A week ago Tim Farron became the new leader of the Liberal 
Democrats, my political party here in Britain. When such important events occur I am torn between two impulses: to comment straight away, and so be topical, or to pause for reflection; I take the “thinking” bit of my blog’s title seriously after all.
The decision this time was quite easy. I was quite depressed by the news of Tim’s victory, as I had been backing the rival candidate, Norman Lamb. I needed a few days to recover from that low patch so that could be more upbeat about the whole thing. Now I am past that wobble, I feel better able to comment.
My first reflection is that I must try to be be a good loser. It’s no good my hoping that Tim will be anything other that what he promised to be. And to me that sounds like a distinct step in the “Social Liberal” direction, of supporting centralised state interventions using taxpayers’ money. Or, put slightly differently, going back to the “left of Labour” idea that gained traction under Charles Kennedy’s leadership. This will be good for hoovering up protest votes, but not so good for establishing a coherent new foundation for liberal policy – which I happen to think is the party’s most pressing task right now. I will have to bite my tongue and ride with it. I fear for the longer term consequences, but Tim faithfully reflects the way most of the party feels.
What makes this a lot easier is the knowledge that Tim understands community politics. This should make him quite sympathetic to the new thinking when it comes. More so, perhaps, than the previous leadership under Nick Clegg, or even Charles Kennedy was. And Tim is reliably liberal in his attitudes, and with that comes a healthy suspicion of an over-mighty state.
My second reflection is that Tim must play to his strengths. While not exactly having had what most people would recognise as a “real” job (he worked in higher education before becoming an MP in 2005), his career doesn’t follow the standard Westminster model. He wasn’t a researcher, PR person, charity worker or union rep (though he was part of the National Union of Students); nor was he based in the rarefied atmosphere of Westminster or Brussels – he was worked mainly in Lancashire. And neither did he engage in politcal networking at Oxford or Cambridge (he went to Newcastle University). This gives him something of the prized “authentic” flavour, which could be very useful in reaching out to the public. As somebody pointed out on the radio over the weekend, he’s a bit like Nigel Farage, the leader of Ukip. Mr Farage was for a long time England’s most successful retail politician, as he traded on his “authenticity” – though his career as a financial trader and European MP was hardly “real world” either. Tim’s rather raw quality will allow him to get away with the odd gaffe, as was the case with Mr Farage – indeed that will all be part of his “authenticity”. And Tim has an engaging turn of phrase.
A second strength is that Tim is able to preserve a degree of distance from the Lib Dems period of coalition. He did not serve in the government; he did not even breach the pledge on tuition fees. This will help the party rebrand. He needs to use this distance to his advantage.
All this will help him get noticed. As will his promise to support “spiky” policies – ones that aren’t necessarily popular, but which illustrate liberal values. If he’s brave these will include support for immigration and scepticism over nuclear weapons, especially Trident submarines. There really isn’t much to lose. The Lib Dems must become an insurgent party, making mischief while the Labour Party tries to carve out more conventional positions. This will draw attention to the party. But what will people find when they start to pay it more attention?
Tim needs to rally the party around coherent values and policies and attract the support of the many people who have liberal attitudes but who do not support the party. There is some baggage here that needs to be dealt with. Many in the party sat tight under Nick Clegg’s leadership, and coalition with the Conservatives, and now want to get revenge. However many people also joined the party because they liked and respected Nick’s leadership. Tim understands the nature of the balance that must be struck here, but the party must resist the temptation to tear itself apart, as its predecessor the SDP did in 1987/88, the party’s previous low point.
But this week’s political antics on the Conservative government’s proposed welfare changes shows just how difficult all this will be. Labour struggle to take a nuanced position, opposing some reforms but accepting others. The Tim’s Lib Dems went for outright opposition. This is a role reversal from the last parliament, where the Lib Dems often defended Conservative changes that they had moderated, while Labour condemned the party as being complicit to an ideological attack on the poor. This reversal makes me feel queasy – though as it happens I think the Lib Dem stand is right one on this occasion. The public may just see rampant opportunism on both sides. Or a cat fight amongst parties that aren’t serious about the responsibilities of government. But many Lib Dem activists will just love getting back into the politics of protest and paying back the insults that for years they endured from Labour- even if it plays into Conservative hands. They will enjoy this so much that they won’t notice where it is all leading.
What the Lib Dems need is an alternative critique of the government’s economic liberalism, that doesn’t take its inspiration from the way things were before Mrs Thatcher. The last leader to try this was Paddy Ashdown, who stepped down in 1998. Charles Kennedy went for a lazy oppositional-ism. Nick Clegg went for an economic-liberalism-lite. It does not particularly worry me that party turns away from Nick’s path, though I have supported much of it. It does worry me that Tim’s party will take after Kennedy’s rather than Paddy’s.
But the jury is out. Tim has the benefit of the doubt for now. And me? I want to put my main political energy into developing new ideas for the economy, public services and the way politics is conducted. What I won’t do is rallying the troops and knocking on doors for a new protest politics. Somebody else can do that.
Matthew – good article, but there’s room for door knockers , tweeters & blog posters in this party. We need all wings of the party to build a big tent from left, centre and moderates (rightish). Tim is perceived as of the left but will bridge the gap (Paddy started on the left) think he will not change but build a team from both Yellow Bookers and Orange Bookers to offer right mix of reasoned policies. Unity, fightback – winning council seats and byelections. Plenty of scope for both wings to bring to the game, but also need to rally an opposition to neo-thatcherism. We can gain as part of a wider alliance of progressives fighting Tories deconstruction of Liberal Britain.
I voted for Tim for the leadership mainly because I see myself being from the social liberal part of the party, although as I have noted before I am very new to the party. However, Tim has not made the best of starts in Scotland to be honest. My view so far is that he doesn’t get the changes that have taken place since the referendum and will allow Willie Rennie to lead the party to virtual wipe out next year when he should be offering some advice to the Scottish Liberal Democrats.
He made ill informed comments on Police Scotland and the NHS database that came from the mouth of Rennie rather than take the time to do a bit of research himself on what Scotland is actually like now. He should have done more research himself and noted that both Police Scotland and the database need to be evaluated and reviewed to ensure that protections are in place to protect civil liberties and local accountability, good liberal beliefs, but what he did was call Scotland Orwellian on national TV and in the press, yeah good start to the liberalfightback in Scotland Tim.
Tim suggested that Police Scotland is an armed force under the control of the SNP Government at Holyrood and that the Scottish Government is authoritarian. He should have been looking at things like centralisation of services etc and coming up with alternatives that fit with the liberal message of more decision making at the local level while also taking account of the elections in May, Scotland returned 1 Liberal Democrat MP and one that only got elected because he lied and has admitted he lied.
No, not a good start at all for Tim in my neck of the woods but he still has my support even though he probably made the job of selling a liberal vote a lot more difficult next year at the Holyrood elections where I suspect the Liberal Democrats will be relying on the list to get possibly 4 or 5 MSPs. We are going to be starting from a very low base from then on.
Thanks
Bruce