Is May about to call an election?

Quite, MWS.

UNLESS 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:

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 they are not presenting an effective opposition.

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?

Nobody wants to discuss that before an election full stop. It’s one of the golden rules, it means that you have given up before you start.

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. [/quote]

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.