Meaning of “There is not a direct relationship between verb forms and time.”

In Practical English Usage, the author Michael Swan says:

There is not a direct relationship between verb forms and time. For example, a past verb like went is not only used to talk about past events (e.g. We went to Morocco last January), but also about unreal or uncertain present or future events (e.g. It would be better if we went home now). And present verbs can be used to talk about the future (e.g. I’m seeing Daniel tomorrow). Also, progressive and perfect forms express ideas that are not simply concerned with time – for example continuation, completion, present importance.

What does he actually mean by "There is not a direct relationship between verb forms and time."?

We use verb forms to talk about time (e.g. We went to Morocco last January) and one and the same verb form can be used to talk about different times (e.g. past time "We went to Morocco last January" vs. present or future time "It would be better if we went home now").

So does he mean by "There is not a direct relationship between verb forms and time.":

1.) that verb forms have nothing to do with time, or in other words, there is not a connection/correlation between verb forms and time?

2.) one and the same verb form can be used to refer to different times?