Tim Farron

You won’t be surprised to hear that I won’t be supporting Donald Trump in next week’s election. But while most Lib Dems won’t be cheering on Trump either, there are plenty of Christians who will. When Trump won in 2016, an estimated 81 per cent of white evangelical Christians voted for him. Trump is hoping that, once again, these Christians ignore his disregard for the dignity and wellbeing of others, his contempt for equality, his ungracious rhetoric and his lack of compassion for the vulnerable – and back him at the ballot box. Yet this support not only gives faith a bad name, it is a complete misunderstanding of what Christianity is all about. White evangelical Christians are a powerful lobby in the States.

Rebecca Long-Bailey has been criticised over comments she made on abortion that set her apart from many of her Labour colleagues. Long-Bailey said in a response to a questionnaire asked by Salford deanery: “It is currently legal to terminate a pregnancy up to full-term on the grounds of disability while the upper limit is 24 weeks if there is no disability.“I personally do not agree with this position and agree with the words of the Disability Rights Commission that ‘the context in which parents choose whether to have a child should be one in which disability and non-disability are valued equally’.” These views stem from her Catholic faith.

Leaving your party is brave because it is a costly and painful thing to do. You risk the loss of relationships, your sense of belonging and identity, your status and your income. The eleven MPs who formed the Independent Group took those risks knowingly. They saw Conservative and Labour parties transformed by blinkered nationalism and dogmatic socialism, each of them over-run by zealots whose commitment to their ideology is exceeded only by their unkindness towards those who do not share the faith. I remember seeing the relief on the faces of those eleven MPs back in February when they made the break. All of them seemed happier without the burden of being in a party that had ceased to feel like home. They were free to be themselves, to speak their minds, to vote with their consciences.

In football, a player can be sent off the pitch for violent conduct or 'using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures towards another player'. If a footballer attacks another player rather than the ball, they are disciplined. This is an accepted and acceptable approach to a game where passions run high. A similar approach could be applied to the unacceptable abuse of politicians such as Anna Soubry and a number of journalists, over Brexit. Why are standards that are applied on the sports field somehow lost in real life? By all means play the ball (whether that's Brexit, the EU itself, May’s deal or no deal) with a passion. But if you go for another player, you deserve a red card.

This last two years have seen the Liberal Democrats recover since the devastation of the 2015 election.   That recovery was never inevitable but we have seen the doubling of our party membership, growth in council elections, our first parliamentary by-election win for more than a decade, and most recently our growth at the 2017 general election. Most importantly the Liberal Democrats have established ourselves with a significant and distinctive role - passionate about Europe, free trade, strong well-funded public services underpinned by a growing market economy.  No one else occupies that space.  Against all the odds, the Liberal Democrats matter again. We can be proud of the progress we have made together, although there is much more we need to do.

Last week brought into focus how Labour is in complete and utter disarray. After the Home Secretary’s statement on the draft Investigatory Powers Bill, Andy Burnham wholeheartedly agreed with the government on the need for extra powers for spy chiefs. Then, about five days later, a letter was released by Burnham's office saying that after closer inspection, he had a couple of 'concerns'. Whatever you think of the Conservatives, they at least have a principled position on this: anything the spy agencies want, they get — regardless of the privacy implications. The Liberal Democrats on the other hand strongly believe that our agencies must make the case for new powers and it is for Parliament to decide what is necessary and proportionate.