Yesterday on the Sunday Politics, Tim Farron and Iain Duncan Smith went head to head. The former Tory leader is no longer the quiet man. He spent much of the interview muttering over Tim, telling him he was talking “utter rubbish.” It was the sort of aggressive sneering that would be more at home at a Trump rally.
Despite all that, Tim did really well. He made his point that it would be a massive mistake to leave the single market. He said that it was vital that the eventual deal was put to the British people and cited Lord Kerr’s backing of that position. You can’t, he said, start off a process with democracy and end it with a stitch up. We didn’t vote to leave the single market.
He added that the Government had chosen to listen to the “siren voices of English nationalism” in the Tory Party and not the pragmatic wishes of business, accusing them of “theft of the result” to impose a hard brexit that nobody voted for.
Andrew Neil confronted him with the news that former Liberal Democrat peer Zahida Manzoor had joined the Conservatives. Tim said that he found her decision peculiar but pointed to our 18 council gains and 20,000 members since June as evidence that the party was recovering.
He could have gone to town on that decision a bit more. It actually goes to show the need to be a great deal more careful about who gets peerages and whether they actually share our values. It is incredible that someone who sat on our benches can feel comfortable joining the party that came out with that nasty display of xenophobic nationalism at their conference last week. I doubt we’ll get much chance in the foreseeable future to put anyone else in the Lords but we do need to learn lessons from this. There has to be some level of party approval and accountability.
You can watch the whole 11 minute exchange here on the Sunday Politics website.
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings. You can find her on Bluesky at caronmlindsay.bsky.social
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
In which my great great grandmother's brother stuffs a ptarmigan
Replacement?
Reform inadvertently lose their majority
Reform own goals
Peter Martin
Roland
Tristan Ward
Nonconformistradical
22 Comments
There was a time when conference voted for their choice of peers. You would think that members of the party who make themselves well known to the party would be more committed to it.
Instead Nick Clegg gave preference to party donors and people who are relatively unknown.
Although we do undoubtedly have some outstanding peers, I think we ought to return to electing them once again. The Nick Clegg experiment does not seem to have worked very well.
Never heard of her: never expect to hear of her again.
Sorry Caron, but I think Tim did a lot more heckling of IDS than IDS did of Tim and I’m not sure whether that was a good thing or not. However, what came across was IDS’s sneering attitude towards Tim. I think Tim should make much more of his working class attributes and use them to attack the Tories in particular. He has much more in common with many of those who voted Leave than most Tories, as well as Jeremy Corbyn, of course, because he personally knows what it’s like to struggle to make ends meet. He should be pointing that out at every opportunity. If he believes people were conned over the referendum he must say it loud and clear. We know that the Tory elite persuaded many ordinary people that they would have more control over their lives if we left the EU when, in actual fact, it was that very elite who resented their loss of power and want to lord it once again over the people of this country. Tim is the only one who can get this message across and he’s obviously a fighter too.
PS. I noticed that Tim didn’t answer some questions directly, so if he isn’t confident on economics please can he be given a crash course so he’s got the background to all of the arguments about Brexit. If he is confident then please show that directly Tim and put the arguments in common language. Keep up the fight!
Caron
If the UK stays as a member in the Single Market then it will have to accept free movement of people, continuing law- making from Brussels,the supremacy of the European Court of Justice, and we will be paying Brussels big time. Can you imagine trying to explain that to the British people? On 23 June, we voted for a specific transaction, to leave the EU, not to stay in via the back-door. What ” Leave” meant is very simple.
I saw the interview and Tim was just as objectionable as Iain.
You lost the referendum and its time to accept the result.
I do think there’s a problem about Tim doing these interviews from Kendal. On this occasion he didn’t seem to hear the questions immediately, which meant that he lost time and then IDS started muttering each time. He also needs to answer questions briefly.
I honestly don’t know what the Lib Dems’ position is on soft brexit, can anyone tell me? I know the party wants to stay in the EU, but failing that what is its negotiating stance? Does the party just want Single Market and Customs Union membership with no more controls on immigration?
This is why Vince Cable’s position is so important, at least he is trying to do something about mass immigration too.
It’s got to be worrying that Lib Dem train spotters like me don’t even know the party’s position on soft brexit.
Eddie – the Lib Dem website (giving the policy on Europe agreed at conference) states:
“Any deal negotiated for the United Kingdom outside the European Union must include membership of the Single Market and protect freedom of movement.”
I take that to mean, ‘if you must Brexit, for heaven’s sake make it a soft one’.
I can understand people thinking we don’t have a policy, but it’s just not the case – it’s just we consider hard brexit so repugnant we almost feel we don’t need to spell it out. And remember that a lot of this was drafted before the debate moved on, as it is doing so daily. This is the problem of our conference coming before the Tories.
The vote of the people in the referendum was direct democracy in action, and to my mind trumps whatever the House of Commons might like or not like.
David – simple question. Why?
David- rule by plebiscite has an unfortunate history.
We remain a parliamentary democracy. The referendum did not give the PM the right to rule by decree. It did not give her a mandate to invoke Royal Prerogative to sanction a hard Brexit policy that featured on no ballot paper.
Fortunately, over the last few days it seems that at least some MPs are waking up to their responsibility to defend the nation’s constitution from this attempted coup.
William “You lost the referendum and its time to accept the result.” There is nothing that says I have to accept a result brought about by a campaign based entirely on lies. I will continue to fight for what is best for Britain, which is to stay in the European Union. A lot about Britain needs to change but hardly any of it can be laid at the door of the EU.
ICM’s latest poll from the Guardian is out, with topline figures of CON 43%(+2), LAB 26%(nc), LDEM 8%(nc), UKIP 11%(-3), GRN 6%(+2) – changes are from ICM’s last poll, conducted for the Sun on Sunday in mid-September.
It would appear the people are saying they trust Mrs May with Brexit and have little faith in the rest.
Alan – Parliament passed an act authorising a referendum which would ask the public if they want to remain in or leave the European Union. The people voted to leave, on the clear understanding that the UK government would act on their wishes and would be responsible for negotiating the best possible exit deal they could in the circumstances as they found them. That is now the position. In any case it would make no sense for the government to declare its negotiating position in advance.
We gave the instruction to leave the EU.
We left the details to the Government.
John Peters: Ordinary voters did not approve or reject the decision to call a referendum. We thought it was David Cameron’s fault, but Michael Heseltine confessed in a lecture about Ted Heath that, in a meeting with John Major and Ken Clarke, he proposed a line in a Tory manifesto.
This was broadcast on the Parliament Channel. I have not (yet) read Ken Clarke’s memoirs.
As so often with referendums the question on the ballot paper is affected by the popularity of the government which proposed it.
As Tim Farron said recently “You started it!”.
@Richard Underhill
That would be sweet irony, if Heseltine, Clarke, Major, and Heath’s names were entwined with Brexit.
Caron
I do not agree with the styling of Duncan Smith as the new Trump, he is not nearly as terrible but is just as smug !
Actually for all his faults , he had a good natured banter with our Tim, one can expect the mutterings from the Tory Brexiteer, its the way he is.
I do not agree Tim was weak on the economics of this , he was very with it.
As far as the peers or losses of people , we should appoint those who we know are involved or committed or real spokespeople who add to our cause .
I would like to see Anna Soubry join us in the Commons !
Having just watched the interview, both Tim and IDS were equally guilty of talking over each other with probably Tim doing slightly more of it. It generated much more heat than light and was not a great contribution from either interviewee.
The defection of one of Nick Clegg’s pals from the Lords was as much of a surprise as her appointment by him in the first place.
Rob Parsons says that Leave won through a campaign ” based entirely on lies”. I agree that both Leave and Remain told lies but Remain did have all the power of the established government, the World`s most powerful broadcaster, the leaders of all of our political parties ( except UKIP and DUP) and worldwide elites. For my money Remain told much worse lies and relied on wholly unjustifiable fears. The 48%, I would argue, was obtained dishonestly.
Lord Ashcroft`s polls show that Leave supporters voted ” out” overwhelmingly because of a belief in sovereignty, and immigration was of course one part of this. At last our key constitutional issue was put in the hands of the people and despite Project Fear they gave a clear answer. That verdict will now be implemented and it means we are out of the Single Market.
Even Rachel Reeves now realises that we must “take back control” How long for the LibDems?
PS. Let me say one thing positive about the LibDems. LibDemVoice is a cracking good website.
William Ross
There are differences between a Soft Brexit and EU membership (though not in terms of Single Market/Immigration) https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QgTb5KX-K8U/V1gZSyt8lmI/AAAAAAAAB90/QWfTSG10OtE_jl6FzCov50VTP1Z1D_gFQCLcB/s1600/EFTA%2BEEA%2BScorecard.jpg
Matt (Bristol)
I can understand campaigning for a Soft Brexit/Single Market option….However, Tim Farron seems to say we should re-join the EU. I say “No” to that for two reasons
a) disrespectful to the electorate
b) it would have to be a “Hard Remain” – a return would mean accepting euro and no automatic opt out of Schengen
John B — I understand your opinion, but I was answering the question ‘what is the party’s position’. The party’s position is, despite much quibbling, although nuanced and threefold, relatively clear:
1) Campaign for a referendum on any negotiated Brexit settlement before the final act of leaving (in which we would prefer remaining in the EU to be an option if possible, but as I understand it our priority is to have the deal put to the people)
2) Campaign for any deal that is done for us to leave, to include remaining in the single market. (ie seek a soft Brexit).
3) In the longer term seek a mandate (either by referendum or by General election) for a LibDem government to either halt the Brexit process or rejoin the EU if we have left.
I think it is clear to all that with 8 MPs, the most realistic outcome is option 2, although option 1 is theoretically possible if other parties listen to us and the Tory coalition crumbles.
John B
I am fully aware that there is a significant difference between what you call ” Soft Brexit” and full EU membership. Norway for instance, as a member of the Single Market, has to accept much ( though far from all) EU Law, the free movement of people and also pays to Brussels. It is not a member of the EU itself. The problem for you is that Leave was all about restoring our Sovereignty, the supremacy of UK law, an end to free movement of people etc.
We cannot remain in the Single Market and honour the Leave vote. Any attempt to water down Brexit will be seen as further elitist frustration of the will of the people.
By all means seek to persuade the British people to rejoin the EU in later years, but Leave must now mean Leave.