That's the best thing about living in a free democracy - once the election fights end, we get up, dust ourselves off, and find silly, innocuous things to get into arguments over.

Tim Farron has resigned.

Bit bad timing in light of today's events. His speech seems to suggest its because he thinks gay sex is a sin though.

I suspect the timing may have been a way of keeping it low-key.

Why did he ever think he was fit to lead the LIBERAL democrats if he's against gay sex then? Good to see him resign.

Shame, he always seemed a good honest man and he was great at debating. But I also did want him to resign after this, he hasn't been the person to bring the Lib Dems back to where they were before, I heard and experienced myself during the campaign that voters weren't warming to him as a leader (even though the Lib Dems out of all parties are most about building up their local candidate's ability).

 

Jo Swinson or Vince Cable for the replacement, Cable I reckon would have taken the role had he not lost his seat in 2015 and he's always been rather respected even with his heavy involvement in the coalition, and Jo Swinson would be a much needed fresh face.

I am sad to see Tim Farron go. He is a good man, and it seems a shame that his strong Christian faith, and the hostility he received as a result of it, has seen him step down as leader. The fact that he rescued the Lib Dems from its historic lows will give the party a strong foundation to build off, even if it seems that the builders have rejected making Farron its cornerstone.

Funny that 'christian values' have hounded Farron out of a job but not the DUP out of Number 10.

 

Let's be honest, Farron was always a caretaker manager. Out of 8 MPs he was about the only one not utterly gash, he really got it by default. Now they've got Swinson and Cable back it was a matter of time before the switch happened.

I am sad to see Tim Farron go. He is a good man, and it seems a shame that his strong Christian faith, and the hostility he received as a result of it, has seen him step down as leader. The fact that he rescued the Lib Dems from its historic lows will give the party a strong foundation to build off, even if it seems that the builders have rejected making Farron its cornerstone.

 

Ah so a slip in vote share from 7.9% to 7.4% is a strong foundation to build off is it? ! :P

Why did he ever think he was fit to lead the LIBERAL democrats if he's against gay sex then? Good to see him resign.

 

In theory, the values of liberals should allow anyone to be part of their party and be their leader, as long as they vote against curbing people's civil liberties and vote to increase them. Farron always did this, no matter his private views.

As much as I liked Tim Farron, he wasn't anywhere near in the same league as Nick Clegg. It's going to be a while until they get someone like him again.

I'm surprised he waited this long but yeah, if it weren't for the SNP quasi-nose dive they would have been pretty much exactly where they were two years ago and their campaign was distinctly lacklustre. Given the choice between Cable and Swinson I'm firmly of the view that they should go with Swinson as a "next generation" type of leader (and somebody who helped lead a cross-party Pro Choice caucus to kill off an anti-abortion law which given the DUP are currently holding the balance of power is another thing in her favor for me).

Ah so a slip in vote share from 7.9% to 7.4% is a strong foundation to build off is it? ! :P

 

To add 3/4 seats whilst losing half a percentage point, in an election that saw the re-alignment of politics into 2 parties for the first time in a generation is rather impressive in my mind, and gives a strong base to build off.

 

I disagree, I'd say much of that increase was flattered by gains in Scotland- much of which was due to the collapse of SNP. Where was the so-called 'Lib Dem surge' that commentators had been confident of given their very clear stance on Brexit?

A quick quote from Tim here listing some of the reasons he stepped down:

From the very first day of my leadership, I have faced questions about my Christian faith. I've tried to answer with grace and patience. Sometimes my answers could have been wiser.

At the start of this election, I found myself under scrutiny again - asked about matters to do with my faith. I felt guilty that this focus was distracting attention from our campaign, obscuring our message.

Journalists have every right to ask what they see fit. The consequences of the focus on my faith is that I have found myself torn between living as a faithful Christian and serving as a political leader.

A better, wiser person than me may have been able to deal with this more successfully, to have remained faithful to Christ while leading a political party in the current environment.

To be a political leader - especially of a progressive, liberal party in 2017 - and to live as a committed Christian, to hold faithfully to the Bible's teaching, has felt impossible for me.

I'm a liberal to my finger tips, and that liberalism means that I am passionate about defending the rights and liberties of people who believe different things to me.

There are Christians in politics who take the view that they should impose the tenets of faith on society, but I have not taken that approach because I disagree with it - it's not liberal and it is counterproductive when it comes to advancing the gospel.

Even so, I seem to be the subject of suspicion because of what I believe and who my faith is in.

In which case we are kidding ourselves if we think we yet live in a tolerant, liberal society.

Frankly I think the scrutiny was grossly unfair, he's a good guy and worthy of being a leader. The "gay sex is a sin" thing (which he never said btw) was blown way out of proportion and continually dragged up at opportune moments by his enemies in the press, he was the leader of the Liberal Democrats ffs, of course he believed in LGBT rights. Whatever his personal views might have been (and I don't think they were illiberal in any way) it was always going to be what he supported in legal terms that would've been important- he'd only support what he felt was right to support and like I say he always supported LGBT rights. This is why politicians are forced to evade questions and are portrayed so dishonestly, make one mistake or say the wrong thing once and you'll be hounded by reporters and opponents for it for a long time and it'll in turn damage your election chances.

 

I think it's a real shame that someone who considers themselves a strong member of the Christian faith (or indeed any faith) doesn't feel that they can be a leader of a political party and like Farron himself says, it's yet another indication that we're not living in a liberal fair society when someone is so frequently attacked and discredited solely because of that aspect of their identity. At least now though we'll have someone like Vince Cable perhaps without that kind of weight hanging over them.

Edited June 14, 20178 yr by Jacob.

or alternatively, in a fantasy world where percentages win actual seats, the Libdems would be holding the balance of power on a much-reduced Tory majority. No guesses for how that imaginary scenario would play out (hint: it wouldn't be a Tory government right now sucking dup).

 

 

Vince Cable - I did like him, right up until he privatised the profitable part of Royal Mail and then sold the shares at knock-down prices to Osborne's mates in the city.

In his resignation statement Tim Farron highlighted the fact that he never attempted to foist his own religious beliefs on anyone else. He voted for Liberal values consistently. However, the strength of his religion beliefs clearly out him in an awkward position as party leader. There's a big difference between speaking for yourself and speaking for your party. That's a lesson Jeremy Corbyn has had to learn albeit without the same conflict with religion.

 

If she hadn't lost her seat in the SNP landslide I suspect Jo Swinson would haves stood for the leadership last time. I certainly expect her to do so now she is back in parliament. I'm guessing Vince Cable will stand. His prospects may be partially dependent on when members expect the next election to be. Norman Lamb, the only other candidate last time, was widely predicted to lose his seat. In the event, he held it fairly comfortably with a tiny swing against him. His biggest problem is that he is an uninspiring speaker. Therefore, at this stage, I think the contest (even if there are other candidates) will be Cable v Swinson.

Cable may a little old - is he not in his mid 70s?

 

Only as old as you feel and all that though I guess!

Cable may a little old - is he not in his mid 70s?

 

Only as old as you feel and all that though I guess!

That's what I meant about the timing of the next election. Vince Cable is 74 so he could be almost 80 at the next election.