Tim farron

bianchimoon

Did the right thing, religion and politics are mutually exclusive, shouldn't have stood for leader of lib dems, would have got more votes with vince in charge.

rick_chasey

Say what?

He made it crystal clear what he privately thinks does not mean he thinks others shouldn't think differently.

The sad truth is people can't get their head sound that.

He wasn't their greatest leader by a stretch and I wasn't a fan, but this shouldn't be seen as an acceptable reason to go.

surrey_commuter

I guess many people feel he is in the wrong party. If they rebranded as the Democrats it would not be a problem. Just seems a little odd to have a non-liberal as leader of the Liberal Democrats.

I think the attention the DUP brought was the final nail in his coffin. He was bound to be asked if he was a dinosaur denier.

FocusZing

I have a lot of respect for Sir Vince Cable, he pointed out the dangers of high leveraged debt and spoke/speaks a lot of sense. A good guy to have around for the Liberals

Pross

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I guess many people feel he is in the wrong party. If they rebranded as the Democrats it would not be a problem. Just seems a little odd to have a non-liberal as leader of the Liberal Democrats.

I think the attention the DUP brought was the final nail in his coffin. He was bound to be asked if he was a dinosaur denier.

But there's one point that makes a huge difference, he has made it clear it is his personal view and not a party view. With the DUP it is a party view. My understanding is that Farron has always voted in support of increased gay rights despite his personal opinion because that's the stated position of his party.

vimfuego

Judge him on his voting record not his personal religious beliefs.
His own views (if we assume that he did indeed have an issue with same sex marriage etc) never shaped Libdem policy or thinking - that's kind of the whole Liberal ethos in action no? - ie you are entitled to your own views, you just don't get to impose them on others & you respect what others believe too (open & tolerant society & all that). Didn't see the media questioning the Maybot / Vicar's daughter on her beliefs either.

Either way, he was never really a strong or recognisable enough leader to make a difference for them. Then again, whilst our outdated & ridiculous FPTP electoral system is in place effectively encouraging a two party fight, noone else will get a look in anyway.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I guess many people feel he is in the wrong party. If they rebranded as the Democrats it would not be a problem. Just seems a little odd to have a non-liberal as leader of the Liberal Democrats.

I think the attention the DUP brought was the final nail in his coffin. He was bound to be asked if he was a dinosaur denier.

How is he not a liberal?

DeVlaeminck

His own views did influence his voting record on gay rights and that is easily googleable.

DeVlaeminck

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... gbt-rights

vimfuego

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/11923/tim_farron/westmorland_and_lonsdale/votes

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10426/theresa_may/maidenhead/votes

tangled_metal

The guy is a true straight arrow in a crooked business. What some see as a reason for removal from his former position or that he shouldn't be in the LibDems is IMHO a very good bit of evidence that he should be in the party and right in the heart of its leadership. He has strong Christian belief but when have you ever seen him apply it in his role as constituency MP or LibDem spokesman/leader? Let's be honest here. Whatever his views on homosexuality or evolution have you ever seen him express them publicly? What about when in his LibDem duties? How about his voting record, any sign of it there? Say in his voting record on same sex marriage? You won't find it there.

Let me tell you something about the guy, I know people in his constituency who've had dealings with him and others who worked with him before politics took over. Yes he had a job outside of politics but was highly active in the local LibDem party in his spare time. That's the local group which decided to put him up as their candidate. He's been a very good constituency MP. Prior to becoming leader he went round the local LibDem groups, spoke to activists and ordinary LibDems. He got gained respect through his approach and rose to chairman, or whatever the title is, then got voted as leader. That didn't happen by chance, that's down to the way he operates. He's someone who quietly gains respect from those he directly deals with.

My friends/family who've had contact with him, through his role as constituency MP or work colleague, are all quietly impressed by the guy. I think that's his only problem here. He's not a loud personality capable of dragging audiences in. He's no Paddy Ashdown and certainly no Nick Clegg. For me that's a positive.

Put simply, if I was in his constituency and he was still leader he would get my vote. I'm not (just outside it) and he's not (mistake IMHO). BTW apart from the party I mostly vote for, LibDems have been the only other party I've considered and IIRC voted once for. Coincidentally I think the LibDem candidate who got my vote was kind of similar to Farron IIRC but didn't get in (true blue tory seat).

rjsterry

DeVlaeminck wrote:

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/whats-tim-farrons-track-record-on-lgbt-rights

That says

FactCheck analysed his voting record, dating back to 2005, and identified 22 instances where he voted on same sex marriage or other LGBTQ issues. On the whole, he has voted in favour of equal rights, but there are some notable exceptions. They generally relate to the right of individuals to uphold their personal beliefs...

That seems pretty consistent with a liberal ethos. Did he get every single vote 'right'? There's certainly a couple that I would disagree with, but that hardly disqualifies him as a liberal. The points in question concern where one person's rights are balanced against another's. I think there are better ways to protect the rights of public servants who find their roles conflicting with their personal beliefs, but that balance is a debatable point.

The idea that public servants must entirely ignore their personal beliefs seems pretty illiberal, too.

bianchimoon

Rick Chasey wrote:

Say what?

He made it crystal clear what he privately thinks does not mean he thinks others shouldn't think differently.

The sad truth is people can't get their head sound that.

He wasn't their greatest leader by a stretch and I wasn't a fan, but this shouldn't be seen as an acceptable reason to go.

All very well to say "he thinks others shouldn't think differently." He is the man with the power, the voice and the vote in parliament. How he thinks does affect how he votes and that does have an impact on peoples lives. As DeVlaeminck has posted look at his voting on gay rights in the past.

BelgianBeerGeek

Thing is, though, he comes across as a bit of a knob. He may be a pretty good local MP, but his 6th form style of electioneering was a failure. And the gay sex think was embarrassing.
Although they increased their MPs by a whopping three, he lost a chunk of the popular vote and in some areas failed to make an impact completely. Labour beat them in my area FFS. Hard to carry on in that case.
I did vote LibDem, and have done for a while because I like the local candidate and their policies seem sound. But they have much to do, and Tim isn't the guy to do it.

tangled_metal

Actually what were those votes he made against gay rights? They were all relating to officials being able to refuse on personal / belief grounds to officiate in marriage ceremonies between gay couples. I don't agree with it I can see how some people with strong beliefs could have issues with doing their job. Indeed I think those officials should consider that job as not being right fit them and move on to another job or suck it up and do the job.

However, those votes IIRC were free votes and he voted atheist legislation that forces officials to go against their religious beliefs. Misguided liberalism perhaps? One thing though he never voted against the gay rights themself, only against the rights being officiated on by those with strong beliefs against their wishes. Religious freedom is possibly how he saw it.

Interesting point to note. In that vote a lot of the people not present were big labour figures. Beckett, Blunkett, etc. Do you think they would have voted the same way as Farron but without the conviction to stand up for their views? Do you think they chickened out or took the politick approach to run and hide? Who do you respect more? Political beast avoiding having to decide to vote with their.conscience despite being an unpopular view? Or a person with the strength of character to stand for their views?

Personally I'm not bothered by his one vote that could be viewed as putting religious beliefs ahead of gay rights. I'd be more bothered by my MP hiding from that vote.

TheBigBean

Just wanted to reiterate what I've said before. In my opinion, if he had silenced Clegg and taken a more pragmatic Brexit position, Lib Dems would have got more seats.

BelgianBeerGeek

Tangled Metal wrote:

Actually what were those votes he made against gay rights? They were all relating to officials being able to refuse on personal / belief grounds to officiate in marriage ceremonies between gay couples. I don't agree with it I can see how some people with strong beliefs could have issues with doing their job. Indeed I think those officials should consider that job as not being right fit them and move on to another job or suck it up and do the job.

However, those votes IIRC were free votes and he voted atheist legislation that forces officials to go against their religious beliefs. Misguided liberalism perhaps? One thing though he never voted against the gay rights themself, only against the rights being officiated on by those with strong beliefs against their wishes. Religious freedom is possibly how he saw it.

Interesting point to note. In that vote a lot of the people not present were big labour figures. Beckett, Blunkett, etc. Do you think they would have voted the same way as Farron but without the conviction to stand up for their views? Do you think they chickened out or took the politick approach to run and hide? Who do you respect more? Political beast avoiding having to decide to vote with their.conscience despite being an unpopular view? Or a person with the strength of character to stand for their views?

Personally I'm not bothered by his one vote that could be viewed as putting religious beliefs ahead of gay rights. I'd be more bothered by my MP hiding from that vote.

A LiBDem having issues with the Equality Act is a pretty big deal.

TheBigBean

I'm also interested to know whether people would be quite so forgiving if an MP conceded to holding racist and sexist views.

surrey_commuter

I just think the leader of the LibDems should not be in a position where his liberal credentials are being challenged.

bianchimoon

TheBigBean wrote:

I'm also interested to know whether people would be quite so forgiving if an MP conceded to holding racist and sexist views.

Exactly. If a person has strong religious views as he does he belongs in a church, not parliament

rick_chasey

TheBigBean wrote:

I'm also interested to know whether people would be quite so forgiving if an MP conceded to holding racist and sexist views.

Not quite the same though is it.

He privately thinks bum sex between man and man is wrong, but he's happy for guys to get on and shag away.

Being racist, is, well, being racist.

Or am I reading this wrong?

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I'm also interested to know whether people would be quite so forgiving if an MP conceded to holding racist and sexist views.

Not quite the same though is it.

He privately thinks bum sex between man and man is wrong, but he's happy for guys to get on and shag away.

Being racist, is, well, being racist.

Or am I reading this wrong?

But that is the same as if he thinks [insert sexist view / racist view ] is valid, but believes [insert discriminated sex / race] should be able to continue as they are / in an equal way. Perfectly legal, but it would most likely be incompatible with life in public office.

tangled_metal

A knob? Not by those who've met him or had dealings with him.

He came in after a string of leaders with the big persona. The great orators, personalities and spin. The party voted against that by voting him in as leader. If that's no longer what's needed then I understand that. But to put it down to being a knob just because he's no.Nick Clegg, Paddy Ashdown or Blair type of a leader is a missing the point of why he got the role he did.

Personally I think he's done his.job. I see that more as a stopgap between two personality leaders. Someone brought in to halt the slide and make changes to create a stronger party for the fight back, if it can even happen in a two party system. He's done that and got 3 more MPs than Clegg left them with. Plus Clegg is out so a bonus. Cable is back in too so you've got your LibDem hero to take over. A mistake IMHO but I'm not a LibDem.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I'm also interested to know whether people would be quite so forgiving if an MP conceded to holding racist and sexist views.

Not quite the same though is it.

He privately thinks bum sex between man and man is wrong, but he's happy for guys to get on and shag away.

Being racist, is, well, being racist.

Or am I reading this wrong?

But that is the same as if he thinks [insert sexist view / racist view ] is valid, but believes [insert discriminated sex / race] should be able to continue as they are / in an equal way. Perfectly legal, but it would most likely be incompatible with life in public office.

Well one is an action (bum sex), and the other is a view on a certain type of people - at least that's how I read it.

kingstongraham

Being a knob and coming across as a bit of a knob are two different things.

kingstongraham

TheBigBean wrote:

But that is the same as if he thinks [insert sexist view / racist view ] is valid, but believes [insert discriminated sex / race] should be able to continue as they are / in an equal way. Perfectly legal, but it would most likely be incompatible with life in public office.

Like boy jobs and girl jobs?

nickice

bianchimoon wrote:

Did the right thing, religion and politics are mutually exclusive, shouldn't have stood for leader of lib dems, would have got more votes with vince in charge.

There are some fundamentalist religious people who shouldn't be in politics but I don't think he should have resigned. If he thinks homosexuality is a sin then that's his prerogative. If he advocates the banning of homosexual activity then that's crossing the line. Though, to be fair, I haven't looked at his voting record but I'd absolutely support the right of churches to choose not to marry two men. A civil registrar, on the other hand, should lose his/her job.

Pross

The most unliberal thing is having to resign because your personal beliefs are considered wrong by supposed liberals. Surely the very definition of being liberal is accepting other people's opinions and practices even if you don't agree with them?

rjsterry

bianchimoon wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I'm also interested to know whether people would be quite so forgiving if an MP conceded to holding racist and sexist views.

Exactly. If a person has strong religious views as he does he belongs in a church, not parliament

Parliament would not be very representative if only atheists could become MPs.

Edit: Wot Pross said.

bianchimoon

give me a rational thinker over a person that believes in imaginary beings to represent me any day of the week

TheBigBean

KingstonGraham wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

But that is the same as if he thinks [insert sexist view / racist view ] is valid, but believes [insert discriminated sex / race] should be able to continue as they are / in an equal way. Perfectly legal, but it would most likely be incompatible with life in public office.

Like boy jobs and girl jobs?

Which was criticised. The public is more tolerate of sexism than racism though.