saying Tim should be given a chance were vociferous in their condemnation of the previous leader and did not give him their support from the outset. What hoes around comes around.
@Joe Otten …….. Then, Joe, you are using the words “traditional” and “Christian” inappropriately. I would consider myself a “traditional” Christian, following Jesus’s teaching that has stood the test of time for nearly 2,000 years and I argue and fight for equality, as a traditional belief, though one that has often lacked expression. Please don’t insert your own choice of adjectives in front of “Christian”.
Adrian and John.
As they say, I don’t have a dog in this fight.
But I am baffled by looking at the Yeovil and Torbay results and then trying to match them to your apparent thesis.
You lost 13 percentage points of the vote, Adrian. Labour and the Greens – progressive parties went up by four points. UKIP/Tories went up by ten.
In Yeovil, David went down by 22 points. Labour went up by two points. Greens went from zero to 4. UKIP and Tories went up by 19.
I’m no psephologist, but it seems that the lion’s share of David’s vote went to Tories and UKIP (or stayed at home and were replaced by such voters?) – parties more right wing than the Orange Book ? (I guess – I’ve never even read a summary of it).
The picture seems remarkably similar for you, Adrian. The lion’s share of your decreased vote went to right wing parties, mainly to UKIP (or stayed at home?)
So, goodness only knows how you manage to conclude from that, John, that David was rejected because of his Orange book views. Or are you saying that people hated his Orange bookery and therefore voted Tory or UKIP because, in the old liberal phrase, he “didn’t go far enough”?
By the way, I totally agree with the latter part of your comment Adrian. I just find this attempt to distinguish particularly the Yeovil result to be utterly bizarre. We were all stuffed in equal measure.
General Election 2015: Yeovil[6][7]
Party Candidate Votes % ±%
Conservative Marcus Fysh 24,158 42.5 +9.6
Liberal Democrat David Laws 18,865 33.1 −22.6
UKIP Simon Smedley[6] 7,646 13.4 +9.3
Labour Sheena King 4,053 7.1 +1.9
Green Emily McIvor 2,191 3.8 n/a
Majority 5,313 9.3
Turnout 56,933 69.1
Conservative gain from Liberal Democrat
General Election 2015: Torbay[5]
Party Candidate Votes % ±%
Conservative Kevin Foster[6] 19,551 40.7 +2.0
Liberal Democrat Adrian Sanders 16,265 33.8 -13.2
UKIP Anthony McIntyre[7] 6,540 13.6 +8.3
Labour Sue Maddock[8] 4,166 8.7 +2.1
Green Paula Hermes[9] 1,557 3.2 +2.3
Majority 3,286 6.8
Turnout 48,079 63.0 -1.6
Conservative gain from Liberal Democrat
John Tilley
Here we go again.
As I pointed out previously:
https://www.libdemvoice.org/david-laws-joins-centreforum-46417.html
“There were serious problems in the 2015 election, both nationally and locally. As TOC noted the move in Yeovil was a move right, some votes were lost to Labour and the Greens but also votes were lost to the Conservatives.
An assessment of what happened in 2015 needs to be serious, not just people distracted by their own confirmation bias. Citing one person who lives in the constituency as evidence of knowing exactly what would have turned things around is not really all that useful.
I hope the LibDem party does an effective review of what went wrong, but I think a few too many people on here are over confident of their own insights in to the behaviour of over 80,000 people.
One thing that is often forgotten is that there is no such thing a s a safe LibDem seat, this idea seems to pass people by in most discussions any assessment of strategy need to accept this fact. Have a read of:
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2015/06/the-computers-that-crashed-and-the-campaign-that-didnt-the-story-of-the-tory-stealth-operation-that-outwitted-labour.html
“Liberal Democrat supporters were more amenable to voting Tory than others realised” You have to accept that many LibDem voters are thinking voters not tribal voters and thinking voters are possible to persuade this is a challenge but it should keep the minds focused at the top of the party, something I am not sure it did in recent years.”
Personally I thought when I saw the news on the 29th of May 2010 that it was likely that Yeovil would be touch and go (though there are other factors in play as there are in many local areas). But that result says very little that is directly attributable to one cause.
As for:
“Of really? So how many miles must it be before one is allowed to draw attention to the 2015 election result in Yeovil?”
You can draw attention to it as much as you like, what I am suggesting is you don’t claim to know specifically what motivated the voters you don’t live around. Perhaps you could stick to commenting on the people who live near you there are plenty of constituencies where the LibDems lost or fell from 2nd place to 3rd/4th/5th near to you. There your comments are more likely to be informed by actual knowledge of peoples opinions.
contd.
As to relative falls that is comparing Torbay to Yeovil 2010 to 2015 give you Torbay 47.0% to 33.8% and Yeovil 55.7% to 33.1% but equally we could cut the data another way and go back a bit and compare to the time performance since 2001 where you get Torbay 50.5% to 33.8% and Yeovil 44.2% to 33.1%, both showing big shift so the Tories and to UKIP also some losses to Labour and the Greens. None of that proves whether any plans for what is right as the response. Failing were numerous and just shouting “orange bookers” achieves little. How about rather than demand simplistic explanations are the new received wisdom how about actually taking the time to get a holistic picture.
There is a new leader he probably wants to get an informed understanding, potential LibDem voters are much more likely to be persuadable voters and he will want to make sure he doesn’t make some of the communication errors of the last 5 years about work in government as well as set out what he wants to show is different.
Paul Walter
Sorry I seem to have duplicated your point, I hadn’t refreshed in time.
The resistance of seeing the whole picture (there are plenty of failings to go round) seems baffling.
@Psi “The resistance of seeing the whole picture (there are plenty of failings to go round) seems baffling.”
Not when you combine an antipathy to economic liberalism, denial that that’s the way the party is travelling and a desperation to the left wing comfort zone before it’s too late.
As Psi points out, there were special factors in Yeovil other than the Orange Book that might account for the larger-than-average fall in vote share.
However, I think what the Orange-bookers and their enthusiasm for coalition with the Tories (as shown by the way they got all the main cabinet posts…) DID do is make us look like Tory-lite. When faced with an imitation people tend to vote for the real thing. The result was an increase in Tory vote in many seats, not just a loss of votes to more left-wing parties. And UKIP took votes from everyone… So they should take their share of responsibility for the loss of all the seats in our previous heartland…
Julie Chris Clare
Flipping heck – what have we joined?
Think we’ll just have to let this run it’s course.
Get the impression there’s a lot of therapy and catfighting still to come here -;)
We’ll have to be ready to spread the love when they all come out the other side…..
@TCO
You sound like one of those Japanese soldiers that were discovered still at their posts on remote islands decades after Japan had lost the war. It’s time to go home now. Your favoured leader was the most incompetent leader of a party in power that the UK has ever seen. 0.9% in the Rochester by-election was an astonishingly awful result – no doubt you will blame it on voter’s fears of Plaid Cymru.
In 2005 Tim Farron managed to win a marginal victory in a Tory seat at the height of Lib Dem popularity. He should have been wiped out in 2015, given the dramatic decline in Lib Dem vote, but he won it with a large majority. Contrast this with the safe seat that Laws lost…
@Paul Walter
“I’m no psephologist, but it seems that the lion’s share of David’s vote went to Tories and UKIP (or stayed at home and were replaced by such voters?) – parties more right wing than the Orange Book ? (I guess – I’ve never even read a summary of it).”
As a Yeovil constituent… very few went to the Tories. A lot of Tories voters were new, or hadn’t voted for a while, and were inspired by a strong sense in the constituency that Laws was out (as opposed to the usual sense of an inevitable Lib Dem win) that was heightened by Cameron’s visit. A lot of previous Lib Dem voters stayed at home. UKIP picked up a lot of ex-Lib Dem voters – which should give a sense of how ‘rainbow’ the support for the Lib Dems was in the community. A really strong sense that Laws was a soft Tory has permeated the constituency over the course of the coalition, and I’d say that this was the key issue that no effective corrective to was presented by the party locally. Whether this was because of an over-confidence in Paddy’s legacy, a sense of fatalism, or just a lack of imagination, I couldn’t say.
@TCO — can I keep pointing out that by your past comments, I’m younger than you and my commitment to your personal definition of ‘total liberalism’ is less than total? Your point about the leadership contests of 2007 and 2015 is not unjustified, but you have been pretty much telling us since the election that you feel Farron is a mis-step, so I don’t feel inclined to give you much leeway on that. It seems to me that you are not frustrated with him because of the way his partisans treated Clegg, but that he represents a part of the party you wish were quieter and feel is antiquated and discredited (we don’t all agree, I’m afraid).
Can I just say that my hypothesis is that maybe a lot of the venom may stems from the ‘accident’ that in 2007 a candidate unashamedly from the left of the party was lacking, and this year, a candidate unashamedly from the right was lacking (see also the way Norman and Tim deliberately cross-dressed on several points of policy throughout the campaign). My point (see earlier) was that a wider contest with more than 2 candidates might have prevented some of the slanging using religion as a proxy for policy (mentally re-run the contest as, say, Farron-Cable-Lamb-Alexander-Swinson in your head and tell me if it isn’t just a teeny bit different)?
Oh and Hi! to those new members scratching their heads at how this thread is degenerating and tangentialising (is that a word?)… this does happen from time to time on here; reading LDV threads several days out from their inception can be a strange and bizarre experience. I should mention I have only been a member for just over a year, myself. Meeting real people in the flesh is the antidote to much of this (I am more of an armchair member for several enforced reasons so I get less of that opportunity).
Ian, you are asking me for a clarification that I gave in paragraph 2 of the original article. What term would be better?
@TCO “Not when you combine an antipathy to economic liberalism, denial that that’s the way the party is travelling …”
That was certainly the way the party was travelling, but was the electoral rejection of Lib Dems in May not enough to prompt a change in direction? And how exactly does a more economically liberal version of the Lib Dems distinguish itself from the Tories?
TCO serious question: what is it that you want? Clegg isn’t coming back, Tim is the Leader and he is staying and it is very unlikely that he will peruse economic liberal policies. I’m assuming you don’t want a divided party for the next five years with this sort of unwinnable (on both sides) debate? It’s not as though you are going to change your mind, after all, nor are John Tilley et al. So what exactly do you want to happen now?
Tim Farron has won the leadership election and deserves a chance to put a new programme in place. That does not, however, mean that he deserves carte blanche. His activities should be keenly scrutinised and criticised, from the right as well as the left, and no one should feel uneasy about voicing criticism.
Also his tenure should be revisited in another year or two to evaluate what good he has been able to accomplish. If, like Clegg, he fails and continues to fail to deliver any sort of recovery in the Party’s fortunes, the Party should look seriously for another leader. Although I don’t expect the same leadership style from Tim, it is as yet early in the day, and the Party simply cannot afford to have five more years of the same inertia that kept us from acting as needed in the past.
For no other reason than this is the 200th comment on this thread!!
Joe – congratulations – the ‘can of worms’ award undoubtably is yours 🙂
David-1, If you think that the mess of the last five years will be turned around in anything less than a decade you are seriously underestimating the problems we face. Nick sacrificed the hard work of 40 to 50 years for his five years of “grown up government.” It may well take that long again.
Bearing in mind that in nearly 50 constituencies we have lost an MP and his/her paid staff and our closest opposition have gained the same, a situation where we are holding our own over the next four years will be a real achievement. I am sure Tim will want more, but it will not be easy for any of us.
If we want the party to succeed we need to get out and do more than we have ever done before for as many years as we can. If you want to undermine the party still further by giving Tim less than a quarter of the time to recover from disaster than that given to Nick to destroy most of it, carry on, but don’t think you are part of the solution, you will simply be another part of the problem.
Psi 20th Jul ’15 – 10:00pm
“….stick to commenting on the people who live near you …..”
Did you seriously intend to include this in your comment? Or did you get carried away?
Do you assume that I have never been to Yeovil, or that I have no family or friends living in that part of the world?
For around 150 years there has been a railway service that puts Yeovil within very easy reach of where I live.
Do you assume that nobody ever gets on that train?
Do you assume that I have never enjoyed the gradual “upgrading” of the A303 over the last 55 years when travelling from where I live to Yeovil and back by car?
You know who I am and where I live. But you cannot presume to know what constituencies and parts of the country I have any knowledge of.
I understand that some people have a legitimate reason to chose anonymity in this forum. And you have chosen to hide your identity and where you live.
But maybe you could just inform anyone still reading this thread why only people who live in certain places might be able to notice that the political direction of Orange Book enthusiasts resulted in a total wipe-out of Liberal Democrat MPs anywhere west of Wallington and South of Ceredigion.
Psi and TCO – We set ourselves up for failure if we think all of the electorate is as informed and interested as we are about where parties/candidates sit ideologically.
A large number of the UKIP voters we recorded in 2015 had been recorded as Lib Dem or Probable in 2010. Of the (sadly) tiny sample we were able to talk to in the final few weeks of the campaign few perceived UKIP as right-wing or on the same side as the Conservatives. We won some back using the same squeeze message as for Labour. It worked because many of Ukip’s voters disliked the Conservative Party more than a hard working local MP. Greens were more difficult to squeeze coming as most of them did from the left of Labour and feeling the most betrayed having tactically voted for us in 2010.
The point I am making is that probably a significant part of the UKIP vote wasn’t right-wing but frustrated and politically unthinking and least likely to respond positively to our national messaging. To consider them otherwise is to miss one of the key factors behind our loss of so many seats in the South West and to condemn us to losing again next time.
The Ukip threat to our vote was not something the wheelhouse seemed interested in contemplating – dominated as the top of our Party was (and probably still is) by people driven by intellectual argument rather than gut reaction. 12 days out from polling day I contacted the wheelhouse to request some funding to target the Ukip voters we had identified and mail them a squeeze message as I could see they were a key group that could swing the result – I had previously lost my argument to focus on the Tories additional spending cuts rather than Bluekip as a tactic to counter the SNP concerns we were all picking up in the South West. I was told by both Paddy and Ryan that my seat was home and dry and the resources were needed for seats that were close contests – Yeovil was mentioned.
My samples of where some of the Ukip vote was coming from may be small but my evidence is first hand having knocked on more doors over the longest of election campaigns I have ever fought.
It took 73 years to build the coalition of support that could win Torbay from the Conservatives by just 12 votes in 1997, I hope it won’t take that long to win it back, but I fear reading some of the contributions on LDV – from I assume party members – that it could take much longer.
@Psi (and @Matt (Bristol)) “TCO serious question: what is it that you want? Clegg isn’t coming back, Tim is the Leader and he is staying and it is very unlikely that he will peruse economic liberal policies. I’m assuming you don’t want a divided party for the next five years with this sort of unwinnable (on both sides) debate? It’s not as though you are going to change your mind, after all, nor are John Tilley et al. So what exactly do you want to happen now?”
Serious question, deserves a serious answer.
Matt very reasonably said that the party needs “people like me” to be, as I put it, the grit in the oyster. This board, and the Left generally, has become an echo chamber that fails to understand why it keeps losing. Someone has to challenge the comfy consensus. I’m doing it – perhaps it’s not appreciated and to be honest I wonder why I bother.
From a personal perspective I see that Liberalism is a complex philosophy and needs to embrace all strands, in balance, to be successful. I see very many people posting on the board who want to take the party in a direction that takes it away from this balance; that see the election of Tim as carte blanche to undertake some sort of purge and who now assume that everything will be rosy once the nasty Orange Booker/Proto Tories are expelled.
So be it – if, after 30 years, my services are no longer required, then it is what it is.
The other issue is this.
The party had, for want of a better way of putting it, a leftwards direction of travel for many years. The more right-leaning of us got with the programme, followed the consensus, and supported the party despite that.
When the boot went on the other foot, the same did not happen. The “awkward squad” sought to undermine the leadership from day one. Is it any wonder, therefore, that they behaved as they did, by becoming more insular?
My view is that Tim Farron needs to embrace all strands of thinking within his party and needs to bring forward some prominent people from the economic liberal wing to advise him. He also needs to make an example of some of those calling enthusiastically for a purge. Then I will feel like I belong in the party.
@Peter Watson ” how exactly does a more economically liberal version of the Lib Dems distinguish itself from the Tories?”
1) The Tories are not Economic Liberals
2) The Tories are not Liberal in other policy areas
Next question.
TCO 21st Jul ’15 – 11:26am
1) The Tories are not Economic Liberals
That may be your personal view. In the eyes of mode than 90% of the voters Economic Liberals might as well be Tories.
Is that not the lesson of the 2015 General Election?
“those calling enthusiastically for a purge” ???
Can anyone point me to any evidence of anybody “calling for a purge”?
The only thing remotely like a call for a purge that I remember are the calls of Reeves and Astle five years ago. Is that what the persecuted TCO is talking about?
Adrian is clearly right in what he says. He won the seat in 1997 after decades of hard work by Lib Dems and Liberals before them. However, the blinkered parroting of carefully selected statistics by some to prove their preconceptions is sadly far too common on this thread. Comparing things over a longer term gives a much clearer picture.
1992 was Adrian’s first attempt and Paddy’s last but one. Paddy won with 51% in Yeovil and Adrian was second in Torbay with 39%. Comparing the 2015 result with all the results since then, Adrian’s result is only 6% worse than the lowest result in those previous years, David Laws’ is 11% worse than the previous low of 44% (which occurred in 2001, the year he took over from Paddy). Thanks to Paddy, and lots of hard work by local activists Yeovil was one of our strongest seats. Now it is no more. Overall it is clear that the deterioration in Yeovil is nearly twice as bad as that in Torbay. Pretending otherwise is mere spin.
TCO – I am totally amazed by your comments on how when Nick became leader “The ‘awkward squad’ sought to undermine the leadership from day one,” and “those saying Tim should be given a chance were vociferous in their condemnation of the previous leader and did not give him their support from the outset. What goes around comes around.” I have no recollection of such happenings at all.
However, I may be mistaken and you may have some evidence in this case. If you could provide a few links to posts in 2007 or 2008, it might give us some idea of the veracity of your point. Otherwise I fear it may be just one of those urban legends that keep getting reiterated around the internet.
adrian sanders
“We set ourselves up for failure if we think all of the electorate is as informed and interested as we are about where parties/candidates sit ideologically.”
That is not out of line with my point, I am arguing against John Tilley in his repeated attempts to state that Yeovil is proof that “people don’t like Orange Bookers” and avoid proper analysis of the many things that went wrong.
I am simply suggesting that simplifying matters is not helpful, it results in people putting everything down to “people hate Orange Bookers” when there are many problems that need to be considered and learn from, and the likely best response is likely to be a more moderate approach than the pendulum that is suggested by some.
“tiny sample we were able to talk to in the final few weeks of the campaign few perceived UKIP as right-wing or on the same side as the Conservatives”
And there are some conservative supporters who don’t regard themselves as ‘right wing’ there can be a lot of people who are not tribal and can fluctuate, particularly if one party makes them feel they are ‘on their side.’
Personally I think some of the economically liberal polices would have appealed to the is group but they were badly explained. Dressing them in the same clothes as the Tories would rather than explain them differently from a liberal perspective. Equally some of the criticisms of coalition polices from certain parts of the LibDems used the Labour method “Tories are evil” when they should have taken a different approach in the criticism (but still able to criticise) to look distinctive particularly look less viciously tribal.
“but I fear reading some of the contributions on LDV – from I assume party members – that it could take much longer.”
If people are here they are likely (though not always) to be friends if not members. I hope you see that many people are not asking for a “continuity, coalition” approach but learning from all that has happened and all parts of the party would surely have good ideas. I hope Torbay would be back soon (how soon will probably depend on events), but I think you are misreading the views here they often come across more extreme than they appear, the internet doesn’t lend itself to subtlety.
TCO
“@Psi (and @Matt (Bristol)) “TCO serious question: what is it that you want? […]”
I think you have misattributed that quote to me when it was Phillis. I think we are much closer in thought than that.
But while we are on the topic, I agree that there needs to be all sides represented and I think you are worrying about Farron too early, I didn’t see him trying to trash the record in government; I believe (no evidence) that he is aware then there will be much to show for the record (if repackaged with better explanations as to why certain things mattered) along with a desire to change some things.
Remember Kennedy was considered ‘left” but hired Mark Littlewood.
David Evans
You appear to have missed my point (from the looks of it Adrian didn’t). I was not saying that Torbay or Yeovil are any more proof of one thing or another (and was not an attack on Adrian), simply to pick a few stats will leave you with a fairly useless picture. As Adrian accurately states:
“We set ourselves up for failure if we think all of the electorate is as informed and interested as we are about where parties/candidates sit ideologically.”
To cite Yeovil as evidence that people had formed a detailed understanding of where someone stood on an ideological map and then based their vote on that would be unrealistic. As I said further up May 2010 had an impact, other matters also will too.
My point is not that somehow Yeovil is wonderful and Torbay terrible simply that simplifying the issue down and just cutting some numbers will not give you a very useful picture, there is more going on and you need to look at all of it not be ruled by confirmation bias.
@John Tilley “”1) The Tories are not Economic Liberals.” That may be your personal view. In the eyes of mode than 90% of the voters Economic Liberals might as well be Tories. Is that not the lesson of the 2015 General Election?”
Not sure I follow your “logic” John. Much like Mahatma Ghandi’s views on Western Civilisation, I will pass judgement on Economic Liberalism in government when it has been tried.
The lessons of the 2015 General Election are simple:
– voters who are promised “vote Lib Dem to stop the Tories” don’t like it when electoral results make a Tory-Lib coalition the only practical possibility
– pro-coalition supporters had only one option to vote for and in most cases it wasn’t us
– voters inclined to make a protest had several options to go for and none of them included us
– Labour’s left-leaning programme did not prove sufficiently attractive to enough of the electorate for them to get elected; they lost ground
– Nationalism can be a powerful electoral force
TCO – I have to say that I await the announcement of Farron’s financial spokesperson in the HoC with great interest. Entirely personally, I strongly suspect (could be wrong) it will be Steve Webb, that noted communist trades-union agitator, advocate of workplace takeovers and sworn blood-enemy of the coalition.
I do think anyone who wanted Farron to explicitly damn the Coalition in o uncertain terms and have no truck with anyone who didn’t repent of its heresy at length have been and will continue to be disappointed. He has made no secret of the fact that he would have liked to have been a minister in it. But yes, he is to the left of the Coalition, and more to the point, to the left of Clegg. I’m still not sure how much to the right of Faron Lamb would have been (or been able to be had he wanted to be).
I am not inclined to agree with Phyllis that Tim will not pursue free-market policies – I just think he might mix in the odd more statist gesture. What I’m hoping personally is that these are devolved statist gestures, not central-government-managed ones; we need more diversity in our economy, and more room for different regional strategies to emerge so they can be compared. And there are still basic concepts all party members can agree on – simplification of the taxation system starting income tax code, for a start.
Apart from differences in tone, I think in the main, overt differences from the ‘official’ textually accurate Clegg-era agenda on many aspects of policy will be by microns, turning slowly. What has changed quickly is the sense of the direction of travel.
There is no longer the sense of fear in the party now that yesterday’s rightwing lunacy is today’s Tory policy is tomorrow’s LibDem policy. I’m not in a position to claim Clegg was personally to blame for that feeling; but he became attached to it permanently.
Mike S 20 Jul 10.43
Julie Chris Clare
Flipping heck – what have we joined? …
Think we’ll just have to let this run its course. Get the impression there’s a lot of therapy and catfighting still to come here -;) We’ll have to be ready to spread the love when they all come out the other side…
Well, let’s just hope they can come out the other side sooner rather than later …!!! We can definitely get the balloons out and celebrate with a party then!
Peter Watson
“how exactly does a more economically liberal version of the Lib Dems distinguish itself from the Tories?”
I will pick an example of the raising from the tax threshold, the Tories ‘sales pitch’ was simply “Tax Cut” or at its most sophisticated “Tax Cut for the poor.”
The economically liberal version overlaps. The most simple should be “Tax Cut for the poor” but the more complex layer should be about how it changes incentives for the working poor (reducing risk via the benefit substitution), efficiency, etc. But also then recognising this inevitably leads to a question about how this raises the need to ensure the at benefits also have a sensible in work benefit.
On the in-work benefit it is easy to distinguish, they assume everyone in low paid work can easily get a high paid job. Economic liberals know that is not the real world and people need support (and most of us who didn’t have “daddies friends” to get us our first job had something rubbish and badly paid to start with).
But on the flip side the need to distinguish from Labour on the criticism side too. So when criticising the Spare room subsidy removal (/Bedroom tax). When focusing on the inclusion of the compulsory inclusion from the disabled rather than saying “they’re evil” say “if this policy were to work as designed it would cost £Xm in capital expenditure to remove adaptations from old properties and insert them in the new. That could build X new social houses” Avoiding hyperbole and showing practical thinking, preferably delivered using humour.
The problem is both sides have been too aggressive or too defensive rather than highlight the important issue.
@Matt (Bristol) I like and, more importantly, respect Steve Webb as a thoughtful, innovative Liberal. I’m not sure how he can become Tim’s HoC financial spokesman, though, as he no longer has a seat in the HoC.
I don’t have much to disagree with you regarding your analysis of how Farron will operate in practice. However I do think that the initial media assault will come to define him (unfairly) in much the same way that Ed Miliband was defined from very early on.
What I’m most concerned about is the note of triumphalism and “year zero” vibes I’m getting from the usual suspects. These are not conducive to thoughtful bridge-building and progress.
@Psi “But on the flip side the need to distinguish from Labour on the criticism side too.”
Spot on – which is why my heart sinks when I read glib soundbites like “tax cuts for millionaires”.
TCO – Guilty as charged on Steve Webb – I think I misread a quote from Farron saying how much he admired him and then went and jumped in that Egyptian river you were talking about. I’m not well (no, really, I’m not actually).
I think, paradoxically, that Miliband maybe had less time than Farron has. The Labour leadership contest has given a breathing space. A lot of Labour people I know came up to me at work (first day back from sick leave) and said, ‘wish we had your leader’. And do I believe there are ways he can appeal to Tory voters (less obviously on policy, but also on bluffness, directness, tell-it-straightness).
I think the crunch time for our initial public impression could be how much we recede from the narrative in the autumn, when Labour have a new leader and the party conferences are on..
You may yet be right that there are a group of voters who symbolically won’t touch him because of his faith. And the party as a whole has not yet managed a really long period without a gaffe, so we could be due another in a bit which will lose him the chance to add elements to his media picture that might just win back those voters.
5 years is a long time to hold your nerve for; anything can happen. But look at Cameron and remember how much of a genius the media told us Major was in the aftermath of 1992. Look at Osbourne and remember how much Brown looked impregnable under Blair. There will be opportunities, even for us. We’ll just have to strike hard and fast when they come.
The only two ‘obvious’ Finance spokespeople out of the MPs are either Norman Lamb or John Pugh (who have both been on the Lib Dem Treasury team before). Any bets?
@Matt (Bristol) I hope you’re feeling better or feel better soon
“A lot of Labour people I know came up to me at work (first day back from sick leave) and said, ‘wish we had your leader’. ”
I don’t find that particularly reassuring!
TCO,
Lets have a look at your “lessons”:
“The lessons of the 2015 General Election are simple:
– voters who are promised “vote Lib Dem to stop the Tories” don’t like it when electoral results make a Tory-Lib coalition the only practical possibility AGREED
– pro-coalition supporters had only one option to vote for and in most cases it wasn’t us AGREED
– voters inclined to make a protest had several options to go for and none of them included us AGREED (BUT WHY?)
– Labour’s left-leaning programme did not prove sufficiently attractive to enough of the electorate for them to get elected; they lost ground LITTLE EVIDENCE FOR THIS – SEE BELOW
– Nationalism can be a powerful electoral force AGREED
When you look at the available evidence on why the Labour % in the last election only increased slightly more than the Tory %, the number one thing mentioned seems to be “we did not trust Ed Miliband on the economy”. I thought that throughout the campaign the Labour Party seemed embarassed to talk about their “left-leaning programme” Instead (just like us) they went for meaningless soundbites like the Edstone. If Labour had had a leader with any charisma (eg. Tony Blair, Harold Wilson, Neil Kinnock, David Miliband, perhaps) they would have scored at the very least a draw in the election, regardless of their programme. (the loss of all the Scottish seats always made an absolute majority virtually impossible). I dont think Labour’s programme was ever judged by the electorate… We do know that the Tories won mainly by default as their vote hardly went up at all though.
Now Harriet Harman has managed to shoot her Party’s foot completely off with this ridiculous abstention on the benefit cuts.
So I will add a couple more “lessons”
1) Don’t go into any election with a Leader on massively negative approval ratings (which means, for example, don’t allow your Leader to lose all trust by breaking a high profile pledge)
2) Don’t insult the electorate with a campaign based entirely on meaningless slogans and pseudo-pledges
3) Do keep policies like the Mansion tax that are popular (and right…tax wealth, not income!), even though they don’t raise much revenue…
Matt
“A lot of Labour people I know came up to me at work (first day back from sick leave) and said, ‘wish we had your leader’. ”
I think that is very good news for our chances of recovery 🙂
Newquay and St Austell: 2010 43%. 2015 24%. Down 19 percentage points. Is Stephen Gilbert considered an “Orange booker”?
Brecon and Radnorshire down 18 points. I think Roger Williams was quite anti-Orange Book wasn’t he?
Bristol West down a whopping 29 points. I don’t Stephen Williams could remotely be described as “Orange Book” could he?
Manchester Withington down 21 points
Portsmouth South down 24 points despite a locally popular and savvy (and non Orange book) candidate inGerald VJ
Eastleigh down 21 points
Eastbourne. Stephen Lloyd has been described by Dr Mark Pack as “the Orange Bookers’ Orange Booker” but only went down by 9.1 points against Adrian’s 13.2.
The daddy of all Orange Bookers, presumably, is Nick Clegg. Went down 13.4 points against Adrian’s 13.2 points.
I rest my case.
“I rest my case.”
Oh dear. Hallam is traditionally a Tory seat and their activists made sure Clegg was returned to Parliament to carry on serving their needs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheffield_Hallam_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#/media/File:HallamGraph.png
Labour’s share of the vote in Hallam doubled as voters tried to topple Clegg. The Tory’s vote almost halved as their voters tried to keep him, in sharp contrast to national trends.
I await similarly ingenious explanations for my other seven examples. If the Tory activists did this in Hallam, why didn’t they do it in Yeovil, which was a traditionally Tory seat until Paddy took it?
Paul Walter 21st Jul ’15 – 8:31pm
Paul I think we all well understand the shorthand meaning of the term ‘Orange Booker’ and the damage they inflicted on the party generally. The modern Liberal Party and subsequently the Liberal Democrats have always been a party of social justice liberalism and I am happy to agree that we have always had a number of economically-minded social justice liberals as fellow travellers.
The true Orange Bookers however, beneath their extremely divisive banner of ‘reclaiming liberalism’, wrought much damage on our party and its electoral success generally because of their alternative non-mainstream Liberal Democrat agenda and them then holding the key positions during much of our time in coalition. A key belief for them and the likes of Paul Marshall and Richard Reeves is that there was a mass of soft Tories waiting to flock to us if only we weren’t so interested in equality and using the powers of the state to ensure Liberal outcomes for our people.
TCO can rail against mainstream social justice Liberalism as much as he likes (and he does) but I did not hear or see either leadership candidate wishing to remain on the ever so successful electoral path of the preceding 5 years. And as for his claim that economic liberalism is yet to be tried, that has more than a passing resemblance to the views of the supporters of communism.
LDV readers may be interested in some very interesting observations made by former MP Gwynoro Jones in his recent blog on the topic of the coalition and making peace with ourselves: The Liberal Democrats can only move forward successfully by being able to understand what went wrong and why …
http://gwynorojones.blogspot.co.uk/
@Paul Walter I’ve found a new hero in Stephen Lloyd 🙂
Paul,
First, I agree with you that there is no correlation between the performance in individual seats and the Orange-bookishness of the candidates. In fact I suspect very few voters have even heard of the Orange Book!
However that does not mean that the Orange Book tendency which made some of our MPs so enthusiastic about working with the Tories did not contribute to people voting Tory rather than Lib Dem in Tory-Lib Dem marginals – why vote for the imitation rather than the real thing?
Obviously Hallam, with all the attention and about 5 local polls, was known to be a Lib Dem/Labour marginal this May. So the Tory vote was squeezed successfully by 10% in our direction. The same happened in Leeds NW (Tory vote down 8%), Bradford East (Tory vote down 16%), Burnley (Tory vote down 3%), Hornsey and Wood Green (Tory vote down 7%), Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Tory vote down 5%). The same also happened in several Scottish seats.
There were exceptions like Brent Central and Norwich South, but where we were perceived to be in a 2 horse race (sigh!) with Labour, Tory voters switched to us. In Yeovil and the rest of the SW they just voted for the real thing
@Andrew if you actually read the Orange book you would realise that thee Tory left are pale and highly imperfect imitations of balanced liberals (“orange bookers” in your parlance) rather than the other way round. The majority of the Tories are not liberal at all.
Stephen,
Many wise words on Gwynoro Jones’s blog!
Although the benefits vote does show that if Labour continues to support the Tories our record in coalition will look better and better. So I am ok with the Tim Farron line of not apologising for coalition, but just pointing out that the Tories by themselves are much worse. This last budget really was the Sheriff of Nottingham version!
TCO,
I am afraid most people do not share your nuanced view of the political spectrum (which seems to involve expanding a very small part of it into the only bit that counts….)
It really does not matter what is in the Orange book or what subtle differences there may be between the Tory left and the Economic Liberals.
All the electorate needed to see was the camaraderie in the Rose Garden, the offer pre-2010 from George Osborne to David Laws to join the Tories, and Danny Alexander spending so many hours defending the latest Tory policy. These people clearly fitted into the Tory “broad church”…. But of course they should have taken their longer spoons with them…
Now I am sure that in their minds all the Lib Dem ministers saw themselves as really distinct from their Tory colleagues, and indeed they did provide a brake on the totally illiberal right wing of the Tories that you mention.
63% of the voters did not like the Tories enough to vote for them. We had little choice but to get into bed with them, but by staying in bed with them for 5 years we just turned into a pointless left wing of the Tory party in the eyes of 92% of the public. Continuing with that policy line would be suicide
I’m enjoying this debate far more than ‘sex and sin’
Paul, Are you sure you don’t ‘have a dog in this fight’? You do seem to be taking it rather seriously. But to answer your point on Sheffield Hallam. The Tories in Hallam knew 1) that if they needed a tame poodle to lead what was left of us back into coalition again, Nick was their man; and 2) that if Nick lost, it would be to Labour and not the Tories.
It has been said so many times already and it really is that simple.
David Evans. You’ve rumbled me. I do have a dog in this fight. I care passionately about having a debate based on some passing refeerence to the facts rather than on obvious bovine scatology. And I thank Andrew for veering towards the former.
I’m as guilty of cognitive dissonance as the next person. The problem with the repetition you refer to, David, is that, more often than not, it comes from the “usual suspects” on here and is couched in ludicrous terms such as “tame poodle” which have the effect of making the comment read with an accompaniment of loud alarm bells for those of us seeking some sort of truth.
Feel free to attempt answers on the other seven examples I quoted.
In your own time.
Paul Walter
Your multiple comments shortly before 9pm last night do not tell us your reasoning for your interpretation of what happened to the Liberal Democrats in the General Election.
Snippets of selectively chosen and presented facts are no substitute for a rational interpretation of those facts.
Just to remind you — A deliberate and well funded Orange Book Tendency mounted a “coup” (to use their own word) at the top of the Liberal Democrats. As a direct result of this the party was systematically shifted to the right to facilitate a coalition with The Conservatives. (See Jasper Gerrard’s book ‘The Clegg Coup’ to remind yourself of how that was done).
The electoral consequence of that coup was a year by year destruction of Liberal Democrat support from 2008 onwards (starting even before the Coalition began but clearly flagged by the decline in the number of MPs in the 2010 General Election).
Liberal Democrats lost seats in every type of election and lost members and supporters from 2008 onwards.
The 2015 General Election for Liberal Democrats was epitomised by the Yeovil result. A seat won in 1983 by party legend Paddy Ashdown was lost dramatically along with every other seat in the West Country – the one part of England which had remained something of a beacon for Liberals since the 1950s.
I find it hard to believe that your interpretation of the facts is that the Orange Book Tendency and their prime mover David Laws are blameless in this disaster.
You are a sensible bloke who has been around for a while and who remembers when Liberals were a rising force in the West Country. You must have been as distressed as anyone to see the results in May this year. Why do you seek to deny the obvious interpretation? Why divert away from an obvious conclusion?
Orange Bookery dragged down everyone else along with their man in Yeovil. Listing some of the victims of this disaster along with the main culprit as if they were equally responsible is not a sensible starting point for rebuilding the party.
Perhaps you need to get yourself a new dog.
“I find it hard to believe that your interpretation of the facts is that the Orange Book Tendency and their prime mover David Laws are blameless in this disaster.”
I am delighted that you find that hard to believe, John, because it is not my view and have never suggested such a thung.
I just repeat what I wrote much earlier:
“By the way, I totally agree with the latter part of your comment Adrian. I just find this attempt to distinguish particularly the Yeovil result to be utterly bizarre. We were all stuffed in equal measure.”
Tim Farron is and will lead this party in a way with which I much more comfortable (compared to Nick), John. I voted for Chris Huhne in the last but one leadership election and staged a protest against Nick Clegg’s leadership in 2012. I am an old John Pardoe man at heart. And yes, I actually went out campaigning for Dan Rogerson three times in Launceston and Bude in the campaign and spent a day working for the party in North Devon – Lynmouth and Parracombe, in fact.
The problem is that my eyes glaze over when ever anyone mentions the orange book. I have never read it or opened it. I have never even read a summary of it. But this labelling and dividing of the party between people who supposedly support a set of articles published 11 years ago that hardly anyone ever read or has heard about outside the inner echelons of the cogniscenti of the party – and those that don’t, and the demonisation of David Laws (why does noone ever demonise Stephen Lloyd and why did he go down by less points than Adrian (down 9 in Eastbourne versus down 13 in Torbay, John?) is quite ridiculous. It comes across as a sort of class war or at least seems very illiberal. David was a very good schools minister. He knows his stuff and worked very hard and passionately on things like the implementation of the pupil premium. If I have a criticism of him, he comes across as rather dry and earnest. But then again, I don’t come out in a rash the moment I come within 100 miles of someone who might be loosely described as expressing occasional “classical liberal” views 😉
@Paul Walter “it comes across as some sort of class war”
Indeed. And usually by disciples of Jo Grimond (Eton and Oxford)
@Andrew so by your logic all coalitions should be avoided for were we to go into coalition with Labour we would just turn into a “pointless right wing of the Labour Party”.
Oh, come on, Paul Walter,
You know as well as I do that a good number of 2010 Tory voters in Hallam switched to Clegg in 2015 to prevent Labour from taking the seat – the point being that, in this instance, a Lib Dem kept their seat because of his right-wing sympathies and because he was a very high profile figure in the Tory coalition. He didn’t win despite him being an orange-booker but because he was one. It was a good strategy for winning that particular seat, and a taxiful of others.
Yes, of course Steve. Thank you for expressing that, for once, without reference to poodles or ‘commands from Tory central office’ which others make.
Nick Clegg is also a very good constituency MP, even when DPM. But that can’t possibly have anything to with it, can it? It doesn’t fit the conspiracy theory.
Now how about Eastbourne?
Anyone?
@Paul Walter unfortunately when it came to Eastbourne we had a communications failure here at Orange Booker HQ which meant we were unable to launch the thousands of Tory voter drones required to keep Our Man in place. It turns out that my white cat was in a huff because he hadn’t had sufficient stroking and had gone off to chew through the cables.
He’s never been keen on Clegg because he can’t stand poodles.
No, I haven’t thus far mentioned poodles. However, here’s a quote from one such canis lupus familiaris (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d951d0e4-f336-11e4-a979-00144feab7de.html#axzz3gbpc2wDf):
“Some Conservatives in Hallam are openly backing Mr Clegg. John Harthman, the Conservative candidate in 2001, recently wrote an open letter to voters saying: “Conservatives in Sheffield Hallam have a choice. We can stick to our party interests and vote for a Tory candidate who won’t win, or we can back Nick Clegg to make sure that Ed Miliband’s Labour party doesn’t sneak in through the back door.” ”
The real story for me is based on my anecdotal evidence of friends who live in Hallam, several of whom were life-long Lib Dem voters that actively switched to Labour to try and remove him.
Eastbourne…
Not familiar with the place myself but a quick look on wikipedia reveals that Stephen Lloyd retained 82% of the number of voters from 2010 whereas David Laws retained 59% of his.
Paul Walter 22nd Jul ’15 – 7:26am
Paul,
The reason that David Laws is considered differently by rational observers of Liberal Democrat politics is that he was the king-pin in the “coup” which resulted in the rightward shift of the party and the electoral disaster which was the natural consequence.
He sat down and determined with Paul Marshall to change the whole nature of the party and for ten years was able to take control of the top of the party. This is not a secret and I am sure you are fully aware of this even if you have not read any of the relevant books (including Laws’ own book about the formation of The Coalition) which detail all this.
The content of The Orange Book as I have said in LDV many times is neither here nor there. The list of contributors is also irrelevant. It was a flag, a symbol, a rallying call to people who wanted a Conservative-friendly, rightwing party which was enthusiastic about 1980s style Thatcherism except for Europe and S28.
I am glad you say that you do not believe that The Orange Book Tendency was blameless for the years of election disasters culminating in the virtual wipeout this year. So why do you continue to defend them?
Secondly, Just so that you can stop mentioning Eastbourne.
Stephen Lloyd can speak for himself but you may recall that he resigned his position some months before the election for good constituency reasons.
Hewas over many years associated with a number of causes within Eastourne and on a national level which are clearly not small-state, rightwing Ornage Bookery.
He carried on community politics campaigns and did not edit a book or lead a group of plotters who had a separate and distinct agenda from the rest of the party.
He was not part of the Coalition negotiating committee, he was not Financial Secretary to The Treasurer even for three weeks, he was not the person that the national media frequently reported as the Conservatives favourite target for recruitment to The Conservative Party.
Stephen Lloyd was not the power behind the throne during the Clegg years. Nor were any of the other MPs who lost their seats other than David Laws.
That is why Eastbourne and virtually all the other constituencies you list are different from Yeovil.
Is that clear enough?
You do not have to be a class warrior to speak the truth, you do not have to own a copy or indeed need to have read The Orange Book to know which way is up. I would strongly urge people not to read this dated and exceedingly boring book but if we simply acknowledge the key role of this Orange Book Tendency in the near destruction of the party it will enable us to rebuild and renew the party so much more quickly and easily.
Steve,
If you read my post above you will see that there were big drops in the Tory vote wherever there was a credible Lib Dem challenge to either Labour or the SNP winning, and where there was a significant number of Tory votes to squeeze. Tory voters in Hallam did not vote for Nick Clegg because he was an Orange-booker or even because he was Deputy PM. They did it because they don’t like Labour and Labour mounted an execptionally vigorous campaign there. The greater the avalanche of Labour leaflets and the more posters they put up in Dore, the more Tories switched to Lib Dem… Do you think the Tory voters who switched to Greg Mulholland in Leeds NW did it because he was a Tory poodle???? No, they did it because he is a exceptional constituency MP and they did not like the look of the Labour candidate (who spent the entire campaign telling lies about Greg’s voting record…)
In Leeds NW and Hallam the left-wing Lib Dems deserted to Labour and the Greens (and UKIP, for complicated reasons), and about half the Tory voters backed us tactically or in some cases went to UKIP. In the Tory-facing seats (exception: Westmorland and Lonsdale for reasons which I hope will spread elsewhere) the same desertion to Labour, Greens, UKIP happened, but of course there were no tactical votes to be had from Tories. So mostly we lost… And because there was indeed still a big net swing from us to Labour everywhere, we lost most of the Labour-facing seats as well…
If we are going to win in the West Country in future we need to recapture votes from the Tories as well as the other parties, but we will certainly not do that by looking and sounding like the Tories… And if we do move somewhat to the left we will not lose many of those Tory tactical votes in Hallam, with or without Nick Clegg as candidate (if it exists after the boundary review, which it may not)
One thing that is clear is that our lurch to the right in the last Parliament did not just lead to us losing left-leaning Lib Dems. I was living in Pudsey in the last election and it was pretty clear that of the 8000 voters who deserted us between 2010 and 2015 (with an absolutely shocking drop from 20.8 to 3.8%) far more went to the Tories than to Labour. I saw at first hand the Tory scare campaign about the SNP , and it was so very effective…
TCO,
Yes, if we went into coalition with Labour with the same enthusiasm as we did with the Tories we would lose votes in all directions in a very similar way to 2015. However, coalition with the Tories was a particular problem after 20+ (or perhaps more correctly 100+) years of positioning ourselves left of centre. The result was that voters decided we just did not believe in anything much other than seats at the cabinet table and ministerial perks. Unfair, but true…
The other particular problem was that our main USP was being more trustworthy than the others, and Clegg chose to make this the main theme of the 2010 campaign. Although of course this had seldom been tested in national politics, we had gained this reputation through our much decried success in local government. So the first red line in the coalition negotiations should have been keeping the tuition fees pledge. I do not for a minute believe that the Tories would have refused to go into coalition without tuition fees… No-one knows what would have happened if we had done everything else we did in coalition but had kept the pledge, but my guess is about 15% and 30+ MP’s
I agree with what your saying Andrew, but tactical voters often need to share at least something in common with who they’re voting for- e.g. the numbers of left-leaning tactical voters that went elsewhere despite knowing that they’d let a Tory take a Lib Dem seat – they just couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Clegg’s party. The number of Tory tactical voters that switched to Lib Dem in Hallam wouldn’t have been as great if Clegg had been more of a thorn in the Tories’ side in coalition. What’s more, he would have retained a greater number of left-leaning tactical voters and core Lib Dem voters, like my friends there. His willingness to embrace toryism/ economic liberalism/orange-bookery caused those voting patterns.
I can see how the SNP scare might have effected somewhere like Pudsey where the Lib Dem candidate went from 3rd place to 4th with many voters switching to Tory. I have struggled understanding how the SNP scare would have effected Lib Dem seats in Tory/Lib Dem seats but I guess it’s explained by the fact that those voters were expecting the Lib Dem vote to implode and that the Tory had a better chance of defeating Labour. In such situations, the expectation that the Lib Dem vote would implode was rational in view of the overwhelming evidence of the Lib Dem collapse in the previous four years of elections and polls, but without the implosion of the core vote the side effect peculiarities of the SNP scare wouldn’t have happened where it mattered. The implosion was caused by orange-bookery.
John,
I think we agree on most things about what happened to us and why… However like Paul I have a strong belief in evidence and hate generalising from particular cases. In the case of Yeovil there were special factors dating from 2010, which had an unknown, but potentially huge effect on voting patterns. So it is simply not possible to say whether the particularly bad result there had anything to do with the relatively right-wing position of David laws within the Party. Equally the evidence is that Tory voters did not switch in unusually large numbers to Nick Clegg compared to others like Greg Mulholland. People do vote for local MP’s because of what they think about them, but with the exception of party activists I think it is very rarely because of their policy stance within a particular Party. Outside the Lib Dem membership I suspect most people were completely unaware of David Laws’ policy position. He did not have the national profile of Tony Benn or Michael Portillo and I doubt if he was filling his Focus leaflets with talk of the Orange book.
On the other hand it is perfectly reasonable to say, as you do, that the perception of the Lib Dems as very Tory-friendly in the last Parliament contributed in a big way to our demise, and David Laws played a big part in that… But so did Vince Cable with his association with tuition fees and Post Office privatisation (and no! I don’t want to get into an argument about that, TCO! Just that people see it as a Tory policy!)
Steve,
I do agree with you that Nick Clegg was a particular target of the Labour anti-Lib Dem policy, and there was a particularly big swing against him in Hallam, partly because of the large student population., where he was symbolic of the tuition fee betrayal. He was fortunate to start from a very strong position, while Labour started from a weak position having never come anywhere close to winning the seat, ever. If Nick Clegg had been standing in Leeds NW I am sure he would have lost. The simplest interpretation of the Hallam vote is that he lost 23% of his 2010 vote but gained 10% from Tory switchers.
In Leeds NW the pattern was very similar, but the switch from Lib Dem to Labour was much less extreme. Greg Mulholland kept the pledge and was given an easy ride by Labour students (who campaigned in Pudsey, probably with negative effects. I can just imagine how effective a phone call from the Labour student phone bank would have been if I was an undecided pensioner!). Nevertheless the same analysis would suggest that Greg Mulholland lost 19% of his 2010 vote while gaining 8% from the Tories. In proportionate terms those changes are very similar to Hallam, but the big difference was that the Labour vote went up far less. If Labour had thrown the same resource at Leeds NW as at Hallam, they might have won by squeezing the Green vote, but I suspect they would just have driven more Tories into the Lib Dem fold…
@Steve “His willingness to embrace toryism/ economic liberalism/orange-bookery ”
How about if I were to write “his willingness to embrace socialism/social-liberalism/SLF-ery”?
That’s a politically illiterate statement.
Andrew 22nd Jul ’15 – 11:31am
Andrew,
There is a lot of reasonable analysis and good sense in what you say.
You express things less trenchantly than me but we agree on a great deal.
You are right to remind us that it is impossible to say precisely why particular results occurred in particular seats . Short of a guaranteed 100% accurate exit poll at every polling station in the land we are forced to rely to some extent on hunches, experience and other such unscientific things. Speaking in generalisations is often necessary because we have not got exact information and can never have it whilst there is a secret ballot and whilst some voters seem to forget how they voted (or even if they voted at all).
We are not helped in this by the media who constantly report things in terms as if we had a US style presidential system. Over the years I have repeatedly talked with people who claim to have voted for Paddy Ashdown or Charles Kennedy on their way out of polling stations here in Kingston. I assume they meant that they voted for Jenny Tonge or Susan Kramer who were the Liberal Democrats on the ballot paper and who were elected as our MP.
In the months in the run up to and during the 1983 General Election I spent a fair amount of time helping out in Leeds. I remember a loyal supporter of ours insisting that he had “always voted Labour, all his life” — he said this whilst standing in front of the enormous dayglo orange Michael Meadowcroft poster which was in his front window. He made a small donation to our election fund on the spot and was down in our records as having voted for Michael for both the council and for parliament in previous elections. I have no doubt he voted for Michael Meadowcroft in 1983 — but to this day I am not convinced that he realised that Michael was a Liberal.
There may have been similar voters in Yeovil over the last 32 years. There may have been voters who continued voting Liberal Democrat at General Elections in Yeovil thinking that Paddy Ashdown was still the local bloke or that Liberal Democrats opposed Conservatives because that was fundaental to being a Liberal.
Perhaps it took a couple of General Elections before they cottoned on to this new guy Laws being something different. Or perhaps the majority of voters in Yeovil are not as daft as some would have us believe.
John Tilley22nd Jul ’15 – 10:36am
“… if we simply acknowledge the key role of this Orange Book Tendency in the near destruction of the party it will enable us to rebuild and renew the party so much more quickly and easily.”
Yep, think that sums it up John!
The key movers of economic Orange Bookery (as opposed to its mainstream contributers such as Vince Cable, Chris Huhne etc) sought to recast us a small-state party and economically very much closer to the Tories than to the traditional social justice Liberalism of the party and in complete contradiction of many democratically agreed policies.
For any new members wondering why a second rate book from 2004 generates so much feeling and division within Lib Dem ranks, these (random) links may give small insights:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/27/guardian-view-liberal-democrats-orange-book
or
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12310041
Those new members interested in the Orange Book might like to purchase a copy here:http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1861977972/?tag=libdemvoice-21
It’s also worthwhile reading one of the customer reviews (from 2011) to balance Stephen Hesketh’s contribution above:
“The Orange Book is often cited as being a rabidly right wing and nasty text by a large number of those on the left of the political spectrum who have generally not even read the work. Whilst it did mark some form of a move towards the right in the up and coming stars of the party, it is actually far less radically out of tune with the party’s tradition than is often suggested. Notably it is often forgotten that those who set up the SDP left the Labour party because it was becoming too left wing. It is also the case that the contributors of the book have exactly the same aims in mind as those on the more social liberal side of the party. Many of the pieces are actually entirely uncontroversial for most Liberal Democrat members, from Nick Clegg’s pro-European but pro-Reform essay on the EU to Ed Davey’s essay on localism.
However the main point is that the book itself is thoroughly worth reading due to its consistent challenging of dogma, and use of innovative solutions to long standing and burgeoning problems, such as pensions, public services and the environment. The only piece I personally viewed with much scepticism was David Laws’ essay on the health service. However whilst I disagree with his overall argument, he still makes compelling points and raises issues that should certainly be thought about.
If you are a Communist, you probably won’t like this book. But if you are interested in reading about interesting approaches to some of the main questions of modern British politics, that are still relevant today despite the time passed since this book was published, it is certainly worth opening this book with an open mind, regardless of your political affiliation or persuasion. “
Paul,
As you say you “care passionately about having a debate based on some passing refeerence to the facts.” Unfortunately although you have some data, you only have a passing reference to facts in your posts – analysis and information are sadly missing, just random acts of data. As an accountant and auditor I actually like real facts and real analysis. So here goes.
In 2015 we lost 49 seats – 10 to the SNP (we lost all but the bastion of O&S), 12 to Labour (We lost all the seats where Labour were second in 2010 plus Julian in Cambridge) and 37 to Cons. Each of these three groups had a totally different dynamic, so I am not going to look at Scotland nor try to compare two of your favoured choices – Bristol West and Withington. Labour facing seats were doomed for much simpler reasons.
However looking at seats where the Conservatives were second in 2010 gives us some interesting facts. Sorting by percentage loss of Lib Dem Vote between 2010 and 2015, our vote dropped by between 28.1% in Somerton and Frome, and 27.8% in Taunton Deane, down to 8.5% in Westmorland and Lonsdale and only 4.2% in Cambridge (sadly Julian lost to labour there).
Looking at the worst results, the first four are where the previous MP stood down Somerton, Taunton, Bath (down 26.9%) and Portsmouth (down 23.6%), three of these resulting in a late change of candidate. As a result, I don’t blame David Rendel for the Somerton result – he stood up to be counted when the lady selected to replace David Heath had to stand down, Rachel Gilmour who was on a hiding to nothing once Jeremy Browne left so late on, nor Steve Bradley with such a tough act to follow in very difficult circumstances and I definitely won’t be using GVJ for standing up when Mike Hancock left under the biggest cloud of all.
Below them in fifth equal came Yeovil (David Laws) and Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart, another new candidate), both down 22.6%. The only other two with a loss of more than 20% were Eastleigh (down 20.7% ) and Colchester (down 20.5%). By comparison Adrain’s vote only fell by 13.2%. To say, as you did, ’ We were all stuffed in equal measure,’ is quite bizarre unless you only measure stuffed in terms of we won or we lost.
So of the worst six David was the only sitting MP, despite having one of our strongest seats with a council group that kept control (albeit only minority control) of its local authority. As South Somerset has all out council elections on the same day, it would be interesting to compare David’s results with his council candidates, but that is for someone else on another day.
@David Evans Paul’s point was to counter that of John Tilley’s, that somehow Orange Bookers were singled out for special treatment by the electorate which is, of course, nonsense. Your excellent analysis backs up Paul nicely. Thanks for producing it.
David,
Yes, but as has been said by Psi and others, there were significant additional factors involving David Laws that do not apply in any other seat…… So really we should remove it from the analysis for all meaningful purposes
BTW the smallest drop I can find in our vote was 2.1% in East Dunbartonshire, followed by 2.8% in Edinburgh West and after Cambridge we have Bradford East at 4.9%. Our best performances were where we were not (in reality) fighting the Tories…
@TCO “It’s also worthwhile reading one of the customer reviews (from 2011) to balance Stephen Hesketh’s contribution above:”
But can we trust the opinions of somebody who uses a three letter acronym to write anonymously? Obviously I mean BCM, the reviewer in question 😉 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/pdp/profile/A185NV0XKSDXHZ/ref=cm_cr_rdp_pdp)
TCO 22nd Jul ’15 – 2:47pm
The point that I made earlier is not as you misrepresent it.
I have not at any point said –
“….Orange Bookers were singled out for special treatment by the electorate …”
Those are your words.
You have chosen to suggest I said something which you perhaps find easier to counter rather than engage in a sensible discussion.
What I actually have said in this thread is in fact the very posits of what you are suggesting, for example —
John Tilley 19th Jul ’15 – 2:43pm
“Some commentators suggest Orange Bookers should form their own party and see how many votes they get.
But we have just gone through that experiment over the last ten years and we saw exactly what the result was in terms of MPs, MEPs, councillors, members and votes. 8% maximum and very near total wipe-out.
Do not ask anybody else to leave the party.
We need to get people to join the party and back Tim Farron who is today saying the right things …”
“…If anyone is in any doubt about the impact on the voters of the Orange Book approach to politics, simply point them to the 2015 result in the Yeovil constituency.”
John Tilley 21st Jul ’15 – 9:55am
“….the political direction of Orange Book enthusiasts resulted in a total wipe-out of Liberal Democrat MPs anywhere west of Wallington and South of Ceredigion.”
John Tilley 22nd Jul ’15 – 7:13am
Orange Bookery dragged down everyone else along with their man in Yeovil. Listing some of the victims of this disaster along with the main culprit as if they were equally responsible is not a sensible starting point for rebuilding the party.
@Peter Watson you’ll have to read the book and then you’ll be able to judge for yourself.
I have to say it’s pleasing to see such publicity being given to TOB – all publicity is good publicity, as they say 😉
TCO – As John Tilley has already pointed out – what you are claiming is not what he said. David Laws was not singled out, but he did have the worst result of any of our Conservative facing sitting MPs, in what was one of our very strongest seats.
Andrew. As we all know, every seat (not just Yeovil) had its own significant additional factors. However, when Paul Walter is making his point about David Laws and Yeovil, it’s a bit churlish to simply say when he is trying to compare Yeovil that ‘we should remove it from the analysis for all meaningful purposes.’ Also I guess you must have missed the point in my post where I said “I am not going to look at Scotland nor try to compare two of your favoured choices – Bristol West and Withington. Labour facing seats were doomed for much simpler reasons.” Dunbartonshire and Edinburgh are in the first group and Bradford in the second.
@John Tilley “…If anyone is in any doubt about the impact on the voters of the Orange Book approach to politics, simply point them to the 2015 result in the Yeovil constituency.”
And what goes this statement mean if not what I said, that you think Orange Bookers were given special treatment by the electorate?
Can the last person on here turn out the lights?
Seriously, I think we have talked this one out and no-one on this thread is now discussing anything at all to do with the article; when it tops the the list of must-active/most-read threads this week, it will give the impression that we spent all week discussing the channel 4 interview or our views on religion when we stopped doing that on Monday and it’s now Wednesday. (Article posted on Saturday morning, not bad – 2 days of a very active thread with most people on topic.)
At some point on Monday night it turned into a more general discussion about Farron’s credibility for leadership and then generally moved to being about the direction of the party under him, and then about the relative success or failure of different wings of the party at the last election.
LDV threads are allowed to die, you know. The cows have gone home.
Matt,
It is well known that we discuss things until the cows COME home! Those cows that have GONE home are someone else’s cows! 🙂 (possibly Liz Kendall’s…)
@Matt Bristol, if you have personally become bored with a typical successful rambling LDV conversational thread do please feel free to transfer your own interest to any other thread on this site or elsewhere without feeling the need to draw things to a close here.
TCO 22nd Jul ’15 – 2:14pm
I picked random links (for people to click on should they wish) which, as it happens, were from such renowned pro-radical Liberal sources as the Guardian and the BBC, whereas you hand picked and then quoted in full the pre-selected review. Just an observation.
Also, should you have taken the time to actually read what I wrote; you might have noticed that I distinguished between the mainstream Lib Dem contributors and those such as David Laws who had a very specific economic agenda.
Unlike you however, I did take the time to read BCM’s review and lo, he is actually much closer to my own view … and I re-quote him simply for clarity: “The only piece I personally viewed with much scepticism was David Laws’ essay on the health service. However whilst I disagree with his overall argument, he still makes compelling points and raises issues that should certainly be thought about.”
I have no issue – whatsoever – with anyone challenging conventional wisdom; it is one of the reasons I am a Liberal. No, my issue is that Mr Laws and his friends then sought to impose their views on the party and redefine its core ethos without seeking the democratic agreement of its members.
Neither do I have any issue with individual members holding economic or even classical Liberal views. My issue, more than any other relates to the complete absence of democratic process. The clue is in our name Liberal DEMOCRATS.
Had the economic Orange Bookers sought and obtained majority support for their views, then clearly I would have found myself to be out of step with the party and could – indeed would – have left due to my views no longer being compatible with those of the party. I would certainly not have needed to be advised to do so as was the message from Richard Reeves, Nick Clegg’s Director of Strategy who in 2008 stated in The Guardian that “social-liberals [a majority of Lib Dem members] should not be involved with the Liberal Democrats, but the Labour Party”
This is why the words ‘attempted coup’ are so frequently found associated with a book subtitled ‘Reclaiming Liberalism’.
If we side line democracy, we no longer have a right to describe ourselves as Liberals or Democrats – of any persuasion.
John Tilley: ” A deliberate and well funded Orange Book Tendency mounted a “coup” (to use their own word) at the top of the Liberal Democrats. As a direct result of this the party was systematically shifted to the right to facilitate a coalition with The Conservatives.”
A “coup”? Would that be a “coup” like this?:
http://youtu.be/Pcc0_8i0CYs
Or a “coup” in the sense that someone legitimately won a leadership contest and then appointed the advisers and ministers they wanted, and had a perfect legitimate right, to appoint?
TCO 22nd Jul ’15 – 10:00am
“@Paul Walter unfortunately when it came to Eastbourne we had a communications failure here at Orange Booker HQ which meant we were unable to launch the thousands of Tory voter drones required to keep Our Man in place. It turns out that my white cat was in a huff because he hadn’t had sufficient stroking and had gone off to chew through the cables.
He’s never been keen on Clegg because he can’t stand poodles.”
No reply. I just like this. 🙂
John Tilley
“. So why do you continue to defend them?”
Show me where I have defended “them” – in political or policy terms. Who are “them” anyway if it is all about David Laws?
What I have done is:
A) see Me/you/TCO discussion above, singling out Yeovil.
B) made a charitable reference to David Laws tenure as schools minister.
C) attempted to put a human dimension on someone who you appear to have dehumanised.
I absolutely agree that we veered too far to the right. How many times do I have to repeat that?
As I have said several times, John – and I have to admit I have time on my hands after visits to the beach so I am enjoying winding everyone up – I just object to the illiberal demonisation and dehumanisation of David Laws, as if he isn’t a real person. It seems rather inhuman. But, more importantly, I find when people get obssessed with one person they actually completely miss the real person and start talking about a figment of their imagination.
It’s the “Wizard of Oz” effect. You characterise David Laws, it seems to me, as approaching an evil, manipulative demi-god. Whereas in fact, when we pull back the curtains, he is just a humble, deep-thinking and earnest fellow liberal who you happen to disagree with.
What do you want to do with David Laws? Send him to Coventry? Chuck him out of party? Have him tarred and feathered in front of conference? Or simply, through dogged mass repetition of the same long screeds of diatribe, numb people into submission on the LDV comments pages? For you, in other words, to be the last man standing on the top of the dung heap?
As usual the phrase “in violent agreement” occurs to me. I’m an enthusuastic member of the Social Liberal Forum. And yet it seems that some cannot conceive that someone can say anything in defence of David Laws, simply as a fellow human being, without being assumed to be a dyed-in-the-wool Orange Booker and requiring exorcism. Surely, in a liberal party, one can come to someone’s aid to inject a little bit of sanity and humanity into the debate without being assumed to have adopted their whole agenda hook, line and sinker, can one not?
@Stephen Hesketh “My issue, more than any other relates to the complete absence of democratic process.”
Absolutely, Stephen. Nick Clegg had the temerity, as party leader, to lead the party. And totally unjustified; I mean what did he actually do to win the party leadership? Anyone would have thought he’d won a democratic election of all party members!
@Paul Walter +1
I’m put in mind of Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz.
TCO 23rd Jul ’15 – 2:03pm
… and if the leader (any leader, of any party or other democratic organisation) decides to go off on an unannounced personal crusade, that’s OK with you then?
Leader there to lead and members to follow. Not in this party mate.
Proud to be a power-questioning Liberal and Democrat!
@Stephen Hesketh freedom for Tooting?
I have read many things, but not the Orange Book. When wandering around the bookstall at conference it was not on sale.
It would be helpful if references to “The Clegg Coup” by Jasper Gerard were sourced to the hardback edition or to the version which appeared in the Daily Mail. They are different.
Stephen Lloyd was a very good constituency MP and an energetic campaigner. Everybody in Eastbourne knew somebody who had been helped by Stephen Lloyd. Stephen’s repeated campaigns to persuade local businesses to take on apprentices were focussed in Eastbourne, with the results paraded at federal and regional conferences.
In 2015 Eastbourne Liberal Democrats had a marginal control of the council, which made it difficult for councillors to go on holiday. After May 2015 they gained three seats, all in the same ward, in an all-up election.
One of the most important issues on which Stephen campaigned was the District General Hospital.
He has helped his former staff to get jobs, and then got a job himself. He has refused crowd-funding for his mortgage, directing the money to charity. His local party clearly want him to stand again. Liberal Democrats should be proud of him.
Every MP is asked to do jobs for the party. Stephen mentored a candidate in a target seat. He spoke frequently at Liberal Democrat conferences, dinners, AGMs, etc. He took an interest in Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland citizens in the UK.
The Tories targetted all the seats they lost in 2010. Eastbourne was one of those. When they send emails rather than leaflets the content is targetted and may not be publicised.
Increasingly politicians or their staff say “No-one is available” in order to have some prospect of a fair hearing from thee interviewer, So Andrew Neil interviews Peppa Pig and another minister refuses to be “filleted by Humphreys”.
Other journalists have a softer approach. For instance Caitlin Moran, headlined “Columnist of the year” in the Times on Satursay 25/7/2015. Writing about the BBC, column one, paragraph one she says “Two weeks ago a green paper removed £750 million from its budget by making the licence free for over -75s.”
No it did not. The licence was already free for over 75s, paid for by successive governments. A green paper is only a consultation. The decision was announced by the Chancellor and First Minister in his second budget.
The Times has a long reputation as a quality paper, despite Murdoch owbership, so why not employ fact-checkers? Hundreds of thousands of potential readers may be deceived by casual error.
Try The Guardian of 21/7/2015. Stephen Moss wrote about Colnbrook detention centre with pictures by Nana Varveropoulou. Paragraph one “it is a holding pen for the stateless”. Please do more research. Where exactly would stateless people be flown to? The UK has signed the Statelessness convention, although a Labour governemtn altered the Immigration Rules. Detainees can appeal against detention to an independent judiciary. Please check it out. Some of your readers might believe what was written in a quality newspaper. Perhaps it is short-staffed.
Also this
https://miss-s-b.dreamwidth.org/1825800.html