LibDem Hustings.
Jun. 27th, 2015 03:11 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rhythmaningThis morning I went to the hustings for the Libdems' leadership election.
I have been trying hard not to make a decision - to wait until I had heard both candidates speak. I have read blog posts and watched videos by both.
Tim Farron was in Edinburgh earlier in the week, holding an informal open meeting for party members in a pub. (He was drinking coffee, I had a pint.) I have heard Farron speak many times over the last few years, as party president, and I was a bit concerned that gave him an advantage over Norman Lamb for my vote.
At today's hustings, each gave a speech (in the absence of the other, presumably so they didn't steal each others' ideas, but in the presence of the press). Then they answered questions, in the absence of the press and any non-members.
There seemed to be very little between them: as Farron said, they probably agree on more than 95% of the issues. Both speeches were good. They each covered their political beliefs and values, and the direction they would like to take the party: Lamb wants to become the party of new ideas, building links with academics and intellectuals to build policy. (He is a visiting fellow of Nuffield College, Oxford, so he's got a start there.) Farron wants be the voice of the poor and the disposessed - to stand up for the underprivileged.
Lamb spoke about his achievements as a minister, particular focusing on mental health issues. Farron concentrated on his achievements as an MP and how he would fight for the party.
Farron seemed more impassioned, Lamb more managerial. Indeed, Lamb seems to have many of the major characters in the party on his side, particularly people whom I respect like Lynne Featherstone, as well as several other former MPs.
I'm sure each would be fine. But Farron's speech stirred me much more than Lamb's. It's not that I disagreed with it all, but I agreed at an intellectual level, where Farron's worked intellectually AND emotionally.
So I shall be voting for Tim Farron.
I have been trying hard not to make a decision - to wait until I had heard both candidates speak. I have read blog posts and watched videos by both.
Tim Farron was in Edinburgh earlier in the week, holding an informal open meeting for party members in a pub. (He was drinking coffee, I had a pint.) I have heard Farron speak many times over the last few years, as party president, and I was a bit concerned that gave him an advantage over Norman Lamb for my vote.
At today's hustings, each gave a speech (in the absence of the other, presumably so they didn't steal each others' ideas, but in the presence of the press). Then they answered questions, in the absence of the press and any non-members.
There seemed to be very little between them: as Farron said, they probably agree on more than 95% of the issues. Both speeches were good. They each covered their political beliefs and values, and the direction they would like to take the party: Lamb wants to become the party of new ideas, building links with academics and intellectuals to build policy. (He is a visiting fellow of Nuffield College, Oxford, so he's got a start there.) Farron wants be the voice of the poor and the disposessed - to stand up for the underprivileged.
Lamb spoke about his achievements as a minister, particular focusing on mental health issues. Farron concentrated on his achievements as an MP and how he would fight for the party.
Farron seemed more impassioned, Lamb more managerial. Indeed, Lamb seems to have many of the major characters in the party on his side, particularly people whom I respect like Lynne Featherstone, as well as several other former MPs.
I'm sure each would be fine. But Farron's speech stirred me much more than Lamb's. It's not that I disagreed with it all, but I agreed at an intellectual level, where Farron's worked intellectually AND emotionally.
So I shall be voting for Tim Farron.
no subject
Date: 2015-06-27 02:55 pm (UTC)If we had 40+ MPs, and it was this choice, I'd be tempted by Lamb, the ideas thing speaks to me strongly. But we need to rebuild from virtually nothing, we don't have the luxury of being the party of new ideas, we need to be the party of being seen, being heard and making waves. For all his faults, Tim's very good at making waves, we need a leader that can do a Paddy, pick a few issues, go against the consensus and say the right thing (the migrant "crisis" in the Med and Calais would be good, let them all in).
Of course, if we still had 40+ MPs, we'd have kept a few that would've run for leader. And I'd be voting for Jo. Ah well.
no subject
Date: 2015-06-27 03:45 pm (UTC)I hope that whoever gets in, the other other will still have influence. So we could have the best if both worlds - Tim's passion and Norman's ideas!
Tim specifically said we need to rock the boat - select issues, like immigration, where we can take a very different stance - which would piss off many, but make others think the Libdems are something they want to be part of.
And yeah, I'd have loved to vote for Jo. I was rather upset she didn't get in.
I'm hoping that she might stand Holyrood.
no subject
Date: 2015-06-27 04:24 pm (UTC)(In 2008 I deliberately abstained, in the end, Huhne had lost my support by campaign style, but Clegg never won it, they were too similar, at least this time there's a real choice that'll affect direction).
I think if Jo runs for Holyrood, it's a tacit admission she expects independence sooner rather than later/not at all, and frankly I want her back in Westminster, given how close her seat was, she ought to be.
no subject
Date: 2015-06-28 11:21 am (UTC)If I was actively involved then I'd feel more like it, but as it is I'm happy for those who know better to make the decision and then see how I feel about the party later on.