Discussion
SpeckledJim said:
Tim Farron is the Lib Dems made flesh.
Go on then. Name all the other LibDems with similarly held and expressed religious views. Should be easy if Tim Farron is the standard bearer.He's literally the antithesis of what a LibDem stands for, on this issue anyway.
Yours,
A LibDem (who, being one, knows what he's talking about).
ElectricSoup said:
SpeckledJim said:
Tim Farron is the Lib Dems made flesh.
Go on then. Name all the other LibDems with similarly held and expressed religious views. Should be easy if Tim Farron is the standard bearer.He's literally the antithesis of what a LibDem stands for, on this issue anyway.
Yours,
A LibDem (who, being one, knows what he's talking about).
In his wetness, anonymity, and hand-wringing. The continuing shifting sands between:
What I think
What I should think
What I say
What I do
What I should do
What I should be seen to do/think/say
He knew he'd never get to be boss saying what he thought, so he lied (both explicitly, and by omission) to himself, to his family, to his party members, to his constituents, and to us.
Then gets found out, and he's suddenly a victim. He isn't a victim. Everyone else is (was) a victim of his.
Slimy and weaselly.
If you're honestly a bigot, at least have the guts to be a bigot honestly.
SpeckledJim said:
ElectricSoup said:
SpeckledJim said:
Tim Farron is the Lib Dems made flesh.
Go on then. Name all the other LibDems with similarly held and expressed religious views. Should be easy if Tim Farron is the standard bearer.He's literally the antithesis of what a LibDem stands for, on this issue anyway.
Yours,
A LibDem (who, being one, knows what he's talking about).
In his wetness, anonymity, and hand-wringing. The continuing shifting sands between:
What I think
What I should think
What I say
What I do
What I should do
What I should be seen to do/think/say
He knew he'd never get to be boss saying what he thought, so he lied (both explicitly, and by omission) to himself, to his family, to his party members, to his constituents, and to us.
Then gets found out, and he's suddenly a victim. He isn't a victim. Everyone else is (was) a victim of his.
Slimy and weaselly.
If you're honestly a bigot, at least have the guts to be a bigot honestly.
ElectricSoup said:
I tend to agree that it doesn't look good for Timbo. But I'm struggling with your comment about 'LibDem made flesh'. Politician made flesh, perhaps. Was Charles Kennedy, Paddy Ashdown (Paratrooper), wet, anonymous, handwringy? Clegg - certainly not anonymous. Made some mistakes and owned up to them, but apparently the public prefer politicians who make mistakes and never admit them, but just keep on blundering on and on, admitting no failings. Cable, not anonymous, not handwringy, not wet. So, who then?
IMO, and feel very free to disagree entirely, with the exception of Tim Farron, it seems the Lib Dems manage to push the only one of them at the time who isn't wet / anonymous / hand-wringy forwards into the position of leader. Then drag them backwards.
Ashdown, Kennedy and Clegg were all decent, strong characters. I'll fully accept that.
In comparison to the Labour Party and Conservatives, the Lib Dems have done ok by way of leaders in recent decades. What they lack (again, IMO), is a sense of cohesion and shared direction behind and below those leaders.
They (in parliament and in constituencies and councils) always seem to be either lackadaisical or at each other's throats in competitive impotent sympathy, and nit-s
t silliness, almost as a sport. SpeckledJim said:
In comparison to the Labour Party and Conservatives, the Lib Dems have done ok by way of leaders in recent decades. What they lack (again, IMO), is a sense of cohesion and shared direction behind and below those leaders.
This is a good point in part, and arises out of the fact that the party is entirely led by its membership and conference decisions, rather than by a leader's diktat. It's one of the things I like about the party compared to the big 2. Our leaders have been (generally) good ones, because they are proper leaders, i.e. the sort who guide and empower their members, rather than the kind who think leadership is about being Billy big bks. I don't agree that this leads to a lack of cohesion and direction - the party is currently very cohesive on the major issues (e.g. bloody brexit) in a way the others are not (e.g bloody brexit). It's the only major party with a coherent, unified position on bloody brexit for example.I think the rest of your post is a caricature and displays a lack of knowledge, but there you go. We're all entitled to an opinion.
Edited by ElectricSoup on Thursday 11th January 11:42
Politics, and politicians, are usually avoided in conversations that I'm part of (it gets too heated). But the most common comment is "they're all liars, none of them are worth voting for because you can't trust what they say."
Take a bow, Tim Farron - you've just proved the doubters correct. Numpty.
Take a bow, Tim Farron - you've just proved the doubters correct. Numpty.
ElectricSoup said:
SpeckledJim said:
In comparison to the Labour Party and Conservatives, the Lib Dems have done ok by way of leaders in recent decades. What they lack (again, IMO), is a sense of cohesion and shared direction behind and below those leaders.
This is a good point in part, and arises out of the fact that the party is entirely led by its membership and conference decisions, rather than by a leader's diktat. It's one of the things I like about the party compared to the big 2. Our leaders have been (generally) good ones, because they are proper leaders, i.e. the sort who guide and empower their members, rather than the kind who think leadership is about being Billy big bks. I don't agree that this leads to a lack of cohesion and direction - the party is currently very cohesive on the major issues (e.g. bloody brexit) in a away the others are not (e.g bloody brexit). It's the only major party with a coherent, unified position on bloody brexit for example.ElectricSoup said:
I think the rest of your post is a caricature and displays a lack of knowledge, but there you go. We're all entitled to an opinion.
I'm sure you're right. But I'm not an uninterested observer, and yet still hold this fairly strong negative perception of the various component parts of the LDs. That's perhaps a communication challenge for the party to overcome if it is to get anywhere in winning seats (back).Labour and Conservative parties, for their faults, are much superior communicators. IMO.
Farron has done the party great harm in answering a 'what do you stand for (today)?' question without some wishy-washy, unchallengable 'social justice' flimflam.
SpeckledJim said:
ElectricSoup said:
SpeckledJim said:
In comparison to the Labour Party and Conservatives, the Lib Dems have done ok by way of leaders in recent decades. What they lack (again, IMO), is a sense of cohesion and shared direction behind and below those leaders.
This is a good point in part, and arises out of the fact that the party is entirely led by its membership and conference decisions, rather than by a leader's diktat. It's one of the things I like about the party compared to the big 2. Our leaders have been (generally) good ones, because they are proper leaders, i.e. the sort who guide and empower their members, rather than the kind who think leadership is about being Billy big bks. I don't agree that this leads to a lack of cohesion and direction - the party is currently very cohesive on the major issues (e.g. bloody brexit) in a away the others are not (e.g bloody brexit). It's the only major party with a coherent, unified position on bloody brexit for example.ElectricSoup said:
I think the rest of your post is a caricature and displays a lack of knowledge, but there you go. We're all entitled to an opinion.
I'm sure you're right. But I'm not an uninterested observer, and yet still hold this fairly strong negative perception of the various component parts of the LDs. That's perhaps a communication challenge for the party to overcome if it is to get anywhere in winning seats (back).Labour and Conservative parties, for their faults, are much superior communicators. IMO.
Farron has done the party great harm in answering a 'what do you stand for (today)?' question without some wishy-washy, unchallengable 'social justice' flimflam.
If only Clegg hadn't gone potty on tuition fees, there would have been no Farron as leader. IMHO. Hopefully this is the last we'll hear from Farron, I fully expect him to lose his seat next time. I'm not optimistic about Cable leading us back to the 2010 electoral position either. But so long as the party stands for that which I believe to be right, particularly on Europe, then I'll maintain my membership and do what I can to help them get elected. I hope Jo Swinson keeps her seat and gets to lead the party after the next election.
I'd still like to hear though who you think are the wet, handwringy non-entities in the party at the moment, except Farron (IYHO), how that translates in to Farron being the party made flesh, and what these "components" of the party are which you find offensive. It sounds like a baseless character attack on the party by an ideological opponent, rather than anything based in substantive evidence.
ElectricSoup said:
There's a huge amount of "The LibDems can't win so I won't vote for them", which is what always stops them from advancing in the polls, or threatening the other parties in real MP numbers. Poor electoral system causes this of course.
If only Clegg hadn't gone potty on tuition fees, there would have been no Farron as leader. IMHO. Hopefully this is the last we'll hear from Farron, I fully expect him to lose his seat next time. I'm not optimistic about Cable leading us back to the 2010 electoral position either. But so long as the party stands for that which I believe to be right, particularly on Europe, then I'll maintain my membership and do what I can to help them get elected. I hope Jo Swinson keeps her seat and gets to lead the party after the next election.
I'd still like to hear though who you think are the wet, handwringy non-entities in the party at the moment, except Farron (IYHO), how that translates in to Farron being the party made flesh, and what these "components" of the party are which you find offensive. It sounds like a baseless character attack on the party by an ideological opponent, rather than anything based in substantive evidence.
You mention Swinson. Great example, IMO. If only Clegg hadn't gone potty on tuition fees, there would have been no Farron as leader. IMHO. Hopefully this is the last we'll hear from Farron, I fully expect him to lose his seat next time. I'm not optimistic about Cable leading us back to the 2010 electoral position either. But so long as the party stands for that which I believe to be right, particularly on Europe, then I'll maintain my membership and do what I can to help them get elected. I hope Jo Swinson keeps her seat and gets to lead the party after the next election.
I'd still like to hear though who you think are the wet, handwringy non-entities in the party at the moment, except Farron (IYHO), how that translates in to Farron being the party made flesh, and what these "components" of the party are which you find offensive. It sounds like a baseless character attack on the party by an ideological opponent, rather than anything based in substantive evidence.
the BBC's reporting of Farron's departure and what happens next said:
In a blogpost, Ms Swinson, a former equalities minister, said she had been "overwhelmed" by messages urging her to stand as his replacement.
"Being the leader of a political party is a unique and all-encompassing job, even more than the roles of MP and minister that I have undertaken before," she said.
"It should not be done simply to achieve status, to make a point, or to please others."
Ms Swinson said her "reflections and conversations about a range of factors" had persuaded her to go for the deputy leadership instead.
She wrote: "Feminist that I am, I have of course wondered what a bloke in my position would do. It's obvious.
"Most blokes in my shoes would run for leader like a shot.
"It's true that my many years of encouraging women to have the confidence to go for that exciting new role have taught me that women often don't go for things when they should."
But she added: "Just because a man would do it, doesn't make it the right thing to do."
It's a bit unfair of me to bring out one specific brain-fart, but Jesus Christ, it doesn't get much wetter and hand-wringy than that. "Being the leader of a political party is a unique and all-encompassing job, even more than the roles of MP and minister that I have undertaken before," she said.
"It should not be done simply to achieve status, to make a point, or to please others."
Ms Swinson said her "reflections and conversations about a range of factors" had persuaded her to go for the deputy leadership instead.
She wrote: "Feminist that I am, I have of course wondered what a bloke in my position would do. It's obvious.
"Most blokes in my shoes would run for leader like a shot.
"It's true that my many years of encouraging women to have the confidence to go for that exciting new role have taught me that women often don't go for things when they should."
But she added: "Just because a man would do it, doesn't make it the right thing to do."
Whether you want it or not, and whether think you can do it or not, is not a function of your gender, or whether you're a feminist, or your estimation of whether an imaginary bloke in your position would go for it or not.
Do all feminists do the same thing? Do all women do the same thing? Do all blokes do the same thing? Is it relevant if the bloke is imaginary or not? Do we need to establish a sodding working group and supervisory committee!?
And this was in a blog. She wasn't door-stepped. Those were her considered thoughts.
How about:
"It's not my time. I'll be putting my name forward for Deputy Leader and supporting the new Leader whole-heartedly. Thank you, good night."
Just an example, and I don't see countering examples of decisiveness and purpose. Maybe I'm missing them. Maybe they're there and not being publicised well.
ElectricSoup said:
Well I read her statement in a completely different way, because I'm not looking for hand wringing wetness to slap someone with. It's just a longer version of the statement you propose she should have made.
OK. I read someone flapping and disappearing into a cloud of their own conjured puzzles. Layer upon layer of 'what-ifs', instead of a clear statement of whatever it is she believes.Why is it relevant what she thinks a bloke would do? Who cares?
She says she has a long history of encouraging women to put themselves forward, then says she won't, because blokes would and blokes aren't always right.
WTF?
This is the sort of muddied water I think I see a lot of.
Clearly you see something different to this, as you're a keen Lib Dem member.
SpeckledJim said:
ElectricSoup said:
Well I read her statement in a completely different way, because I'm not looking for hand wringing wetness to slap someone with. It's just a longer version of the statement you propose she should have made.
OK. I read someone flapping and disappearing into a cloud of their own conjured puzzles. Layer upon layer of 'what-ifs', instead of a clear statement of whatever it is she believes.Why is it relevant what she thinks a bloke would do? Who cares?
She says she has a long history of encouraging women to put themselves forward, then says she won't, because blokes would and blokes aren't always right.
WTF?
This is the sort of muddied water I think I see a lot of.
Clearly you see something different to this, as you're a keen Lib Dem member.
Get with the 21st Century, Grandad!
;-)
ash73 said:
Tim the bigot said:
It’s tricky really. In the end, if you’re a Christian you’ve got a very clear idea of what you think a sin is. It is us falling short of the glory of God. That is something that all of us share.
To be asked that question is to persecute one group of human beings, because sin is something we are all guilty of. If you’re not a Christian, what does sin mean? It’s to be accused of something, it’s condemnatory. We’re talking different languages.
Maybe I could have explained that, and the biblical teaching on sex and sexuality.
The more I think about what he's actually saying, the more disgusted I am with it. He's basically comparing being gay to being a thief, rapist or murderer, and then saying it would have been ok if he had more time to explain it. Well it's not ok Tim, it's just uneducated iron-age peasant ignorance.To be asked that question is to persecute one group of human beings, because sin is something we are all guilty of. If you’re not a Christian, what does sin mean? It’s to be accused of something, it’s condemnatory. We’re talking different languages.
Maybe I could have explained that, and the biblical teaching on sex and sexuality.
ElectricSoup said:
There's a huge amount of "The LibDems can't win so I won't vote for them", which is what always stops them from advancing in the polls, or threatening the other parties in real MP numbers. Poor electoral system causes this of course.
What do the Lib Dems stand for in terms of ideology/principles? I think it's hard to discern and not particularly different to what is on offer elsewhere so they're unlikely to make any progress. The old Liberal Party were Classical Liberals so it was easy to understand where they'd probably be on certain issues and what their priorities were. Since that party ceased to exist I can't really see the point.I always felt that Tim was simply caught in the paradox between Christians being nice peaceful liberal people (because that's what we percieve as "good" in this day and age, thanks to our wider understanding of other people.) and the fact that a lot of Christianity is actually pretty conservative and even nasty if you're not in a favoured group.
Most people can handle the doublethink without issue, but in government it's not as easy to act out of both sides of your mouth as it is to speak.
Some churches over here deal with it by pretending there's no conflict in ideology and that gay bishops, etc, are totally cool according to what the god of the bible would have wanted all along. In the US, they're a bit more literal about the gay stuff and abortion but a bit wishy-washy about guns, killing other people, interfering with the state and turning the other cheek.
I reckon Tim's problem is he's intelligent enough to see the paradox, honest enough/foolish enough to talk about it, but not brave enough to pick a side.
Most people can handle the doublethink without issue, but in government it's not as easy to act out of both sides of your mouth as it is to speak.
Some churches over here deal with it by pretending there's no conflict in ideology and that gay bishops, etc, are totally cool according to what the god of the bible would have wanted all along. In the US, they're a bit more literal about the gay stuff and abortion but a bit wishy-washy about guns, killing other people, interfering with the state and turning the other cheek.
I reckon Tim's problem is he's intelligent enough to see the paradox, honest enough/foolish enough to talk about it, but not brave enough to pick a side.
SpeckledJim said:
glazbagun said:
I reckon Tim's problem is he's intelligent enough to see the paradox, honest enough/foolish enough to talk about it, but not brave enough to pick a side.
I think that's a fair summary.There is no place amongst our desicion makers and those in charge, for anyone who thinks homosexuals shouldn't enjoy the same life and pleasures as everyone else without judgement.
I don't care how much he says it would have no bearing on his decision making as a politician, there is no place for it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff