Support NeoGAF

[kmag]

If he said that he thought homosexual sex was a sin he would be interpreted as meaning, among other things, that he thought it was sexual orientation was a choice,

None of this necessarily follows from believing it to be a sin.


Jazzy Geoff's post is on point here:

I'm not sure that is the case to be honest. It's very hard to reconcile a believe that a particular act is a sin then say that there's no choice involved, you either end up with the notion that God has somehow 'baked' the sinful act into people and there's no free choice (which basically goes against the concept of sin itself) or that people are choosing to 'sin'. I know it's extremely difficult to assign logic to partial adoption of fairy tales but I don't see how someone can logically hold the following notions.

1. Homosexuality is natural (ergo not a choice)
2. Homosexuality is sin (something which therefore God does not want and man should control)

It would seem to be one or the other.

But when you're basing a belief structure on a badly written, terribly translated eons old book which most only partially adopt because hey there's a limit to the cray cray, then there's plenty of logical gaps.

 

[CyclopsRock]

"that's politics" doesn't mean it is ethical. Sounds like you are biased.

What part of what I said wasn't accurate or true, in your view?

 

[kmag]

I've actually only ever voted Tory once, and that was Boris in 2012 for London Mayor.. But generally, yeah, I lean right and the Tories are my natural home. I was a huge fan of the Tory/Lib Dem coalition and I like what Cameron did to the Conservatives. Furthermore, I voted remain.

I'll be voting Conservative. There's plenty about them I don't like, I don't like their slide back to small-c conservatism, I don't like that David Davis and his friends have their hand one back-stab from the reigns of power. That said, I broadly don't see any way for us to do anything other than hard Brexit after the referendum result so I don't find the idea of a Lib Dem pro-EU stance appealing. I also consider many of Labour's desired policies anathema to my views and the leadership is an absolute shambles. As such, I find myself reluctantly voting Tory because I'd rather they were in charge, and May were PM, than any of the alternatives.

As for my thoughts on the actual election itself, well, that's politics. There seem to be a lot of people falling over themselves to call it naked politicking or whatever, but it's pretty hard to spin the idea of giving the people a chance to kick out the government and replace it with one that they like as being a bad thing. You can argue that we shouldn't have referendums on important issues that most people don't have the time or inclination to understand, but that's not something we can claim about elections. The timing is obviously chosen for political reasons, but that doesn't negate the fact that the result on June 9th will reflect the will of the people. So sure, why not.

British elections very rarely reflect the will of the people. Giving a party who'll probably get 40% of the 62% of the electorate who vote absolute power isn't reflecting the will of the people. It's a terrible electoral system which I know you like because it appeals to the autocrat in you. Strong government! Well it might get you that, but don't pretend it represents the will of the people.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Liberalism and traditional working class values are almost entirely separate. It's only a mutual loathing for the tories that has kept them together all this time. Go wait at the pie stand at half time of a League 2 game or sit in the corner of a working man's club in Bradford and tell me how often they talk about LGBT rights or stop and search.

That's if you can even find a working man's club. All our locals shut down in the early '00s. Solidarity is dead.

 

[travisbickle]

If I had a gun I'd shoot any person who used the phrase "will of the people" to describe the charade we're going through after the referendum.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Unfair to question a Muslim leader about their views on homosexuality?

Firstly Farron didn't get asked his view, he got asked if it was a sin or not. As he then pointed out, that is a theological question. If you asked any religious person that question they'd squirm, as most religions are out of date on LGBT issues.

If you asked a Muslim person that they'd rightly point out that they got a question that singled out their faith on national television to discredit them.

I think he should have said he doesn't view it as a bad thing, as that would be a nice easy answer, but instead we have got people using it as the first volley in the mud war.

 

[kmag]

Firstly Farron didn't get asked his view, he got asked if it was a sin or not. As he then pointed out, that is a theological question. If you asked any religious person that question they'd squirm, as most religions are out of date on LGBT issues.

If you asked a Muslim person that they'd rightly point out that they got a question that singled out their faith on national television to discredit them.

I think he should have said he doesn't view it as a bad thing, as that would be a nice easy answer, but instead we have got people using it as the first volley in the mud war.

Does he believe homosexuality is a choice? It's difficult (I'd say impossible) to reconcile it being natural AND a sin.

 

[Uzzy]

Theresa May seems to be arguing that this election is needed to stop the Lib Dems ruining her Brexit plans.

How many MP's do they have again?

 

[scotcheggz]

Theresa May seems to be arguing that this election is needed to stop the Lib Dems ruining her Brexit plans.

How many MP's do they have again?

9...

I just read her interview from this morning, she sounded like she has really weak arguments, though it might have come across better on the TV.

Said she won't be taking part in TV debates because she likes knocking on doors, so that's what she'll be doing. Lol yeah OK that's why.

 

[kmag]

9...

I just read her interview from this morning, she sounded like she has really weak arguments, though it might have come across better on the TV.

Said she won't be taking part in TV debates because she likes knocking on doors, so that's what she'll be doing. Lol yeah OK that's why.

She was and most the Tory commentators seem to agree, pretty abjectly awful and inconsistent on the Today program there.

 

[Kotetsu534]

Insightful piece from Janan Ganesh at the FT a few weeks ago. Put my suspicions into words - the masses want some authoritarianism in their lives.

The west is not in revolt against elites. The people who voted Britain out of the EU and Donald Trump into the White House, and who might elect Marine Le Pen as president of France next month, are nostalgic for a time when elites were more, not less, powerful. Their Eden tends to be the middle third of the previous century, when barons at the top of government, business and organised labour conspired to maintain full employment. Corporatism was elitism in practical form. Capital flows between countries were policed by even remoter elites in the institutions set up at Bretton Woods, itself an elite gathering to shame any Bilderberg weekend. Migration was managed by elites.

I write this with a liberal’s wince but 2016 exposed a large, unmet demand for paternalist government. A decisive number of voters are ravenous for authentic elitism. Their quarrel is with the cipher elitism of the Davos age, in which politicians get elected only to claim powerlessness against the global maelstrom of capital and people, where businesses as big as Google play down their own power in favour of a “networked” world.

Angry voters do not want a putsch against elitism. If anything, they want its restoration. They want the ordered world they grew up in, when a measure of central direction kept jobs secure and neighbourhoods familiar. They see modern elites as lax parents, not strict ones, unconscionably passive during the past few decades of foreign economic competition and breakneck social change. They demand proper elites, elites who use their power.

The masses deferred to elites as long as the elites managed the masses’ exposure to the brute realities of the market. The fraying of that contract led to the bitterness of today. In 2016, voters did not ask elites to abdicate their power. They punished elites for prior abdications of power.

As our lives get ever more insecure, the precariat grows larger and our governments become increasingly preoccupied with their budgets, I would not expect this trend to relent. I know the majority of posters on GAF have a very different outlook from the average voter - being younger, generally better educated/better prospects, generally more socially liberal - but this is a line of thinking worth considering when you're bemused as to why May is polling in the 40s, despite not being an especially popular PM.

 

[Conan-san]

Theresa May seems to be arguing that this election is needed to stop the Lib Dems ruining her Brexit plans.

How many MP's do they have again?

Is it not heresy to suffer any chaos?

 

[DECK'ARD]

9...

I just read her interview from this morning, she sounded like she has really weak arguments, though it might have come across better on the TV.

Said she won't be taking part in TV debates because she likes knocking on doors, so that's what she'll be doing. Lol yeah OK that's why.

Unexpectedly opening the door to Theresa May would be plain frightening.

 

[Maledict]

Firstly Farron didn't get asked his view, he got asked if it was a sin or not. As he then pointed out, that is a theological question. If you asked any religious person that question they'd squirm, as most religions are out of date on LGBT issues.

If you asked a Muslim person that they'd rightly point out that they got a question that singled out their faith on national television to discredit them.

I think he should have said he doesn't view it as a bad thing, as that would be a nice easy answer, but instead we have got people using it as the first volley in the mud war.

As someone who voted lib dem in the last three elections (including 2015), I object to being dismissed out of hand by you because you want to defend your leaders odious views.

And as for Mullins being asked about gay people, we have a great example. The countries foremost elected Muslim is Sadik Khan, who received death threats for supporting gay rights, marched in London Pride, and has never said that we're all sinners.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Again, Lib Dem voter here, so biased - but...

If you liked the coalition, and you don't like the direction the Conservative government is going in - would it not be better to give them the message that they need to move more to the centre to get you back on-side? Just as they lurched to the right to get their Eurosceptic UKIP members back, losing votes to the Lib Dems may make them reconsider some of the more 'controversial' policies.

Essentially a protest vote.

I don't think protest votes really work though. The Tories don't know who I am, don't know how I vote, wouldn't know my reasons for switching and, in my constituency, wouldn't even miss my vote. There's too much diffusion between my vote and their interpretation. Furthermore, given they're about to win a huge majority after 5 years of coalition and 2 years of a slender majority I imagine any "reconsidering" isn't going to go in my favour! Fundamentally I still agree with more of their platform than any other party's.

Don't see why you would vote Remain and vote in the party that promises a hard Brexit. That doesn't serve Remain interests (well, it doesn't serve mine considering I do want to live permanently in places like Amsterdam some day, don't know about yours). Of course an increased government majority might give more room for compromises but that hardcore traditional Conservative base will be energized and select candidates accordingly, so new elections don't necessarily mean moderate Conservative candidates ready and able to compromise. For me, I have to hope for a compromise when push comes to shove, or the EU does stuff to help my demographic like the Parliament wants, or I buckle down for a few hard years of building in demand skills, something I'm going to have to do anyway EU or no to be fair.

I'd be on the Right wing of the Labour party or social democrat Lib Dem territory in terms of stance. I'll reluctantly vote Labour considering who my candidate is. In the Dutch election if I could vote I would vote for D66.

If we hadn't have a referendum and the Tories were just proposing leaving it might make me reconsider my vote (though maybe not - the EU is, generally, not something I have especially strong feeling about even though I'd have liked us to stay) but, well, we did. I want a government that respects things like referendum, and IMO there's no alternative to a hard Brexit. Any soft Brexit that includes still abiding by the four pillars is basically not exiting the EU in any meaningful sense. So whilst I personally would rather we were staying in, I want a government that's going to hard Brexit. Weird, I know, but I see it as akin to me still wanting laws I don't agree with to be upheld by the police on the grounds that the police shouldn't be deciding which laws to uphold and which not to, that's up to the legislature. And if they're going to ask us our opinion and say in no uncertain terms "we will execute your will", then the fact it wasn't technically legally binding is irrelevant to me - they gots to do it.

 

[Auctopus]

I do not understand this "Brenda from Bristol" mentality.

"ANOTHER ELECTION?! WE JUST HAD ONE!!"

Be thankful you've had so many opportunities to get involved. If you ain't playing the game, you're getting played.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Does he believe homosexuality is a choice? It's difficult (I'd say impossible) to reconcile it being natural AND a sin.

Theological discussions, woo!

It'd be the act of sodomy, say, that would be the sin, but I think that would depend on the exact belief of the faith the person believed in?

Again, moot point though. His political stance is liberal. He's a devout Christian too. You can be both.

The countries foremost elected Muslim is Sadik Khan, who received death threats for supporting gay rights, marched in London Pride, and has never said that we're all sinners.

Yup, he's a great example of someone else with a private faith who still does good stuff for equality. Farron's campaigned on LGBT rights alongside the rest of the Lib Dems for a long time.

A quick google for something related pulled this URL up: https://lgbt.libdems.org.uk/en/ which is a collection of press releases (and news articles I think) on LGBT issues and the Lib Dems over the past few years.

 

[Mr. Sam]

I know I dumped on Tim Farron a bit yesterday but this painting of him as an evangelical madman is a bit much. At least I can believe his religion informs his politics in a positive way, if at all, whereas I dream of the day when the person who writes Theresa May's speeches meets the person who makes her policies.

If I had a gun I'd shoot any person who used the phrase "will of the people" to describe the charade we're going through after the referendum.

Can we not talk about shooting people in regard to a referendum over which a Member of Parliament was shot to death in the street? I don't mean to come over as sanctimonious but come on.

 

[CyclopsRock]

British elections very rarely reflect the will of the people. Giving a party who'll probably get 40% of the 62% of the electorate who vote absolute power isn't reflecting the will of the people. It's a terrible electoral system which I know you like because it appeals to the autocrat in you. Strong government! Well it might get you that, but don't pretend it represents the will of the people.

We've "known" each other for some years now kmag, I'm surprised you have come away with that view. I'm about as small state as they come on this forum, generally prefering the government to stay out of people's business *and* in the post you were literally just quoting I said I liked the coalition, so I'm not sure where you get the idea I'm a FPTP loving autocrat.

 

[D_prOdigy]

Nobody should be doing TV debates.

It's a no-brainer for May to not do it, because it worked well for Cameron last time. As much as I wanted to see him raked through the coals nationally, it was really only liberals on Twitter who were outraged so much that he skipped them. It didn't damage him at all, and indeed, I imagine the spectacle of the opposition squabbling it out between themselves whilst the PM is perceived to not bother dropping to that level is exactly the sort of image that can only help the Tories.

Pick your battles, don't waste time again trying to start a consensus that 'she's running scared of Corbyn!' because it's not gonna stick. If she's not gonna do it, don't do it.

 

[Maledict]

Theological discussions, woo!

It'd be the act of sodomy, say, that would be the sin, but I think that would depend on the exact belief of the faith the person believed in?

Again, moot point though. His political stance is liberal. He's a devout Christian too. You can be both.



Yup, he's a great example of someone else with a private faith who still does good stuff for equality. Farron's campaigned on LGBT rights alongside the rest of the Lib Dems for a long time.

A) you didn't answer my actual post.

B) go look up Faron's voting record before he became leader and tell me he campaigned on Lgbt rights.

 

[phisheep]

I'm not sure that is the case to be honest. It's very hard to reconcile a believe that a particular act is a sin then say that there's no choice involved, you either end up with the notion that God has somehow 'baked' the sinful act into people and there's no free choice (which basically goes against the concept of sin itself) or that people are choosing to 'sin'. I know it's extremely difficult to assign logic to partial adoption of fairy tales but I don't see how someone can logically hold the following notions.

1. Homosexuality is natural (ergo not a choice)
2. Homosexuality is sin (something which therefore God does not want and man should control)

It would seem to be one or the other.

But when you're basing a belief structure on a badly written, terribly translated eons old book which most only partially adopt because hey there's a limit to the cray cray, then there's plenty of logical gaps.

See, this sort of thing is why Farron did well to avoid that question. That's maybe your interpretation of what sin means, but it doesn't accord with any mainstream Christian theology that I've come across.

The doctrine of sin is most fully worked out in Catholic theology and there, yes, there is "baked-in" sin without free choice. It's a thing. Sin is surprisingly irrelevant in many branches of Protestant evangelism, where justification before God is by one's faith and not by ones acts (and naturally the converse holds too, your acts alone do not damn you). And you snuck in that and "man should control" thing with no backing whatsoever, while from the perspective of most Christians it's a matter of "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and, for example, the criminal law and the concept of sin are entirely different things (though they do overlap, which perhaps leads to some confusion).The idea that society should somehow prohibit and punish sins is an aberration largely restricted to radical Muslim theocracies and to the evangelical wing of the Republican Party.

It's a giant rabbit hole.

The thing is Tim Farron knows and understands politics and religion have no place together which makes him perfectly sane.

Yup.

 

[ReplacementPelican]

Insightful piece from Janan Ganesh at the FT a few weeks ago. Put my suspicions into words - the masses want some authoritarianism in their lives.

As our lives get ever more insecure, the precariat grows larger and our governments become increasingly preoccupied with their budgets, I would not expect this trend to relent. I know the majority of posters on GAF have a very different outlook from the average voter - being younger, generally better educated/better prospects, generally more socially liberal - but this is a line of thinking worth considering when you're bemused as to why May is polling in the 40s, despite not being an especially popular PM.

Wonderfully put, thanks for sharing this. It is odd though because I distinctly remember the voting demographics for May previously railing against the idea of a 'nanny state.' But I guess that was just a dog whilst for not looking after poor people or telling them not to be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc...

 

[DECK'ARD]

I know I dumped on Tim Farron a bit yesterday but this painting of him as an evangelical madman is a bit much. At least I can believe his religion informs his politics in a positive way, if at all, whereas I dream of the day when the person who writes Theresa May's speeches meets the person who makes her policies.

I don't, I think he's genuinely bonkers and after the stories that came out about Blair this is like getting a nice advance warning from the man himself.

The only plan a politician should talk about is their manifesto.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Wonderfully put, thanks for sharing this. It is odd though because I distinctly remember the voting demographics for May previously railing against the idea of a 'nanny state.' But I guess that was just a dog whilst for not looking after poor people or telling them not to be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc...

Wow, I haven't heard 'nanny state' in what feels like forever.

When did they stop using it? After 9/11 right?

 

[toythatkills]

Can we not talk about shooting people in regard to a referendum over which a Member of Parliament was shot to death in the street? I don't mean to come over as sanctimonious but come on.

Yeah, shooting people is a bit much. Let's just crush, kill, murder or smash them.

 

[RedSparrows]

Wonderfully put, thanks for sharing this. It is odd though because I distinctly remember the voting demographics for May previously railing against the idea of a 'nanny state.' But I guess that was just a dog whilst for not looking after poor people or telling them not to be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc...

Nanny State, like many things, is often only a selectively used term...

 

[Huw_Dawson]

A) you didn't answer my actual post.

Your actual post has two statements in it. One of those is you objecting to me dismissing you out of hand, the other is bringing up Khan as an example of someone that mixes a religious background with politics and manages to not go fundamentalist.

B) go look up Faron's voting record before he became leader and tell me he campaigned on Lgbt rights.

Firstly you're obviously cherry picking here and implying he's been dishonest since winning the leadership, but sure -

The only obvious eyebrow raise there is him voting against the Equality Act - which he put down to an amendment he backed being voted down, and he abstained on one of the gay marriage votes - which is where people cry "AHA!"

Didn't you vote against the Sexual Orientation Regulations?
I don't think I did. I think in 2007 or 08...
On the 2007 law, you did. It's where that protection comes from. You cited your ‘extreme liberal point of view' at the time.
Well, I've changed my position since then.
My take on stuff like the cake issue, which was not live at that point, and the B&B issue, which had become live – it is un-Christian to turn people away from your establishment. You should not, if you offer services, be in the situation where you are discriminating.
The issue about the Equality Act stuff – it's about who has got the right to silence certain people... Tolerance is not about putting up with people you agree with. You don't tolerate those people – it's about co-existing with people you really don't agree with.
We had an amendment that I think was defeated, which tried to deal with some of the issues about protections. My recollection is that amendment was not accepted – I could not therefore support the [Sexual Orientation] regulations.
The bottom line is in a free society we need to protect individuals' right to say what they wish, so long as it doesn't anybody's freedom.
There was a lot in it. The issue more generally is that we'd made some clarifications about conscience, which was not about preaching hatred but respecting individual doctrines.
Do you regret the way you voted?
I joined the Liberals in 1986, Section 28 was introduced in 1987. It was a major driver for me, I went on the demos against that. You look at the issues of the past 25 years – civil partnership, age of consent – I've actively campaigned on the right side on all those things.
I regret anything that gives people the wrong impression.
What I believe as a Liberal... Charlie Hebdo is a powerful reminder. You've got to remember this is a newspaper that had a picture of a leading French politician who is a black woman depicted as a monkey on the front page. My French is not good, but Je Suis Ne Pas Charlie.
However, I stand with them for their right to be offensive, to take satire to its absolute limits. Freedom and tolerance is not about us all agreeing with each other – it's about bloody-mindedly defending one another's rights to be different.
I would very strongly refute that I voted in a way which is anti-gay. If you're in opposition, you're there to test. The LD record is to be a constructive opposition – you put down amendments, you probe, otherwise you get crap legislation. It's right to do that.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/05/2...s-for-church-of-england-to-be-disestablished/

So yeah, he is getting painted as this whacko fundamentalist without any real backing by evidence.

I get that you can not be a fan of religious people, but it's not really fair to start calling Farron insane, as someone on here did.

At the end of the day, you can't just use prop up someone's religion as this defining thing about them as politicians. We have to allow people to hold religious beliefs, as a society.

 

[DECK'ARD]

I get that you can not be a fan of religious people, but it's not really fair to start calling Farron insane, as someone on here did.

Believing God is teaching humbleness through election defeats? Yes, that's insane.

 

[Joelstinton14]

Whilst i do find Tim Farrons views on Homosexuality and Abortion troubling, i do think he does keep his own views to himself. It is a far cry from American Politics. As long as he continues to keep his views to himself i think i am ok with that.

His views on these matters have been known for some time and i don't think Tim as ever been in the spotlight on a campaign or policy level talking about it, he is certainly not vocal on the matter.

But yeah it's not really a good look.

 

[kmag]

We've "known" each other for some years now kmag, I'm surprised you have come away with that view. I'm about as small state as they come on this forum, generally prefering the government to stay out of people's business *and* in the post you were literally just quoting I said I liked the coalition, so I'm not sure where you get the idea I'm a FPTP loving autocrat.

Sorry autocrat was a bit strong and probably misplaced, but I'm pretty sure I remember you saying the appeal to FPTP for you was the tendency to produce decisive results (that's understandable benefit I don't wholly disagree with but it is a bit autocratic).

I'm not a fan of FPTP but I'm also not really a fan of most of the other systems. The modified Hond't system in Scotland gives you a more representative mix, but the I personally find the list system problematic because it tends to allow the parties to sneak in total zoomers (although you could argue safe FPTP seats simply do the same, but I know who to blame).

STV like we use for local elections in Scotland is a bit of a chore, and if you're not careful can lead to pretty perverse results.

 

[Cabaratier]

My take on this would be:

1) Please vote;
2) Please don't vote Conservative;
3) Please take into account FPTP.

I'm not used to a 'constituency' system, so I don't know how much 'your' MP can actually make a difference there.

As a side note, I can't vote in the UK, but I am in the UK. What are my options if I wanted to help campaign?

 

[Huw_Dawson]

But yeah it's not really a good look.

That's it in a nutshell - it's this mildly awkward thing about him being leader that he can look bad if asked on religious questions. Which is why he ducked one when asked. I'll stick up for him if he's being misconstrued, but it's up to him to make sure he doesn't worry LGBT voters - in this instance he's worried them, but it should be relatively easy to get past this.

Believing God is teaching humbleness through election defeats? Yes, that's insane.

We treat getting beat in elections as a right of passage for all in the LDs! I suspect he was being less than 100% serious when he made that comment.

(To put it more accurately - we like losing elections - we focus on what we can win.)

 

[CyclopsRock]

Sorry autocrat was a bit strong and probably misplaced, but I'm pretty sure I remember you saying the appeal to FPTP for you was the tendency to produce decisive results (that's understandable benefit I don't wholly disagree with but it is a bit autocratic).

I'm not a fan of FPTP but I'm also not really a fan of most of the other systems. The modified Hond't system in Scotland gives you a more representative mix, but the I personally find the list system problematic because it tends to allow the parties to sneak in total zoomers (although you could argue safe FPTP seats simply do the same, but I know who to blame).

STV like we use for local elections in Scotland is a bit of a chore, and if you're not careful can lead to pretty perverse results.

This is the usually the part where I propose my batty system involving pulling a vote out of a hat, and to this day I don't know if I'm suggesting it legitimately or in an ironic way (much like my love for Phil Collins). It combines the benefits of local representatives with a statistically more or less proportional representation of the votes. Doesn't result in especially strong governments I guess bit fuck it, they'll survive.

 

[DECK'ARD]

We treat getting beat in elections as a right of passage for all in the LDs! I suspect he was being less than 100% serious when he made that comment.

(To put it more accurately - we like losing elections - we focus on what we can win.)

The interview is on the previous page, he was very serious. He's born-again, you can't get more serious.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

My take on this would be:

1) Please vote;
2) Please don't vote Conservative;
3) Please take into account FPTP.

I'm not used to a 'constituency' system, so I don't know how much 'your' MP can actually make a difference there.

As a side note, I can't vote in the UK, but I am in the UK. What are my options if I wanted to help campaign?

Contact the local chapter of whichever party you are supporting and ask to be on the volunteer mailing list. For bonus points, do it for all nearby marginal constituencies. For extra bonus points, leave your job, burn your life insurance on a battle bus, and tour every marginal constituency in the UK.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

The interview is on the previous page, he was very serious. He's born-again, you can't get more serious.

Yeah, I read that interview. But no, he's not a fruitcake.

 

[RedShift]

Continue to feel completely hopeless about the future of this country. Starting to feel a small part of how immigrants must feel, having endless headlines demanding you be 'crushed' or calling you an enemy of the state is a bit depressing, especially when it's tacitly approved by the government.

No idea who to vote for. Labour are a fucking shambles, and I live in Islington and can't bring myself to directly vote for Corbyn. The Lib Dems would be a shout but I don't particularly want to vote for a party who's goal is to get into coalition with the Tories, or one lead by someone who struggles to answer 'is being gay a sin?'. Might just spoil my ballot.

At this point I hope Scottish independence happens just because it will piss off all the cunts who voted for Brexit. Plus it's be nice to save some of this country.

I really wanted to live the rest of my life here, but it just doesn't seem like a sensible option any more

 

[DECK'ARD]

Yeah, I read that interview. But no, he's not a fruitcake.

Well your recipe may differ than mine, but this is definitely a fruitcake to me.

 

[TimmmV]

I want a government that respects things like referendum, and IMO there's no alternative to a hard Brexit. Any soft Brexit that includes still abiding by the four pillars is basically not exiting the EU in any meaningful sense. So whilst I personally would rather we were staying in, I want a government that's going to hard Brexit. Weird, I know, but I see it as akin to me still wanting laws I don't agree with to be upheld by the police on the grounds that the police shouldn't be deciding which laws to uphold and which not to, that's up to the legislature. And if they're going to ask us our opinion and say in no uncertain terms "we will execute your will", then the fact it wasn't technically legally binding is irrelevant to me - they gots to do it.

Just to jump in here, while I agree with the bolded, people on the Leave side were also campaigning on being like Norway or Switzerland. The government should be pursuing Brexit, but Leaves campaign that basically promised any and all change from what we currently have + the extremely broad referendum question means that while the Gov do have to deliver Brexit, there is no mandate on whether it has to be hard/soft/somewhere-in-the-middle, especially when the winning margin was so low

This might be my bias talking, but the solution that seems best to me would be to just move down to Single Market membership, and then have the government start to actually bother to exercise some of the controls on migration that the EU already allowed. The "sovereignty" crowd would still be left unhappy, but it would pacify both the significant groups of people who want to control immigration, and those who dont want to leave in the first place

 

[travisbickle]

Can we not talk about shooting people in regard to a referendum over which a Member of Parliament was shot to death in the street? I don't mean to come over as sanctimonious but come on.

Yeah sorry, it's a poorly worded attempt at humour.

Don't spread hate people, it's what led to the death of Jo Cox.

 

[KarneeKarnay]

I don't think that the Conservatives have as big a lead as they think. Part of the reason the Brexit result was shocking was because people weren't voting along party loyalty on this. People who would never vote Conservative voted because they wanted the Brexit.

However this does not mean the same people will vote conservative. A lot of the people I know who voted Brexit would rather stab a loved family member, than vote conservative.

I think they may be underestimating party loyalty. That lead is ahead, but maybe not as far ahead as they think

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Well your recipe may differ than mine, but this is definitely a fruitcake to me.

Then you're refusing to actually look into this.

Do you think all religious people are insane?

 

[DECK'ARD]

Then you're refusing to actually look into this.

Do you think all religious people are insane?

If I did I wouldn't get on with my mum.

 

[Cabaratier]

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...orm-electoral-pact-to-defeat-tories?CMP=fb_gu

"The co-leaders of the Green party have written to Jeremy Corbyn and Tim Farron to urge some form of pact in the upcoming general election, saying this was the only way to “stop the Tories from wrecking our country for generations to come”"

No chance of this happening I assume?

 

[Spaghetti]

Is not voting in the GE defensible if you don't believe in the validity of the election due to it being a thinly-veiled strategic move from the Tories?

Asking for a friend.

Who is also me.

 

[phisheep]

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...orm-electoral-pact-to-defeat-tories?CMP=fb_gu

"The co-leaders of the Green party have written to Jeremy Corbyn and Tim Farron to urge some form of pact in the upcoming general election, saying this was the only way to “stop the Tories from wrecking our country for generations to come”"

No chance of this happening I assume?

None whatsoever. And being as it was suggested by the Greens, none whatsoever whatsoever.

 

[War Peaceman]

Is not voting in the GE defensible if you don't believe in the validity of the election due to it being a thinly-veiled strategic move from the Tories?

Asking for a friend.

Who is also me.

That is a stupid reason. Don't be a fuckwit. Vote.

Elections have always been timed as strategically as possible.

 

[Morat]

Is not voting in the GE defensible if you don't believe in the validity of the election due to it being a thinly-veiled strategic move from the Tories?

Asking for a friend.

Who is also me.

I mean, moral validity aside, you are essentially playing in to the Tories thinly veiled strategic move at this point.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

No chance of this happening I assume?

No, although a Lab/Green coalition could happen, or a Green/LD one if we held our noses. The Greens have some really bonkers policy.

The LDs will not work with Corbyn's Labour - we ruled that out when Corbyn three-line whipped on A50.

The only plausible route for voters in England and Wales to stop the Tories is to vote LD - especially in Tory constituencies. If you disagree with this government, get up and do something about it.