This afternoon, the new leader of
the Liberal Democrats will be announced.
Spoiler: My vote was for Tim Farron.
Not a lot of people know that, as
I have been quiet on the matter: not just here, but also on social media where
I tend to do more writing these days when I occasionally get dragged into a
debate on some contentious issue or other.
And, in some ways, there have
been contentious elements to this election campaign. Not from the candidates,
but from some of those around them. Thankfully, this has (by and large) played
out in closed groups on Facebook rather than as a pitched battle in the wider media.
Of course, after an election in
which we garnered just 8 % of votes and were left with just 8 MPs, there has
been less media interest that there might otherwise have. Whilst the Labour
Party candidates will have multiple TV hustings – our coverage has been
comfined to just one slot on the Victoria Derbyshire programme, individual
appearances on Question Time and Any Questions and a smattering of profiles and
endorsements in The New Statesman, Economist, and the Guardian and Independent group
newspapers.
The reason for my quietness was
simple: as a local Membership Officer dealing with hundreds of new members, I
did not wish to be seen to be taking sides. So I opted early on to play a
neutral role – in members' newsletters and in our Facebook group, I sought to present
both candidates equally. In personal conversations I would be more open – I wasn’t
keeping it a complete secret – but would be at pains to present the relative merits
and drawbacks of both candidates.
And they do both have merit –
Norman Lamb is an astute, measured, principled man to whom I am probably closer
politically. His role in putting mental health issues on the agenda in government, in
the party and, indeed, in the election campaign should never be understated.
His advocacy of assisted dying and reform of drug policy are also key issues on
which we agree – and which the Liberal Democrats should be seizing whilst carving
out liberal electoral ground for ourselves. In a world where there is a
perception of little or no difference between parties, such policies stand out.
But, of course, policy is made by
conference based either on motions submitted by members and local parties or papers proposed by the Federal Policy Committee. Whilst the leader can
influence priorities and prominence, he (or, at some future point, she) cannot
determine it – and, indeed, Norman was largely reflecting party positions in
his pronouncements.
Tim’s strengths are in
presentation and motivation. As Party President he spent years seeking to
enthuse members and rally the troops in difficult circumstances. His down to
earth, no-nonsense style resonates with members and the public alike. Where
Norman is quiet and thoughtful, Tim is more of a rabble rouser.
And that was the key for my decision. Ultimately we need someone who can
make the most of the limited opportunities that we will have in the Commons and
the Media – and who will engage and encourage the membership. Tim’s livewire
approach is, for me, the one that is most likely to succeed.
3 comments:
I tried to do the whole being neutral in public thing. I failed miserably. I'm just not wired that way.
I wouldn't have known much about Lamb if I hadn't the means to find out, but even then I couldn't put much heart into doing do. Farron I did have reservations about when alarm bells started going off about his up-front Christian beliefs, but I reckon he's got them more or less safely corralled, a position which I trust he will maintain. I suppose it's Farron, with (relative) youth on his side who is the more likely to inspire - so, speaking as one who wants the Lib Dem voice resounding clearly again despite living in the face of our crazy electoral system, I suppose he would be my own preferred choice.
Thanks great post
Post a Comment