2015 UK Politics Megathread

[Angleter]

Regardless of exactly how left-wing or right-wing the actual Labour party policies were in the 2015 election, Ed played the 'red' card and employed a lot of left-wing rhetoric to publicise them. He stretched out his policies to make them sound like economic populism: Ed's rhetoric had him set to attack the rich and give to the poor, omitting the importance of the British middle class, whom Ed seems to have overlooked and who voted ... disproportionately more Conservative than they did Labour.

I remember someone saying how remarkable it was that when the Tories came out with their customary letter signed by a gazillion businessmen endorsing them, Labour didn't bother trying to respond in kind. They'd given up on trying to demonstrate that they had significant support from businesses. It just wasn't a part of their campaign at all (unlike in previous election campaigns).

[Greater-London]

Immigration is an important issue to many people yes but it's not the only issue on the field. Say if we vote to stay in the EU for example immigration I believe will be talked about relatively less because that at the end of the day would be a positive message on immigration to some extent from voters. Talking about the perceived negative impacts of immigration I believe is largely a mistake on Labour's part over the last five years why not bring focus to the main causes of crime and poverty namely an imbalanced economic system instead? If the left can paint a narrative that rivals the right's one instead of meekly buying into it and arguing on their terms they may be in with a chance of constructing the new centre that I talked about earlier. And believe it or not I think Corbyn could be the man for the job on that front.

Well I would say Corbyn is your man in that respect; insofar that he isn't tinged with the New Labour or Ed's 'one nation' brand. Labour would be reborn under Corbyn the question is whether or not that rebirth would see a repeat of 1997 or 1983. I suspect it would be the latter; I don't agree with Corbyn on very much but I don't think he's a bad man and he seems perfectly competent and I understand why some people like him.

In terms of the immigration debate I blame Labour of the past rather than Labour or the Conservatives now. The problem is that under New Labour immigration was a non-topic, we didn't talk about it and those who did where called racists, bigots, cranks ETC. During that period the UK experienced immigration at a level unprecedented in its history and in mainstream political circles nobody was talking about it. As such people were understandably suspicious as instead of being reasoned with when they raised (sometimes legitimate concerns) about numbers they where shouted down.

The problem is that we've now gone full circle and whilst immigration used to be a taboo now it seems like we talk about nothing else. The problem with the immigration debate is that it often takes place between two people. One who blames immigrants for everything bad with this country including the weather and the other clamming that immigration never causes problems and anyone who says otherwise must be a racist.

I think Labour almost got it right (but then went so wrong) about immigration over the last 5 years. They started by saying to many people came in a small space of time and it was wrong to shut down debate. However they then concluded they should be printing "tough on immigration mugs" and very little else. They should have said the truth; immigration throws up some problem but so long as numbers dont get out of hand and we work on community relations then theirs no reason why immigration can enrich the UK greatly.

[Olivaero]

Regardless of exactly how left-wing or right-wing the actual Labour party policies were in the 2015 election, Ed played the 'red' card and employed a lot of left-wing rhetoric to publicise them. He stretched out his policies to make them sound like economic populism: Ed's rhetoric had him set to attack the rich and give to the poor, omitting the importance of the British middle class, whom Ed seems to have overlooked and who voted ... disproportionately more Conservative than they did Labour.

Or he didn't inspire enough of core Labour voters to get out and vote causing in a relative rise in the proportion of conservative voters. partly because he had spent 5 years being a national joke.

Immigration is an important issue to many people yes but it's not the only issue on the field. Say if we vote to stay in the EU for example immigration I believe will be talked about relatively less because that at the end of the day would be a positive message on immigration to some extent from voters. Talking about the perceived negative impacts of immigration I believe is largely a mistake on Labour's part over the last five years why not bring focus to the main causes of crime and poverty namely an imbalanced economic system instead? If the left can paint a narrative that rivals the right's one instead of meekly buying into it and arguing on their terms they may be in with a chance of constructing the new centre that I talked about earlier. And believe it or not I think Corbyn could be the man for the job on that front.

Well I would say Corbyn is your man in that respect; insofar that he isn't tinged with the New Labour or Ed's 'one nation' brand. Labour would be reborn under Corbyn the question is whether or not that rebirth would see a repeat of 1997 or 1983. I suspect it would be the latter; I don't agree with Corbyn on very much but I don't think he's a bad man and he seems perfectly competent and I understand why some people like him.

In terms of the immigration debate I blame Labour of the past rather than Labour or the Conservatives now. The problem is that under New Labour immigration was a non-topic, we didn't talk about it and those who did where called racists, bigots, cranks ETC. During that period the UK experienced immigration at a level unprecedented in its history and in mainstream political circles nobody was talking about it. As such people were understandably suspicious as instead of being reasoned with when they raised (sometimes legitimate concerns) about numbers they where shouted down.

The problem is that we've now gone full circle and whilst immigration used to be a taboo now it seems like we talk about nothing else. The problem with the immigration debate is that it often takes place between two people. One who blames immigrants for everything bad with this country including the weather and the other clamming that immigration never causes problems and anyone who says otherwise must be a racist.

I think Labour almost got it right (but then went so wrong) about immigration over the last 5 years. They started by saying to many people came in a small space of time and it was wrong to shut down debate. However they then concluded they should be printing "tough on immigration mugs" and very little else. They should have said the truth; immigration throws up some problem but so long as numbers dont get out of hand and we work on community relations then theirs no reason why immigration can enrich the UK greatly.

The thing is I don't think I've ever seen a study that wasn't about the islamification of Europe or something crazy like that where there is such a thing as too much immigration. Immigration has in the last 300 years literally built a super power from a provincial backwater to a giant. What New Labour did do was ignore the culture of english regions (except London of course) had it empowered local governments and not been dismissive of English civic nationalism I think the English nationalists may have been more understanding of their multicultural agenda of celebrating the cultures that were arriving en masse to our island.

[Dejanic]

New Labour took it too far, there's no doubt. I'm very pro immigration, and my dads an immigrant, but completely opening our borders, letting big families come here and instantly claim benefits/get a house, clearly isn't very productive.

And thanks to that, I think the Labour felt like it needed to go ultra anti migrant with its stupid "border controls" rhetoric mug bullshit during the 2015 election in an attempt to try and distance itself from Blairs immigration policy, and it just looked forced tbh. I feel immigration controls should be fairly lax, but New Labour took it way too far. I think objectively most people can agree with that.

[Geilinor]

New Labour took it too far, there's no doubt. I'm very pro immigration, and my dads an immigrant, but completely opening our borders, letting big families come here and instantly claim benefits/get a house, clearly isn't very productive.

And thanks to that, I think the Labour felt like it needed to go ultra anti migrant with its stupid "border controls" rhetoric mug bullshit during the 2015 election in an attempt to try and distance itself from Blairs immigration policy, and it just looked forced tbh. I feel immigration controls should be fairly lax, but New Labour took it way too far. I think objectively most people can agree with that.

They didn't "completely open the borders", that's a bit of a stretch.

[Dejanic]

New Labour took it too far, there's no doubt. I'm very pro immigration, and my dads an immigrant, but completely opening our borders, letting big families come here and instantly claim benefits/get a house, clearly isn't very productive.

And thanks to that, I think the Labour felt like it needed to go ultra anti migrant with its stupid "border controls" rhetoric mug bullshit during the 2015 election in an attempt to try and distance itself from Blairs immigration policy, and it just looked forced tbh. I feel immigration controls should be fairly lax, but New Labour took it way too far. I think objectively most people can agree with that.

They didn't "completely open the borders", that's a bit of a stretch.

The policy boiled down to "anyone who wants to come and live here, and isn't an outright wanted criminal, can effectively come here" it was as close as you can get to open borders without literally having no immigration controls what so ever (there was controls, but they were few and far between).

I'm very pro immigration, and it takes a lot for me to actually criticize a set of policy decisions from an anti immigration angle, but clearly New Labour went too far. I think 99 percent of people in Britain are inbetween the extremes of Blairs "all the immigrants" view point, and Nick Griffins "no immigrants" view point, we just all lean in slightly different directions in this regard.

Do you live or have you ever lived in Britain btw? Just curious, because you speak on this thread as if you have lived here, or currently live here.

[Geilinor]

They didn't "completely open the borders", that's a bit of a stretch.

The policy boiled down to "anyone who wants to come and live here, and isn't an outright wanted criminal, can effectively come here" it was as close as you can get to open borders without literally having no immigration controls what so ever (there was controls, but they were few and far between).

I'm very pro immigration, and it takes a lot for me to actually criticize a set of policy decisions from an anti immigration angle, but clearly New Labour went too far. I think 99 percent of people in Britain are inbetween the extremes of Blairs "all the immigrants" view point, and Nick Griffins "no immigrants" view point, we just all lean in slightly different directions in this regard.

Do you live or have you ever lived in Britain btw? Just curious, because you speak on this thread as if you have lived here, or currently live here.

"Complete opening" implies no controls at all. And by the way, why don't you ask Atlanticatia that when he posts here? Because he always agrees with you?

[Comrade Strong]

New Labour took it too far, there's no doubt. I'm very pro immigration, and my dads an immigrant, but completely opening our borders, letting big families come here and instantly claim benefits/get a house, clearly isn't very productive.

And thanks to that, I think the Labour felt like it needed to go ultra anti migrant with its stupid "border controls" rhetoric mug bullshit during the 2015 election in an attempt to try and distance itself from Blairs immigration policy, and it just looked forced tbh. I feel immigration controls should be fairly lax, but New Labour took it way too far. I think objectively most people can agree with that.

It's a good thing that immigrants are less likely to claim benefits then isn't it.

The biggest issue with the UK economy is its awful productivity. If British workers were as productive as French workers, they could have a 20% pay rise or take a day off the working week and still earn the same money.

[Geilinor]

Dej, if you won't believe me, I take it that you will believe the author of a book on immigration. http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/immigration-legacy-tony-blair

Namely, Blair leaves behind an immigration system that has been fundamentally reshaped: migration is now "managed" to favor migrants coming for work and study.

Making Migration Work for Britain Policy Strategy 2006 Proposed a five-tier economic migration system. Tiers equate to categories: (1) high skilled, (2) skilled with job offer, (3) low skilled, (4) students, and (5) miscellaneous.
Immigration, Asylum, and Nationality (IAN) Act Parliamentary Act 2006 Mainly focused on immigration (rather than asylum), it included restrictions on appeal rights, sanctions on employers of unauthorized labor, and a tightening of citizenship rules.

UK Borders Bill Parliamentary Bill 2007 Proposes police powers for immigration officers and a requirement that foreign nationals must have a Biometric Immigration Document (BID).

Policy developments can be summarized as a strong commitment to the management of migration for macroeconomic gain and the development of a tough security framework that combats unauthorized migration and reduces asylum seeking

Border control remains crucial. The Blair government has steadily increased resources for securing the borders, particularly in the wake of an estimate published in 2005 of the number of illegal immigrants (about 430,000 or 0.7 percent of the population).

One of his biographers, Anthony Seldon, attributes Blair's interest in asylum to his "political antennae," which told him that people felt the asylum system was being exploited. Blair himself felt the asylum system was "perverse." Another plausible explanation might be Blair's desire to develop narratives on issues the "Left" in Britain traditionally ignored.

Regardless of the exact reasons, Blair's interest in asylum peaked with his speech to the Labour party conference in September 2004. It was in this speech that he first laid down what was to become a crucial asylum target, known as the "tipping point." In essence, it meant that more failed asylum seekers would be removed each month than had applied. This target, together with changes to the legal system, and a new welfare system based on forced dispersal, has driven much of the increasingly restrictive asylum policy of the UK.

[Greater-London]

1. Or he didn't inspire enough of core Labour voters to get out and vote causing in a relative rise in the proportion of conservative voters. partly because he had spent 5 years being a national joke.

2. The thing is I don't think I've ever seen a study that wasn't about the islamification of Europe or something crazy like that where there is such a thing as too much immigration. Immigration has in the last 300 years literally built a super power from a provincial backwater to a giant. What New Labour did do was ignore the culture of english regions (except London of course) had it empowered local governments and not been dismissive of English civic nationalism I think the English nationalists may have been more understanding of their multicultural agenda of celebrating the cultures that were arriving en masse to our island.

1. Nah I'm going to call false on that one. There where a number of strong swings to Labour in the country, they just counted for nothing as they where in seats they already had. It's worth noting that Labour did win a number of traditional Labour seats back, and aside from 6 to the Conservatives lost the rest of their seats to the SNP. I don't think many seats north of the border where safe from the tide of nationalism brought on by the SNP.

2. Well first of all I'd challenge the idea that England later Britain was a provincial backwater 300 years ago its history as a great power goes back further than that. The point also that whilst there has always been comings and goings to these islands the numbers under New Labour where unprecedented. Since the 1950's there have been consecutive years where net migration has seen the UK population falling; partiuarlly in the late 70's and early 80's (weirdly a high point of tension around immigration). Post Blair net migration shot up dramatically 48,000 in 1997 to 140,000 in 1998 and climbing year on year till 273,000 in 2007. So yes whilst we have always had immigrants it has never been at the scale we currently have.

I am however inclined to agree with you on the latter point that had English culture been promoted as part of multiculturalism things could have been easier. I would however argue that too much Immigration is one where services cannot expand to keep up with demand. We all know economic migrants to the UK put more money in than they take out, but it does however take time to build new schools, train new GP's, get new train carriages ETC. So whilst migrants are paying their way there is certainly a finite number in terms of what the country can deal with. Alongside this it takes time for immigrants to integrate into their communities, you cannot expect to have a quarter of a million people arriving a year and have them all adapt in time for the next lot, it takes time. I'm relaxed about the numbers but there is "too high" and whilst I think caps are a stupid idea the idea of net migration of around 250,000 a year just seems ridiuclous.

[Greater-London]

Dej, if you won't believe me, I take it that you will believe the author of a book on immigration. http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/immigration-legacy-tony-blair

It does however mainly boil down to the numbers, whilst Dej is wrong that the border was "completely open" the UK wasn't (and still isn't) allowed to stop free movement of labour from the EU. This teamed up with non EU immigration meant net migration under New Labour was up by hundreds of thosands and stayed up there. So regardless of whether or not Blair attempted to better manage migration, 'too much' is basicaly a numbers game.

[Olivaero]

1. Or he didn't inspire enough of core Labour voters to get out and vote causing in a relative rise in the proportion of conservative voters. partly because he had spent 5 years being a national joke.

2. The thing is I don't think I've ever seen a study that wasn't about the islamification of Europe or something crazy like that where there is such a thing as too much immigration. Immigration has in the last 300 years literally built a super power from a provincial backwater to a giant. What New Labour did do was ignore the culture of english regions (except London of course) had it empowered local governments and not been dismissive of English civic nationalism I think the English nationalists may have been more understanding of their multicultural agenda of celebrating the cultures that were arriving en masse to our island.

1. Nah I'm going to call false on that one. There where a number of strong swings to Labour in the country, they just counted for nothing as they where in seats they already had. It's worth noting that Labour did win a number of traditional Labour seats back, and aside from 6 to the Conservatives lost the rest of their seats to the SNP. I don't think many seats north of the border where safe from the tide of nationalism brought on by the SNP.

2. Well first of all I'd challenge the idea that England later Britain was a provincial backwater 300 years ago its history as a great power goes back further than that. The point also that whilst there has always been comings and goings to these islands the numbers under New Labour where unprecedented. Since the 1950's there have been consecutive years where net migration has seen the UK population falling; partiuarlly in the late 70's and early 80's (weirdly a high point of tension around immigration). Post Blair net migration shot up dramatically 48,000 in 1997 to 140,000 in 1998 and climbing year on year till 273,000 in 2007. So yes whilst we have always had immigrants it has never been at the scale we currently have.

I am however inclined to agree with you on the latter point that had English culture been promoted as part of multiculturalism things could have been easier. I would however argue that too much Immigration is one where services cannot expand to keep up with demand. We all know economic migrants to the UK put more money in than they take out, but it does however take time to build new schools, train new GP's, get new train carriages ETC. So whilst migrants are paying their way there is certainly a finite number in terms of what the country can deal with. Alongside this it takes time for immigrants to integrate into their communities, you cannot expect to have a quarter of a million people arriving a year and have them all adapt in time for the next lot, it takes time. I'm relaxed about the numbers but there is "too high" and whilst I think caps are a stupid idea the idea of net migration of around 250,000 a year just seems ridiuclous.

I haven't really looked too hard at the actual statistics behind the election but from what your saying it sounds more like the conservatives swayed ex lib dems and Ed Milliband failed to which is not surprsing because of said character assassination that occurred for 5 years and that he didn't have the charisma to fight back against.

Also the country I was talking about was the 13 colonies and later the United states of America not England or the UK. As far as services go yes they may suffer in the sort term but in the long term they (the immigrants) are stopping our population from actually shrinking year upon year. The young workers they provide are supporting and will support our elderly population.

[Greater-London]

I haven't really looked too hard at the actual statistics behind the election but from what your saying it sounds more like the conservatives swayed ex lib dems and Ed Milliband failed to which is not surprsing because of said character assassination that occurred for 5 years and that he didn't have the charisma to fight back against.

Also the country I was talking about was the 13 colonies and later the United states of America not England or the UK. As far as services go yes they may suffer in the sort term but in the long term they (the immigrants) are stopping our population from actually shrinking year upon year. The young workers they provide are supporting and will support our elderly population.

True. However I think the Labour core held out reasonably well, but yea obviously it failed.

Oh, Ha. My bad. To be fair I thought superpower was being a bit generous to the UK. Yeah that's true, my point wasn't anti migration but that there needs to be some limit on numbers otherwise so as to keep that sort of problem in check. In terms of caring for our elderly, that's all well and good, but you need to remember that immigrants get old as well. Shipping in more people to look after the elderly isn't a long term strategy.

[Dejanic]

New Labour took it too far, there's no doubt. I'm very pro immigration, and my dads an immigrant, but completely opening our borders, letting big families come here and instantly claim benefits/get a house, clearly isn't very productive.

And thanks to that, I think the Labour felt like it needed to go ultra anti migrant with its stupid "border controls" rhetoric mug bullshit during the 2015 election in an attempt to try and distance itself from Blairs immigration policy, and it just looked forced tbh. I feel immigration controls should be fairly lax, but New Labour took it way too far. I think objectively most people can agree with that.

It's a good thing that immigrants are less likely to claim benefits then isn't it.

The biggest issue with the UK economy is its awful productivity. If British workers were as productive as French workers, they could have a 20% pay rise or take a day off the working week and still earn the same money.

Surely it's a bit out of character for a Communist to be attacking the workers of this country and blaming our economic woes on their "recovery", surely "bourgeois" management and organisation is the problem. Workers only do what they're told, after all.

And you think if say British workers naturally became more productive overnight, businesses would start raising wages as a result? There'd be no union or government struggle on this, Mcdonalds would just randomly start paying 8 pound as a starting rate for example, because all it's workers had become much more productive?

I would of thought a Communist would know things like this.

[The Archregimancy]

Very quick question to those of you interested in UK politics...

To what extent is Tim Farron's Christianity [or particular brand thereof] an issue for you?

If you're a current or former LibDem voter, Is it any more or less of an issue for you than Charles Kennedy's Catholicism was?

[L Ron Cupboard]

Very quick question to those of you interested in UK politics...

To what extent is Tim Farron's Christianity [or particular brand thereof] an issue for you?

Only if he talks about it.

[Lordieth]

Very quick question to those of you interested in UK politics...

To what extent is Tim Farron's Christianity [or particular brand thereof] an issue for you?

If you're a current or former LibDem voter, Is it any more or less of an issue for you than Charles Kennedy's Catholicism was?

In a personal level; not at all. On a political level, it very much depends on how his religious values influence his ideals. If his ideals are mostly Liberal Democrat ideals, then no issue, but if he allows his personal beliefs from his faith to influence his decisions that affect major policy of political positioning, then it would be an issue for me.

It's somewhat different in the UK than it is in America. We have no general public expectation of our politicians to believe in God.

[Greater-London]

Very quick question to those of you interested in UK politics...

To what extent is Tim Farron's Christianity [or particular brand thereof] an issue for you?

If you're a current or former LibDem voter, Is it any more or less of an issue for you than Charles Kennedy's Catholicism was?

I joined the Liberal Democrats (perhaps a bit to much on a whim) on election night. Although to be fair those I most identify with Jeremy Browne, Danny Alexander and David Laws have all lost their seats or stood down. I also voted for Norman Lamb.

Tim's Christianity doesn't bother me at all, hes very run of the mill Church of England and I get the feeling its not something he'll really talk about (unless probed). Politicians in the UK don't do god after all, especially bog standard Anglicans.

I'm assuming this is most peoples position?

[The Matthew Islands]

Very quick question to those of you interested in UK politics...

To what extent is Tim Farron's Christianity [or particular brand thereof] an issue for you?

If you're a current or former LibDem voter, Is it any more or less of an issue for you than Charles Kennedy's Catholicism was?

It depends on how it influences policy TBH. I don't care that he is a Christian, I would be concerned however if he started attacking recent advances in civil rights (gay marriage etc.)

*Edit* BTW, I didn't vote Lib Dem so I can't answer the last part.

[Olivaero]

I haven't really looked too hard at the actual statistics behind the election but from what your saying it sounds more like the conservatives swayed ex lib dems and Ed Milliband failed to which is not surprsing because of said character assassination that occurred for 5 years and that he didn't have the charisma to fight back against.

Also the country I was talking about was the 13 colonies and later the United states of America not England or the UK. As far as services go yes they may suffer in the sort term but in the long term they (the immigrants) are stopping our population from actually shrinking year upon year. The young workers they provide are supporting and will support our elderly population.

True. However I think the Labour core held out reasonably well, but yea obviously it failed.

Oh, Ha. My bad. To be fair I thought superpower was being a bit generous to the UK. Yeah that's true, my point wasn't anti migration but that there needs to be some limit on numbers otherwise so as to keep that sort of problem in check. In terms of caring for our elderly, that's all well and good, but you need to remember that immigrants get old as well. Shipping in more people to look after the elderly isn't a long term strategy.

It's essentially a stop gap measure automation will eventually deal with this problem (and throw up many more) but right now we are fortunate to have, not cursed with, a large numbers of migrants. Economically any way. Cultural issues are one of perspective so I can't say categorically whether it (mass immigration) is an overall cultural benefit to our nation, I think it is, I enjoy living in a diverse society, but governmentally we have to manage it in a different way not the strictly English nationalism of the conservatives or UKIP and the... I don't even know what to call the policies of New Labour on this matter anti-English nationalism?

In any case the UK needs to become Plurinational for the Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Cornish and English, and multicultural for immigrant cultures.

[Cannabis Islands]

Very quick question to those of you interested in UK politics...

To what extent is Tim Farron's Christianity [or particular brand thereof] an issue for you?

If you're a current or former LibDem voter, Is it any more or less of an issue for you than Charles Kennedy's Catholicism was?

As a yank, can I ask why it matter to anyone in the UK if a party leader is a Christian? Our elected leaders can't shut up about their christianity.

[Grave_n_idle]

They didn't "completely open the borders", that's a bit of a stretch.

The policy boiled down to "anyone who wants to come and live here, and isn't an outright wanted criminal, can effectively come here" it was as close as you can get to open borders without literally having no immigration controls what so ever (there was controls, but they were few and far between).

I'm very pro immigration, and it takes a lot for me to actually criticize a set of policy decisions from an anti immigration angle, but clearly New Labour went too far. I think 99 percent of people in Britain are inbetween the extremes of Blairs "all the immigrants" view point, and Nick Griffins "no immigrants" view point, we just all lean in slightly different directions in this regard.

Do you live or have you ever lived in Britain btw? Just curious, because you speak on this thread as if you have lived here, or currently live here.

Sorry, but this is horseshit. It's almost impossible to get into the UK unless you have a lot of money - UNLESS you're from the EU, where we have something of a free exchange.

I think you're getting bad information. But then, I've noticed British politics and media took a massive jump to the right over the last decade, so I don't hold you responsible for that.

[Imperializt Russia]

Very quick question to those of you interested in UK politics...

To what extent is Tim Farron's Christianity [or particular brand thereof] an issue for you?

If you're a current or former LibDem voter, Is it any more or less of an issue for you than Charles Kennedy's Catholicism was?

As a yank, can I ask why it matter to anyone in the UK if a party leader is a Christian? Our elected leaders can't shut up about their christianity.

That's basically the reason.

[Comrade Strong]

Very quick question to those of you interested in UK politics...

To what extent is Tim Farron's Christianity [or particular brand thereof] an issue for you?

If you're a current or former LibDem voter, Is it any more or less of an issue for you than Charles Kennedy's Catholicism was?

As a yank, can I ask why it matter to anyone in the UK if a party leader is a Christian? Our elected leaders can't shut up about their christianity.

The British electorate tend not to do God. It doesn't matter if it's never brought up in an interview, or if he never says anything about it. But if he starts prattling on about his religion it'll make people feel uncomfortable.

[Cannabis Islands]

As a yank, can I ask why it matter to anyone in the UK if a party leader is a Christian? Our elected leaders can't shut up about their christianity.

That's basically the reason.

If one believes homosexuality is a sin but does not want active discrimination against them, I don't see what the protest is about. His is keeping private religious to his own personal life on this matter, and for that I have tremendous respect for him.