Farron quits

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hounded out by Secular Humanists?

[Aruntraveller]

No but it's a nice excuse for him to use.

Truth is he was a little bit shit at politics.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No but it's a nice excuse for him to use.

Truth is he was a little bit shit at politics.

So are 99% of politicians.

[Shaker]

Hounded out by Secular Humanists?

No, just useless. But at least (unwittingly?) honest:

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.

There's always the DUP Timmy.

[Robbie]

Honest but would have thought he'd have worked that out before becoming leader.

[Shaker]

Honest but would have thought he'd have worked that out before becoming leader.

Perhaps even as early as the point just before joining a party called Liberal Democrats.

[Robbie]

That's a good point  .

[Harrowby Hall]

Surely, we want political parties to contain people from all kinds of backgrounds, not simply clones.

I presume that in economic and general social policy terms Tim Farron is an archtypical Liberal Democrat. It seems that it is at the point where social policy impinges on personal morality that he has difficulty.It might have been better if he had resisted the call to party leadership but this aspect of his personality does not disqualify him from being a LibDem.

[Shaker]

Surely, we want political parties to contain people from all kinds of backgrounds, not simply clones.

Absolutely; but as with so-called "New Labour" surely there has to come some point where a member's beliefs are so divergent from what the party is supposed to stand for that membership becomes absurd and threatens to strip a party of anything specific and distinctive about it. If you can belong to any party, there's nothing special and distinct about being in X, Y or Z party. It's a bit like the old gag about the ultra-unorthodox Jew - he was a Nazi. A broad church is a good thing, but once past a certain degree of broadness collapse will always threaten.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perhaps even as early as the point just before joining a party called Liberal Democrats.

Liberal Democrats? I thought he was speaking out at the Cuntish Humanists.

[Shaker]

Liberal Democrats? I thought he was speaking out at the Cuntish Humanists.

Unsurprisingly, wrong again Vladster.

[Harrowby Hall]

Absolutely; but as with so-called "New Labour" surely there has to come some point where a member's beliefs are so divergent from what the party is supposed to stand for that membership becomes absurd ...

That does not sound like a particularly democratic nor a particularly liberal attitude to membership. It sounds like the first steps toward totalitarianism. A mainstream political party must reflect the society in which it grows if it wants to flourish. I accept that Tim Farron's views on sexuality may not be in tune with the majority of his party but the fact that he appears to hold them should not disbar him from being a member of that party. He appears to be a typical LibDem in all other respects.

[Shaker]

That does not sound like a particularly democratic nor a particularly liberal attitude to membership. It sounds like the first steps toward totalitarianism.

Melodramatic much? I'm simply making - or, as I now find myself, repeating - the point that a party is supposed to stand for something or it becomes an amorphous mess, something with all the form of blancmange. Latitude is great; open house and open season without at least some rigour pretty well evacuates the concept of any party standing for anything recognisable of all and any content. On this view you may as well have Tories in the Labour Par - oh, wait ...

I accept that Tim Farron's views on sexuality may not be in tune with the majority of his party but the fact that he appears to hold them should not disbar him from being a member of that party.

The point, surely, is that according to his statement he himself seems to think that it does - if not from membership, then certainly from leadership.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Absolutely; but as with so-called "New Labour" surely there has to come some point where a member's beliefs are so divergent from what the party is supposed to stand for that membership becomes absurd and threatens to strip a party of anything specific and distinctive about it.

You mean like what that atheist chap did when he made up naturalistic pantheism.

[Shaker]

You mean like what that atheist chap did when he made up naturalistic pantheism.

No.

[Rhiannon]

An honest person can't lead a party which supports marriage equality if he or she opposes it. I don't see why that is controversial. There's no suggestion that Farron should leave the LibDems.

[Shaker]

An honest person can't lead a party which supports marriage equality if he or she opposes it. I don't see why that is controversial. There's no suggestion that Farron should leave the LibDems.

Quite.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

If the Lib Dems had won twenty seats ( and they were not that far off, eg rich kid Goldsmith beat Sarah Olney by 45 votes), then Tim would have been applauded.

FWIW (and YES I am a Lib Dem voter), Tim struck me as being an OK sort.

[ProfessorDavey]

Liberal Democrats? I thought he was speaking out at the Cuntish Humanists.

I don't think he was speaking out at anyone specifically. He was talking about himself - that he couldn't square his own conscience with the ethos of the party he was leading.

Sure questioning from journalists (who might or might not be humanists - probably not) brought those issues tot he fore, but they were always there and it is perfectly reasonable for journalists to ask these kind of questions. Indeed they did with Corbyn, probing his conscience on Trident and pushing the button.

Out of interest do you think we'd be having the same discussion if it was clear that a LibDem party leader was racist, or if those views weren't linked to religion. I doubt it, we'd simply accept they weren't fit for the job.

[Aruntraveller]

If the Lib Dems had won twenty seats ( and they were not that far off, eg rich kid Goldsmith beat Sarah Olney by 45 votes), then Tim would have been applauded.

FWIW (and YES I am a Lib Dem voter), Tim struck me as being an OK sort.

He is an OK sort. It was quite clear that he bore gay people no ill will but his faith put HIM in conflict with his party. That was the issue. That and the fact that he wasn't particularly convincing as a party leader imo.

His voting record on gay issues is vastly superior to Theresa May so I don't think he should be pilloried for his struggling with but one aspect of equal rights.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

While the Tories chum up to the DUP. Secular Humanists have been creating their own sectarian party. The Lib Dems.

A bit too Stalinist for my liking.

[Shaker]

While the Tories chum up to the DUP. Secular Humanists have been creating their own sectarian party. The Lib Dems.

A bit too Stalinist for my liking.

Well, there's the stupidest thing I'll read all day right there.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, there's the stupidest thing I'll read all day right there.

Not really there are those on here who are quite open that theists should have no public forum.

[Gordon]

Not really there are those on here who are quite open that theists should have no public forum.

Names please.

[Rhiannon]

... theists should have no public forum.

Was that in the LibDem's manifesto?