Why I'm backing Tim... temporarily
So it's a straight choice (no pun intended) between Tim and Norman. There was hardly a crowded field of possible candidates, with the Lib Dem parliamentary party reduced to eight, one of whom is the outgoing leader, another is under a cloud for leaking during the election. It's a simple choice between the two.
I respect Norman Lamb. I think he had real achievements as a minister, especially on mental health. He gave the party perhaps its most distinctive policy during the general election, to give mental health services the prominence they deserve in the NHS. I admired the way he handled the blackmail attempt against his family in the last parliament, with dignity and honesty. Importantly, he and I appear to be more closely in tune in terms of ideology, both of us on the Cleggite wing of the party.
However, I can't support Norman's leadership campaign. With our diminished representation what the party needs most of all is a communicator; someone who can cut through and make their voice heard despite the lack of attention that the media is going to give us. Norman was a very able minister, but in today's world our leader needs to be a media personality. We may not like the fact, but a fact it is.
Tim Farron has proven himself to be the better candidate in this regard. He has a relaxed style in front of the camera. He passes the pint in the pub test. He's capable of firing up the troops, as he showed when he was party president. He has had amazing successes in his own constituency, turning it into a Liberal Democrat fortress in the space of a few years. His campaign feels far more professional than Norman's. Critics will say that this is because he was planning it for longer, waiting for his moment. I don't see anything wrong with that. I'd rather have a leader with a ruthless streak, one who is willing to jump on opportunities and who prepares for the possible eventualities, than a leader who appears to make it up as he goes along.
Am I concerned about the direction Tim might take the party in? Yes, a bit. I worry that we will revert to being a left wing alternative to Labour, gathering up protest votes, which will promptly abandon us as soon as we try to do anything in power. I don't want that particular episode in history to repeat itself. But I also think that Tim won't be the left wing firebrand that many party members hope for (or fear). He is likely to be moderate in the office, bound by the task of keeping the party together and constrained by the fact that party policy is democratically decided and is not subject to the leader's whim. In any case the various factions of the party agree on far more than they disagree. I've also been largely reassured that he does have a commitment to LGBT+ rights, on which he has a patchy and confusing voting record.
So Tim it is. The reason I say he should be a temporary leader is because I sincerely wish the field of candidates could be wider. I'd like the party to consider opening up the leadership to beyond our MPs, especially while we have so few of them. There is a huge wealth of talent in the party that isn't represented by the eight middle aged men that sit on the green benches. Our focus for the next five years is going to have to be grassroots campaigning, it makes no sense that this has to be directed from parliament. We needn't pretend that our leader has to be ready to step into the office of Prime Minister at a moment's notice anymore.
Most other parties have leaders outside parliament. Nigel Farage, Nicola Sturgeon, Leanne Wood and Natalie Bennett all took part in the leaders debate, despite the fact that two of those weren't even standing for a House of Commons seat.
So ideally I'd like our new leader to be temporary. The party should change its rules to widen the number of eligible candidates and then we should have another election.
Partly I fear we are settling for the long march, digging in for a 20 year slog to get back to where we were in 2005 or 2010, slowly edging up the number of MPs back to the 50 or 60 level, hoping for another hung parliament. Well I don't want to wait 20 years to see liberals in government again. The idea that I will be 60 before this happens depresses me. To completely misquote William Hague, "some of us won't be here the next time the party is in government."
I want the Liberal Democrats to go for broke. We need a charismatic leader who can inspire people who have never voted Lib Dem to come over to the party now. Our 13,000 new members are promising signs of a grassroots revival, from which we can rebuild our councillor base and increase our presence in the devolved parliaments and European Parliament. There seems to be a consensus that our eight MPs are limited in what they can do to help achieve our aims. I agree, so it makes little sense that our leader needs to be from their number.
Imagine a leadership contest including Lynne Featherstone, Jo Swinson and Kirsty Williams. Norman Lamb and Tim Farron too if they can prove they are up to the job. There are many inspirational Liberal Democrat politicians who I believe could fast track our rehabilitation and prove that the party can not just crawl back, but bounce back. So why are we limiting our options?
UPDATE: I changed my mind and voted for Norman Lamb in the end!
titsay
pixelskylines
gracieabrams
jimmyeatworldofficial
stormborns
s-u-f-j-a-n-s-t-e-v-e-n-s
gummygunk
