[Closed] Is May about to call an election?

Quite, MWS.

[b][u]UNLESS[/u][/b] you want a Tory government with a huge majority tearing the NHS, education and welfare systems apart and irrevocably selling the best bits to their mates, vote tactically.

I'm very annoyed at Corbyn's pro-Brexit stance, but in Bolton West, we either get Tory or Labour. No matter how pro remain I am, a vote of the Libs will mean that the Tories are more likely to retain this marginal seat. Likewise, I was furious about some of the compromises the Libs made during coalition, but were it a two horse race between the Libs and the Tories, I'd reluctantly vote lib.

I would hold my nose and vote lib dem in a tory / lib dem marginal

I have always espoused tactical anti tory voting and the greatest service labour and the lib dems could do is have a non aggression pact as there is actually very little of substance between their policies

Ashcroft poll from before this weeks announcement indicates some interesting trends:

[img] [/img]

Labour voters to Green and Lib Dem
LIb Dem eurosceptics to Tory
Large numbers of UKIP voters back home to the Tories

No one want to discuss the "supply and confidence" rather than coalition?

it seems the entire Labour leadership is such disarray that [b]they are not presenting an effective opposition.[/b]

How can you genuinely believe this?
During the Coalition, with Milliband, granted, there was very little opposition, lots of abstinence and lots of voting in favour.

Since Corbyn, although granted this is one of the weakest most shambolic Conservative governments i've borne witness to, there have been countless reversals in tory policy and budgets. Just watch PMQ's on wednesday and Corbyn has May on the ropes every time, May's tactic is evasion and sly personal digs and scripted one liners.
This is from 2016
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-conservative-u-turns-policies-david-cameron-benefit-cuts-junior-doctors-academies-a7018276.html

What are the numbers referring to? They add up to more than 100 so unlikely to be percentages

tjagain - Member
No one want to discuss the "supply and confidence" rather than coalition?

Farron might do well to resign and give a less controversial lib dem the hotseat as the questioning over his views on homosexuality are only going to intensify as the electioneering goes on.

Mike - numerous people onthis thread saying the lib dems had to go into coaltion. They didn't . they could have done a supply and confidence deal instead with the tories that would have given them a veto power but no ministerial cars and the S&C deal would also have protected their integrity

What it would have delivered is an unstable government, one with no clear direction and no long term strategy. We would probably have got a couple of years of stalemate before an election was called again and the Lib Dems would have been blamed for blocking and stopping things happening. The situation was loose loose, doubly so as the Labour government of the time had come to the end of it's life, there was nothing left for them but to accept the cycle of life.

Anyway the past is the past, time to look forward.

No need for it to have been unstable.

It's the nature of the beast as one party has a stop button and no way to influence.

No need for it to have been unstable.

I suggest you take a look at the current shambles where there's barely a majority and the leadership end up kowtowing to extreme minority elements in their own party every so often. Now imagine that on nearly every single issue, and you'd have a pretty good picture of what a minority government propped up by a minor party would look like.

mikewsmith - Member

It's the nature of the beast as one party has a stop button and no way to influence.

Exactly like happened from 2010-2015 you mean? And in fact what's happened within parties since the dawn of time? This is the part that really boggles the mind, we had a 2-party government for all that time and then in the last election all the tories could talk about was how coalitions and partnership governments were a disaster for the country and the SNP or Lib Dems would end up in charge of the country. And everyone went yep, sounds legit. And now we have a majority government which often has to act like a minority one because of its internal splits.

badnewz - Member

Farron might do well to resign and give a less controversial lib dem the hotseat as the questioning over his views on homosexuality are only going to intensify as the electioneering goes on.

TBH it seems like he's got 2 ways out but the other one is really pretty simple- you go yeah, my beliefs and upbringing have made me feel that homosexuality is wrong. But my personal beliefs aren't important in this,they don't define our policy. The rights of LGBT people are far more important than my feels. We're not the Tory party, we don't screw everyone who we don't agree with.

"I disapprove of what you do, but I will defend to the death your right to do it", in other words.

He said the following on C4 news, which has much the same gist:

Somebody who is a Christian does not go enforcing their views on other people. It’s not our views on personal morality that matter, what matters is whether we go out and fight for the freedom of every single individual to be who they want to be – and that’s what makes a liberal. To understand Christianity is to understand that we are all sinners…Every minority, every individual’s rights matter

Still not good enough for the self-titled tolerant who can't tolerate anyone who is unable to tick all the requisite boxes.

It's about trust basically- do people believe him when he says things like that, or do they believe he'll go with his personal beliefs. FWIW I think it's probably the former, even if only for reasons of good politics, but trust is in short supply these days. If he's going to make any headway he has to really smash that message and not in longwinded wooly terms. Starting with "somebody who is a christian does not go enforcing their views on other people" was stupid frankly.

Surely that statement means he IS tolerating them and more...?

@ Northwind

TBH it seems like he's got 2 ways out but the other one is really pretty simple- you go yeah, my beliefs and upbringing have made me feel that homosexuality is wrong. But my personal beliefs aren't important in this,they don't define our policy. The rights of LGBT people are far more important than my feels. We're not the Tory party, we don't screw everyone who we don't agree with.[/quote.

I agree under non-electioneering conditions that would be an ok response, although there was a lot of disgruntlement among lib dems when he was elected leader in 2015.
But the dirty nature of elections means the mainstream media and Tories are going to laser focus on this issue in order to discredit him and undermine the Remainer Lib Dem vote.
Farron is already showing signs of irritation over being asked the question and I wouldn't be surprised if he resigned this week.

 

You may be right. At the moment he's half-assing it anyway so he's going to suffer regardless.

somebody who is a christian does not go enforcing their views on other people" was stupid frankly.

Why? It is a pretty fundamental Christian viewpoint, which illustrates perfectly why his views are pretty irrelevant when it comes to his "professional" life.

Because Christians often do force their views on other people. Don't misuderstand that as a criticism of christians, it's not limited to christianity or even religion, but to claim it doesn't happen is daft.

And when the entire issue pivots on trust and credibility, starting out with a statement so obviously false is pretty bold.

Because Christians often do force their views on other people.

Bollocks

Seriously?

Torquemada? The Crusades? The Moral Majority? Mary Whitehouse?

Because Christians often do force their views on other people

Of course they do.......not alway, and not all Christian, but to claim the don't is absurd.

Because Christians often do force their views on other people.
Bollocks

Lolz

I don't really understand Tim Farron's position. He is an evangelical Christian who thinks homosexuality is a sin.
Why therefore vote in favour of same-sex marriage, isn't that simply a contradiction?
Evangelicals believe a) there is such a place as hell and b) it is their duty to convert people to Christ in order to save their souls.
That's quite different from cultural or liberal Christianity which thinks it's better to be a Christian than not one, but that it probably doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
I just don't understand why an Evangelical would join the lib dems, let alone be their leader.

somebody who is a christian does not go enforcing their views on other people"

"Most Christians do not go around forcing their views on other people", would have worked better for Farron.

Christians can't enforce their views on LGBT etc on anyone. The most they can do is tut loudly or have a passive aggressive prayer meeting nearby.

I just don't understand why an Evangelical would join the lib dems, let alone be their leader.

That's nothing. They had a Christian Missionary on 'Take Me Out' last night. No soul beyond salvation, perhaps, but he would have had his work cut out with some of the contestants. 🙂

Christians can't enforce their views on LGBT etc on anyone. The most they can do is tut loudly or have a passive aggressive prayer meeting nearby.

Or create pressure groups, or get people of their ilk in to high ranking political positions, or just tie black people to burning crosses

Tim Farron #gravitasbypass

Christians not forcing their views on anyone? Happens constantly - sunday trading, licensing laws, abortion, gay rights. Its a constant in our society.

As TJ says, its background noise, and is hard to recognise as such, so is its all encompassing pervasiveness

mefty - Member

He said the following on C4 news, which has much the same gist:

Somebody who is a Christian does not go enforcing their views on other people. It’s not our views on personal morality that matter, what matters is whether we go out and fight for the freedom of every single individual to be who they want to be – and that’s what makes a liberal. To understand Christianity is to understand that we are all sinners…Every minority, every individual’s rights matter

Still not good enough for the self-titled tolerant who can't tolerate anyone who is unable to tick all the requisite boxes.

And in the same interview he refused to say if he thought gay sex a sin. Refused poinht blank.

He has a long record of being a bigot and that mealy mouthed half assed attempt to weasel out of it will not do.

And yes - I have no tolerance for bigots of any persuasion. No one with decent morals should have any tolerance for bigotry and prejudice

Seriously?

Yes, perfectly in the modern era I have never heard a decent example, people seem to think someone expresses a viewpoint is forcing it, but they are wrong.

I have never heard a decent example

You are joking right? How about abortion laws in, say, Eire?
I've just shut work 25 minute ago due to Sunday Trading laws, or it that just a coincidence that restricted opening is on a Sunday?

How about the constant attempt to restrict abortion? How about the "prayer" vigil outside the marie stopes clinic? How about restricted selling of alcohol on a sunday?

Religion is like a penis. Its Ok to have one, its fine to enjoy it, its not acceptable to wave it around in public nor try to stuff it down someones throat

Here you go mefty
http://www.goodcounselnet.co.uk/Abortion--Clinic--Vigils.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/30/anti-abortion-protest-groups

I've just shut work 25 minute ago due to Sunday Trading laws, or it that just a coincidence that restricted opening is on a Sunday?

You've got the SNP to thank for that among others, they are the ones who helped vote down the extension proposed earlier in the parliament.

Religion is like a penis. Its Ok to have one, its fine to enjoy it, its not acceptable to wave it around in public nor try to stuff it down someones throat

If only you applied the same rules to your own bigoted views. You are one of the least tolerant people on this site.

You've got the SNP to thank for that among others, they are the ones who helped vote down the extension proposed earlier in the parliament.

So it's the Scottish fault then that Sunday has restricted trading laws? Why isn't this stuff taught in schools? I was always under the impression that God rested on a Sunday, and so did we, all day, until recently. Now we just rest a little before 10 and after 4.
I'm never going to eat another Tunnocks tea cake again......

@tj...That religion like a penis quip is genius. Made me chuckle. 😀

I'll never eat a tunnocks for entirely different reasons.

Tory donating ****

So it's the Scottish fault then that Sunday has restricted trading laws?

The point is the significant resistance to change no longer comes from Christians but from Trade Unionists, Scots etc.

martinhutch - Member

"Most Christians do not go around forcing their views on other people", would have worked better for Farron.

Yup. Or, just don't say anything like that, make it personal. "Don't worry about my christianity because I'm dead christian and we're really lovely" isn't going to address anyone's concerns.

Christians can't enforce their views on LGBT etc on anyone. The most they can do is tut loudly or have a passive aggressive prayer meeting nearby.

Or become a politician

Mefty - Im no bigot. find one post of mine that contains any bigoted views

Insulting someone like you just have to me shows you have lost the arguement

Christians are constantly trying to force their views on people and I gave you some good examples. Now how about the prayer vigils outside marie stopes clinics?

Why? It is a pretty fundamental Christian viewpoint, which illustrates perfectly why his views are pretty irrelevant when it comes to his "professional" life.

This.

I'm pretty sure I've done all kinds of things that a devout Christian would regard as a sin. Wouldn't stop me voting for a Christian. FFS, isn't eating shellfish a sin as well? Most things that are sins are a bit more fun *because* they are sins. 😀

...and if people don't want a Christian in No10 because Christians are bigots, does that mean the wouldn't want a devout Muslim in No10 for the same reason?

Mefty - Im no bigot. find one post of mine that contains any bigoted views

So you would be happy with a devout Muslim in No10?

If so why wouldn't you be happy with a devout Christian?

I'm assuming you'd be happy with one faith, but not the other. Even if you wouldn't accept either faith you're sounding a bit bigoted.

If so why wouldn't you be happy with a devout Christian?

Because of what the last one did - Blair.

I wouldn't want any devout person of any faith as prime minister.

OOB - I did not say all christians are bigots. I know some that are not. However Farron is a bigot with his homophobic views

I wouldn't want any devout person of any faith as prime minister.

...but you're not a bigot!

Nope I am not. I have perfectly good and valid reasons for this. I want my prime minister to be a rational person who believes in science.

Now explain why my not wanting a devout person as my prime minister makes me a bigot?

big·ot (b?g??t)
n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

How you two view that definition I'll leave to your own pissing contests

Farron is a bigot with his homophobic views

Is he? How is he being intolerant of gay people?

In fact, what he seems to have said is very much the opposite of intolerance, whatever his personal religious beliefs on homosexuality are.

"devout" is the watchword here. When it's applied to Muslims it's often replaced with "fundamentalist" or "fanatic". I have no problem with people who have "faith" in positions of power. The problems start when you add a strong qualifier such as "devout". I've walked to Compostelle twice (and then some) but I'm not about to let any religious doctrine compromise my views as a humanist and geologist.

+1 Ninfan.

How you two view that definition I'll leave to your own pissing contests

You're intolerant of people who engage in pissing contests? Does that mean TJ and I can't be Prime Minister? 🙁

"devout" is the watchword here. When it's applied to Muslims it's often replaced with "fundamentalist" or "fanatic"

Seems to me that 'devout' refers to the commitment and devotion to the principles of your religion you exercise in your own life
'Fundamentalist' is expecting, harrying, coercing and/or forcing others to abide by the principles of your religion in their lives

Ninfan - he believes homosexuality is a sin.

Do you want people who believe in heaven choosing whether the country goes to war?

Discuss

How is he being intolerant of gay people?

I don't see it myself, either.

If you asked him, "Do you think drinking yourself stupid and shagging a fat bird you don't know is a sin" he'd probably have to admit he thought it was, and loads of people have done that.

He's not going to set up concentration camps for drunken shaggers, and I doubt many drunken shaggers would take offence at him considering it a sin.

By that definition Ninfan Farron is a fundamentalist. so lets just wap devout then for fundamentalist.

Personally I have no problem with it; it's totally possible to separate your beliefs from your actions, or to rationalise them, especially when working as part of a larger group, and I'm sure Farron's capable of that. It'd be a small vote-loser but it didn't have to be a critical one. There's lots of people of faith in government.

But he's making a total arse of the question, over and over. In a similar vein he genuinely thought it was a good idea to accuse Labour of being "Tory enablers". The leader of the Lib Dems.

Wow this thread has got off topic.

Discussing whether Farron's views make him an acceptable choice as a prime minister is largely academic. It's not going to happen any time soon!

I'm far more impressed by the fact that Farron is a Christian but hasn't let his personal views influence the policies of his party. That's a huge plus in my eyes and a credit to both Farron and the Lib Dems.

He's making a total arse of the question, over and over,

That's what staggers me. If he simply said "I don't think homosexuality is a sin" it would be the smallest of smallest white lies. Just say that.

Of if he really can't bring himself to say that just say: "Strict interpretation of the scriptures says Homosexuality (along with eating shellfish) is a sin, I think that's a bit harsh and don't really buy into it.".

It really doesn't seem a tricky issue to kill stone dead.

/\/\ wot Northwind said

Ninfan - he believes homosexuality is a sin.

Well, he appears to have said the opposite, it's just that he refused to be drawn in to going through a list of his personal beliefs in a series on interviews, as is right. However even if he did, so what? tTat's a belief he is fully entitled to, because it's a free world and as a society we dont believe in thought crime.

That doesn't amount to intolerance, just a personal belief - He hasn't said anything suggesting in any way that people should be castigated, threatened, ostracised or punished for being gay, which would.

By that definition Ninfan Farron is a fundamentalist. so lets just wap devout then for fundamentalist.

Looks like you're making stuff up again.

He's making a total arse of the question, over and over,

I think he just sees where it naturally ends up, answer the first question, the follow up is "is this a sin too then" and so on ad infinitum.

He should have learned from Father Jack:

Discussing whether Farron's views make him an acceptable choice as a prime minister is largely academic. It's not going to happen any time soon!

I was wondering if the liberals came out firmly "Retract Art 50 & remain" and if every single Remainer voted Liberal, could they mathematically be the biggest party?

You're intolerant of people who engage in pissing contests? Does that mean TJ and I can't be Prime Minister?

No, and there'll be no pudding either

Well, he appears to have said the opposite, it's just that he refused to be drawn in to going through a list of his personal beliefs in a series on interviews, as is right.

The fact he's voted for gay marriage suggests he doesn't have a massive problem with it. Unless he's trying to spoil Gay sex by letting them get married!

However even if he did, so what? tTat's a belief he is fully entitled to, because it's a free world and as a society we dont believe in thought crime.

Exactly.

I think lane hogging is a sin. I'm not going to start hanging lane hoggers. (...but that's a bad example because I would if I was PM.)

Has anyone ever asked Sadiq Khan if he thinks homosexuality is a sin?

Racist!

It's an odd day when A) ninfan is defending the LibDems and B) I find myself agreeing with him! 😯

Would be an interesting question CFH

Last point on Farron - he has consistently voted against or abstained on many issues affecting womens and gay rights where his fundamental religious views are at odds with his own party.

He voted for compulsory counselling for women facing abortions. He votd for a compulsory " cooling off" period for women seeking abortions
He voted for allowing registrars to be able to refuse to officiate at gay weddings. He voted for there to be no sanction for registars who refuse to officiate at gay weddings

Long record of abstensions as well where his fundamentalist views clash with his parties policy - a cynical ploy so he wouldn't have to be seen for the bigot he is

ninfan is defending the LibDems

I know this isn't a common viewpoint on STW but I think Ninfan is usually defending sanity, and he usually posts actual links to facts to make his point whereas is detractors usually just go straight for the Ad Hom.

Has anyone ever asked Sadiq Khan if he thinks homosexuality is a sin?

How many Gay Pride marches has Farron been on?

[img] [/img]

He voted for compulsory counselling for women facing abortions. He votd for a compulsory " cooling off" period for women seeking abortions

How extreme!