Our guest today is the British politician, Tim Farron. Tim was the leader of the Liberal Democrats from July 2015 to July 2017. He’s been the Member of Parliament for Westmoreland and Lonsdale since 2005 and he’s here to talk to us today about Liberalism, its origins and development, its core values and how it might relate to the Middle Way.
One thought on “The MWS Podcast 127: Tim Farron on Liberalism and the Middle Way”
Tim came across very well here, in a way I haven’t heard him given the opportunity to do on the mainstream media! I wasn’t expecting too much philosophical depth, but he certainly seems to have ‘got’ and said helpful things about the Jonathan Haidt value foundations. Nevertheless there were some points where he wasn’t so convincing despite the friendliness and humanity. I was less convinced by his response to the point about reason and emotion, and I don’t think he really understood the idea of their interdependence. The other area where I was less convinced was on whether middle-of-the-road responses could be less adequate. Although I felt he was right to point out that ‘you have to take people with you’, you also need to respond to the urgency of the conditions. I didn’t get the sense that he recognised any sense of urgency in relation to, say, climate change.
Would I vote Liberal Democrat? I have at some points in the past, though there was usually a tactical element to my choice. What would continue to constrain me would be that impression of a rather conventional moderation having slightly too much importance when compared to urgent issues, particularly those to do with social justice and the environment. But I can accept that he might sincerely believe that he’s avoiding dogma, so there are a lot of moves in the right direction too.
Tim came across very well here, in a way I haven’t heard him given the opportunity to do on the mainstream media! I wasn’t expecting too much philosophical depth, but he certainly seems to have ‘got’ and said helpful things about the Jonathan Haidt value foundations. Nevertheless there were some points where he wasn’t so convincing despite the friendliness and humanity. I was less convinced by his response to the point about reason and emotion, and I don’t think he really understood the idea of their interdependence. The other area where I was less convinced was on whether middle-of-the-road responses could be less adequate. Although I felt he was right to point out that ‘you have to take people with you’, you also need to respond to the urgency of the conditions. I didn’t get the sense that he recognised any sense of urgency in relation to, say, climate change.
Would I vote Liberal Democrat? I have at some points in the past, though there was usually a tactical element to my choice. What would continue to constrain me would be that impression of a rather conventional moderation having slightly too much importance when compared to urgent issues, particularly those to do with social justice and the environment. But I can accept that he might sincerely believe that he’s avoiding dogma, so there are a lot of moves in the right direction too.