At the Spring Conference I went to a fringe event by the Social Liberal Forum entitled Mental Health: equality of esteem?, addressed by Norman Lamb with Ian Brodie Brown (of Imagine Mental Health) and a mental health services user.
This could easily have been just a health minister supporting health things, but there was a great deal more to it than that. Mental health is stigmatised. It took courage to make a stand and put this on the agenda before it became clear that it would not cost us votes.
One of the Sunday papers ran a story about Norman’s son’s mental health problems that weekend. That was a nasty attack which Norman took with dignity. He came across as a person of wisdom, dignity and depth, sufficiently well-rooted to withstand a nasty personal assault, and sufficient visionary not to be thrown off course by it. All party leaders need a layer of public relations, but good leaders have depth beneath that.
For now, the bruising of the General Election is still raw. It could be tempting to look for a candidate “untainted” by the coalition, but we shouldn’t walk away from our achievements so quickly.
Top of the list is the fact that the coalition was stable. People argued against electoral reform because it makes coalitions more likely and they assumed these would be unstable. We’ve dispatched that argument. When electoral reform does happen and people get used to coalitions, they will look back on the recent one and praise the Liberal Democrats in government for making it work.
On the doorsteps some people were critical of the coalition. Some of those would never have voted for us. Others had misunderstood why we went with the Tories and why there were compromises: these were easy enough to win back. Others had voted Liberal Democrat in the past as a protest against the big parties, and took their protest vote elsewhere. They are no great loss: it is a little too easy to sit on the sidelines and grumble, but it takes more gumption to get involved in the messy realities of government and make a real change. There’s much to be proud of in the the contribution of Liberal Democrat ministers in the last parliament and I am glad that, in Norman, we have someone standing for the leadership who stepped up to the mark and made a difference in government.
The future is looking unclear. Where will Labour go as they recoil from defeat into a turbulent leadership campaign? What will happen to the Tories if the back bench awkward squad throws its weight around as happened under John Major? What waves will the SNP’s antics create? Might a few defections and some by-election defeats mean an early General Election? What effect will the EU referendum have — both in terms of the result and the alliances that form to campaign on both sides?
Tim Farron starts as someone who can distance himself from the coalition and appeal to those wounded by recent experience, but the danger is that we over-react. Our re-building is about much more than numbers: it is about being the effective voice of Liberal Democracy. We need a leader who has the depth to help us face the challenges and opportunities of a rapidly-changing situation and gain credibility by doing it well. I believe Norman is the person to do this.
* Mark Argent was the Liberal Democrat candidate for Huntingdon in the 2019 and 2024 General Elections.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lord Bonkers: "Something less terrible than the truth"
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Reform under water
Tom Reeve
paul barker
Neil Hickman
Tom Bailey
expats
51 Comments
Protest voters were no great loss? Surely by every metric (MPs, MEPs, local gov, votes) they are? Those who did not like the coalition merely ‘misunderstood’ and are easy enough to win back? We couldn’t win them back in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 or this year though could we?
Top of the list is the loss of 40+ MPs, including some big beasts – Charles Kennedy, Vince Cable etc etc etc.
There is clearly no space in the UK polity for another right of centre neo-liberal party. Clegg and crew bet the party that there was, and they lost, lost, lost, lost and lost again. 1 Euro MP left? Hundreds of long serving councillors thrown away?
Who will vote for us now? With few second places there’s no scope for the old style tactical squeeze, and the protest voters will, quite sensibly, go to the Greens, UKIP. Plaid & the SNP.
So what’s the vision? Managerialism and being slightly nicer than the Tories is Labours USP these days.
Jenny Barnes 8th Jun ’15 – 10:22am
“Who will vote for us now? ”
The editors of LDV?
I wonder how long this post will last!
Mark, over the whole of the last five years the problem has been that we have under-reacted. In 2011 we lost all of our mainland directly elected MSPs and 800 councillors, and we did nothing. In 2012 we lost another 400 councillors: we did nothing. In 2013 we had a leader who ignored two democratic votes in conference and pushed through legislation on Secret courts and we lost another 140 councillors (less defences): we did nothing. In 2014 we lost another 300 councillors and all but one of our MEPs and still the message was steady as she goes. As a result we are now on a five year countdown to the edge of the final precipice. We have to do something now or the Liberal Democrats as a parliamentary party will be gone.
I have come to the conclusion that “don’t over react” is another code for those who still wish to deny their role in destroying so much of the party over the last five years. If you don’t realise that you were the problem even now, I fear you will remain part of the problem for ever.
@ Mark Argent: “Tim Farron starts as someone who can distance himself from the coalition and appeal to those wounded by recent experience, but the danger is that we over-react.” Our party had been in gradual electoral decline since 2005 and then this year we were almost obliterated. A danger of over-reaction you think? Norman Lamb appears to simply propose more of the same. That could finish us off.
As an aside, stick to your case in future. Patronising those of us who saw this coming by calling us “wounded” will do little to help your chosen candidate in my humble opinion.
Watching the Sunday politics yesterday and the “Barnet new members meeting” Seems that Tuition fees is biting as hard as ever and anyone who voted for it is at a liability. Could say like lamb to the …………….. It keeps coming back to haunt us.
Because of the Tuition fees fiasco we have lost trust with the elctorate, and who can blame them. To have any chance of getting any of that back we need a leader who was not a Minster in the coalition and importantly did not vote for the measure.
David Evans,
I came to the same conclusion years ago.
Phil,
I agree
It seems to me that it would be a great help to the Party if NL stood down as a candidate asap.
With TF odds on favourite to win [1/7] and NL [6/1 against] it seems pretty much a foregone conclusion that TF is going to be the next leader.
The Party desperately needs to start functioning as a political party again – before the MSM loses all interest. With an unchallenged TF as leader in waiting – the process of renewal could start almost immediately.
I cant see anything patronising in calling people wounded, we are all wounded, I am not sure if if I have completely felt the wound yet. We, ie most of us, were wrong about Coalition, wrong about joining & wrong about staying in but that is yesterdays battle. Choosing the best Leader is about the next decade.
@John Roffey
I can’t see how removal of democratic process will improve our standing in the public’s eyes. I’d also point out that at this point in the cycle last time members were making this case for Clegg, yet the actual vote was much closer than we thought it would be.
paul barker 8th Jun ’15 – 1:19pm
The point is Paul – there are immense issues [at the G7 in particular] going on right now that the Party should be commenting on loudly.
If NL stood down as a candidate – the Party could start to do this if it was clear TF would become its new leader. With so few MPs – it is going to be very difficult for the Party to carve out a clear role for itself – and more difficult the longer this is left!
Over the past week or so Norman has definitely impressed me more than he previously did, particularly after the Guardian politics weekly podcast. Waiting for a clear comparison between candidates at the hustings to make up my mind.
Conor McGovern 8th Jun ’15 – 1:53pm
“Over the past week or so Norman has definitely impressed me more than he previously did, particularly after the Guardian politics weekly podcast.”
Connor – I know that Lib/Dems tend to be rather insular and are capable of discussing endlessly matters that would interest hardly another living soul. However – now is the time for some realism.
The HofC – the place where the Party is likely to have its best opportunity to impress the MSM and therefore the voters – has become even more of a bear-pit since the arrival of the SNP in mass who clearly intend to disrupt the functioning of the House by focussing on the many out-of-date customs still in use. Coupled to that – they have some very powerful characters who are very capable of making powerful speeches on matters that interest them personally.
Cameron, now with an outright majority and supported by some very able ministers, has always been capable of being a commanding the House. He now also has Boris to add to some formidable back-benchers. Even Labour’s acting front bench have started to find their voices.
If the Party is to make the best use of its time in the HofC [as it must] it needs the best parliamentarian it can muster. I have nothing against NL, he clearly is a very decent man, however, I doubt if he would claim to be a great orator – seeming more introvert than extrovert.
How can anyone promote “steady as you go” when we are at the bottom of a huge hole?
Tony Greaves
@ Paul Barker: Sorry Paul but everything about that sentence was patronizing. What I am unsure about, as it was clearly an ill considered and poorly drafted aside, is whom the target was.
Wounded suggests something that can be fixed. Let’s face it, the last 10 years of decline can’t be fixed. No one can fix the lost councils, the lost council seats, the lost seats at Westminster or those in Brussels. We certainly can’t fix the farce that was the electoral reform referendum or student fees. We do not get to re-visit the Coalition negotiations and get them right this time. No, they are gone and we need to decide what went wrong and then rebuild completely.
We are all hurting & big thing we can all do about that is respect each other. That means no taking offence when none was meant & not misrepresenting each others positions. Norman Lamb is not saying “steady as we go”, nor are his supporters. I am still making up my mind but I would be happy with either candidate. Lets not invent divisions that dont exist.
ChrisB 8th Jun ’15 – 1:29pm
“I can’t see how removal of democratic process will improve our standing in the public’s eyes.”
I don’t think many of the public are watching – unless their paint has now dried!
The democratic process would not have been removed if NL recognised that he does not have the necessary qualities to be the Party’s leader at this time – and stood down.
@ Paul Barker: as I said on a previous subject on LDV, I am not a nice Liberal. I do not hold with us being nice to each other simply because we are in the same party. I say it like I see it, others will judge me as they will. It cuts both ways though. I was certainly not offended by Mark Argent’s patronizing words, I merely pointed out that they wont help his candidate.
As for ‘steady as we go’, I must disagree with you again. To me, and apparently many other judging by LDV, Norman Lamb seeks to present himself as the steady as we go option for leadership. I am not offended that you accuse me of misrepresenting him, I simply point out that you are wrong.
There are many words to describe how I feel about the party and the people who got us in this mess (most of them would get me banned from LDV) but “hurting” certainly isn’t one of them.
@John Roffey “It seems to me that it would be a great help to the Party if NL stood down as a candidate asap….
The Party desperately needs to start functioning as a political party again – before the MSM loses all interest. With an unchallenged TF as leader in waiting – the process of renewal could start almost immediately.”
There’s a system where a single candidate is presented for election – it’s known as communism.
Farron’s election may or may not be a foregone conclusion – but the party needs a choice of candidates and it needs to hear alternative views of the future so that the direction of travel can be agreed upon. Then when one or other candidate as a clear mandate, everyone should fall into line behind it.
Perhaps I’m being naïve about this, though.
@paul barker:
“we are all wounded, I am not sure if if I have completely felt the wound yet. We, ie most of us, were wrong about Coalition, wrong about joining & wrong about staying in”.
We were not wrong about either of those things. There was obvious initial damage to suffer and this was made worse by the pledge-breaking by the Party Leader who had run a Party broadcast leading on being the people who’d not break promises (like the others do). It was still partly- recoverable, however, if there had been the slightest modicum of effort to design and implement an exit strategy and to work out how to differentiate ourselves from the Tory aspects of the Coalition in both ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ aspects. Running a three- to four-year campaign of saying you couldn’t squeeze a fag paper between yourself and your own major competitor (and the people who many of your voters hate in the remainder of the constituencies) when you are running up to fptp elections was what sophisticate political commentators would call a ‘no brainer’. There is a considerable guilt at having raised thee concerns initially only within the private confines of the Party.
Tony Greaves:
“How can anyone promote “steady as you go” when we are at the bottom of a huge hole?”
Such optimism, Tony. I would liken our situation more to the ski instructor who has fallen several hundred feet down a crevasse in a glacier and whose mates have tumbled down with him when they have tried to rescue him. They may all freeze or starve slowly to death or they may head off in the wrong direction and tumble down another mile or so. 🙁
TCO 8th Jun ’15 – 5:44pm
“There’s a system where a single candidate is presented for election – it’s known as communism.
Farron’s election may or may not be a foregone conclusion – but the party needs a choice of candidates and it needs to hear alternative views of the future so that the direction of travel can be agreed upon. Then when one or other candidate as a clear mandate, everyone should fall into line behind it.
Perhaps I’m being naïve about this, though.”
In an ideal world – what you say is correct. However, as I have posted – I suspect that NL knows that he will not be able to make the impact in HofC – which is essential if the Party is to successfully start the process of renewal – and the longer this takes to begin – the harder it will be.
There are huge issues being discussed at the moment within the G7 – for example:
Nuclear missiles could be sited again on British soil in new ‘Cold War’ with Russia
Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond says there are ‘worrying signs’ about the increased activity of Russian forces and the UK would consider the pros and cons of taking US intermediate-range weapons
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11657690/Nuclear-missiles-could-be-sited-again-on-British-soil-in-new-Cold-War-with-Russia.html
It is here – in the real world – that political parties need to be active if they wish to gather support from the voters. So unless there is a certainty that continuing with the election process is of very significant advantage – important opportunities are being lost where it really counts – in Party survival terms.
@John Roffey you make an excellent point about Foreign Policy.
That to me is one if Farron’s weakest points. He’s good at Tory bashing, which is great for rallying the activists, but I don’t think he’s got the intellectual firepower for the nuances of foreign policy
TCO 8th Jun ’15 – 8:20pm
Presumably, as leader, he will have a shadow Foreign Minister – who will concern themselves with the detail of each issue.
As you are fully aware – that was not the point I was making – my point was that Tory bashing is exactly what is needed at the present time if the Party is to shine in the eyes of the electorate. and NL does not seem to have the necessary parliamentary skills to take on some formidable opponents.
However, if there is a desire to continue ruminating on the past by members – this is their prerogative – even if significant potential opportunities are lost.
TCO,
Actually Communism is really the dictatorship of the proletariat and is based on the idea of workers representatives rather than a leader as such. The dynastic rule of say Korea for all the rhetoric is in truth closer to a monarchy, whilst the soviet Union was more of a military dictatorship and Russia arguably still is, just saying.
Arguing that Norm Lamb stand aside is more about trying to minimise a long campaign so that the Lib Dems can regroup quicker. I favour a more open field and think other candidates should have come forward.
Picking up some of the threads: my instinct is that Norman is not a “steady as she goes” candidate. Among other things, I think his depth and intellectual clout will be needed because we are in uncharted terrotory with the big unknowns around now — with what seems to be a substantial Tory Eurosceptic contingent declaring today in addition to the things I mentioned above. My sense is that Norman is better placed to provide the leadership that enables us as a party to find a wise way forward in turbulent times, which is very much about going forward into new territory.
TCO “@John Roffey you make an excellent point about Foreign Policy.
That to me is one if Farron’s weakest points. He’s good at Tory bashing, which is great for rallying the activists, but I don’t think he’s got the intellectual firepower for the nuances of foreign policy”.
Does a party with 8 MPs, the fourth party in the HoC, need a person with “the intellectual firepower for the nuances of foreign policy”. Let’s face it, we’re not electing someone who is going to be a future PM or even the Leader of the Opposition in our lifetimes.
Whoever the winner of this leadership election is will undoubtedly do their best for the party. As a Liberal Democrat I find it deeply disturbing that we should be calling for a candidate to stand aside to have some sort of coronation in around a months time. Now more than ever we need a strong liberal voice, a liberal voice with experience of putting words into action. 16000 new members haven’t just joined the party because they disliked the Coalition, they have joined because they value what we did in coalition and can see past the mistakes of Tuition Fee’s and the Bedroom Tax.
For me, Norman has the skills to engage the media and to make things happen. He steered in the biggest changes to Community Care in 60 years; something that he does not get credit for enough. He has put Mental Health firmly in the conciousness of decision makers and he worked to embody local decision making in the health service through the Better Care Fund. He is also a dogged campaigner; fighting for his seat for years. He may not have the northern folksiness of Tim(who would make a good leader too) but he should not be underestimated in his desire to change peoples lives for the better. As a party we have to learn from the Coalition, celebrate what we got right, build on it, apologise for the things we got wrong but most of all we need to get back into government to continue putting liberal policies into practice. For me Norman can do all of those things.
Any talk of Norman standing down as a candidate at this point is absurd. Odds or not, LDV opinion polls or otherwise, to deny our members, all of our members, the chance to decide who they want to lead us is completely facile. Norman was nominated by enough members from enough local parties, as was Tim.
I believe that Norman Lamb has more than the ‘necessary qualities’ to lead our party into the future. Norman recognises that we live in a fundamentally liberal age, and we need to stand up and reclaim that title. Norman Lamb is the man to do it.
Sam Charleston 9th Jun ’15 – 12:04am
“Odds or not, LDV opinion polls or otherwise, to deny our members, all of our members, the chance to decide who they want to lead us is completely facile.”
I have already acknowledged that if the membership are keen to have an election with a choice of candidates – then that is their prerogative. However, I was viewing the issue from a different prospective. Cameron and the Tories are taking great advantage of the fact that there is still no established official opposition [except for the SNP] and have moved onto other party’s natural home ground with their ‘one nation’ propaganda – as can be seen by one of the first opinion polls since the GE:
“ComRes have released their first voting intention poll since the election, and have topline figures of CON 41%, LAB 29%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 10%, GRN 5%”
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
This advantage will only be chipped away by the opposition parties operating as fully functioning political parties and is in danger of increasing in the meantime.
With only 8 MPs is the HofC really the best place to start rebuilding? Is Tim Farron a strong enough liberal bear to stand almost alone against the SNP and Tory pit bulls likely to be unleashed against him? Maybe for the forseeable future we need someone who can work around the bear-pit rather than descending into it. I still haven’t made up my mind, but over the past week when so many voices are clamouring to be heard I’ve been impressed with Norman Lambs quiet presence managing to keep both mental health and opposition to the ridiculous psychoactive substances bill in the news.
If you do not remember Iain Duncan Smith as leader of the Conserative Party ( and I quite understand why you would want to block out such a memory) it did not go well.
Loyal Conservatives and their friends in the media used to half apologise and say things like — ” IDS is the quiet man, that is his strength.”
So I despair a bit when I read someone’s comment saying — “… when so many voices are clamouring to be heard I’ve been impressed with Norman Lambs quiet presence…”
It would be an understatement to say in 2015 that a leader with a “quiet presence” is just about the last thing the Liberal Democrats need.
I agree with Sam, I find it mildly amusing/disturbing there are members that think they could ignore democracy because nobody is watching!
It has been said, in many places, that history will judge Nick Clegg and the coalition kindly. I agree. The coalition was undoubtedly good for our nation, even if it has proved much less so for the fortunes of our party. But I personally am ready to point out again and again, to anyone who will listen, about the good things that came from the coalition. Yes, of course, with hindsight tuition fees was a mistake. But we can’t go back and change the past. Our party is linked with that decision, and I am not sure that the fact that Tim Farron personally voted against will cut much ice with the electorate. We have to convince voters about what we want to achieve as liberals going forward.
That said, I am concerned that members of the party seemingly want to go to the electorate with the message “the coalition with the Convervatives was a huge mistake, we deeply regret it, and we promise never to do it again”. Surely, as we increasingly see what untrammeled Convervative government will bring, we ought to be reminding voters that these things would not have happened with the Liberal Democrats in government?
Speaking personally, I have been a party member since 1983. I remember being told to go back to my constituency and “prepare for government”. Well, that took a long time coming, but it did come, and I am proud to have been a Liberal Democrat during the 2010 – 2015 coalition.
Now, in terms of moving forward, the party needs a leader who has the experience, depth and vision to acknowledge what we achieved in government, to build on it, to promote liberalism and equality for all, to carve out a distinctive liberal vision for pur party. We need a leader who can inspire and motivate the electorate, not just the vocal activists. We need a leader who is not afraid to take on difficult and challenging issues, even if this seems not to be the popular thing to do at the time.
For me, without any shadow of a doubt, that leader is Norman Lamb.
@Mark Posen “That said, I am concerned that members of the party seemingly want to go to the electorate with the message “the coalition with the Convervatives was a huge mistake, we deeply regret it, and we promise never to do it again”. ”
+1
@ Mark Posen, “Yes, of course, with hindsight tuition fees was a mistake”. Sorry Mark but absolutely no hindsight required. The handling of this issue by Clegg and others, over an extended period was a complete disaster for our party. Anyone associated with the disaster will be damaged goods before they start and is, therefore, unlikely to turn our party around.
I think people who were closely involved with the Coalition want someone Ministerial to be our leader because they are still wedded to that version of Liberal Democracy. However, we are in new territory, we have to wage a guerrilla war once again and for that we need the opposite of Ministerial. We need someone who looks and sounds like one of the people, who has a natural way with words, who can make use of the few opportunities granted to him to impress the public. Norman Lamb can turn a well thought out phrase but Tim can get hold of your heart and give it a shake in the first sentence. This may well be all the time he gets from the media.
In all our grief about Charles Kennedy how can we fail to see that it was his humanity that people loved not his well thought out plans and boy do we need another Kennedy now. We need to show our own humanity as a party, to choose someone who’s edges are not quite smooth, to whom many people can relate and with the humility to work with others who have the qualities he doesn’t possess to benefit the party. After all no one person can have everything we need.
Above all we need someone who values the membership and that marvellous 8% of voters who have stuck with us through thick and thin, and who is willing to find out what they think before making irretrievable decisions.
We have two excellent candidates but for me, Tim is the one we need. It’s time for the members to take over the party.
@ John Tilley
Iain Duncan Smith lacked any sort of presence and the Tories tried to pass it off as something else.
Contrast Sturgeon and Salmond – the first comes across as calm, considered and efficient , someone who never needs to shout to make themselves heard (a quiet Presence if you will), the second as one of the chief bears in the pit. Sturgeon is the one who has delivered the most telling victory for the SNP.
Norman Lamb may not be the liberal democrat’s Nicola Sturgeon but over the past week he has has managed to keep the Liberals in the news for the right reasons – policy.
My point was that as a small minority party we maybe need to start looking out with the HofC bear-pit for answers.
Michele: I agree with what you say about the “need to start looking out with the HofC bear-pit for answers.”
Yet at the western counties hustings on Saturday it was Tim Farron jho best articulated how he would work to achieve that as Leader. He was also much clearer about the need to start winning seats at local level again, and I think he would lead from the front in motivating party members towards that aim.
I understand that MPs and former MPs who worked with Norman Lamb feel more comfortable with him as Leader, but its not them we have to convince is it? Its the voters who supported us in the Ashdown/Kennedy era but don’t now, and the voters who’ve turned 18 in the last 5-10 years.
Labour had the problem of not really knowing how to do with the negatives around the Blair/Brown government, I think we have a similar problem with the legacy of the Coalition. In time this may get easier if the Tories try to enact all the legislation we blocked, but for the moment we are still at 10% in the polls, and need to give peole reasons to vote for us again.
Mark Posen/TCO. The electorate have told us that “the coalition with the Conservatives was a huge mistake, they deeply regret it, and they don’t want us ever to do it again.” You need to get used to that. Harking back to “history will judge Nick Clegg and the coalition kindly,” is just hiding from the fact that your chosen view of coalition led us to disaster. If you want to destroy the bit that remains, carry on, but I sincerely hope you change.
@ John Roffey
I happen to agree that this leadership contest is ill-timed – we could have been spending this time more wisely as a party, but the fact is that Nick did resign when he did, but your solution of – seemingly – only allowing Tim Farron supporters a vote in this selection is a fundamentally illiberal.
@David Evans we can probably agree that the bit that remains is more rightward looking than the bit that left. Hence lurching off to the left is the most likely way to destroy what remains, not forging a Liberal course.
Norman Lamb may not be exactly on my wing of the party, but I’ve never doubted his commitment to LGBT+ rights. The same cannot be said for Tim Farron. Norman is a man of great principle and a true liberal, not to mention probably the biggest thinker in the party. Again, the same cannot be said on any of those measures for Tim.
If you truly want to save yourselves, please vote to be a real liberal party. I’ve lost a lot of faith in the party, but if anyone can win people like me back it would be Norman Lamb.
Twice in 2 days I have seen the phrase “a true liberal” deployed. I can’t wait to see one of the users define that! If you believe someone isn’t a liberal, have the honesty to say so. It’d certainly make LDV a lot livelier.
” I can’t wait to see one of the users define that!”
True liberal, n. — 1. An honest liberal; a liberal accustomed to telling the truth. 2. A faithful liberal; liberal notable for loyalty or fidelity to a person or cause. 3. An exemplary liberal; someone who in speech and habits exemplifies the principles of liberalism.
After the 2015 General Election collapse giving us only 8 Lib Dem MPs, it is truly amazing that so very many Lib Dems are still ‘in denial’ about the broken Pledges on Tuition Fees. The Pledges were individually signed before the 2010 General Election by all 57 of the May 2010 elected Lib Dem MPs. So that there is no doubt let me spell out the central issues that are in denial starting with what the Pledges said:
“I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament and to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative.”
These were individual, personal Pledges and were not repeated in the 2010 Lib Dem Manifesto and were in no way conditional on the Lib Dems winning the 2010 General Election. Rather each Pledge was a personal promise to vote against any increase in tuition fees in the parliament that started in May 2010.
The Pledges were not either-or matters whereby MPs could perhaps excuse not voting against increases in fees because they helped deliver a fairer alternative, etc.
It is very difficult to understand how any honourable person of integrity could then excuse voting other than as they had pledged and the fact that 36 of our 57 Lib Dem MPs broke their Pledges is a major reason why so much damage has been done to trust and belief in the Lib Dems.
Tim Farron was one of the 21 Lib Dem MPs who kept their Pledge.
Norman Lamb was one of the 36 Lib Dem MPs who broke their Pledge.
IF we are to rebuild the party we MUST have a leader who can regain the trust of the electorate.
Now let’s go from there – please.
The party was in coalition or supporting another party in 1918, 1923, 1929, 1931, 1997 and 2010. Each time electoral disaster followed. Only fools keep making the same mistakes over and over again. There should be no more talk of coalitions, balanced parliaments, hung parliaments etc. The public is not just uninterested, it positively hates such talk. The next leader must publicly reject such notions except in the unlikely event that we are the largest party. It should be fairly obvious even to those in denial about the electoral disaster that has befallen the party who the next leader should be. Maybe we could have lamb for dinner.
David-1 you may have defined the words true, faithful, and exemplary but you have utterly failed to define Liberal .TCO are you saying that true Liberalism is right wing? I just don’t understand your argument.
@Sue S: That’s just it — it’s not the true part of the phrase that’s causing the problem!
@nvelope 2003: You lack faith, brother: the only cure is to shut your eyes and repeat the mantra ‘Twill be different this time until faith returns! Many in the Party swear by this panacea.
To be fair I have always admired Norman Lamb and he would have made an excellent leader had the party been more successful in Government and retained most of its seats at the election but the electorate disliked the party’s policy on coalition as most of us thought they would. I suspect they would have been equally hostile to a coalition with Labour as in 1924, 1929 and 1977. With the press overwhelmingly hostile it is virtually impossible to get our views across and the voters probably believe all those awful stories they read, the denigration of Clegg (and Miliband) etc. Of course we all know how brilliant even the dullest Conservative politicians are – it goes without saying – and how lazy and useless everybody else is.
It is hopeless to think that a small party can change the voters preference for single party Government as the British are very conservative and dislike change. Even in the devolved administrations initial coalitions because of proportional representation soon developed into single party governments, except in Northern Ireland where coalition is enshrined in law because of the sectarian issue. It is not necessary for the party to be in Government to advance its policies but it would be hard to do so without representation in the House of Commons so there is a need to use every means to maintain and if possible increase the number of MPs and of course local councillors. In Yeovil the party are still in control of the District Council with the support of independents and are the largest party despite the loss of the seat in Parliament. There is still something to build on if we have the right leader.