As I’ve written in The Independent, last week’s election results still leave me feeling numb. The Liberal Democrats are not a political machine but a human family, made up of dear friends and colleagues, striving together in a common cause. Which is why the loss of so many excellent MPs, councillors and staff is not just a political catastrophe but also a personal heartbreak.
Liberalism and liberal values are under threat from a triumphalist Tory party in hock to its right wing and from the forces of nationalism and isolationism. No one can rely on a Labour ‘opposition’ who have never got it on civil liberties, immigration, Iraq or a new politics. Liberal Democrats need to pick ourselves up and lead the fight.
This will be a tough challenge, but liberals have done it before. We came back from near oblivion in the 1950s and ‘60s to challenge the Tory–Labour stranglehold on power, building on our local roots, fighting alongside local campaigners to make life better in a myriad of little ways for individuals and their communities. As an activist and councillor and MP I’ve been part of that endeavour all my political life.
I don’t doubt our resilience for a second. Underneath the shock from last week’s results is something powerful and determined. And the more than 11,000 members who have joined the party since election night give us reason for hope.
But if we are to rebuild, we have to learn the lessons from 7 May. We need to understand why we failed to communicate both our genuine achievements in coalition and our hopes for the future. We need to look at our election campaign and consider where it worked and where it didn’t – and how we campaign from now on with such a tiny parliamentary party. We need to be clear what is the point of the liberal Democrats in a tougher, more complicated political world.
These are processes which of course need to involve the entire party, and will stretch well beyond the leadership campaign. The Autumn Conference will be a key opportunity to debate these issues. But the leadership contest gives people a chance to discuss and think about them over the next two months.
Above all, now we have a chance to make a fresh start – to elect someone who can embody liberal values, someone to make the positive case for civil liberties, a more equal society, a green economy, an open and internationalist approach and the political reform that this country needs to avoid it splitting apart – someone who can stand up for a freer, fairer, greener Britain.
We need someone with the vigour to campaign up and down the country, day in, day out, who can rebuild the party from the bottom up, using all the tools of modern campaigning but remembering that what people want is for politicians to talk to and listen to them and to be true to their word.
Since last Thursday, I have been humbled by all the messages urging me to stand for the leadership – so today, I put myself forward to be the next leader of the liberal Democrats.
My aim is for a campaign which will be positive, optimistic and unifying. I am unshakeable in my belief that Britain needs liberal values and a liberal voice. With your help and support, I can be that liberal voice. I hope you will join me.
* Tim Farron is Liberal Democrat Spokesperson on Agriculture and MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Another myth that should die: The Victorians covered table legs because they thought were indecent
Graphics and AV tools for solo consultants
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Mick Taylor
Alex Macfie
Barry Smith
Steve Trevethan
Tim Rogers
100 Comments
I very much appreciate Tim standing and all the work he is doing and has done, but so far neither Tim or Norman have filled me with confidence. The party cannot avoid concerns about immigration and think the route to power is just calling these concerns nationalism. It is generally the third biggest concern of the electorate and we just have silence from Liberal Democrats.
I am interested in how Tim builds such big majorities in what looks like a fairly “tory” area, especially with a left leaning platform, but national messaging matters too. In this article Tim has only really attacked Labour from the left. Nothing about business, especially when the Lib Dem manifesto didn’t even have a business section.
As I just said on another thread: I want a stronger welfare state too. I’m not just a tory. I just don’t see the future as emphasising how the Liberal Democrats are different. It should be emphasising how they are in touch.
Best wishes and thanks again
Go Tim! You gave us hope in the dark days of the tuition fees vote and many of us made up our minds then that we wanted you as our next leader. You were right not to challenge Nick for the leadership but it’s a shame we’ve had to wait so long.
I am glad Tim is standing, and my heart very much wants me to vote for him. However, my head says that both he and Norman Lamb have big questions to answer over their record on LGBT+ rights. Norman Lamb voted against the repeal of Section 28 and has a less than stellar attendance record on other matters; Tim voted against the 2007 Equality Act and supported amendments to the Equal Marriage bill which would have created a legal precedent for public officials to discriminate against gay couples (and presumably other minorities by extension) on personal grounds. Until either or both candidates clarify their position, I am concerned about the future direction of the party.
I 100% agree John. i am keeping an open mind until these questions are answered.
I engaged with tim on twitter on his support for a “conscience clause” for civil servants on Equal marriage. Such clauses only make sense if you also accept that racial and otehr forms of discrimination should be permitted if the discriminator feels strongly enough. The idea that LGBT folk are entitled to a lower level of protection should not have a place within our party.
John, could you point me to the source re: Norman and Section 28? Pink News says he voted for repeal. http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/05/13/norman-lamb-announces-bid-for-lib-dem-leadership/
People are stating both Norman and Tim abstained on the 3rd reading of Same Sex Marriage. This is slightly disingenuous. Norman was out of the country on ministerial business, and has said if he were in the country, he would have voted for SSM. Tim meanwhile was present and actively chose to abstain. Tim, if you are reading this, could you comment on the record if the vote were held again, would you abstain again? I already know that you would not vote for repeal, which is a slightly different thing.
I would echo Eddie’s post above.
We need to approach the election from the position of how Liberal principles address the practical concerns of the electorate, in clear practical ways.
We also need to step outside our comfort zone and grasp the nettles of questions such as immigration, the deficit, defence etc
Great stuff Tim. Your speech to conference last year was awesome and you have my support 🙂
To be fair to Tim. On the public whip website (which is independent) it says : Tim Farron MP, Westmorland and Lonsdale
voted strongly for the policy
Same Sex Marriage – for
by scoring 90.4% compared to the votes below
William, you’re quite right – my bad. Norman Lamb did in fact support the repeal of S28 (the wording of the report is unclear but I should have read it properly). I still feel it would be useful for him to articulate his stance, although it does look (unfortunately) as if Tim Farron has the greater issue here.
Dave, yes, he did vote strongly for it, but it’s his support for the amendments which I find concerning.
We need to become a radical progressive liberal party. The days of the Orange book are over.
I have a question for Tim – what is his view on a universal basic income (sometimes called a citizen’s income)? It used to be party policy up until 1994 and now the Greens advocate it (although they seem confused about whether they really want it or not).
For what it’s worth, I like both candidates, and I do want to support Tim Farron, if I’m honest. I just want to hear how he responds to these concerns. As I said above, having a leader who only supports LGBT rights with riders and qualifiers fills me with unease.
I agree that Tim’s position on registrars was inconsistent. They are public servants employed to do the will of parliament. On the other hand it is right in my view that Anglican priests are not obliged to conduct such marriages. A religious marriage is an option for people, and the state should not interfere (and we should not have an established church!)
Both Tim and Norman DID vote for the Equal Marriage Act (despite the failure of the amendments Tim supported). So I think you have to assume that they both support the Act as it is stated. Some MP.s did not, of course.
It is also legitimate to ask them whether they would still vote in the way they did on clause 28 and the 2007 Equality Act
No one should be surprised if Liberals are distrustful of organised religions, however personal creeds when kept personal are strongly defended, but in any case we need people to be wrong, so that we can work out for ourselves why thy are wrong.
What makes me feel queasy is the evangelism.
ah yes, I see Farron did not vote on the 3rd reading on the Equal Marriage Act. I was looking at the 2nd reading
I’m in the mod zone now :
http://www.totalpolitics.com/blog/314662/mps-plea-to-overturn-and39god-can-healand39-ad-ban.thtml
Thank you, Tim, for putting yourself forward for the leadership ballot. I look forward to hearing your ideas in more detail.
However, please can we stop over-emphasising “the forces of nationalism”. The SNP overwhelmingly took ground from us in much of Scotland, yes. But just prior to that, Scotland had voted ‘no’ to independence, so it does not look like simple nationalism. The voters in Scotland must have felt that the SNP was offering an agenda (against austerity, Trident, and foreign military intervention, …?) that they didn’t see coming from us or from Labour. Plus, with our history of support for devolved power, we should understand the desire for a clear regional voice. So how should we address those issues? The more we dismiss them as simple ‘nationalism’, the more the argument runs away from us.
I would be happy to see either win but I would like both of them to tell us how they think we can take votes back from Tories, Labour & Greens at the same time. Its all about the next 10 years not the last 5.
For my information, can someone tell me the terms of eligibilty to stand as leader. Do they HAVE to be an MP? My
reason for asking is that we have more than a hundred lords who could surely be eligoble. I recall that the tories used a hereditary lord, (Alec Douglas-Home) to become leader, after he renounced his title. I think he had to contest a by-election, something that can be organised.
Just asking, but it would widen the choice.
@Andrew
Exactly!
LDV seems to be preventing me from presenting factual evidence on leadership candidates. http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2013-14/869 – https://www.reformgovernmentsurveillance.com
He submitted the motion and it was taken verbatim from the RGS website (owned by…). Everyone should know this prior to the leadership election, there’s a lot more too.
There are those who will continue to bang on and on about one issue as if it the only policy to judge the leadership of a national and broad political party.
As a Liberal Democrat, it does not concern me whether a person who wishes to lead is either a practising Christian or a person of no particular religious affiliation. What matters is their commitment to liberal values and their ability to inspire confidence and great effort in those they lead, as well as exercise judgement on strategic and policy issues.
Finally, I would also add that I think respect for conscience is important. As a party we have never, as far as I’m aware, mandated our MPs to vote against their conscience and I don’t think we should expect them too. We’re not the Labour Party after all!
@Helen
Doesn’t it concern you if an MP writes motions that he’s copied off a corporate website?
@ChrisB – This is getting silly now….Tim has long cared about digital rights…https://www.libdemvoice.org/tim-farron-and-julian-huppert-write-why-we-need-a-digital-bill-of-rights-38476.html
@ Martin Except that many Lib Dems are members of ‘organised religions’ as well as disorganised ones and quite capable of critique.
I was never a strong supporter of Tim Farron, for various reasons, but one is that I recall him being behind the “75% of our manifesto implemented” line, which was so disastrous, as it was one of the absurdly optimistic things put out during the coalition, meant to make us look good but which had the effect of making us look far more in support for the miserable little compromises we had to make than was the reality (at least for those who weren’t actively using the coalition to push the party permanently rightwards). So, although Tim has said some good things about policy in general which puts him as the”left” candidate, and I do regard myself as on the party’s left, I’m still open to persuasion if the other candidate (I’m assuming there will only be the one) can manage it.
I would ask people not to get so worked up about the LGBT issue. Sorry, but the idea that we are more concerned over this issue than over economic and other injustices is one of the reasons we get dismissed in some quarters. There was a time when many gay people would have regarded a campaign for gay marriage as homophobic, arguing it is saying gay people can only be properly accepted if they fit into a heterosexual model. To some extent this is one of those politically correct things where the political elite switch from one line to another in order to adopt an air of superiority and scorn those who can’t keep up (like the use of “coloured”, which was the word my late mother-in-law routinely used to describe herself and other non-white persons). I also think it was rather cynically whipped up as a token “liberal” thing to be raised as a success, and I think rather insulting to those who had previously regarded themselves as having had a gay marriage and used that term when it was officially “civil partnership”.
Firstly congratulations to Tim both on winning his seat, and in putting his name forward to give us a proper contest.
I’m dismayed by where the thread has gone though – and would entirely endorse Helen Tadcastle’s comments at 1:39 Beautifully put. We need a relentless focus on the next 5 years, voters who have drifted away, and those who never realised that we had a lot to offer them.
@Dave Jones
You’re sending propaganda, I’m pointing you to parliament.uk and the text he sponsored. Why did Farron submit the words of the worlds tech biggest companies corporations as his motion on digital rights? I’ve been asking this since it happened, nobodies given me a decent answer. Rather than calling names, I’d like you to address the substantive evidence. I’ve posted 2 documents that Tim put his name to, you posted a LDV article. If it’s so silly, it should be simple to rebut!
I’m really not seeing what @chrisb’s problem is here. The EDM was perfectly transparent and is consistent with our party’s principles.
Here’s the wording for the EDM which attracted cross-party support
“That this House notes the recent open statement signed by Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, LinkedIn, Twitter and AOL calling for reform of government surveillance; welcomes their calls for reform to restore the public’s trust in the internet; supports the five principles they identify about limiting governments’ authority to collect users’ information, oversight and accountability, transparency about government demands, respecting the free flow of information, and avoiding conflicts among governments; agrees that they form a sensible basis for reform of digital rights; and calls on the Government to support their statement and make reforms that ensure that government surveillance efforts are clearly restricted by law, proportionate to the risks, transparent and subject to independent oversight.”
It seems you are making a fuss about nothing – the motion was to note the action taken by the companies concerned which are clearly consistent with Liberal Democrat values.
ChrisB: without going into the rights and wrongs of the issue, I cannot see the problem with endorsing a bill prepared by outside organisations so long as the support is for politically principled reasons. Perhaps you are suggesting that the MPs concerned have been lobbied and duped by these organisations.
On the other hand having been utterly shocked your earlier link, I can all too easily appreciate it, if credulity is your main issue.
I’ve been on the executive of LGBT+ Lib Dems for some years now, and I was for a while one of a very small number of openly transgender elected politicians. I have absolutely no qualms supporting Tim for leadership. I appreciate he has a personal position that stems from his faith, but my experience in campaigning with him (including canvassing in a ward to help elect an openly LGBT candidate) is that he is a passionate liberal who is perfectly able to separate his own religious perspective from the wider issue of civil liberties for all, and act accordingly.
Hey Caron,
My problem is the authorship of your quote – those words were largely taken from the corporate website of a group of companies that co-operate in order to minimise localised governments and maximise their influence on data (see previous link). They’ve been around the world trying to get politicians to do what Tim did and I don’t like politicians meeting companies and then submitting draft motions that are taken from those companies verbatim. Does that not seem odd to you?
@Martin,
He was lobbied – it’s documented, will find evidence later. It’s in their interests to stop government surveillance because then they’ll own the global surveillance industry! If that motion got taken seriously we’d all of been up the creek without the paddle.
Thank you for that, Sarah, that’s reassuring to hear. I remain interested in the candidate’s responses too. And Helen has a point – I agree that the big picture for the next 5 years is important and look forward to the campaigns ahead.
So ChrisB, are you saying we should be for the snoopers charter because Google, Microsoft and Apple are against it?
Or just that we must find words to express our opposition that are sufficiently different to the words they would use?
Are your words your own or are you lobbying on behalf of the securocrats? (Because presumably it is impossible to judge what you say on its merits without knowing that.)
I’m supporting Norman Lamb in this contest, but am glad we have left in our ranks two credible, capable candidates for the leadership and like this article both in tone and content.
As some have indicated on this thread, there are a lot of themes we’d like to see both candidates elaborate on and develop over the next few weeks (many of us would’ve liked a longer contest to allow more time for that). We don’t need to get them all out at once but I hope the campaigns are taking the themes on board and will develop them in due course. I also hope the tone remains positive and forward looking in a way which will appeal to an electorate where perhaps 25-30% will be wholly new to the party – none of the “Calamity [insert name here]” that marred the last contest.
Elizabeth Patterson: yes, it is specified in the party’s constitution that the leader has to be a member of the House of Commons.
You’re right to say that when Douglas-Home was appointed PM, in 1963, he renounced his peerage, persuaded a Tory MP in a relatively safe seat to stand down and won the ensuing by-election. I kind of think that’s probably not an option for us …
There are a couple of items which Tim Farron does not address here. The first is how to avoid Tories using the fear of Labour to make people vote Conservative. The second is the issue of making pledges realistic. The tuition fee pledge was abandoned because there was no plan in place to deal with an economy that was worse than expected. These are both technical issues which require careful handling
Basically, what Sarah said. There are plenty of us, and Tim is receptive enough, to be able to do the Right Thing if his faith and his job conflict.
“The Liberal Democrats are not a political machine but a human family, made up of dear friends and colleagues, striving together in a common cause.”
Then why not just become a pressure group and save your time and your deposits? Or, if you can’t be a political machine why not become a Tambourine and Cymbals Club band? You’ll have more fun than being a family. Don’t be a family. You can’t fire members of your family. If everyone responsibile for the “air war” of this last campaign isn’t fired, then what’s the point?
Only in LibDem land do people not get fired for being incompetent, ineffectual and irrelevent. This is also exactly why you are all so surprised that you lost as big as you did. Instead of having a Conference, just buy a couple of guitars and sit around singing Kumbaya all weekend!
Lib Dem leadership election in numbers:
– 56,000 LD members
– 8 eligible candidates – all white, male, middle-aged and university-educated
– 2 runners
– 1 overwhelming favourite (with the bookies)
– 0 completed reviews of GE 2015 disaster
Should the #libdemfightback start with a coronation?
Duncan Brack – Vince could probably win Sheffield Hallam, I suppose… (but you are right, not worth the risk. And he’d make a good candidate for London mayor…)
Hey Joe, Thanks for replying.
>are you saying we should be for the snoopers charter because Google, Microsoft and Apple are against it?
No, merely that copying wording from the worlds biggest corporations on matters of national security seems unwise to me. They have combined spending on internet surveillance far higher than any government, they clearly want to own that sector – putting their 5 “principles” into legislation would be a dream come true for their shareholders.
>Or just that we must find words to express our opposition
>that are sufficiently different to the words they would use?
Absolutely. They shouldn’t have a hand in drafting motions they directly benefit from. The danger the motion presents is it only applies to our government – why not equally to those corporations? I think that particularly dangerous and disappointing from an LD MP – how will we get a more open internet if the companies that own it have exclusive rights to watch us, whilst our government is completely dependent on them for its intelligence? It would be privatisation of internet surveillance, he probably never realised it but surely that would be the outcome if anyone took it seriously?
>Are your words your own or are you lobbying on behalf of the securocrats?
They’re mine – I’m not lobbying for anyone or anything apart from keeping big business out of our policy making processes, especially when they’re the biggest surveillance companies in history! Everyone will have their own view and I respect that; I also think all of the facts need to go down on the table and we should talk about these things instead of dismissing anyone with a differing viewpoint, calling them silly, suggesting they’re a corporate shill or saying it’s a fuss over nothing. Do you think the 5 principles laid out by the tech companies “form a sensible basis for reform of digital rights”?
I agree with Sir Norfolk Passmore that we are lucky that Tim Farron and Norman Lamb are the candidates.
Before the General Election some serious commentators actually talked about Danny Alexander being the Continuity Candidate for the leadership. I guess that if the resuts of the election had been different we might even have had David Laws standing.
So in that context Norman Lamb should be welcomed as a candidate.
Whilst Tim Farron is obviously the Change Candidate for the future, Norman Lamb can offer an alternative for those who want to stick with the strategy of recent years. This will also provide an opportunity for debate amongst the membership.
When the Coalition began many were surprised that Norman Lamb did not get a ministerial position. The press reported atvevtie that Nick Clegg as sayig that he had “simply forgotten him” when completing the list of Lib Dem ministers. I guess Norman hoes that NC does not forget himthis time. It is rather ironic that he is now carrying the flame of Cleggism as the Continuity Candidate.
Tim Farron makes a key point in his statement above that we need to learn the lessons of the past to rebuid the party. I agree with that 100%. Unfortunately I do not get that message from Norman Lamb who talked a great deal about his tie as a junior minister when interviewed on Radio 4 ‘s Today programme. He talks enthusiastically about the past but seems a bit vague when it comes to rebuilding the party for the future.
There is of course plenty of time in this leadership election for Norman Lamb to fill in the gaps in what he has said so far. He is probably just at the moment going through a considerable gear-change moving from the comfort of a ministerial office buzzing with lots of keen young civil servants keeping him supplied with everything he needs to being just an MP in Norfolk again.
So I should not be too critical. Having said that there was speculation before the autumn conference that he might stand for the leadership so I guess he has thought it all through over the last nine months. However he should not underestimate the normal human reaction of being a minister one week and being out of it all the next week. It is a bit like a deep sea diver surfacing too quickly, it is best done slowly.
… and new members, it may help to know that Sara was a member of a so-called ‘libertarian’ group (Liberal Vision) but is now a member of the Conservative Party.
Voter14th May ’15 – 2:59pm
“There are a couple of items which Tim Farron does not address here. The first is how to avoid Tories using the fear of Labour to make people vote Conservative. ”
I rather feel the Conservatives in government alone will have demonstrated that they are themselves something truely worthy of fear in their own right!
Well I am certainly pleased to see Tim standing and whilst LGTB issues are extremly important to me personally I am not sure that if all the other “Liberal” boxes are ticked that his apparent flakinness on equal marriage would be enough to stop me voting for him. Equally I am not at all happy with people using “their faith” as a guiding light when voting on what are basically secuare issues.
@ Sarah Noble
@ Sarah Brown
Both positive comments for Tim but qualified that ‘as long as’ he separates his Christian faith from civil liberties ie: LGBT+ rights he’ll be acceptable.
Sorry but this is ridiculous. It is unfair to expect someone to split themselves in half. Civil liberties have been fought for for centuries by Christians and people of no faith together. They do so united in a common cause and charged up by a common purpose. Sometimes, there are are points of disagreement and points of conscience within individuals and within communities, which cannot be overcome despite soul-searching. Now we can either go on condemning ad infinitum that the voting-record is not as perfect as we would like it, or we can move on and look at the bigger picture.
I think credit should be given to Tim for his work across a range of issues of social justice and civil liberties.
“There are a couple of items which Tim Farron does not address here. The first is how to avoid Tories using the fear of Labour to make people vote Conservative” – Voter
This is certainly an issue that should not be lightly dismissed, however it is largely out of our hands, it depends so much on Labour. The ‘most right wing government ever’ narrative that Labour promulgated when in reality the coalition’s economics policies were very close to Labours own as advocated by Alistair Darling, worked against Labour in the end, by scaring off voters.
By standing alongside the Tories in the Scottish referendum, Labour managed to appear as ‘red Tories’ in Scotland and therefore SNP could be portrayed as even more to the left and I think this added fear factor was decisive. I cannot claim to have an answer.
Voter and Martin make a good point about the Conservative fear campaign 2020. I can see the same thing happening: Labour become popular, SNP are still there and they will say vote Conservative to avoid a Labour-SNP government.
Farron, who is more left leaning than Clegg, would feature on target voters campaigns with quotes from him indicating that he would support a Labour government. It will resonate.
In the days of hung parliaments this could frighten voters. I can’t see it working like it did in the past.
@Helen Tedcastle
Yes Helen, you’re absolutely right to say it is unfair to expect someone to split themselves in half. Civil liberties may have been fought for for centuries by Christians & others but Gay rights have been vigorously & fermently rejected by Christians over the years,especially by”committed Christians”. Tim voted NO to the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) regulations only 8 years ago at a time when perhaps it was less important for him ‘to be seen to be doing the right thing’, &, despite voting yes to the Gay Marriage Act , he also voted yes to one of the wrecking amendments which would, in effect, have allowed someone to carry on discriminating against gay people if that accorded with their beliefs. This troubles me greatly since he seeks the highest office in a party which has long supported LBGT rights pretty unequivocally (& why I have been voting for it in its various forms for over 40 years) & , as leader, Tim would have the greatest influence on its future direction. We need a leader who lives ALL the values of our party since the electorate are crying out for authenticity from political leaders .
Great to see Tim standing. It is imperative that we have a leader who keeps his promises. This is the fundamental issue for me and many others from what I can see. Tim has many other good qualities and is a great campaigner which will be a massive plus. It is, however, the issue of integrity that is fundamental, it is a sine qua non. We won’t be able to argue that we have put the past behind us until we have a leader who we can reasonably trust to do what he says he will do. With Tim in charge we can move forward and the party will rise again. I will be voting Farron.
Certainly fear was used to steal the election. Labour did not know what had hit them, because the scare story was new. They rationalised that, since Labour were not responsible for the SNP and had disclaimed any links, the story could not hurt them. They rationalised wrong. The Lib Dems rationalised that the scare story was not about them, and hence could not hurt them. That was false optimism too.
The point about the shock doctrine is shock. By 2020 we shall all know the SNP much better and they will no longer be the shock of the new. The Tories will have five years to find a new shock with which to hit their oponents. Worrying about what killed Labour in 2015 will no longer be the point.
Helen, I don’t think the Sarahs meant that Tim should “split himself in half”, but something like…
Tim’s liberalism flows from, and is in large part motivated by, his Christianity, but the two are not the same thing and *will* come into conflict at some point, just as *any* two sets of values will — liberalism is generally compatible with Tim’s brand of Christianity, but is not identical with it (or all Liberals would share Tim’s faith, all members of Tim’s faith would be Liberals, and the problem wouldn’t arise). Those conflicts will, one hopes, be minor, but they will happen by the nature of things. (Just as, for example, my own support of Free Software is compatible with liberalism, and shares the same root values, but I have to use proprietary software in order to access Connect).
Some people here have expressed concern that when they do, he will choose his faith, when *in his capacity as Lib Dem leader* (assuming he gets the role) he should choose Liberalism (just as when involved in his church it would be entirely right for him to place his faith above his liberalism), and both Sarahs think that he *will* choose Liberalism (as do I).
That isn’t, though, an assumption that the two are opposite, or in conflict most of the time, or that they don’t go together.
As an analogy: imagine someone whose main motivation for going into politics was their children. They want to make a better world for their children to live in, and think that politics is the way to do it, and want to become leader. Their childen are literally the most important thing in the world to them, but to protect their children they want to have an effective health service, and to end climate change, and to ensure their children have human rights, and so on.
Such a person would be absolutely admirable, but if they wanted to become party leader some people might say “but what if there’s an important vote the same day as their child’s parents’ evening? They might miss the vote because their kids are more important!”
To which the Sarahs are (if they’ll forgive me rewording them, and I hope I’m getting this right) saying “I don’t think Tim’s the kind of person to skip a vote to go to parents’ evening. He’s the kind of person who can see the big picture, and would be more interested in passing a bill to improve the education of all children, including his own, than in a single parents’ evening. But that’s *because* he loves his children, not in spite of them.”
Is that making sense, or am I talking rubbish? (It’s entirely possible it’s the latter).
I was a Lib Dem supporter for 20 years until 2014, an SDP support in the 1980s. I abandoned the party because in government it supported policies that attacked and undermined the community I live in (note – the bedroom tax does not only take money off the poor, it denies this money to the local community and sends it to London). To be clear, I voted Plaid because I saw more progressive left in their campaign than I did in the Lib Dems.
But over the last few days I have followed this debate carefully and what I have seen of Tim Farron has inspired me to have belief in the Liberal Democrats as a party again, and as a movement of the progressive left. I am a little concerned he uses the word “liberal” so freely without acknowledging the SDP tradition the Lib Dems are jointly born out of, but have read he has no intention of rebranding or renaming the party. I guess he just comes from the Liberal tradition, which is equally noble (note: equally).
The Lib Dems desperately need a leader to inspire and to lead the fightback many members, supporters and ex-supporters like myself want them to lead. I see Tim Farron as being that man, and for what its worth am giving him my full support.
Squaring the secular-religious dilemma circle can be difficult.
Liberalism and secularism can be tyrannical and dogmatic too, don’t forget. I don’t like the French law that forbids the public wearing of some Islamic dress. A truly secular society (like France purports to be) recognises all forms of religion and customs so long as they do not infringe the rights of others.
I’m gay. I now have the right to get married. Parliament was right to give full equality of marriage to gay couples. If somebody disagrees with that, I will argue back and probably get offended. But this is the test of true liberalism – I may disagree vehemently with somebody but they have a right to freedom of expression too. Very, very hard to reconcile at times I know.
@ Ed Joyce
I agree, at the end of the day this is the key issue for me, and the only way the party can put the past behind them and move forward. I think Tim will energise the grassroots of the party, which is what we need to build up support again.
Norman Lamb is an excellent MP and did good work as a leader. But he voted the wrong way on tuition fees…. Even if he had not though I would go for Farron, even though he is less “ministerial” and unlike me is religious. We are at a crisis point as we were in 1988 when Paddy Ashdown took over the “Social and Liberal Democrats” at about 8% in the opinion polls. He too was a leader with boundless energy and a campaigning spirit who got us up to 17% by the 1992 General Election. We are not selecting a potential prime minister now but someone who needs to galvanise the membership and save us (frankly) from oblivion. Any Liberal Democrat who can still get 50% in his own seat when the party is at 8% shows that he has the power to convince people.. Paddy had that too (and still has, I think). I remember meeting him and being astonished at his charisma.
We have a choice of just two candidates by the look of it. Neither is ideal of course, and it is easy to dig around like ChrisB and find reasons not to vote for them. I suggest we try not to do that too much – one of them will be our leader soon and we will have to unite behind him…
“Good work as a minister” I meant
And the membership is still going up at 750 per day (last 24 hours)!
Oh and another thing, sorry – people can change their minds! People’s beliefs change over time. I genuinely believe that even the Tories have radically changed their attitude towards gay people. Now go back 30 or even 15 or 10 years. You would never have thought sexuality would be a non-issue for a Conservative party leader (not the whole party I imagine though).
So for those of us who are questioning Tim’s beliefs, I would suggest that we just ask him to clear it up when the hustings start 🙂
Simon Hesketh – from Mark Pack – http://www.markpack.org.uk/132151/what-happened-to-the-lib-dems-some-evidence/
I have never met a group of people with less self-awareness than the Liberal Democrats. If you’ll excuse me, I’m off to place a bet on the LibDems getting less than 5 MPs in 2020…
Sara Scarlett – Out of interest, and since maybe you are an expert on who everyone is, what group of people do you think has the most self awareness?
I think the issue is not being religious per se, but that in a largely secular society overt religion is seen as a bit odd. Nothing wrong with that of itself but you can bet the press will pick up any stick it can to beat us with.
I’m gay and sorry I just wouldn’t vote for him.
Good question from Liberal Crusader 14th May ’15 – 1:00pm
We need to become a radical progressive liberal party. The days of the Orange book are over.
I have a question for Tim – what is his view on a universal basic income (sometimes called a citizen’s income)? It used to be party policy up until 1994 and now the Greens advocate it (although they seem confused about whether they really want it or not).
A leader that was willing and able to put this kind of Liberal tax and welfare reform at the forefront of his agenda in opposing the Tory effort to dismantle the welfare state would get my backing.
@R Rossim – Judging by their campaigns, I would say probably the Cons and the Greens. They campaigned on what they and their supporters wanted, not on the hypothetical result would be. Although, that may be a controversial opinion…
Sara Scarlett 14th May ’15 – 7:00pm
“I have never met a group of people with less self-awareness than the Liberal Democrats. If you’ll excuse me, I’m off to place a bet on the Lib Dems getting less than 5 MPs in 2020…”
I for one will take you up on that Sara. £100?
Any other takers for Sara’s bet?
Provided Tim recognises the benefits in keeping the real world of politics well away from the imaginary worlds of religion, I wish him well in his campaign. Of all the potential candidates he stands the best chance of re-energising the party and carving out a distinctive position for the party.
@Sara Scarlett
Lord Oakeshott warned the party that the ship was going down and was condemned for his foresight. The party needs a “clause 4” moment
Ian, I think, after the last five years, we would all welcome a leader with the ability to keep the real world well away from an imaginary one. The problem we had was a leader and acolytes who couldn’t tell the difference and so did all in their power to keep the real, real world away from their imaginary, real world.
Sara Scarlett 14th May ’15 – 7:40pm
“@R Rossim – Judging by their campaigns, I would say probably the Cons and the Greens. They campaigned on what they and their supporters wanted, not on the hypothetical result would be. Although, that may be a controversial opinion…”
Sara, no, I do not find that controversial at all. I find myself in agreement with Liberal Crusader’s “We need to become a radical progressive liberal party. The days of the Orange book are over.”
In contrast with Liberal Crusader though, I’d say most of the party never moved away from that position. We just have the misfortune to elect a leader who had his very own equidistant Centrist agenda and who made common cause with those who believed we should adopt an unfettered free market agenda and suspend common sense by promoting a belief in trickledown wealth redistribution. You will know the sort I speak of.
ChrisB writes:
This, of course, is absolute rubbish. Government surveillance can only happen if the companies that run internet infrastructure and services participate in it. Surveillance by these companies can only happen if the government where they operate allows (or mandates) it. Governments that want to snoop on people’s activities do so by giving tech companies incentives to provide the technical means allowing this to happen. And, as seen in (for instance) China, they generally are not above doing what is necessary to allow them to operate in a surveillance environment, if it makes them a profit.
“Lord Oakeshott warned the party that the ship was going down and was condemned for his foresight.”
Indeed. The man actually did some research on how the party was perceived and rather than listen the evidence he was effectively purged out of the LibDems by the likes of Paddy Ashdown. What a bizarre reaction from the party! For a party that rallies against conformity, non-conformity was punished quite brutally…
“I for one will take you up on that Sara. £100?”
Let’s raise the stakes. I don’t see how Tim Farron (or Lamb) is any different from Clegg other than slight differences in policy positions and since I won’t miss £10,000 – how about it?
I think of myself as a Christian, but am happy to see gay marriage. I don’t go to church but read the Bible every day and for me being a Christian is about my relationship with God as a trinity. If people are in trouble I pray for them because I think that prayer isn’t necessarily about a solution but about not losing your soul in the presence of affliction and it has helped me when I was down.
Some Christians are right wing red necks but many are outraged by the things that outrage us Lib Dems and are running food banks and homeless shelters.
So please don’t denigrate Christianity, there are lots of gay and lesbian men and women who also believe. Isn’t it a rather sad day when we say we’re not going to support someone because of their faith even when we are unclear about that person’s record on voting for equal rights?
Tim Farron has just had a piece published in the Independent and I believe it is inferior to what Labour candidates are coming out with.
“civil liberties, a more equal society, a green economy, an open and internationalist approach and the political reform that this country needs”
It’s targeting the membership. Mary Creagh just made a fantastic opening bat (although I would have preferred the BBC to the Mail). Labour contenders are targeting the country, why aren’t Liberal Democrat contenders doing so?
I favour Norman Lamb, but May 7th taught us we are all a bit out of touch and we need to change more than was previously thought.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/after-our-complete-pasting-in-the-election-im-ready-to-lead-the-liberal-democrats-and-fight-back-10251310.html
Sara Scarlett – yes, in terms of campaigns those two parties did have a clearer message this time. However, it was always likely that if the Lib Dems ever went into a Coalition with Labour or the Conservatives, they would lose the support of some voters, and find it hard to sustain a visible and distinct identity in the following election campaign. They put themselves in a very difficult position, and did not find an effective way out of it, I don’t think a disastrous lack of self awareness was the problem myself, but you and anyone else who does think that, have some self awareness to support in the Greens and the Conservatives, I would rather have freedom than what either of those two are offering myself, even if it means that I support a party who have no idea who they are. I am a mug for freedom.
Sara Scarlett 14th May ’15 – 8:40pm
[[I for one will take you up on that Sara. £100?]]
“Let’s raise the stakes. I don’t see how Tim Farron (or Lamb) is any different from Clegg other than slight differences in policy positions and since I won’t miss £10,000 – how about it?”
Your are now coming across as someone with more money than either sense or decency.
No, I am happy to stick at £100. But if you are so sure of your claim, you obviously won’t mind giving me some decent odds?
John McEvoy
‘… he seeks the highest office in a party which has long supported LBGT rights ‘
Indeed. he belongs to a party which puts a high store by personal conscience. There were free votes allowed. Indeed, I think all parties gave their MPs a free vote because of the issue of conscience. This free vote was affirmed by all the parliamentary party during the passage of the Bill.
https://www.libdemvoice.org/liberal-democrat-mps-to-be-given-free-vote-on-all-aspects-of-same-sex-marriage-bill-34536.html
We could ignore the concept of the free vote I suppose but that wouldn’t be democratic.
Let’s judge someone in the round across a range of issues, whether they be Christian, Zoroastrian or a person of no faith.
For decades, not just simply the last 5 years, the Lib Dems have failed to be more politically muscular. Any new leader has got to appeal beyond the core 8% vote and start making strong in-roads on even the supposed Labour and Tory core issues such as the NHS and the economy. It may be unfair but the Lib Dems need to be doing things several times better and distinctively different than our political opponents. Not easy but still possible.
The general areas that need immediate address are in terms of having passionate and strongly decisive leadership. Generating forward thinking radical policies that are bold, eye-catching and have tangible personal self-interest traction to the working and middle classes. A more aggressive and even self-confidently brazen media operation in contrast to being previously invisible, weak or plain terrible and uninspiring.
The debate on why the Lib Dems lost and the way forward seems to be framed in a left versus orange book mind set. The maxim of Asquith that we are not for going left or for going right but for going forward seems to be more appropriate. As a Liverpool fan I understand the need for a centre forward position of attack. If you like a tough, creative and mobile Luis Suarez El Pistolero style leadership that guns our opponents down at every opportunity. Adopt the post-merger special forces mentality of Paddy Ashdown. Building on the party logo, the Lib Dems truly need to do their Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood bit and be prepared to go ‘ where eagles dare’.
“Your are now coming across as someone with more money than either sense or decency.”
Do I lack decency? Absolutely. Do I lack sense? Well, my instincts were spot on last time. I even wrote an article on Cameron getting a majority at the beginning of the year.
“No, I am happy to stick at £100. But if you are so sure of your claim, you obviously won’t mind giving me some decent odds?”
Let’s make it £1000 but no odds. I say the LibDems get <5 seats. If that's true – you write the cheque. If that's not true come May 8th 2020, I write the cheque. Do we have a bet?
I agree with Sara Scarlett that everyone should read Mark Pack’s comments (link below). Especially his comment on the ludicrous use of the slogan “Decency, Unitu, Stability”. Will anyone at the top of the party own up for this ludicrous folly?
Sara Scarlett 14th May ’15 – 7:00pm
Simon Hesketh – from Mark Pack – http://www.markpack.org.uk/132151/what-happened-to-the-lib-dems-some-evidence/
BTW — I do not agree with SS on the betting . She will lose her stake.
People who hold a strong religious faith (let’s stop just calling it faith) have an agenda. That’s fine if it’s reflected in one’s personal space but if there’s a desire to push it into the space of others then we should know about it. Religious faith has a pretty poor track record over the ages and has seldom been a beacon for Liberalism. Who now would want to be a gay person in some parts of Africa after recent visits from evangelical Christian missionaries?
I think it’s perfectly reasonable to ask any leadership candidate how their personal religious agenda is going to influence the direction of our party.
Helen Tadcastle
Hang on – who’s talking about not supporting free votes on positions of conscience? I’m not.
But when someone puts themselves forward as leader of the Party, I’d like to know where that conscience lies – particularly, as Robert says, they will be influencing the direction of the Party. I know plenty of Christians who have no problem fully supporting the equal rights of Gay people, but Tim’s voting record doesn’t seem to accord with this.
And if we’re talking about ‘judging in the round’, particularly on social issues – what about abortion rights, transgender & trans sexual rights, sex education in schools, & the position of faith schools in our society? These are all issues where religious conscience can come into play & I’d just like to know before deciding who to vote for as the next leader of the party I support.
What matters is not left or right or even centre! The next leader of the party needs to bring the voice of liberalism together . the use of the terms left, right and centre are divisive and , I think, irrelevant to most voters. Most people have a mixture of views and some could be categorised as left, right or centre. What is crucial for the future of the party is to be a positive force campaigning for the people and be seen to be supporting the principles of fairness, freedom and equality. Let those in the other parties hear our message and return to us.
@JohnTilley
Mark my words, the LibDems will only have a single digit number of MPs come May 8th 2020.
I’m now convinced our best hope leading up to 2020 would be Tim as Leader and Norman as Shadow Chancellor.
Robert
Do you think there are reds under the bed aswell? 😉
@ Sara
May I ask why you think our prospects are so poor? Would a new broom and a period in opposition not make us more relevant? Genuinely interested in your thinking hear and think it’s essential that we are prepared to listen to ‘uncomfortable’ truths.
If the worst that can be thrown at Tim is that he shares the (correct) view of some big tech companies and that his religious belief’s could cause some unspecified issue at an unspecified time in the future (despite previously voting for SSM) he’s even more of a shoo-in than I first thought!
Amid all the weird & wonderful comments here allow me to add mine.
I joined a party that proudly championed the rights and opportunities denied to others. I am not voting in this election because I think it is outrageous that the choice is between two middle-aged white men. While I wish the candidates well where is the opportunity for diversity, gender and the disabled? It is not the result I have a problem with the nature in obtaining it.
The membership should instruct the President & FE to appoint an interim leader to allow sufficient time for this to be debated. If it turns out that the membership is happy with the current arrangements all well and good. But if as I suspect there’s a yearning for a wider, more representative & balanced field then I’m sure the FE will be able to accommodate that.
There is nothing in such an a move that will deflect from welcoming and engaging this happy surge in membership. Similarly, after a week into what will surely become the most hated administration in recent memory there are no shortages of national and local campaigning issues. So why not take a little time and give the membership an opportunity to select from a wider, fuller, more representative slate?
I understand Ms Scarlett’s interpretations to arise from the fact that she is a Tory (although I believe she represents herself as a nominal Lib Dem who had to vote Tory because the Lib Dems were so bad) and it is in her interest to see Liberal Democrat seats stay in Conservative hands.
Placing wagers on political outcomes is, in my opinion, a game for fools, and any such offers should be dismissed as burdening the discussion with irrelevancies.
Jonathan,
I don’t think we have the luxury of changing the constitution in order to accommodate a leader who is not an MP. I have not looked it up but I am pretty sure that would require at the very least a majority vote of the membership, probably a special conference.
Meanwhile the Tories are pushing through all the things we stopped them doing and the Greens are seizing the radical high ground. At least we will have a leader before Labour, but personally given a field of two I would like to accelerate the process, not slow it down….
You might be able to persuade one of the other middle aged white men to stand, but I really suggest you engage with the process and make the best of it. Feel free to start a campaign to change the rules in time for the next Leadership election
Andrew. Your comments underline my concerns. I don’t consider it a luxury to search for inclusivity. Indeed, I may be able to persuade more middle aged white men to stand, but we might be also able to afford the opportunity to women, BAME, disabled and other minorities to engage, too. And which of our two putative heroes is going to prevent the Tories from pushing their hateful agenda now before the summer recess?
And do try not to be so patronising.
John McEvoy
You’re right, let’s look at the candidates’ values and policy stances across a wide range of issues. We agree.
Not every issue regarding faith communities is a conscience issue by the way. Free votes are not given out every day.
For example, on the position of faith schools, it is actually a civil rights issue. These schools were incorporated into the state after the faith groups running them were granted their freedom to participate in wider society.
There was a time when Catholics and Jews for example, were openly persecuted in England and Wales for their beliefs. Freedom to educate within the ethos of their faith and serve the wider community is a right sustained for over one hundred years.
So if these rights are being agitated against now it is a matter of whose rights are being defended and whose rights are being undermined? So yes, I too will be interested to know what the candidates have to say about the rights of schools with a faith ethos.
Lots of sense here. I can’t see this contest being bloody.
One point only. I’m worried that Eddie wants us to respond to the concerns of the electorate on immigration. If enough people are worried about something, do we have to offer them something that calms them? So in Germany around 1931, say, if enough voters are worried about Jews… Or say global warming really was a myth (it isn’t) but many people were worried about it.
I’ve met many, many people over the years who were worried about immigration. Most actually were also worried about Black Britons. But I’ve hardly ever met someone who had any claim, however weak, that they or someone they were close to had suffered from immigration or diversity. It’s a vague fear which stands in for a wide range of frustrations and doubts. There are a few places in the UK where immigration is a serious problem because of the numbers – Peterborough and Wisbech, for example. These tend not to be the places that record the highest UKIP votes; those are places like Clacton and Canvey Island, whose immigrants are overwhelmingly white Londoners.
So I dispute that concern that immigration is too high IS a practical concern except in a few places. Overpopulation is a wider issue. Do we have policies to encourage smaller families? If we did, unfortunately, we’d have an even more ageing population and would have more need of temporary economic migrants to work here.
Robert,
” Religious faith has a pretty poor track record over the ages and has seldom been a beacon for Liberalism.”
You might find this short article from Liberal History on ‘Non-conformists’ in the Liberal Party of interest http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/history/nonconformists/. They formed the bulk of elected MP’s the last time the Liberal party formed a majority government in 1906.
Hi Simon. I only believe in responding to fair concerns. I think the overpopulation concern is a fair one, especially with net migration at 200,000 last year. I also believe people who can’t speak English shouldn’t be allowed to move here unless they have a good reason. These are mild reforms. I am not interested in aping the electorate’s position exactly.
I think the stability concern is a fair one too. We don’t want to create a bottleneck where services can’t react to population numbers quick enough.
I know people won’t agree with me, but even a change in rhetoric would do so that liberals aren’t just dismissing concerns about immigration before they have even considered them.
Best regards
I welcome Tim’s commitment to a more equal society and to political reform
Thre is an opportunity for us to lead campaigns on devolution and PR.First however we need to sort out devolution policy.I believe we should go for home rule and domestic parliaments for Scotalnd ,N Irealnd Wales and England.Incidentally elections to these parliaments should be on the current Scottish system ie part PR.
For England there would alslo be consideration of the further devolution of powers to Metroplitan and other Unitary authorities.
Since devolution is a very current issue the Federal policy committee should start work on this ASAP with a view to presenting our policy at the Autumn conference.
We are ALL “Immigrants” ?!
Move On …………………………..
Helen Tedcastle 15th May ’15 – 1:40pm
Robert
Do you think there are reds under the bed aswell? 😉
Well we’ve had Eric Pickles under the bed haven’t we. There goes a religious politician with an agenda who actually got the law changed to accomodate his view that religious prayers have a place on council meeting agendas. When the issue of religious faith schools is raised nobody mentions the rights of the kids to be free of religion until they have enough information on which to make a decision about any personal religious faith they might want to adopt. It’s no surprise that religions are often compared to tobacco companies when it comes to siging up new consumers. ‘If you don’t get ’em young you will probably never get them at all!’
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/tim-farron-how-liberal-is-the-man-tipped-to-succeed-nick-clegg-as-leader-of-the-lib-dems-10254494.html
It would be lovely if MPs when they write an article join in the discussion. Lord Greaves does, Lord Paddick has promised to do it, Lady Hussein-Ece is likely to do it, and recently ex-MP David Howarth has posted here to respond to comments made about an article he wrote for the Social Liberal Forum.
I think we should expect all candidates for leader to post in the comments section of the articles they write here. However I would like them to commit that if elected and they have an article posted here they will also engage with the comments and post in the comments section under their article.
I expect I will end up voting for Tim, but he made some huge mistakes as President and he didn’t publish minutes of Federal Committee Meeting (like Councils do of their meetings) and he didn’t ensure that the Federal Executive always had the time and information to make informed decisions. I don’t know if it was while Tim was President that the Campaigns and Communications Committee lost responsibility for running our national election campaigns. It would be interesting to know. And has either candidate for leader said they wish to return the control of our campaigns to those elected by the party to run to party?
I will be voting for Tim
Regarding Same Sex Marriage I have seen Tim Farron say he supports it. I am happy with that. I give the same benefit to Tories, even, if they have changed their mind, developed their position, realised that their prior position was wrong etc then I am happy to accept that. People move on, grow their ideas, realise their mistakes, admit them.