And so, polls have closed, and the candidates await their fate. Whilst they do, I thought that I might reflect on the events of the past ten weeks or so.
Firstly, whilst I have voted for Tim Farron, I would have no real concerns if the membership chose Norman Lamb. He has performed well, confirmed that he is a wonderful exponent of liberal values, and has risen in my estimation (albeit that he didn't have an awful lot of scope to do so - I have always held him in high regard). Indeed, if the Party's circumstances had been different, I could easily have found myself supporting him instead of Tim.
It has, for the most part, been an interesting campaign, especially if you don't take it too seriously. Neither candidate has ventured into the wonderful county that is Suffolk, although Norman might, occasionally, have glanced out of the window on his regular commute between Norwich and London (it's very nice between Diss and Manningtree, Norman...).
Having made up my mind and cast my vote, nobody has seemed too bothered about involving me in either of the campaigns, so I have remained beyond any partisanship, which is nice.
And that brings me to my regret. You see, leadership campaigns tend to highlight, usually unintentionally, some of the less savoury sides of political campaigning. This puzzles me because, it seems, such bad behaviour is much more likely to be noticed, and exposed, during a high-profile campaign. It also implies that the values of such people are out of keeping with the underlying one of the candidate they are espousing.
This campaign has been no exception. References to 'real liberals' (as opposed to those awful ersatz ones you get on market stalls in South London), or negative campaigning when your candidate is talking a good game about positivity and optimism, do neither you, nor your candidate, any good. And, to put it bluntly, I think rather less of you as a result. Not enough to disown you or anything, but enough to be disappointed. You're probably a good person otherwise, but you've sown the seed of doubt in my mind. I may not give you the benefit of the doubt in future, which is a pity.
And, regardless of the result, we, that is, all of us, need to pull together for the cause we believe in. Yes, we may disagree on the route to be taken, or the mode of transport, but we do believe in the same thing, liberalism. So, if you are thinking about attacking another Party member in a public forum, or even just using harsh language in response to them, do think again. It isn't clever, and it isn't worth it.
If there is a consolation though, it is that we haven't had it as bad as the Labour Party is. Don't feel that you have to prove me wrong though...
I've actually been pleasantly surprised at how little negativity I've seen; but then my twitter feed is very carefully curated, and I don't do Facebook at all.
ReplyDeleteJennie,
ReplyDeleteIt strikes me that social media is at the root of the problem here, although not the cause of it. If certain people had to write their message onto a piece of paper, find an envelope, insert the piece of paper into it, seal it, address the envelope, find a stamp and then go outside to find a postbox, they might have had a chance to consider whether or not their input placed them in the best possible light.
Admittedly, there are some who would carry on anyway, but you can only do so much... ;)
I am a Quaker as well as being a LibDem. I have often wondered whether one of the Quaker 'Advices and Queries' would be helpful in general political mutterings. This is A&Q 17 which reads (with the theological references snipped out):
ReplyDelete" When words are strange or disturbing to you, try to sense where they come from and what has nourished the lives of others. Listen patiently and seek the truth which other people's opinions may contain for you. Avoid hurtful criticism and provocative language. Do not allow the strength of your convictions to betray you into making statements or allegations that are unfair or untrue. Think it possible that you may be mistaken."