So, the white smoke has come, and Tim Farron has won by a rather wider margin than his predecessor did eight years ago. I'm pleased that the margin is unquestionable, but also that Norman did as well as he did do. 43.5% is more than respectable, and it means that he has earned the right to be as serious a player in the future of the Party as he wishes to. Given his obvious ability, that can only be to the advantage of the liberal cause.
It is interesting to see the response below the line on the various websites. The irreconcilables are, still, irreconcilable but, frankly, the fact that they see fit to post how disinterested they are rather undermines that apparent stance. There are others who continue to take great delight in attacking the Party for supposedly enabling the Conservatives. I tend to think that the electorate have some responsibiity there too but wonder if these people were listening to the likes of Rachel Reeves on the subject of welfare. Probably not, as that might challenge them to question their own prejudices.
There are, astonishingly, those who consider that a new leader offers the best hope for social democracy in this country. I do hope not, as I'm a liberal.
And finally, there are those who believe that we should all just give up and go home. Bearing in mind that they aren't liberals and apparently have no interest in hearing an alternative voice, we can safely ignore them.
No, there are millions of people in this country who, if given a reason to vote Liberal Democrat, will do so happily. Will they agree with us on everything? Probably not, after all, even party members disagree amongst themselves - it's part of the liberal DNA. It's our job to make the case of liberal democracy, do it well and rebuild trust again.
So, Tim, good luck. From the snippets of your speech this evening that I've seen, you came across as suspiciously human, and that's a damned good thing. We will probably disagree from time to time, and that's healthy, but if you can inspire the sort of respect that has appeared in my Twitter feed this evening from a surprisingly wide range of people, you're not likely to go far wrong...
When you say this, I'm perplexed: "There are, astonishingly, those who consider that a new leader offers the best hope for social democracy in this country. I do hope not, as I'm a liberal."
ReplyDeleteIt seems odd that a member of the former Social and Liberal Democrats would describe social democracy and liberalism as antagonistic to one another. Instead, I would have expected you to say that the ideology of Labour is authoritarianism, not really "social democracy."
I think that if a time traveler were to repeat these remarks to SDP members in 1987, the SDP members would think that this use of "social democracy" was kind of rude.