Tim Farron falls on his sword

Is he joining the DUP?

a bad day to bury good news.

Party should pack up. Labour are the liberals now. Fair play to him though had some integrity so wasn't cut out for politics.

She's young but Jo Swinson might not be a bad choice, better than the old guard anyway. She was highly rated when in the coalition.

For next leader

yep.

after twelve years as a "liberal" he's come to the conclusion that his bronze-age superstitions might be incompatible with his supposed political ideology.

obviously been mulling it over a long time.

feel desperately sorry for his wife and the two pigeons she has to kill every month after her menses.

Swinson for the job but I shan't back her until she's confirmed she wants it. She has a young child and a constituency in Glasgow so she might not be up for a job based in London unless the whole family can move.

people obviously forgetting the farcical jokes,inuendo as cleggys warm up act at the libdems conference a few years back,cringeworthy,wouldnt put her in charge of the 6th form

Swinson odds-on across the board.

I thought "falling on swords" was something he disapproved of?

Swinsons seems a nice sort. Vince Cable seems to believe he's a genius because he got one economic punt right.

id like to hear someone quiz a muslim mp about homosexuality. wont happen. we know why.

Why ??????

DStyle

Are there any Lib Dem MPs left after Farron, Cable and Swinson?

I hope he didn't chose a 'good day to bury bad news', so as to slip away quietly without too much press intrusion/attention.

Good riddance. 

How can someone who is anti gay and anti abortion be a LIBERAL??  And I think that is just an excuse, about his christian beliefs clashing with politics - they wanted him out.

By removing him do they remove him promising no deal with the tories or whatever?
Will there be an informal Lib deal here and there?
Like keep free school dinners for kids and make them lentil and organic soy milk?

Surely even the libs must know by now the second referendum thing they were on about is over.

A pathetic Individual ,that he Rose to be head of the Party just about somes the Lot of the Cxnts up .

Jun 14, 2017 -- 5:03PM, annie. wrote:

Good riddance.  How can someone who is anti gay and anti abortion be a LIBERAL??  And I think that is just an excuse, about his christian beliefs clashing with politics - they wanted him out.

he wasn't anti gay, what he said and his voting record prove this. He held the common christian view that gay sex was a sin no different to lying, cheating, stealing, etc.

Ironically it was the so called liberal left who claim to be the most tolerant showing themselves up as completely intolerant to someone with a different viewpoint.

His mistake was a failure to argue that liberals believe anyone can think and say what they want, and defend other peoples rights to do the same.

He tried to deflect his opinion from attacks by the left wing press, and soon enough the right wing press jumped in and went for him.

His statement was spot on - we are kidding ourselves if we think we live in a tolerant society if people cannot respect others can have different beliefs in public life.

I respect him for his decision. Whatever is one's opinion on homosexuality, Leviticus 18.22 states that it is an abomination. Any  Bishop, Rabbi,  CANNOT condone it if their religion is based on the Bible. No interpretation is possible because it is stated clearly! True Christians or Jews are not faithful to their Holy Book if they practice or condone homosexuality. Simples innit! As for me, I am an Epicurian, so I am not bothered if anyone likes their vice versa, as long as they stay away from me!

Said like a true Epicurian, Dr Slicer!

Thanks Mr Foinavon. I hope you are prospering.

Thank you Dr Slicer, the force is still with me for the time being.

Naked group hug? ....Women are alright but,..................you can't beat the real thing,

I am glad to hear that May 4th is  still your special day!

My ex wife is a hairdresser, one of the 2 gay guys that worked in the salon used this as his favourite mantra, he was camper than Larry Grayson.

I think it is terrible that one cannot use the word "gay" in the way it was intended before the Pink Emancipation. One dare not say that one had a gay old time without being accused of living in Brighton. btw- If you drop a coin on the seafront there- LEAVE IT WHERE IT IS!

Jun 15, 2017 -- 7:29AM, Slicer wrote:

I respect him for his decision. Whatever is one's opinion on homosexuality, Leviticus 18.22 states that it is an abomination. Any

One thing that can't be argued is that gays need us more than we need them

That dropping the coin made me laugh.

Me too

Dav_vin03
15 Jun 17 10:48


His mistake was a failure to argue that liberals believe anyone can think and say what they want, and defend other peoples rights to do the same.


- This is bullseye.

Sadly, liberalism is not what it appears to be. Tolerance of all values except what is deemed to be traditional/christian.

Liberals are like ticks. They need a host body to suck on.

only got nourishment on the back of a Tory win.

what happened to the SDP? i'm not even sure if I remembered their name right?
wasn't the liberals become part of it?

only proportional voting is fair.
the two big parties don't want it to change.

I would have had respect for the man if he had said these are my beliefs but I accept that in a secular world that we live in secular laws prevail. Trying to squirm out of supporting his beliefs to please others did the man down.

Ironically it was the so called liberal left who claim to be the most tolerant showing themselves up as completely intolerant to someone with a different viewpoint.

It's called the paradox of tolerance and Karl Popper dealt with it over 60 years ago, the question being: should a tolerant society tolerate intolerance?

The answer is no, it should not. A tolerant society should be intolerant of intolerance, as to tolerate intolerance merely leads to intolerance.

I am sure that many who defend christian values do not extend tolerance to the conflicting doctrines of other religions which they consider intolerant; you should not expect a rational and secular society to grant your belief system some sort of special privilege.

must be more than Christianity to resign

any dogs,pillows about

Jun 15, 2017 -- 6:52PM, DStyle wrote:

Ironically it was the so called liberal left who claim to be the most tolerant showing themselves up as completely intolerant to someone with a different viewpoint.It's called the paradox of tolerance and Karl Popper dealt with it over 60 years ago, the question being: should a tolerant society tolerate intolerance?The answer is no, it should not. A tolerant society should be intolerant of intolerance, as to tolerate intolerance merely leads to intolerance.I am sure that many who defend christian values do not extend tolerance to the conflicting doctrines of other religions which they consider intolerant; you should not expect a rational and secular society to grant your belief system some sort of special privilege.

May I suggest you have been mis

DStyle is not a miss, is he??.

Jun 15, 2017 -- 6:52PM, DStyle wrote:

Ironically it was the so called liberal left who claim to be the most tolerant showing themselves up as completely intolerant to someone with a different viewpoint.It's called the paradox of tolerance and Karl Popper dealt with it over 60 years ago, the question being: should a tolerant society tolerate intolerance?The answer is no, it should not. A tolerant society should be intolerant of intolerance, as to tolerate intolerance merely leads to intolerance.I am sure that many who defend christian values do not extend tolerance to the conflicting doctrines of other religions which they consider intolerant; you should not expect a rational and secular society to grant your belief system some sort of special privilege.

May I suggest you have been misquoted Popper and have not considered the context of his work which was in post world war europe

The act of refusing to be tolerant is what destroys tolerance, nothing else, and throwing in the word 'unlimited' is merely Popper's way of trying to justify 'limited' intolerance as morally acceptable.
Popper is saying that we have to deal with people we dont like first, and once we've done that then we can be tolerant. This is illogical, there are always more people we dont like if we want to go looking for them.

Popper conflates tolerance with appeasement, as though the only way to be tolerant of irritating people/ideas is to give in to them. But appeasement isn't tolerance. Appeasement is a kind of fearful retreat, an avoidance of confrontation with the misguided belief that it might settle the issue. It is perfectly possible to be tolerant and still say 'no.'

You can hate something/someone, wish they didn't exist, wished you could eliminate them from society - but as long as you leave them in peace, you are practicing tolerance.

If you truly care about maintaining a free, liberal society, you have to practice a lot of tolerance, if only as a kind of formal truce with other elements of society you might otherwise be in natural conflict with.

Of course, with freedom comes responsibility.

John Rawls work, A Theory of Justice gives a much better grasp of the debate of tolerance vs intolerance

Thank God the Christians went to India and showed intolerance to Sati...

Sati or suttee is an obsolete Hindu funeral custom where a widow immolates herself on her husband's pyre or commits suicide in another fashion shortly after her husband's death.

Between 1815 and 1818, the number of Sati in Bengal province doubled from 378 to 839. Under sustained campaigning against Sati by Christian missionaries such as William Carey and Brahmin Hindu reformer such as Ram Mohan Roy, the provincial government banned Sati in 1829.

This was followed up by similar laws by the authorities in the princely states of India in the ensuing decades, with a general ban for the whole of India issued by Queen Victoria in 1861.

Ah,the empire was an awful thing wasn't it ?

That the trouble when you take your morals from a book written by bronze age peasants.