pseudomonas | Lib Dem leaderhip

This has been quite a boring contest, in many ways, but for good reasons. Both candidates have demonstrated to my satisfaction that they are people of principle, and have liberal, progressive, radical instincts. Policy (as both have reminded us) is made by conference, not by the leader, so is in many ways a secondary concern. I am quite happy to discount both the whisperings that Tim Farron is a secret theocrat and that Norman Lamb is a secret Tory (OK, I exaggerate vastly, but one has to try and make this a bit interesting somehow). Norman, at the London hustings, impressed me with his passion, out from under wraps after his stint as a minister.

In the end, though, I think that Tim is the leader we need at the moment. Why?

■ History: The sad truth is that the media has not grasped the fact of [FX:spit] Cabinet Collective Responsibility. We need a leader who voted against tuition fees (inter alia) if they're not to spend the entire time explaining to the media (which has already settled into its narrative) how the system works and that Ministers don't get to vote freely without abandoning their portfolios. As Tim has said, the fact that he voted against the coalition government on many issues gives him more credibility when defending it.

■ Presentation: To simplify two complex people ridiculously - Tim wins on charisma, Norman somewhat on gravitas. At a point where the party has been near eradicated, our principal problem is "who will get heard best?", and the answer is clearly Tim.

■ Humility: I'm impressed by Tim's willingness to seek advice and his commitment not to surround himself with like-thinkers. Quote (as near as I can remember): If you look at your diary for the day and find it's 90% meetings with other white men, you need to tear it up and start again.

So, Tim it is. I wish him luck, and trust that he will have the sense as leader to make full use of Norman's considerable talents as well.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

A significant problem the LibDems face right now is that, not only have people outside the party not heard they've chosen candidates for the leadership, but we've also not heard of the candidates. /-8

Neither candidate has a huge public profile - but they're probably (excepting Nick Clegg) the two highest-profile members of our current MPs. I am sure that if Tim is elected he'll do well at getting the publicity he'll need to do the job properly.

Every party leadership election I can remember they've ended up picking someone I hadn't really heard of before the contest. And I am in many ways quite glad that the Lib Dems are putting more emphasis on policies rather than image.

I think a lot of what's relevant is, not image exactly, but personal qualities; it's interviewing someone for a job where you want to assess the competence of the candidates. Someone who can say "I'm a household name so I'll find it easier to get media attention" might well have a point - but it's hardly a knock-down argument in their favour.

Policy is this odd ground, as I alluded to, because on the one hand: on the whole the leader doesn't make policy so what you need is someone who knows how to accept their job is to promote the policy that the party makes; but on the other they will have freedom as to what parts of the policy are emphasized and how it is promoted.

Both candidates have been talking about their political philosophy and how they would like to see it applied; and both show a good understanding that they won't have their predecessor's job of managing policy in government, but of promoting liberalism outside Parliament rather more than inside.

I chanced to be talking to

alextfish about the leadership election last night and he pointed me at this article.

"The danger is sometimes that as a Christian in politics you think your job is to impose your morality on other people. It absolutely isn't."

This is also interesting.

Whatever the pros or cons of his candidacy in other respects, he does genuinely seem to be a liberal Evangelical Christian, and not inclined towards theocracy.

I was being satirical. More seriously, it's concerns that there may be a few issues where his religious belief puts him at odds with the party. I don't think this is actually likely to be a problem, and clearly neither do the authors of those articles, but it's not completely a given. I can't see it being a deciding factor in the election though.

Heh - I did see this when you posted it, actually, but had forgotten since. You're right, though - our thinking is more or less identical - just yours is way more concise!

I haven't shown my working, is why. It'd never get past peer-review.

Lib Dem leaderhip - How I'm voting

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Theocracy?

Re: Theocracy?

no subject

no subject