14 Comments

• Eddie Sammon 27th Jun '15 - 4:03pm

  So far Labour and the SNP (or their leaders) have tweeted about Tunisia, Pride, SCOTUS decision and Armed Forces Day. I can only see Pride and SCOTUS from Farron and Lamb. Farron came closest to looking like a leader by offering support to France.

  If you are slightly progressive learning then which party looks more attractive? Lib Dems have still got big positives going for them, but they need to become more professional and it doesn’t necessarily take money to do this.

• Paul Mrazek 27th Jun '15 - 7:21pm

  I have just read today’s Guardian, the letter from ex-Lib Dem MPs in support Norman Lamb.

  I like Norman Lamb and know from others that he is a first rate MP but the content of this letter is completely hollow.
  It is drafted by those still in denial about the reason for the electoral defeat and informed by a misguided belief that simply “being in Government” was more important than putting a Liberal democrat stamp on the Coalition.

  “We have to accept the responsibilities of Government” I hear this group argue. Yes but people who vote Liberal Democrat need to know – in advance of a general election – what they are getting otherwise they have the right to vote for somebody else.

  I am also confused by the Guardian’s description of Shirley Williams and Lynne Featherstone as being on the left of the party (tell that to the people who campaigned against the reforms to the Education Bill and the Equality Act)

  These signatories- and by implication Norman Lamb as well – are in denial. My advice to them is throw the orange book into the recycling bin.

  Since the democratisation of UK political structures, party activists have not been especially good at picking winners: Michael Foot, Neil Kinnock, Ed Milliband, William Hague, Ian Duncan Smith, Michael Howard, and Yes Menzies Campbell.

  Don’t repeat their mistakes, there is too much at risk.

  .

• Tim13 27th Jun '15 - 9:06pm

  I shall probably vote this time (I didn’t last time), but again with not as much enthusiasm as I would like. I think both candidates have their strengths, but again, as last time we do not have any authentic radicals putting their names forward. I think Paul Mrazek’s comments apply to both current candidates. I would have liked, of the 8 “survivors” that John Pugh had put his name forward. I fear the Orange Book will continue to play its part. At a local hustings addressed by two supporters of the candidates, I had the temerity to suggest there was a trust deficit with the electorate, at which brows were furrowed! It also struck me the similarity in cases being advanced.

• Ewen Simpson 28th Jun '15 - 11:25am

  We need someone in the Ashdown or Kennedy mould. Someone assertive who can pull the party together. Sadly neither Lamb or Farron strike me as assertive. What we must all remember, to regain a powerbase, we must appeal to those who occupy the middle ground. As with a rival party, we must not let the romantic idealists take control, if we do, then the wilderness years will stretch far ahead.

• Mike S 28th Jun '15 - 12:17pm

  I have said something similar on another post yesterday – ‘we have what we have, we are where we are’ – having a ‘bit of a moan’ about what we would ideally like, is not really helpful at this stage.
  We have many new members with bags of positive energy and enthusiasm yearning to get stuck in.
  They will be looking to the more experienced for guidance, positive energy and a clear sense of direction.
  If the aim is to rediscover ‘the politics of hope’, then it starts with everyone taking full responsibility for what theyportray to each other, the wider party and ultimately the electorate.
  We need to get behind BOTH of these candidates, one of them is going to be our leader, the other an integral and extremely important source of inspiration and experience for new and older members alike.
  If we really believe in liberal values, lets show some unity, positive energy and above all support.
  Both Tim & Norman have extremely challenging jobs ahead of them – new members particularly will look to them both for guidance and inspiration – lets show them they have joined a positive, hopeful supportive outfit and their time and trust (there’s that word again) is well placed. – is that assertive enough 🙂

• David Evans 28th Jun '15 - 12:50pm

  Ewen – the romantic idealists took charge seven years ago and the wilderness is now on our doorstep. It’s a question of whether we turn away and quickly.

• TonyJ 28th Jun '15 - 12:52pm

  Tim13 – I was at the Edinburgh hustings yesterday where a question was asked about the trust deficit, and brows were definitely NOT furrowed. Both candidates agreed there had been a loss of trust, and talked about how they would address it. Indeed Tim in particular has talked about this many times in his speeches and articles. He gets that totally, and is focused on re-building trust. Its one of the reasons I am voting for him.

• Andrew 28th Jun '15 - 2:13pm

  We have two Leadership candidates who agree about 95% of policy issues – that seems like a good thing to me.

  The only difference is on certain conscience issues, and those differences have been exaggerated out of all proportion by a group of people who seem to want to turn the Leadership election into a referendum on Christianity. Really a very foolish and divisive thing to do.

  When it comes to trust, it is a different matter, and here there is a gulf between the candidates. On trust the absolutely key thing is to stick to what you say will do. Electors want to be sure that if you say you will vote against the local hospital closure, you will do so. And if you say you will vote against any increase in tuition fees, you will do that too. They would much rather you did that EVEN if they themselves favour increasing fees. This is the bit of politics that I am afraid Norman and Nick did not get. The only circumstances in which the electorate allow you to break a pledge like that is if it is overtaken by something like the outbreak of war. Changing your mind, or going into coalition are not good enough reasons. We lost as much trust amongst Tory voters as Labour ones (although of course the Tory ones just smiled and decided we were irrelevant, while the Labour ones got very angry).

  Tim rebelled on other issues too – the Bedroom tax and secret courts. And he stirred the pot on NHS reforms while admitting he had let them go too far, too soon. Here he listened to Lib Dem members and to the wider electorate, not to the leadership. And he did what was right, not what would please Paddy Ashdown…

  If that is not “assertive” then I don’t know what is! But personally I like someone who is assertive AFTER listening to what people at large (inside and outside the party) are saying, not before. And not after listening only to an inner circle of like-minded special advisors.

  I think Norman might be able to rebuild that trust, but it will be a long and painful process. Whereas Tim can hold his head high on the trust question, and also has a higher degree of charisma, which is always useful. But that does not mean that I think Norman has nothing to contribute – quite the reverse. He is a thoughtful and intelligent Liberal and I was impressed by him at the hustings.

• Eddie Sammon 28th Jun '15 - 3:37pm

  Some idealism is good. Maybe a lot of it is. But misreading situations out of pure hope is neither left or right but “wrong”.

• Andrew 28th Jun '15 - 4:14pm

  Too true Eddie

  “Misreading situations out of pure hope” is what the leadership did for the last 5 years…

  It is ironic that Paddy criticised Tim Farron for poor judgement but in fact his judgement on the issues I mention above was good…

• Phyllis 28th Jun '15 - 4:34pm

  Andrew, you are 100% right in what you say.

• Toby Keynes 28th Jun '15 - 4:37pm

  “The only difference is on certain conscience issues, and those differences have been exaggerated out of all proportion by a group of people who seem to want to turn the Leadership election into a referendum on Christianity. Really a very foolish and divisive thing to do.”
  @Andrew

  I’ve seen this claim made quite a few times over the last few weeks.

  During one of the London hustings, I asked where the candidates stood on Assisted Dying. I didn’t ask because I wanted to divide the party between Christians and the rest – there are plenty of Christian party members who support Assisted Dying, including our President Sal Brinton – but because it’s a policy issue I care about deeply, having submitted the conference motion that is now party policy.

  I’m also gay, and was having to fight for my right to equal treatment when I was 17, way back in 1977, so I have a very personal interest in where the candidates stand on LGBT+ issues – not just what they say, but their historic record.

  These sorts of issues matter a great deal to me, and I want to know where the candidates stand. It shouldn’t be too surprising that others feel the same way. I know most party members will respect and accept that; it’s a shame that some believe that anyone who cares about these issues is having a go at Christians.

  These are policy issues, and leadership elections are about many things but one of them is the candidates’ policy positions. Whether they do or do not derive from the candidates’ religious beliefs is immaterial; our political opinions are undoubtedly affected by our beliefs (religious or otherwise), but what matters is the conclusions that we come to.

  I do agree with you that, as a party, we are more likely to recover and prosper if we don’t try to divide the party into religious and anti-religious camps.

  Unlike you, I believe that portraying policy concerns as anti-religious is damaging (I prefer not to use perjorative terms such as “foolish and divisive”) for precisely that reason.

• Mike S 28th Jun '15 - 5:30pm

  me
  ‘the politics of hope’ – just to clarify, I definitely did not mean – romantic idealism AKA ‘sticking your head in the sand’ when all the evidence is pointing the other way.
  I used the phrase to contrast with ‘the politics of fear’ on which so much seems to hinge these days.

  I am hinting that if we could present much clearer ‘positive’ policies which would resonate with the aspirations of the electorate and clarify what we stand for, in a much sharper and succinct manner, this would differentiate us more clearly in the eyes of the electorate?

  On the issue of trust – I agree, I think Tim appears to at least recognises the need to address this and deal with it ‘front and centre’ both within and especially outside the party as a top priority. I thought the analogy to a forcefield messages subsequently could not penetrate, was an inspired piece of speech writing and summed it up perfectly. I
  f he truly believes it then there is hope.
  I would like to hear more from Norman on this -. not sure his views on this key issue are coming across as clearly?

• Mike S 28th Jun '15 - 6:16pm

  I refer above to this paragraph of Tim’s speech to the IPPR – 25th June – I hope he really believes it!
  “So why did we do so badly in the election? Ask random members of the public what they remember about the coalition, and will they list any of those achievements? While we were sweating over our best policies, people weren’t listening. Tuition fees created a barrier – like those force fields in Science Fiction films. We fired our best policies and achievements – and they were brilliant policies and achievements – and they just glanced off the electorate because the tuition fees barrier – that lack of trust – was too strong”.