Lib Dems elect Tim Farron as their new leader (UK) - Polidicks

[img]http://imgkk.com/i/fx9g.jpg[/img] [url]http://www.libdems.org.uk/tim-farron-elected-leader-liberal-democrats[/url] [quote]We are delighted to announce that Tim Farron has been elected as Leader of the Liberal Democrats. In an all-member ballot for the leadership, 56% of members voted with the result revealed this afternoon. Tim Farron received 56.5% of the votes and in second place Norman Lamb received the backing of 43.5%. The new leader will be holding his first rally this evening at 7pm, where he will address hundreds of party activists for the first time as their leader. You can watch the action live from 7pm on our website, details will be available soon. [/quote]

I guess he could act as a return to the Kennedy days. Of course, that won't happen if Corbyn wins the Labour election since Farron couldn't position himself as he most liberal candidate in that scenario, but he's probably assuming Coopham will win as is likely.

I would have preferred Lamb to win, but with the Labour Party imploding and trying to elect Corbyn I'll support them anyway.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48221677]I would have preferred Lamb to win, but with the Labour Party imploding and trying to elect Corbyn I'll support them anyway.[/QUOTE] This is pretty much my position - I liked Norman Lamb better but Tim Farron's not too bad. I think the Lib Dems need to rebuild their base and capitalise on the implosion of the Labour party. I certainly hope to see Lib Dem ministers such as Jo Swinson, Ed Davey and Lynne Featherstone back in power in the future.

wow, look at his face

[QUOTE=Mythman;48221952]This is pretty much my position - I liked Norman Lamb better but Tim Farron's not too bad. I think the Lib Dems need to rebuild their base and capitalise on the implosion of the Labour party. I certainly hope to see Lib Dem ministers such as Jo Swinson, Ed Davey and Lynne Featherstone back in power in the future.[/QUOTE] I think the Lib Dems are in a better position than Labour. The rejection of the Lib Dems in the previous election was not a rejection of all they stood for - Rather, it was a rejection of their actions in government and their irresponsibility in their manifesto. This can be dealt with and the damage can be slowly repaired over time, and the party can learn from it. In contrast, Labour have a structural issue where their party membership are far more left wing than the electorate that they are attempting to appeal to. As a result, the leadership election will swing the party left to the point that they become unelectable repeatably and in a manner that cannot be easily dealt with. Unlike the Lib Dems where the destruction was so heavy that no-one can ignore it, much of Labour, due to their still large proportion of the vote and moderate number of seats, do not see how catastrophic the defeat was for their party, aside from Harman, Kendall and many of the former Blairites - In fact, probably many of the MPs probably see this, but the reality is their membership are deluded idiots living in an imaginary world where the clocks have been rolled back to the 1980s, with 'evil tory' mindsets etc. I hoping if Labour elect either Corbyn or Burnham that the Blairite wing of the party will defect to the Lib Dems (or form a new party, which then forms a similar alliance) but the Lib Dems need to recover as a credible electoral force before this can occur.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48222078]I think the Lib Dems are in a better position than Labour. The rejection of the Lib Dems in the previous election was not a rejection of all they stood for - Rather, it was a rejection of their actions in government and their irresponsibility in their manifesto. This can be dealt with and the damage can be slowly repaired over time, and the party can learn from it. In contrast, Labour have a structural issue where their party membership are far more left wing than the electorate that they are attempting to appeal to. As a result, the leadership election will swing the party left to the point that they become unelectable repeatably and in a manner that cannot be easily dealt with. Unlike the Lib Dems where the destruction was so heavy that no-one can ignore it, much of Labour, due to their still large proportion of the vote and moderate number of seats, do not see how catastrophic the defeat was for their party, aside from Harman, Kendall and many of the former Blairites - In fact, probably many of the MPs probably see this, but the reality is their membership are deluded idiots living in an imaginary world where the clocks have been rolled back to the 1980s, with 'evil tory' mindsets etc. I hoping if Labour elect either Corbyn or Burnham that the Blairite wing of the party will defect to the Lib Dems (or form a new party, which then forms a similar alliance) but the Lib Dems need to recover as a credible electoral force before this can occur.[/QUOTE] I thought Burnham is pretty Blairite himself?

He's the second most left-wing candidate on offer, and in most ways is very similar to Miliband. Many theorise the only reason why Corbyn was lent the nominations was to put a more left-wing candidate on offer to avoid Burnham being portrayed as the left-wing candidate supported by the unions - Though that has now catastrophically backfired. Sure, he won't be nearly as bad as Corbyn, because Burnham isn't insane. But he doesn't have what it takes to turn Labour into an electable party that can govern.