General Election 2017

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, Awol said:

Apparently (and not seen it yet) wee Timmy Farron has refused to say gay sex is not a sin (he's a committed Christian) when questioned by the Channel 4 news' morality police. 

I wonder how such blatant homophobia will sit with Remainers thinking of voting Lib Dem? 

An interesting dilemma.

I saw that somewhere on the twitter in a twit that said his voting record (and the Lib Dems) on "that sort of thing" is way way better than that of people like Theresa May.  There was a comparison showing this.

[StefanAVFC]

Yawn. This article does a very good job of explaining why this isn't something to attack him over.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/19/does-tim-farron-think-gay-sex-is-a-sin-who-cares?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Quote

“As a liberal, I’m passionate about equality, and equal marriage, about equal rights for LGBT people, for fighting not just for LGBT rights in this country, but overseas.”

That’s Tim Farron, leader of the Liberal Democrats. He’s a man who voted for the same-sex marriage bill on its second reading in 2013 (he was absent for its third reading – something he has said he regrets), and voted to make those rights available to members of the armed forces in 2014.

And yet, we keep asking him to tell us exactly what he thinks about gay sex. Why?

He’s a committed Christian. One of those evangelicals, who believes in the inerrancy of the Bible? He doesn’t like labels. Instead, he says: “My faith is in Jesus Christ, I put my trust in Him. I count Him as my Lord and saviour, and I’m in no way ashamed of that.” What’s clear is that religion isn’t simply a part of his identity, an inheritance, as it is with vicar’s daughter Theresa May. It’s front and centre, an active choice: he was baptised when he was 21.

I suspect that means he does in fact hew pretty closely to what the Bible says. I wouldn’t be surprised if he takes the passage in Leviticus 18:22 – “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman. It is a sinful thing” – at face value.

How else to explain his answer, when repeatedly pressed on the issue by Channel 4 anchor Cathy Newman in 2015? “We are all sinners ... the Bible phrase I use most is ‘you don’t pick out the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye when there is a plank in your own’.” In that formulation both sawdust and plank are sins – it’s just not a Christian’s business to go around dressing people down for their faults.

When Newman asked him the same question on Tuesday, he sidestepped it once more. “I’m not in a position to go making theological pronouncements.” His job is to lead a party with a platform squarely behind gay rights. In that context, he seemed to be saying, what he thinks God thinks about sodomy is irrelevant.

That makes lots of people uncomfortable. The Liberal Democrats are the original party of the easy-going metropolitan elite. If you discount the homophobic campaign against Peter Tatchell in 1983, they’ve usually been way ahead of the curve when it comes to LGBT rights. The leader of their predecessor party, Jeremy Thorpe, had relationships with both men and women.

But I’m inclined to agree with Farron. The advancement of LGBT rights doesn’t depend on everyone celebrating gay sex with every fibre of their being. It depends on a consensus in which the rights of minorities are protected – and really flourishes under secularism: a framework where religion is not obliterated, but accommodated without special privileges alongside other beliefs.

I don’t need a window into Tim Farron’s soul. I don’t care what he considers sinful, so long as it doesn’t translate into policy. For that reason, however, he should be watched like a hawk for any hint of discriminatory lawmaking. In 2007, he voted against outlawing discrimination in the provision of services to people on the basis of their orientation (Theresa May didn’t vote, Jeremy Corbyn voted yes). But if the quote at the top of this piece is anything to go by, he’s been on a journey – like many in a House of Commons that only managed to repeal the homophobic section 28 in 2003.

In any case, he knows he’s toast if he starts threading the Lib Dem manifesto through with Old Testament edicts. Homophobia is rightly deemed a serious political transgression these days. But can we extend to Farron the same courtesy he affords us, and love the sinner, while hating the sin?

 

[StefanAVFC]

Just now, blandy said:

I saw that somewhere on the twitter in a twit that said his voting record (and the Lib Dems) on "that sort of thing" is way way better than that of people like Theresa May.  There was a comparison showing this.

Yep. I might not agree with his views, but he doesn't seem to let his own personal feelings affect his politics.

This bit of the above article does a good job explaining this better than I can.

Quote

When Newman asked him the same question on Tuesday, he sidestepped it once more. “I’m not in a position to go making theological pronouncements.” His job is to lead a party with a platform squarely behind gay rights. In that context, he seemed to be saying, what he thinks God thinks about sodomy is irrelevant.

That makes lots of people uncomfortable. The Liberal Democrats are the original party of the easy-going metropolitan elite. If you discount the homophobic campaign against Peter Tatchell in 1983, they’ve usually been way ahead of the curve when it comes to LGBT rights. The leader of their predecessor party, Jeremy Thorpe, had relationships with both men and women.

But I’m inclined to agree with Farron. The advancement of LGBT rights doesn’t depend on everyone celebrating gay sex with every fibre of their being. It depends on a consensus in which the rights of minorities are protected – and really flourishes under secularism: a framework where religion is not obliterated, but accommodated without special privileges alongside other beliefs.

I don’t need a window into Tim Farron’s soul. I don’t care what he considers sinful, so long as it doesn’t translate into policy. For that reason, however, he should be watched like a hawk for any hint of discriminatory lawmaking. In 2007, he voted against outlawing discrimination in the provision of services to people on the basis of their orientation (Theresa May didn’t vote, Jeremy Corbyn voted yes). But if the quote at the top of this piece is anything to go by, he’s been on a journey – like many in a House of Commons that only managed to repeal the homophobic section 28 in 2003.

 

[blandy]

"That would be an ecumenical matter"

[Xela]

5 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

Try this clearing in the woods

 

I like his hair though

Plus he nodded at me in Lichfield once. 

[StefanAVFC]

Just now, Xela said:

I like his hair though

Plus he nodded at me in Lichfield once. 

He's just a wannabe Boris.

[Xela]

Didn't vote at the last GE. Probably won't vote again. Sutton is blue anyway by a distance. I don't really have any thoughts on any of the parties. Really should care more. 

[Dodgyknees]

5 hours ago, ml1dch said:

My constituency has returned nothing but a Liberal or Tory MP since Sir Arthur Elton for the Whigs in 1855.

It was taken by the Tories in 2015 with a small majority and had been Lib Dem since 1992 before that, each time with a comfortable, double-digit majority.

So, run past me again how voting Lib Dem is just going to help the Tories get in?

Labour > Lib Dems will. Sorry, I didn't realise everybody lived in your town.

Whilst here, in your town, where everything is exactly like that, can you tell me how the Lib Dems will win power and overturn Brexit?

Edited April 19, 2017 by DK82

[Chindie]

**** Farron.

I'll be spoiling my ballot again. Labour will win the seat regardless and there's nothing else i can vote for.

[Risso]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

I saw that somewhere on the twitter in a twit that said his voting record (and the Lib Dems) on "that sort of thing" is way way better than that of people like Theresa May.  There was a comparison showing this.

So swivel-eyed god bothering loon Faron is slightly better at "that sort of thing" than god bothering swivel-eyed loon May?  Good to hear!

[ml1dch]

1 hour ago, DK82 said:

Labour > Lib Dems will. Sorry, I didn't realise everybody lived in your town.

Whilst here, in your town, where everything is exactly like that, can you tell me how the Lib Dems will win power and overturn Brexit?

I can't, but then I'm not going to be daft enough to claim that either of those things are likely or even plausible.

What I'm more than happy to say though is that anybody claiming that any vote for the Lib Dems is a vote that helps the Conservatives is clearly talking out of their Farage.

As you no doubt now realise.

[PompeyVillan]

Is anyone watching the Confessions Of A Junior Doctor on channel 4?

I dispair. How anyone can watch this and decide that the NHS is in the correct hands is beyond me. 

The NHS is my number 1 concern in a political sense and it breaks my heart to see people suffer when it is totally unnecessary. It's a political choice to underfund the NHS.

[Davkaus]

ITV have announced they'll be airing a Leaders' debate.

May has been absolutely unequivocal that she will not attend. There will be no debate, she is not taking part. So I think we can assume it'll be 3-4 days before she announces she is taking part, it was her idea, and you know who's refusing to debate? 13 years of Labour government! And the ITV host is wearing a shit suit.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Davkaus

[darrenm]

2 minutes ago, PompeyVillan said:

Is anyone watching the Confessions Of A Junior Doctor on channel 4?

I dispair. How anyone can watch this and decide that the NHS is in the correct hands is beyond me. 

The NHS is my number 1 concern in a political sense and it breaks my heart to see people suffer when it is totally unnecessary. It's a political choice to underfund the NHS.

And we pay less per head as a proportion of GDP than most other western developed countries. Yet somehow people have it in their heads that we pay loads for the NHS and it's therefore very inefficient which is utter bollocks. It's propped up by hard working underpaid staff going above and beyond because they genuinely want to help people. It can't be starved of funding any further without breaking. Which is the aim.

[terrytini]

12 minutes ago, PompeyVillan said:

Is anyone watching the Confessions Of A Junior Doctor on channel 4?

I dispair. How anyone can watch this and decide that the NHS is in the correct hands is beyond me. 

The NHS is my number 1 concern in a political sense and it breaks my heart to see people suffer when it is totally unnecessary. It's a political choice to underfund the NHS.

Yup.

Our Grandchildren will never forgive us when they discover the things, this particularly but so many many others, that we had, and threw away.

[PompeyVillan]

 

Just now, terrytini said:

Yup.

Our Grandchildren will never forgive us when they discover the things, this particularly but so many many others, that we had, and threw away.

I agree, they'll forgive us Brexit. But not a privitised health service.

I can't get my head around it, I thought the NHS was important to people.

[terrytini]

8 minutes ago, PompeyVillan said:

 

I agree, they'll forgive us Brexit. But not a privitised health service.

I can't get my head around it, I thought the NHS was important to people.

Well I'm not sure about the first bit but, (other than the peace in Europe argument) its a matter largely of preference as to how you want to live......................but I'm constantly staggered and despondent at how people are allowing the gradual destruction of the facilities we will ALL need when we get sick, grow old, or die.

£50 a week.

I know people that spend that on  beer ffs.

[Awol]

14 hours ago, terrytini said:

Having read the debate between the two of you I have to say I 'enjoyed' reading it.  I do take your points on press freedom and the libertarian approach on board and fully see the merit of your argument.

But IMO you are misguided if you can't see the threat this increasingly grotesque 'journalism' is to all our well beings with its insidious poisoning of what passes for debate/ news/ information.

And it's got nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with engagement, fear, and ignorance. I've three girls and a lad, there's little to choose intelligence wise but two of the girls lap this stuff up as if it's gospel. I've three brothers, and one talks as if his entire education is from reading this stuff.

However 'elitist' it sounds there are many many ways people of all sorts need protection from others, and there are many many ways society needs protecting from potential dangers within.

Whilst criminalising  articles appearing in Newspapers would be unforgivable and dangerous, there certainly needs to be a beefing up of the current scrutiny and remedial avenues available. There is a tighter set of controls and available actions on VT than there is - effectively - on Headlines like these, and real people don't have the use of an ignore button where headlines are concerned.

Every advertiser, politician, trader, and pop star know the value of publicity (and, of course, propaganda).

And if maybe the Mail goes too far, well that's okay with those on the side of extremism ( of any political leaning) because little by little they push back what's acceptable.

And the idea that he/we should not worry because of how much worse could happen is the most dangerous of all in my view.

 

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

Elements of print journalism have always favoured the 'grotesque' in their presentation of editorial agendas, so I don't see the recent dog toffee churned out by the Mail / Mirror / Sun as being unusual beyond the normal gutter standard.

My point to Steff was that he's exaggerating the whole "inciting hatred/being a threat to democracy", not least because it would land the publishers in court under existing laws. 

The bigger problem imo isn't the in your face bias and dishonesty of tomorrow's chip paper, but the more subtle and insidious blend of truth, spin and dishonesty pedaled by the broadcast media - whether privately owned or state funded. 

It's not a new thing but people are becoming wiser to it, creating a fundamentally bigger problem than daft Mail headlines: when nothing you hear can be taken as objectively true, nothing can be believed nor crucially, disproven. Hence the phenomenon of 'alternative facts'. 

Guilt rests with profit chasing private companies, propagandizing governments manipulating truth via state controlled media and consumers who sustain the whole thing by participating in the charade. 

That all sounds like an argument for greater regulation if such a body could be trusted, but it can't - see above. Everyone has a boss and that boss has an agenda driven by money and power.

Therefore the only solution that doesn't involve a greater level of informational manipulation and control is to trust in the laws that exist, ignore what you dislike, embrace what you do and carry on.

Better a seedy & dishonest free media than an invitation to castrate the last line of defence for free speech and holding the powerful to account (all imo, of course).

And kill your television.

 

[tonyh29]

13 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

they’ve usually been way ahead of the curve when it comes to LGBT rights. The leader of their predecessor party, Jeremy Thorpe, had relationships with both men and women.

 

so the proof that the Lib Dems were ahead of the curve is that they had a leader who liked men and women  

 

 

[StefanAVFC]

That's called an example Tony. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the Lib Dems are ahead of the curve purely because they had a bisexual leader once and it's fairly disingenuous to claim that anyone is.