Apologies for the abrupt ending to the previous post. I have a MacBook that just won’t charge which, as you can imagine, is incredibly frustrating.
So, I am typing this on my phone.
The debate tonight was prettty much Amber Rudd getting some fairly forensic scrutiny from Farron, Lucas, Robertson, Corbyn and Wood, probably in that order. Paul Nuttall was the malevolently embarrassing interloper – that pain in the backside at a party that nobody will admit to inviting. If his role was to make the Tories look less scary, it didn’t work.
Tim Farron was brilliant – he got his key “trust the people” message across and highlighted the points on the NHS, dementia tax and school lunches. His best line, as tweeted by Nick Robinson, was the “If you vote Tory you give her a blank cheque.
He was fantastic on climate change too.
For me be was the winner. I will take half a mark off for him waffling a bit on the NHS and for possibly over-egging the “Theresa isn’t here” line but apart from that he was great. 9/10
Caroline Lucas was good too – clear and concise. She can have 8/10 because she was better at describing problems than offering solutions.
Angus Robertson, presumably put up by the SNP to give him some exposure as he is under pressure from the Tories in his Moray seat, was very good in parts, particularly on immigration. However when it got to terrorism, he failed on two parts in the same question. He talked about giving the police and security services the resources they require. What, no scrutiny or regard to civil liberties? Well, the SNP certainly isn’t known for that. Nobody south of the border would know, but policing is under-resources and a total mess up here thanks to SNP mismanagement. 6/10.
Leanne Wood was fine No standout moments that I can think of but no horrors. 7/10. (Actually, reminded of her “there is no free divorce” observation below, that deserves a mention as one of her highlights.)
Jeremy Corbyn had some brilliant moments, notably when he asked Amber Rudd with real passion in his eyes if she had ever been to a food bank.
He faltered badly on immigration and freedom of movement which he blamed for depressing wages. It’s not as if the Government can do anything about low pay, is it? 6/10
But they at least all passed. Amber Rudd had a nightmare. She had no connection with the audience and just seemed to trot out sound bites. Everyone’s lines are scripted to a certain extent but you are not supposed to see the joins.
Her performance was summed up by the moment when she said “Judge us on our record.”
“We have,” said the others, pretty much in unison to the laughter of the audience and they weren’t laughing with her. 3/10.
Update: this was written before I knew the news about her father. He died on Monday. Personally I think it was pretty mean of the Tories to send her out in the most stressful of circumstances when she must still be in shock. She has to get credit for being together enough to go out there. All sympathy to her on her loss.
Paul Nuttall – what was he for? -10.
What difference it will make is yet to be seen. The Comservatives are losing the campaign but they are still on course to win the election.
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings. You can find her on Bluesky at caronmlindsay.bsky.social
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Raising a flap about letterboxes
Arriving at one of East Finchley's ghost platforms
Chase Park fair photos
A swamp of lies and disinformation
Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy
Nigel Jones
Katharine Pindar
31 Comments
Thanks, Caron, since I was out with a team canvassing for Tim in Kendal I didn’t catch the occasion, and am pleased to hear that Tim did well. However, in the BBC News at Ten report his only mention was a strong response to Nuttall, pointing out Muslim condemnation of the Manchester atrocity. We are as usual not getting the coverage we should. Surely we must now focus on our strengths and our difference.
I’d like now to hear both Tim and Nick focusing on and outlining our policy on Brexit, because we have the only sensible policy, needed by industry, financial services, agriculture, tourism and so on. Can they expose at the same time the fantasy asks of Teresa May on trade, immigration, rights of EU citizens living abroad, NCJ, and repaying our debts. This is surely the time to stop being defensive about Brexit, but point out succinctly and forcefully our right and necessary policy.
I hope we shall also hear Ed Davey on the Paris Climate Change Agreement and the threat to it if Trump does enforce American withdrawal.
Tim Farron had a passionate speech about an Asian man who received abuse after the Manchester atrocity but was actually a doctor who had been helping out. He needed to fight for airtime, it is not satisfactory to rely on the journalist chair.
Paul Nuttall can only cancel HS2 once, not every year. Not even the SNP want to extend it to Edinburgh or Glasgow.
At least Angus Robertson is relevant to the Westminster election, for which he is standing, his leader is irrelevant to most of the audience. He could say more on fuddy-duddy procedures compared with Holyrood.
Plaid Cymru can compare Labour in Wales with Labour UK-wide, which we usually get only from the Tories.
Green abolition of nuclear weapons would save a lot of money. It takes the heat off Corbyn for which he seemed to be grateful.
The Daily Politics has been giving slots to the smaller parties who have been standing candidates. A few days ago the BNP leader said twice that their membership is increasing since the collapse of UKIP.
My scoring is slightly different:
Tim Farron 8/10
Caroline Lucas 7/10
Jeremy Corbyn 7/10
Amber Rudd 6/10
Leanne Wood 4/10 she annoyed me a lot
Angus Robertson 4/10
Paul Nuttall 3/10 – an improvement on last time
My top two are the same as Caron but I have scored Jeremy more. The biggest difference is my view that Amber did well rather than badly. It is possible that I have under marked my bottom three!
I can’t believe that may did this not only to the country but to Amber Rudd. I don’t know how she could have done better really under the circumstance, I hope may gets the stick she deserves for this cowardice.
Tim was good, can’t have hurt, I guess we gotta keep believing that the polls shift. Even jez can shift a poll in a week I just hope HQ can do something in this last week.
June 8th is my birthday so I know what I want this year, a new PM!
The BBC is minimizing the debate impact a bit: “nobody crashed, nobody excelled; so the only thing people will remember about this debate is May not showing up”.
Well my experience in a country that has TV and radio debates every general election is that if you have good jokes or ironical lines, people repeat those next day talking around the office coffee machine; and they get remembered. Remember Vince Cable about Gordon Brown going from Stalin to Mr. Bean?
Tims remark about Theresa sizing up your house while you’re watching TV got a twitter response of people looking out their window, the BBC website reported; and the search for May went viral despite the best Tory efforts to focus on their attack lines.
The BBC inserted two expert tweets about debate participants (from Alastair Campbell and Nick Robinson) in its debate liveblog; both were about Tim being good (better than before, said Alastair).
Tims “sizing up” remark transformed the Dementia tax from an abstract concept to something happening in your street right now; that tends to stick in peoples mind. It reminds me of the poll tax; another thing with housing values being used for something else.
I agree Tim did well and was the only one justifiably able to claim a truly costed manifesto.
One critical issue arising from leaving the single market was not debated; that of the N. Ireland border. The proxy prime minister should have been challenged as to why, after nearly a year of promising a frictionless solution, the Tories have come up with nothing. Are they in fact hiding a plan to enforce border controls between N. Ireland and the mainland?
I thought Tim Farron did well.
Corbyn, showed why he beat the other Labour leadership candidates.
Lucas, was Okay.
I almost felt sorry for Rudd. She looked sort of like an office junior sent out to give a press statement while her weak and under flak boss made themselves unavailable.
I must have watched a different debate because I disagree with your scoring. It’s not necessarily the details of party policy which matter in these debates but the general impression given by the debater – remember in 2010 it wasn’t what Nick Clegg said which impressed people but the way he said it. For me Angus Robertson and Caroline Lucas came out as best, though for different reasons. They were both articulate but whereas Robertson had gravitas Lucas had passion. I also thought that Robertson handled well the fact that the SNP is essentially a nationalist party with little direct relevance to most English voters, by setting the SNP into the wider context of British politics. Leanne Wood was good in parts, particularly in respect of Labour’s record in Wales, but overall marginally weaker than Amber Rudd. Once again Corbyn exceeded expectations and his manner is far from the fire-brand revolutionary which his political history might suggest. Tim was OK and got some good applause from the audience at times but certainly no better overall than Corbyn. He still comes across as a student politician, rather than leader of a serious political party, despite his continued references to his family. Paul Nuttall was clearly the worse. Somehow Farage was able to get across some pretty illiberal arguments without sounding like he’d be at home in the BNP. Nuttall is the exact opposite. As for Amber Rudd, her problem was was not her own demeanour – she comes across as authoritative – but the absence of Teresa May from the debate and the poor hand that May has dealt her. Overall probably weaker than Corbyn or Farron but a plucky performance nevertheless.
I thought Tim did well last night. I thought at the start it might be all stand-up comedy, but he got serious pretty fast. What came across to me was how well they complemented each other – Corbyn was making strong statements of principle, while Tim was using examples, Caroline Lucas had a different style again, and with Angus Robertson (Wood was a bit underwhelming) they made a passionate and collective case for left-wing values that I found quite moving – the feeling that, give or take some sniping, which then subsided, they were all on the same side, and that if the country were in the hands of these guys it could all be OK…
Did not watch the debate, Britains Got Talent instead. Little of Faron on the BBC news. Latest You Gov Cons 42 Lab 39, given the Conservatives need a good % lead to lead on seats, due to the seat sizes and distribution, this is most ominous for the Conservatives. What is the betting on a Cons/Lab grand coalition German style? Just hope we have some representation in the next Parliament even if its only 1 or 2!
Try praising Amber Rudd, if it looks like the Home Secretary could become Prime Minister she will be sacked. Maybe the Prime Minister should be Home Secretary, she has relevant experience.
Amber Rudd had a good line in the Wembley debate.
“Boris can be the life and soul of the party, but he is not the man you want driving you home afterwards”
The interview on the Daily Politics with the longest serving party leader is worth a look.
“Air conditioners should be put on the outside of buildings to deal with global warming.”
There was no mention of the former National Teenage Party with its loony policies of
“Votes at 18, votes at 18 and votes at 18” all of which has been implemented.
They have a website to which ideas can be added. http://omrlp.com/
To provide a Strong & Stable Government we will relocate Parliament to the Tower of London.
“Electoral Change
Voters will get a 30 day cooling off period, if you change your mind, didn’t like the result, or didn’t know what you were voting for, you can get your vote back.
Reduce the voting age to 16 (carried forward from our 1983 manifesto) . . . (nicked by Labour)”
I thought Tim did well, and Amber Rudd did better than I expected bearing in mind that as the representative of the absent PM she was always going to get continually attacked from all sides.
I didn’t like was how the debate regularly descended into bickering with several of the leaders talking over each other. Reminds people of why they don’t like Westminster politics, and allowed Rudd her best line of stepping back and saying “coalition of chaos”.
@Theakes
‘What is the betting on a Cons/Lab grand coalition German style? ‘
Which of course was the only other mathematically possible 2-party coalition in 2010, when Labour dashed for opposition.
I think its rather depressing that, when the issue that will be taking up most government and parliament time is a Foreign Policy one, we have a PM who is a Home Office specialist, who sends the Home Secretary as her substitute. Where are her experts who could tell us how can Brexit can work?
There will be no grand lab/Con coalition. It’s a fantasy. I put the odds at about 2 billion to 1.
Glenn. More’s the pity. If you’re right, it means that the Labour Party is still traumatised by the events of 1931, in spite of 4 periods in office since (plus one in a wartime coalition).
On the other hand, Jeremy Corbyn’s instructions to his MPs to roll over on Article 50 points the other way.
If May’s gamble to get a huge majority fails – and it might if the trend in the polls is accurate – it will be interesting to see what happens to her authority in the Tory party. They don’t accept failure.
A Boris bid for power would not be out of the question …… though the rascal might not take the risk too early. One thing is clear – May is looking very flaky and limited when off script.
I wouldn’t rule out a Labour SNP coalition just yet…….. which would set a few hares running in the Lib Dems.
I thought last night was Tim’s strongest performance to date. He was clear and positive and used his talent for humour very well — selective and to make a point. The social media pick up shows how effective this was. It’s hard to stand out among seven candidates, but he did as well as anyone and better than most. My one regret is that, so far as I can recall, he did not once use the word ‘liberal.’ Yet we know that, since Nick Clegg’s May ’15 resignation speech, ‘liberalism’ has been a rallying call and recruitment motivator. Our struggle is to be distinctive, and just as C Lucas banged on about Green and the environment, our point of difference is that we are liberal (sorry: Liberal) and I hope Tim will proclaim that, starting with A Neill tonight.
Theakes – I think the consensus in the country would be for a lab/con government … it isn’t going to happen.
As to us, I’m ready for anything between 3 and 15 seats, and wouldn’t be surprised , even if numbers increased, if that included significant personnel change in the commons from our current group.
David Raw – neither would I rule out a Tory-SNP deal (though not a coalition).
Forget this nonsense about there being a hung Parliament. Election Forecast, Hanretty’s website from the University of East Anglia explains that using similar results to those of YouGov he gets just a 2% chance of a Hung Parliament.
http://electionforecast.co.uk/ and his twitter account @Election4castUK
Our Australian ‘friend’ wants to ensure there is no complacency among Tory voters.
Hanretty’s latest seat forecast is T 377 L 198 LD 7 SNP 47 PC 2 G 0
Our Scottish friends will say that for SNP to be 47 we must take 3ish, which would mean we lose 5.
@Bill Le Breton – Ashcroft updates his model tomorrow. At the moment (published last Friday) he is showing C 396; Lab 180; LD 6; SNP 47. Assuming that his model reflects the shift to Labour over the last week it might well converge with Hanretty.
YouGov are really out on a limb. They’re either going to knock it out of the park and bring about the final death of groupthink polling methodology, or they’re going to look very silly indeed on June 9th. There doesn’t seem to be a middle ground.
I thought Tim did well and so did Corbyn. I’m appalled that the Tories sent Rudd just after her father died but that’s the kind of thing they do. It would have been so easy for May to use this as a reason for changing her mind so I think it shows true cowardice that she didn’t, though I’m sure Rudd wanted to go ahead. I think this was her bid for leadership.
As they say, a week is a long time in politics so May could still blow it and then the knives will come out. This may help us in some target seats but it will be harder in the seats where we face Labour.
@ Bill le Breton,
” just a 2% chance of a Hung Parliament.”
I’d be more optimistic than that. The pollsters are forever fiddling around with the weightings they apply to their raw data. For age, political interest, social class etc. They usually settle for the weightings which gives them the right answer for the previous election.
They got it wrong last time because they used weightings which worked in 2010. But didn’t work in 2015. Of course no-one knew they weren’t going to work until they didn’t actually work. So how do we know that the weightings which would have worked in 2015 are going to work in 2017? Suppose the JC effect has enthused the younger vote? This would mean that the young’s responses to the pollsters being weighted lower than it should be.
We’ll see on June 9th.
I agree Tim was very good, humorous and humane .
I disagree strongly with Caron on Corbyn, his best and most vibrant difference with us on policy that connects with people , is his ability ti adapt and listen to reason on immigration, especially on undercutting of wages. If this party does not wake up to that social democrat element in our and general thinking rather, like our seven or so per cent in the polls, we shall continue to flatten out. The argument that corporations, and smaller businesses are not also , at least sometimes, readily employing lots of Eastern Europeans in industry in low skilled but necessary jobs, to avoid higher wage bills , is obvious, and resonates with people because they do not see why those businesses should not pay more. It is not just for government to deal with this, but, in companies making vast profit, it is for those to do something about it too.
I believe we are on such a low per centage because no matter how good , decent , likeable any leaders are, the coverage is skewed against this party , because we are not appealing to the vast majority who “get it !” on many issues.
And , as one commented above , and as I feel very strongly , the presence of [Plaid and SNP in UK debates is, not said here , but my view, a travesty of democracy , as air time is wasted on pitches to only the populations of two of the four components of our land, particularly as Northern Ireland are absent, more noticeably than May, yet accepted.
And the moderator, fine as a newsreader , lousy here , she had no concept of “a moment ” in such things. When Nuttall confronted Corbyn as to Hamas involvement, she not only didn’t let him go for it, prefered to say , let him finish, to him, allowing Corbyn to ignore it , and gave Nuttall no response or chance to, even though she let Lucas interrupt a few times.
Plus I have never, even on Question Time, which is often, heard applause more biased in favour of the left , than here . Only Corbyn and Lucas were applauded, literally every time they said anything. Yes, allowing for their skills, all well and good. I reckon people lie about allegiance , selected to be in audiences.
Lorenzo do you think Corbyn has enjoyed favourable media coverage over the last two years?
Ian Sanderson.
I don’t think the Tories would go for a grand coalition either. 1931 has nothing to do with it. Both parties have defined themselves as opposed to each other. So virtually no one on either side would seriously contemplate it because it would damage relationships with their respective core voters and lead to too many backbench revolts . Maybe if WWIII broke out.
As I said I think it’s basically a fantasy.
Dave
I think Corbyn has got favourable coverage from the television media in that he is always on it or referred to , or discussed, some would say , as W.C. Fields did, bad publicity is better than none.
I also feel much of the shambolic reputation was the product of his own, his mps and his party’s making, much improved with an able campaign manager and , thinkers, putting together a radical manifesto,and effective electioneering, which , for not one of those reasons of improvement, can the media be thanked or blamed.
This party shot itself in the foot by sticking so staunchly for too long to the EU and Brexit, and by not being mainstream and popular when the mood was changing, moderating is not selling out , it is uniting.
As for our coverage , it is outrageous that the very definitely third force of political tradition, call it Liberalism, the centre , or radical centre, that element which even when in percentages counted on one or two hands under Grimond, before my time , but it , I know from others and research, at least in the sense of respect , got coverage, yet now is put with the Green party , which barely registers in much of the UK, especially outside of the London and trendier parts , and UKIP, a UK wide nationalist party with one mp, or two, now , none, and the assorted small nationalist parties of the centre left which only appear on the ballot in two specific areas of our UK , absurd that they are talked about as if I from London or in Nottingham , can vote for them !
The amount of coverage Sturgeon and the fellows of her tendency gets ,is appalling and it is because her Westminster party , has the third largest contingent. And that is so, even as most of their issues are devolved to Scottish parliament business in Hollyrood, and the mps in her party must have sweet Fanny Adams to actually get involved in that is meant to be on the agenda , rather than their dealing with the health service and education and other issues that have nothing to do with them as far as the rest of the UK .
I do not subscribe to being noticed for being different and daft. I want us as is needed more than before , to be a party to be special because sensible !!!
Where are May’s experts who can tell us how Brexit can work, muses Ian Sanderson. Ian, WE have the expert – Nick Clegg – and I hope we shall hear him in the remaining few days explaining how harmful May’s proposed policy would be, and how our ‘soft’ Brexit must be the aim, if Brexit is to happen.
@David Raw
Having been away for a week on holiday (booked long before I knew that May would call the election), last night I bought a Sunday Times at Brussels Eurostar terminal, as almost the only UK Sunday paper available (and the least bad of a bad bunch). The Tory historian Andrew Roberts wrote an article in it, which contained the usual scurrilous Tory rubbish about the “Coalition of Chaos”, but he posited a hung parliament and a Labour/SNP/PC/Green/SF coalition. I don’t know why he assumed that SF would take their seats at Westminster, or that Labour would ditch the SDLP, their traditional Northern Ireland associates.
Now if there is a hung parliament, then everything is up for grabs. The Tories could still be the largest party, but if they are more than a few seats short of an overall majority, they have few options for support (essentially DUP/UUP). 2017 is beginning to look like 1974 and we could see a Labour/SNP/PC/Green coalition or, more likely, a confidence and support arrangement, with the Lib Dems supporting or opposing individual policies from the opposition benches. We might even have two General Elections as in 1974. In my view a hung parliament would not be a bad outcome, especially if it meant that Keir Starmer was leading the team negotiating Brexit.
Back in 1974 (twice) and 1979, the, then, Liberal Party won in the low teens of seats (14,13,11); if we can get back there, we should be happy and let Labour (if they do form the next Government) get on with making their own mistakes, without any help from us. The Lib-Lab pact didn’t do anything for the Liberal Party, although it didn’t damage it as much as the Coalition damaged the LibDems.