So, what did you think?
I thought it was Tim’s best performance by far of the election campaign. That was all the more remarkable given he was up at 6 am cooking breakfast for a whole stack of Edinburgh West folk.
The only thing I could pick fault with was that he could have pointed out that the SNP are using the Brexit vote to try and get another referendum on independence while at the same time going further and further away from offering EU membership.
Tim was clear, passionate, at times funny and the audience really seemed to like him.
He was definitely better than either May or Corbyn on Friday.
Over to you for your views…
* 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
The shame of Liverpool Labour councillors taking their allowances but not turning up to do the work
Should Labour reconsider the Brexit red lines?
Raising a flap about letterboxes
Arriving at one of East Finchley's ghost platforms
Restrained
Chase Park fair photos
paul barker
Peter Hirst
David Evans
44 Comments
Absolutely agreed.
He does need to learn to make his points more quickly but this was a far, far more competent QT special.
There did seem to be a slight weekends in his tone of voice and posture but if he got up for 6am I can hardly blame him, I’d have been a complete wreck!
I mean weakness. Damn autocorrect
I thought it wasn’t a bad performance, especially since the moderator chap seemed oddly angry with him. I agree being up at 6am and then on telly 16 hours later is impressive – I trust there’s a bed on the Battle Bus?
I agree this is correct, Caron, is saying just what many should see, Tim was exactly as we know him, very fine ,the best so far from him.
Tim, here revealed ,that in his one aberration , earlier on , he suffers from an allergy ……to Andrew Neil !!!
He seems to have done fine for me but during the coverage the BBC ran a bulletin saying “Lib Dem leader against new surveillance powers” or something like that. I can’t find it now, but I see there was a question about “more resources or more powers” and he seems to have said resources. I would have said we’ll have to speak to the security experts and consider all options, rather than giving a yes or no answer to this.
Eddie
As usual you give us such a sensible contribution, but alas those who provided the wording of the Manifesto, rather than the policy, did not , preferring instead of your subtlety , hamfistedness !
The policy quote was ” in favour of rolling back the surveillance state “, or the like, it refers to the “snoopers charter “, it , as wording is crass nonsense!
This is the sort of thing, vital, not talk of replacing Tim, the party needs to do a good bit of next week, and I aim to play my part as someone who has been saying for years we , or those responsible , need to get real and with the project !
A measured but strong approach to most things is better revealed in language and temperament that goes with it too !
Eddie, Lorenzo, what Tim said was absolutely correct and the right thing to say. There are already far too many surveillance powers. The reason terrorists are not being caught is not for lack of powers, but because of lack of resources to use the powers the security forces already have.
Tory (and Labour) politicians are all too ready to pass laws when the cry goes up that ‘Something must be done’ so that they can be seen to be doing something – but at the same time they cut back on funding the police and other security services. The result is a society that is simultaneously less safe and less free. We are Liberals and we are against that sort of thing.
The most important thing about these election specials is to get out a positive and inspiring Liberal message, championing freedom and civil liberties where we can. At some points tonight, Tim did this better than even I expected.
Thought Tim was good (his staccato style bugs me a bit). What he said really espoused our ideals. Wish he had been as clear on LGBT right at the start. Should help in Scotland, but doubt it was widely watched elsewhere.
Because of work obligations (D66 being involved in government coalition building talks) I missed the first about 14 minutes of Tim’s appearance; but the BBC election liveblog gave summaries of what was asked and what he said.
And his Guardian opinion piece filled in some gaps.
I think Tim did a glorious job of defending Civil Liberties; a broader view of getting information (both by police and other institutions like schools or Social Services) is needed, instead of obsessing about police funds & numbers.
I say that because other ways of organizing the contacts between Police, Schools, Youth & Social Services and such intstitutions with useful information about people falling through safety nets and potentially radicalizing
offer just the numbers of “eyes and ears” the Police and intelligence people will always lack, no matter how much staff we add to those two. I’m speaking about the Dutch way of having “Safety houses” in central cities in “safety regions” where police and institutions meet regularly in platforms aimed at exchanging information to help each do its job better at prevention of both radicalization, youth crime and other derailments.
Watched Newsnight tonight repeating May’s “Crying wolf”-comment at Police Federation Conference, 2015…
A much more assured and appealing performance from Tim, a pity that Nick Robinson chose to ram home additional point scoring at the end of each question. I think the only regular question not thrown at Tim was one on Cannabis policy, he dealt with the unnecessary question on homosexuality far better. I personally feel that the Brexit question, which Tim answered well tonight is a vote winner eventually, if not on Thursday. Note that even the latest YouGov poll at the weekend started showing a few more remain voters going LibDem rather than Labour. However, I might have been included myself as I did a YouGov poll last week and it also shows an incredibly strong performance in the 50-64 age group which is my age group, more support in that age group than all the other age groups put together??
Tim did OK. I don’t think if I was a floating voter it would inspire me to vote for us, but if I was thinking of voting for us it wouldn’t make me decide not to vote for us. I was annoyed about some of his performance and I thought he was weak on why a second referendum is OK on the EU but not Scottish independence. (Maybe something like the EU one is on the deal, but it is not clear that an independent Scotland would be able to get the same deal as the UK for EU membership.)
I am glad he gave a straight answer to the “is homosexuality a sin” question. He should have been doing so every time he was asked it. His “not standing to be Pope” seemed to go down well even if his “do not judge others” didn’t go down so well.
I hadn’t noticed his odd head position (with his chin sort of tucked in) until very recently.
I am not sure about this cup of coffee costing £2.50. I was waiting for the punch line – I am sure everyone wouldn’t mind paying £2.50 a week for … the NHS and Social Care.
It was a shame he didn’t get the opportunity to talk more about our policies (i.e. best economic policy, ending the freeze on welfare benefits).
I thought Nicola Sturgeon was not as good as she can be.
The problem with any talk of security is that if any politician suggests an ineffective, and frankly ridiculous policy that they claim is to improve security, then reasonable opposition can be twisted to being ‘against security measures’. There’s no differentiation between opposing sensible and workable policies, and those whose only purpose is to pander to the readers of the Mail/Express.
I too missed this debate, but could see the reaction was pretty positive amongst those that did watch. I suspect this might be a bit too late in the campaign to make a big difference, and doubt ratings will be substantial, but it does provide clips for the main news and generates some discussion. I think probable LibDem voters will have been reassured.
Yes, he did well – most of his answers were well received, though surprisingly the penny on Income Tax did not get much support from the audience.
However, Nicola Sturgeon had a much less friendly reception.
The boy done good.
This was unquestionably Tim’s best performance – we can only hope the rescheduled programme had a reasonably sizeable audience.
I have to say also that I think Tim performed very well on Radio 4 Today this morning, especially as he was facing questions on one of the toughest issues – why we must defend our freedoms and not introduce measures which would be counterproductive while doing all we can to protect the population.
I don’t get his criticism of Cameron/Osbourne saying they gambled with the country’s future over having the EU referendum. If that were the case then he should have opposed the referendum bill rather than supporting it as he did.
Theresa May is getting away with half truths by not referring to the timing of spending cuts and increases, achieving brevity, but misleading and thereby damaging the credibility of the political class in general.
I thought Nicola Sturgeon was about to agree with something Tim Farron had said but the BBC presenter stopped her. The Lib Dem ambition for the electorate to have the final say on the outcome of the Brexit negotiations and the SNP ambition for a referendum on the outcome of Brexit and independence have parallels. The 2014 referendum could have had three options on the ballot paper, but reportedly David Cameron wanted only two. There was lots of information available from the Secretary of State and the First Minister. Three options would have enabled voters to express their preferences. As John Cleese said “It is as simple as 1, 2, 3”.
Tim’s answers on tuition fees were excellent. It was only the MPs who were ministers who were caught by a Cabinet Office desire for overwhelming unity. Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) also voted as he had promised his constituency. Journalists will probably ask Nick Clegg whether he considered Tim Farron for a ministerial post. I recall that he worked his socks off at Eastleigh, quietly effective, focussed on the task. None of the audience asked whether HS2 should be extended to Aberdeen. Pity.
Hywel is correct – right comment, vulnerable commentator. But for the most part Tim seems to be pitching it right. Whatever the General Election result and whenever the next Leadership election, marking out the Liberal ground and standing on it must be our future.
“May or Corbyn on Friday”:
Jeremy Corbyn is used to receiving difficult questions but tends to give long answers. Unlike John Hume (SDLP) he has not been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. In view of their length it was heroic of someone to go through the diaries of the late Tony Benn looking for references to Jeremy Corbyn (not prominent). “The many not the few” was a Blairite slogan, but comparisons with Tony Blair in the Northern Ireland peace process could stop there, although Blair’s first job in government was Prime Minister.
Theresa May seemed shocked by the hostility of some of the questions and should perhaps get out more and meet people who are not members of the party she now owns.
Its old gloomy, pessimistic me. In my view it will not make one iota of difference to our prospects. The Labour surge could well sweep Clegg away as well as Leeds North West.
It might give us a gain or two if,and it is a big if, the Labour vote in those places votes tactically. In my local experience the Labour surge is very real . Just praying daily for survival on Friday morning. All that money rolling in, all those members and it appears so few votes? I would judge success as 5 MPS and no involvement in minority or coalition government.
Theakes,
The red lights are flashing through out the world. The party that wins this election truly has a poisoned chalice. It will not end well for the UK but at least you can console yourself with the thought you warned and you knew. It’s cold comfort going forward to be able to say that but say it you can and I suspect the people saying nay you are wrong will reduce like snow off a dyke. Welcome to the school of experience where we find we are not special and everything costs; and that will be a shock to O so many.
theakes
At the last general election you were the only one I can remember agreeing with me when I couldn’t see the Lib Dems getting more than 15 seats – and I was being generous. However, this time we disagree. I can see the Lib Dems winning a few seats and perhaps ending up with around 12. I think the Tories have fought a poor campaign, but I think brexit and the Corbyn factor will keep their supporters on side. I think many “moderate” Labour supporters will stay at home rather than support Corbyn. For me it’s the Tories to win a big victory – perhaps around 100 seats.
Tim’s leadership is a work in progress, it is already good and it can only improve. It has to be seen within the context of the almost impossible task he took on less than two years ago. His commitment and energy to this unexpected election campaign has been simply dazzling. I’m not someone who treats leaders and ‘celebrities’ as cult figures or messiahs who will deliver a better world if only we would worship them uncritically – but I am happy to pledge my support to Tim to take us forward after 8th June, regardless of the result.
Now, off to deliver the last set of leaflets…..
……I should add: “……regardless of the result (which will be a minimum of 5 seats).”
Richard Underhill – In view of their length it was heroic of someone to go through the diaries of the late Tony Benn looking for references to Jeremy Corbyn (not prominent).
I am not sure what the point of the comment is other than to suggest Benn and Corbyn were not close. If that is what you meant than the heroic efforts you refer to were wasted. See below from The Guardian 15/08/15 on background information to Corbyn –
“Every Sunday for many years, Corbyn would make a pilgrimage to the Holland Park home of Tony Benn. In cahoots with Ed Miliband’s father, the Marxist author Ralph Miliband, Benn would assemble interesting and sympathetic thinkers on the left to join what they called the Independent Left Corresponding Society to talk about matters of the day. John McDonnell MP said: “They would discuss everything under the sun. Jeremy was very close to Tony right up until the end.”
Membership of the society would fluctuate, but regulars included Jim Mortimer, the Labour party general secretary between 1982 and 1985, historian Robin Blackburn, Denise Searle, founding editor of Red Pepper, and the writer and journalist Tariq Ali. Corbyn, who briefly attended North London Polytechnic but left before completing his course, is said to have been one of the quieter members of the group, but he has referred to his time with these thinkers in Holland Park as his “university education”.”
In the interests of accuracy.
I thought Tim did well and lots of people in the audience were smiling at the end and the applause went on until Nick Robinson interrupted so I think they responded to him. It may make some difference in our Scottish target seats. Historically we have always done better when Labour is more popular than the Tories but I’m not sure that is actually the case at the moment and being in Coalition with the Tories may have damaged this response. In these last few days we just have to throw everything we’ve got at the target seats that look most promising and abandon those where we’re building up for the future. If we can get into double figures that will be amazing and give us a platform for future growth, particularly if there is a hung parliament.
Phil
It is about the specific details of areas that are controversial. It means phraseology is essential.
The wording poltically needs to be far more sensible to convey the accurate policy.
@malc “I can see the Lib Dems winning a few seats and perhaps ending up with around 12.”
There does seem to be some sort of consensus around this figure based upon polls, and it might include a couple of losses and a few gains.
I can imagine how a result like that would be presented positively by the party on June 9th, even if Nick Clegg is a high-profile loss. But honestly, would that sort of result be evidence that #libdemfightback is on track and that the party should “Keep calm and carry on as before”, or would it be a sign that something should change in the party’s approach?
I am expecting us to get around 5 MPs but any figure from 0 to 12 wouldnt surprise me. The result will tell us precisely nothing about the correctness of our Strategy or the qualities of our Leader. We are fighting this Election under the worst possible conditions.
I also expect us to make big gains next May, that will be when our Strategy starts to bear obvious fruit.
@ Peter Watson,
I doubt that Nick Clegg will lose his Hallam seat.. He may well get Tory support to keep Labour out.
According to the Sheffield Star, 14.4. 2015. Former Tory candidate backs NIck Clegg – but current candidate says there is no pact in Sheffield Hallam”, Liberal Democrats sent out leaflets featuring John Hartman who was the tory candidate who came second in the 2001 election.
‘Nationally commentators noted that the Conservative campaign in Hallam seems
low -key compared to those of Mr Clegg and Labour’s Oliver Coppard’.
The Conservative candidate said that there was no pact ‘ that he was aware of’.
Sheffield Hallam is a very leafy, prosperous part of Sheffield.
Paul Barker: what I am very unsure about is just how far the Labour surge will go. If the Conservatives require to be 4-5% in front of Labour to secure a majority we could well be in the minority government situation or the possible coalition between Cons and some Irish or Labour and the Nationalists, even a grand coalition of Cons and Labour. Whatever happens it is most important that we are not involved, stay out, keep clear etc etc. Within that sort of situation Brexit will probably take many steps back. I do not think many people understand just how the resources supplied to that project are stalling or delaying other government activity.
Having said all that we then get a Tory majority of 50 plus and for us the game will have to change. In that scenario will the heirachy of the party accept they have done the rest of us no favours and step aside. If we lose more seats will they concede that we were right, they were wrong, depart the stage and let us take over!!!! Now there is a thought.
The important thing is to maintain a parliamentary presence so I will be happy if we can at least hold around what we’ve got. As others have said our time will come at next year’s locals and as reality kicks in on Brexit negotiations.
@ Peter Watson
“the party should “Keep calm and carry on as before”, or would it be a sign that something should change in the party’s approach”.
I admit that if Nick Clegg is not re-elected I won’t shed any tears. The second referendum policy can’t carry on after 2019 so there will be some change. I would like a more social liberal attitude to economics and policies to reduce economic inequalities. There needs to be a two pronged approach. One that builds up a core vote based on liberal values across the UK and another that puts resources into building up local parties in the constituencies we want to target in 2022.
Agreed Robert. I’d be devastated if we lost seats, but given how we’ve been pulled in all directions, and the last two years simply haven’t been long enough to be “forgiven” for the coalition, there was always going to be a limit to how well we could do, regardless of the approach to campaigning.
Unless something remarkable happens, we’ll have a larger vote share than UKIP, putting us back into third place. Granted, we’ll likely be fourth in the number of seats, but we back PR, so we can complain about it without being hypocrites. That should hopefully help us when it comes to getting air-time instead of UKIP. I’d say that lack of visible presence has been a key problem in getting our message out to those who might have forgiven us for the coalition given the chance.
Whatever happens with this election, we need to start pushing for more representation on Question Time etc. from the off. Who knows when the next election will be?
There are several problems for the party. Tim Farron is not at all popular with the voters according to opinion polls. In 2022, unless things are looking up economically, there will be a surge in support for the Labour Party and Mrs May has enabled their leader to appear honest and reasonable, the opposite of the way she tried to present him. She has been shown to be the opposite of what she has been presented to be by the press and her supporters.
Jenni Russell in the Times has portrayed today’s election as one of the most fraudulent ever. Whatever the outcome of the negotiations for leaving the EU this and the election campaign have been the most colossal waste of resources which should have been used to govern the country more efficiently unless we assume that all those civil servants spend their time playing with their iphones and drinking tea, which they do not.
I cannot see the party benefitting from any of this, least of all leaving the EU, because people hate those who have shown them to be misguided or wrong.
Michael BG : No wonder the party is in such a poor state if you are happy to see one of its few MPs lose their seat. It is time to split the party between the Liberals and the Social Democrats as things are clearly not working.
paul barker 6th Jun ’17 – 4:17pm…I also expect us to make big gains next May, that will be when our Strategy starts to bear obvious fruit…..
Wasn’t THIS the election when we would replace Labour as the party of opposition? As far as I can see our forecast is still “Jam Tomorrow”…and, if I remember the old school joke correctly, “‘Tomorrow never comes”….
@nvelope2003
“No wonder the party is in such a poor state if you are happy to see one of its few MPs lose their seat.”
If that MP is largely responsible for a reduction in the number of MPs from 62 before the 2010 election to 8 after the 2015 election, and if the baggage attached to that MP might be preventing that number from rising as quickly as it should now, then perhaps the loss would be worthwhile, no matter how unfortunate.
“It is time to split the party between the Liberals and the Social Democrats as things are clearly not working.”
I may not have chosen the best terminology here, but since i started visiting this site it is apparent that there is a divide in the party between “economic liberals” and “social liberals”, “bookers” and “lefties”, or whatever, that I had not realised before, but which being in Government made impossible to hide. However, I am not convinced that it reflects a divide between “Liberal” and “SDP”.
However, I don’t think a split is a good idea or that there is room in our political system for two centrist parties (particularly given that despite all the bluster of the two main parties, the space between Labour and the Conservatives is quite squeezed). To steal the party’s Brexit analogy, I get the impression that the left and the right of the Lib Dems want the same destination (as described in the Preamble) but have a different idea about how best to get there. Perhaps the party needs to acknowledge openly that it has two wings rather than a single centrist position and find a way to achieve consensus on a policy-by-policy basis. Demonstrating how each policy contributes to realising the vision outlined in the Preamble might help this process to form a more consistent identity for the party.
@Expats
No this is not the Election where I predicted we would replace Labour, that would have been The Election in May 2020. I still think that sort of timetable is about right, in fact I would give it about 18 Months so you dont have to wait long to jeer, if thats your thing.
Dave Orbison 6th Jun ’17 – 12:27pm: The source is BBC Radio 4 World at One. Someone went through the indexes to the Benn diaries and came to the conclusion that Corbyn was present but not important (at the time).
@ nvelope2003
“Michael BG : No wonder the party is in such a poor state if you are happy to see one of its few MPs lose their seat. It is time to split the party between the Liberals and the Social Democrats as things are clearly not working.”
I didn’t say I would be happy if Nick Clegg lost his seat, just that I wouldn’t shed any tears if he did.
We cannot split the party between Liberals and Social Democrats as I expect most members were not members of either predecessor party. Also as Peter Watson has stated we are not divided along those lines. The divide is mainly between those called “Economic Liberals” and “Social Liberals”. Also as Peter Watson stated there is no way there can be two liberal parties in the UK. A split would mean there would be no electable liberal party in the UK.
Peter Watson
since i started visiting this site it is apparent that there is a divide in the party between “economic liberals” and “social liberals”, “bookers” and “lefties”, or whatever, that I had not realised before, but which being in Government made impossible to hide. However, I am not convinced that it reflects a divide between “Liberal” and “SDP”.
Absolutely NO WAY does it reflect the divide between Liberal and the SDP. As someone who was a member of the Liberal Party before the merger, and who voted against the merger, it was most definitely NOT the case that the main difference between the parties was that the Liberal Party was in favour of right-wing economics and the SDP was in favour of left-wing economics. No, no, no, no, no, no – It is a LIE put forward by the right-wing infiltrators who have wrecked our party that this was the case.
In reality it was the other way round. The SDP was more right-wing than the Liberal Party, and one of the reasons people in the Liberal Party like me opposed merger was because we didn’t like the way the SDP was becoming too supportive of Thatcherite economics.