UK Politics Thread 18-inch Mark VI: Witty Title Forthcoming

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Distasteful personal views. Seriously, make sure you've read the post before making a snarky answer.

He said that he doesn't think gay sex is a sin.

Took him ages to make up his mind about it, though.

[Ifreann]

Ireland barely has an Army. Britain could conquer it and be home in time for Coronation Street. The question is why would we bother? It would be like adding a more violent Scotland to the Union.

Ireland's a US protectorate.

Maybe as it hispanicises they will stop caring, and then Ireland might return to the union.

Not while Trump is President. He owns a golf course here.

[Senegalboy]

Interesting. The Lib Dems did gain seats so I don't know why that's happening.

Because (and I am just reading between the lines) he is a homophobic prick and he just can't hid that fact any more.

he isn't homophobic he struggled on that question mainly because the bible has some verses which suggest that homosexuality is a sin. even if he didn't like LGBT people he didn't allow his feelings to be prejudice against that community but now people are saying he is homophobic with no real proof

[Imperializt Russia]

Interesting. The Lib Dems did gain seats so I don't know why that's happening.

Because (and I am just reading between the lines) he is a homophobic prick and he just can't hid that fact any more.

So homophobic that he keeps voting in favour of LGBT rights

[The Widening Gyre]

He said that he doesn't think gay sex is a sin.

Took him ages to make up his mind about it, though.

Which is I think a big part of it. He got caught wrong-footed in assuming that being 'neutral' on the subject of gay sex was acceptable, and found himself in a situation in the aftermath where any answer he gave that modified his stance would have been seen as being somehow insincere.

[Imperializt Russia]

Reporting from BBC:

In a hastily-arranged statement, and surrounded by his close colleagues, Mr Farron said he had been "proud" to lead the party for two years.
But he said he could no longer reconcile his strong Christian faith with his responsibilities as leader of a liberal party.
"The consequences of the focus on my faith is that I have found myself torn between living as a faithful Christian and serving as a political leader," he said.
"A better, wiser person may have been able to deal with this more successfully, to remain faithful to Christ while leading a political party in the current environment.
"To be a leader, particularly of a progressive liberal party in 2017 and to live as a committed Christian and to hold faithful to the Bible's teaching has felt impossible for me."

He said he was passionate about defending the rights and liberties of people who believed differently to him, but said he had been the "subject of suspicion" because of his own beliefs.
While questions about his faith were legitimate, he said they "distracted" from the party's election campaign.

[Calladan]

Because (and I am just reading between the lines) he is a homophobic prick and he just can't hid that fact any more.

he isn't homophobic he struggled on that question mainly because the bible has some verses which suggest that homosexuality is a sin. even if he didn't like LGBT people he didn't allow his feelings to be prejudice against that community but now people are saying he is homophobic with no real proof

Because (and I am just reading between the lines) he is a homophobic prick and he just can't hid that fact any more.

So homophobic that he keeps voting in favour of LGBT rights

He used the phrase "Committed Christian" and "faithful Christian" multiple times in his resignation speech. He specifically cited problems in reconciling his responsibilities between living up to his faith and living up to his position as "leader of a progressive, liberal party".

Like I said, I am reading between the lines, but he is putting his faith - his CHRISTIAN faith - above his role as leading the party. And, off the top of my head, there are very few things in the Christian faith that would stop him from leading a liberal progressive party, so unless he REALLY wants to bring back the death penalty, reintroduce school prayer or is secretly hoping to make British Law based entirely on the 10 Commandments (which not impossible) I am pretty sure I know what part of the faith is causing him problems.

He has been lying to everyone and sucking up to the public to get votes, but now he is reverting to type and standing down because of it.

[Olivaero]

he isn't homophobic he struggled on that question mainly because the bible has some verses which suggest that homosexuality is a sin. even if he didn't like LGBT people he didn't allow his feelings to be prejudice against that community but now people are saying he is homophobic with no real proof

So homophobic that he keeps voting in favour of LGBT rights

He used the phrase "Committed Christian" and "faithful Christian" multiple times in his resignation speech. He specifically cited problems in reconciling his responsibilities between living up to his faith and living up to his position as "leader of a progressive, liberal party".

Like I said, I am reading between the lines, but he is putting his faith - his CHRISTIAN faith - above his role as leading the party. And, off the top of my head, there are very few things in the Christian faith that would stop him from leading a liberal progressive party, so unless he REALLY wants to bring back the death penalty, reintroduce school prayer or is secretly hoping to make British Law based entirely on the 10 Commandments (which not impossible) I am pretty sure I know what part of the faith is causing him problems.

He has been lying to everyone and sucking up to the public to get votes, but now he is reverting to type and standing down because of it.

Or he thinks that, the fact that he considers homosexuality a sin, is unacceptable to progressives even if he believes in equality before law. Why would he even be a lib dem if he had a problem with the two conflicting? It's other people that have a problem with it, not him. And I think it's sad tbh. That the Lib Dem core vote couldn't get their heads around the difference between personal faith and political convictions. There were plenty of reasons not to vote lib dem oin the election besides Tim Farron's personal faith but it's clear that was the thing that everyone had a problem with.

[Major-Tom]

Interesting. The Lib Dems did gain seats so I don't know why that's happening.

Because (and I am just reading between the lines) he is a homophobic prick and he just can't hid that fact any more.

Oh c'mon. He voted in favor of LGBT rights and did a lot of good stuff for their community. He slipped up a few times because he was like "well, I'm christian so personally..."

Like, yeah, whatever, that's his prerogative if he wants to be grossed out by it personally. If he allies with them in the House of Commons, which he very clearly did, I'm not gonna judge him for that.

[The Archregimancy]

My reaction to Farron's resignation from a LibDem member's perspective, for what it's worth...

I always thought it was likely he'd step down by the end of the year; he was realistically never more than a stop-gap least-worst option. After 2015, we needed a leader who wasn't deeply involved with the Coalition; which left Farron as the only realistic option. Certainly the feeling was that the party would allow itself a few months of stability before gently nudging him aside with honour intact.

So I'm appalled at the manner and timing of the coup. Apparently Brian Paddick and a group of unnamed senior party members went to ask him to step down, and when he refused, Paddick resigned - making it clear the issue was Farron's religion. This left Farron with no choice but to step down. Knifing Farron on the day of the Grenfell Tower fire has also raised eyebrows.

I'm an (Eastern Orthodox) Christian LibDem myself, and while my views on theology and morality often diverge significantly from Farron's, it disappoints me that the profoundly liberal message that you can disagree with what someone does, and yet fundamentally believe in and support their right to do it never gained traction.

That said, I also accept that the issue had become a distraction, and was actively damaging to the election campaign; it wasn't going to go away. Even so, the manner and timing haven't impressed within the party.

There's also the irony that forcing out the party leader because you disagree with his religion is itself arguably deeply illiberal.

On the plus side, Farron's fall and the cross-party disquiet over the Tory deal with the DUP do rather show how far LGBT+ rights have come in the UK in the last 20 years.


And if anyone's wondering... the next leader will very likely be Jo Swinson; assuming she wants to be leader.

[MERIZoC]

Voting in favour of LGBT rights is distasteful?

Distasteful personal views. Seriously, make sure you've read the post before making a snarky answer.

That is perhaps too much to ask for.

[Major-Tom]

My reaction to Farron's resignation from a LibDem member's perspective, for what it's worth...

I always thought it was likely he'd step down by the end of the year; he was realistically never more than a stop-gap least-worst option. After 2015, we needed a leader who wasn't deeply involved with the Coalition; which left Farron as the only realistic option. Certainly the feeling was that the party would allow itself a few months of stability before gently nudging him aside with honour intact.

So I'm appalled at the manner and timing of the coup. Apparently Brian Paddick and a group of unnamed senior party members went to ask him to step down, and when he refused, Paddick resigned - making it clear the issue was Farron's religion. This left Farron with no choice but to step down. Knifing Farron on the day of the Grenfell Tower fire has also raised eyebrows.

I'm an (Eastern Orthodox) Christian LibDem myself, and while my views on theology and morality often diverge significantly from Farron's, it disappoints me that the profoundly liberal message that you can disagree with what someone does, and yet fundamentally believe in and support their right to do it never gained traction.

That said, I also accept that the issue had become a distraction, and was actively damaging to the election campaign; it wasn't going to go away. Even so, the manner and timing haven't impressed within the party.

There's also the irony that forcing out the party leader because you disagree with his religion is itself arguably deeply illiberal.

On the plus side, Farron's fall and the cross-party disquiet over the Tory deal with the DUP do rather show how far LGBT+ rights have come in the UK in the last 20 years.


And if anyone's wondering... the next leader will very likely be Jo Swinson; assuming she wants to be leader.

Very mature post. All the outrage over Farron and LGBT was overstated.

[Souseiseki]

reiterating that farron (and probably whoever replaces him) would with zero competition or debate be the best possible option for LGBT people of all major parties

[Imperializt Russia]

On the 12th, Farron also apparently instigated a deputy leader election. He said he had waited until the party was more diverse with more women before undertaking it. I think Swinson was named as a possible candidate in this too?

All I can hope is, that if Swindon does win, it doesn't turn into "well why doesn't Labour have a female leader yet, HHRMMMMMM??"

[MERIZoC]

On the 12th, Farron also apparently instigated a deputy leader election. He said he had waited until the party was more diverse with more women before undertaking it. I think Swinson was named as a possible candidate in this too?

All I can hope is, that if Swindon does win, it doesn't turn into "well why doesn't Labour have a female leader yet, HHRMMMMMM??"

Theresa May slay kween

[Major-Tom]

So, was Swinson the one LibDem to pick up a seat in Scotland this time 'round?

[Hydesland]

My reaction to Farron's resignation from a LibDem member's perspective, for what it's worth...

I always thought it was likely he'd step down by the end of the year; he was realistically never more than a stop-gap least-worst option. After 2015, we needed a leader who wasn't deeply involved with the Coalition; which left Farron as the only realistic option. Certainly the feeling was that the party would allow itself a few months of stability before gently nudging him aside with honour intact.

So I'm appalled at the manner and timing of the coup. Apparently Brian Paddick and a group of unnamed senior party members went to ask him to step down, and when he refused, Paddick resigned - making it clear the issue was Farron's religion. This left Farron with no choice but to step down. Knifing Farron on the day of the Grenfell Tower fire has also raised eyebrows.

I'm an (Eastern Orthodox) Christian LibDem myself, and while my views on theology and morality often diverge significantly from Farron's, it disappoints me that the profoundly liberal message that you can disagree with what someone does, and yet fundamentally believe in and support their right to do it never gained traction.

That said, I also accept that the issue had become a distraction, and was actively damaging to the election campaign; it wasn't going to go away. Even so, the manner and timing haven't impressed within the party.

There's also the irony that forcing out the party leader because you disagree with his religion is itself arguably deeply illiberal.

On the plus side, Farron's fall and the cross-party disquiet over the Tory deal with the DUP do rather show how far LGBT+ rights have come in the UK in the last 20 years.


And if anyone's wondering... the next leader will very likely be Jo Swinson; assuming she wants to be leader.

Why not Vince, still too much baggage from the coalition?

[The Archregimancy]

So, was Swinson the one LibDem to pick up a seat in Scotland this time 'round?

There were three pickups in Scotland.

Prior to the election, Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) was the only LibDem MP.

The LibDems then picked up:

Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone)
Dunbartonshire East (Jo Swinson)
Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine)

Since Scottish women are clearly the most successful politicians in the UK right now, we might as well jump on the bandwagon; why, we even have two to choose from.

More seriously, as the party's former shadow for foreign affairs, the former PPS to the Deputy Prime Minister, a former parliamentary under-secretary in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, a former junior equalities minister, and a staunch Kennedyite opponent of the Iraq war, Swinson ticks a lot of boxes for party members. Unlike Cable and Lamb, she also has youth on her side.

I just need to cope with the concept of a party leader who was born in the 1980s; given I was born in the 1960s, I'm about to feel like a dinosaur.

[The Archregimancy]

Why not Vince, still too much baggage from the coalition?

It's nothing to do with the coalition. It is, sad to say, his age.

The simple fact of the matter is that Ming Campbell was only 65 when he followed Kennedy as party leader. He was then essentially hounded out for being too old. Vince Cable just turned 74.

Granted, Campbell was initially facing Cameron and Blair, which accentuated his age; Cable might not look quite so old stacked up against May and Corbyn (both of whom are in their 60s - and Corbyn is older than Campbell was when the latter was leader). But even that observation might be another argument for Swinson; let the two main parties have the old farts - the LibDems are likely about to choose a leader under 40.

Do I think any of the above is fair? No, of course not.

But who claimed politics is fair?

[Imperializt Russia]

Why not Vince, still too much baggage from the coalition?

It's nothing to do with the coalition. It is, sad to say, his age.

The simple fact of the matter is that Ming Campbell was only 65 when he followed Kennedy as party leader. He was then essentially hounded out for being too old. Vince Cable just turned 74.

Granted, Campbell was initially facing Cameron and Blair, which accentuated his age; Cable might not look quite so old stacked up against May and Corbyn (both of whom are in their 60s - and Corbyn is older than Campbell was when the latter was leader). But even that observation might be another argument for Swinson; let the two main parties have the old farts - the LibDems are likely about to choose a leader under 40.

Do I think any of the above is fair? No, of course not.

But who claimed politics is fair?

And yet, Corbyn polls so well with the young that even in the midst of an ongoing media war against him, a majority of under-45s voted for him.

[Olivaero]

This all reminds me of the discourse surrounding Angela Eagle vs corbyn last year. The obsession of some sides of the left with their leaders being of a certain gender and in Angela Eagle's case sexual orientation is infuriating. And it's also the kind of vain politics that I'm very glad corbyn is against.

reiterating that farron (and probably whoever replaces him) would with zero competition or debate be the best possible option for LGBT people of all major parties

Are you sure you don't mean "The lib dems have a better record on this issue than labour?" because I don't see how Farron would be that remarkably better for LGBT people than Corbyn would be.

[The Archregimancy]

And yet, Corbyn polls so well with the young that even in the midst of an ongoing media war against him, a majority of under-45s voted for him.

As I said, who claimed politics is fair?

[Souseiseki]

This all reminds me of the discourse surrounding Angela Eagle vs corbyn last year. The obsession of some sides of the left with their leaders being of a certain gender and in Angela Eagle's case sexual orientation is infuriating. And it's also the kind of vain politics that I'm very glad corbyn is against.

reiterating that farron (and probably whoever replaces him) would with zero competition or debate be the best possible option for LGBT people of all major parties

Are you sure you don't mean "The lib dems have a better record on this issue than labour?" because I don't see how Farron would be that remarkably better for LGBT people than Corbyn would be.

yes. he would be better because he is the leader of the lib dems and therefore leading a lib dem government in the miracle it ever became relevant.

[Souseiseki]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 59336.html

Britain could slash environmental and safety regulations on imported products after it leaves the EU, a Tory MP has suggested.

Jacob Rees-Mogg said regulations that were “good enough for India” could be good enough for the UK – arguing that the UK could go “a very long way” to rolling back high EU standards.

The idea, floated at a hearing of the Treasury Select Committee, was immediately rejected by an economist, who said such a move would likely cause “quite considerable” difficulties.

just smashing my head against the wall. people like mogg get away with some things because they're living caricatures of the typical tory, but they actually want some pretty stupid things and are actually quite dangerous in many ways. also another lol at the idea that the people who wanted to leave the EU in part because EU standards were too high and EU regulations too tight were going to totally keep all the EU standards. i don't know how anyone actually believes that one.

[Gauliscia]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-safety-standards-workers-rights-jacob-rees-mogg-a7459336.html

Britain could slash environmental and safety regulations on imported products after it leaves the EU, a Tory MP has suggested.

Jacob Rees-Mogg said regulations that were “good enough for India” could be good enough for the UK – arguing that the UK could go “a very long way” to rolling back high EU standards.

The idea, floated at a hearing of the Treasury Select Committee, was immediately rejected by an economist, who said such a move would likely cause “quite considerable” difficulties.

just smashing my head against the wall. people like mogg get away with some things because they're living caricatures of the typical tory, but they actually want some pretty stupid things and are actually quite dangerous in many ways. also another lol at the idea that the people who wanted to leave the EU in part because EU standards were too high and EU regulations too tight were going to totally keep all the EU standards. i don't know how anyone actually believes that one.

Jacob Rees-Mogg should be PM I'll have you know.

It's not so much whether we will change them, its that we have the power to change them.