Support NeoGAF

[Spaced Harrier]

That's a positive thing surely

I've never understood the left's obsession with this.

It's reactionary and nanny stating.

Where is the pro-active?

True modern culinary and life skills as a heavily invested in real subject in School, mandatory for all. You want people to eat like mediteranians? Teach them.
A modernization of physical education, so its not just, have a kick about in he rain but a scientific and pragmatic approach to health.
Incentivize employers to offer discount local gym memberships to employs, like the incentivized bike to work scheme.
Legislation on the Size of Supermarkets and produce that they contain.

Off the top of my head, be inventive.


What even is Junk Food?
Is a Curry Junk food or a Burrito? whats the qualification? Calorific content? Carbrotein ratio?

 

[chromatic9]

The second referendum sounds good at first but 2 years of heated complex talks, decisions and going through all those member countries just to say ah fuck it feels like an obscene waste of time.

Secondly UK doesn't have many cards. There is some pressure from other EU countries to make a deal of some kind. if you go in saying beforehand you'll reject a no deal situation which Labour have done or offer a referendum as the Lib Dem's have you basically hand over your only little card. EU will want to offer a less favourable deal, you're going in saying we'll take it rather than no deal even though it could be a slow strangle deal and then the other you have this hopeful second ref in the background of the talks, EU can then offer a poor deal and hope the public vote stay or cause another mess with people saying the deal is shit and "we want out" as per the first referendum, thus 2 years down the pan.

 

[King_Moc]

Didn't see it posted, but if anyone wanted to know just how close farage is to being a terrorist, he said this earlier:

"there will be widespread public anger in this country on a scale and in a way we have never seen before. If that happens, much as I'm enjoying myself... I enjoy my trips to the States with Trump and the White House and everything else. I'm enjoying my life. But if they don't deliver this Brexit that I spent 25 years of my life working for, then I will be forced to don khaki, pick up a rifle and head for the front lines."

Worth it not happening just to see him shot to ribbons tbh.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

On second ref - the absolute worst thing the EU could do to us would be to give us a deliberately horrible exit deal in the hopes we were suckered into staying. That would just galvanise British and European voices who regard the EU as this horrible bloc.

I think the deal would be identical regardless of a referendum. To pre-invent a conspiracy theory shows off how bonkers people are when talking about the EU.

 

[Ashes]

And their other other headline policy was to hugely increase the personal tax allowance so taking masses of people out of income tax altogether. Which they got done, which was effective, which beat the shit out of Labour's stupid bodged fiddle-faddling around the 10p band. And that despite being the junior partner in a coalition.

Of course, nobody seems to remember that one, but LibDems deserve all the credit for it.

This ought not to be missed. This was a genuinely good policy that helped those at the lowest salary rung, And even those upto the median wage I reckon. At least those who have been stuck on the same wage for a gazillion years its seems like.

 

[TimmmV]

Didn't see it posted, but if anyone wanted to know just how close farage is to being a terrorist, he said this earlier:



Worth it not happening just to see him shot to ribbons tbh.

Not for the first time either

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-pol...farage-migration-anger-could-lead-to-violence

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Farage should relax. It's happening.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Hey guess where I am.

Just paid £5 for a Peroni. Sodding London prices.

 

[CyclopsRock]

This ought not to be missed. This was a genuinely good policy that helped those at the lowest salary rung, And even those upto the median wage I reckon. At least those who have been stuck on the same wage for a gazillion years its seems like.

It did but by the end the least well off were no longer benefiting because they were already out of it. What would have been preferable would have been to raise the tax free allowance on both income tax and NI. They could raise it by "less"so that it cost the same amount but then more of the savings would have been felt by the least well off.

Don't get me wrong it was a great policy.

 

[Theonik]

Hey guess where I am.

A Liberal Discographs meetup?

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Seriously five quid for a Peroni. I can get a chicken, chips and a can of soda for £4.50 in Enfield.

#classwar

 

[Hyams]

Hey guess where I am.


Just paid £5 for a Peroni. Sodding London prices.

Watching this on my Facebook. You need to do some sort of sign so I can recognise you. I suggest you dab for the entire conference

 

[D4Danger]

Hey guess where I am.


Just paid £5 for a Peroni. Sodding London prices.

is this code for getting Ben Brown to grab you inappropriately

 

[THE:MILKMAN]

Hey guess where I am.


Just paid £5 for a Peroni. Sodding London prices.

Protect your breast!

Spoiler

Looks like the same reporter?

 

[King_Moc]

A pint of Peroni is probably going to be £5 or close to it anywhere south of Birmingham tbh.

 

[Ravensmash]

Protect your breast!

Spoiler

Looks like the same reporter?

It is - haha!

 

[Pandy]

*Considers Ben Brown joke*
*Refreshes page*

Never mind.

Seriously five quid for a Peroni. I can get a chicken, chips and a can of soda for £4.50 in Enfield.

#classwar

You've been watching too many fast food adverts.

 

[Dabanton]

Didn't see it posted, but if anyone wanted to know just how close farage is to being a terrorist, he said this earlier:



Worth it not happening just to see him shot to ribbons tbh.

Farage is an ass he does enjoy poking the fire and running away. I sadly think there will be some kind of large scale upset in the UK in the next two years but I don't think Farage and his friends will like it too much.

 

[Hazzuh]

Hey guess where I am.


Just paid £5 for a Peroni. Sodding London prices.

They should have done the event in a Sam Smiths pub, only way to get a cheap pint in London.

 

[Kotetsu534]

The Lib Dems have zero credibility. Their headline policy in 2010 was No Increase in tuition fees, then they went and trebled fees anyway. Their other headline policy was voting reform which they allowed the Tories to sink.

Why would anyone trust the Lib Dems to do what they say in a manifesto?

Regardless of your position on tuition fees and how tertiary education should be funded, from a purely political perspective the failure to uphold that manifesto pledge, so popular with the younger demographic Clegg appealed to, must go down as one of the worst tactical errors in British political history. Did they not do internal polling to see just how much they'd be villified if they backed massive rises, or to find out what the #1 reason people were voting them was (which would surely have told them that either tuition fees or a new, more honest, politics after years of New Labour spin were right up there)? Even Iraq wasn't that bad - Labour still won the 2005 election after it had became clear it was a disastrous campaign.

The Lib Dems used to be quite competitive up here in Scotland, and actually formed part of a coalition government from 1999 to 2007. They had steadily improved in their electoral performance continuously for nearly three decades, and then boom, 2011 saw them lose all their mainland constituencies and drop to under 7% of the vote. Life of a third party in our system.

 

[Jezbollah]

I'll give it to Farron, he's a much better speaker and has way more passion than anyone in the Labour party.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Great speech. I find it baffling that folks say Farron is a worse speaker than Corbyn.

This event feels very New Labour. Launching your manifesto in a nightclub rather than at a uni.

 

[Ravensmash]

The Evening Standard rallying against May's immigration pledge, haha.

 

[phisheep]

Regardless of your position on tuition fees and how tertiary education should be funded, from a purely political perspective the failure to uphold that manifesto pledge, so popular with the younger demographic Clegg appealed to, must go down as one of the worst tactical errors in British political history. Did they not do internal polling to see just how much they'd be villified if they backed massive rises, or to find out what the #1 reason people were voting them was (which would surely have told them that either tuition fees or a new, more honest, politics after years of New Labour spin were right up there)? Even Iraq wasn't that bad - Labour still won the 2005 election after it had became clear it was a disastrous campaign.

The Lib Dems used to be quite competitive up here in Scotland, and actually formed part of a coalition government from 1999 to 2007. They had steadily improved in their electoral performance continuously for nearly three decades, and then boom, 2011 saw them lose all their mainland constituencies and drop to under 7% of the vote. Life of a third party in our system.

In hindsight maybe. But it is one of those things that you can quite happily put in a manifesto if you are not going to end up winning, and the LibDems didn't win the election. It was a huge accident of the election result in 2010 that propelled the LibDems into coalition, and nobody could reasonably expect them to implement all their policies. That they got any at all done was some kind of miracle.

As for the new more honest politics, we got that. One of the most refreshing things about the coalition was how major divisions within the government got talked out in public and resolved - not always to everyone's individual desires, but they got talked out. Beats the hell out of the internal backstabbing of Brown v Blair and the impenetrable backroom wrestlings of both main parties in the 1970s.

The LibDems earned, from me at least (and maybe only from me) a lot of respect from that and they behaved honourably throughout.

 

[boxoctosis]

Great speech. I find it baffling that folks say Farron is a worse speaker than Corbyn.

This event feels very New Labour. Launching your manifesto in a nightclub rather than at a uni.

I used to vote for them but they pissed on their chips big time getting into bed with the Tories in 2010. I'd probably vote for them again once Farron is gone - his opinions on homosexuality make him unelectable IMO, especially for a 'liberal' party.

 

[Pandy]

Found a wider media study than the last one I posted about TV news:
http://blog.lboro.ac.uk/crcc/general-election/ge2017-the-media-campaign-report-1/

[IMG]http://blog.lboro.ac.uk/crcc/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2017/05/report-1-fig-1-1.jpg[/IMG]

This is the first of a series of weekly reports by the Centre for Research in Communication and Culture on national news reporting of the 2017 UK General Election.

The results in this report are derived from detailed content analysis of election coverage produced on the weekdays (i.e. Monday to Friday inclusive) between 5th and 10th May from the following news outlets:

Television: Channel 4 News (7pm), Channel 5 News (6.30pm), BBC1 News at 10, ITV1 News at 10, Sky News 8-8.30pm

Press: The Guardian, The I, The Daily Telegraph, The Times, The Financial Times, The Daily Mail, The Daily Express, The Mirror, The Sun, The Star

We analysed all election news found in the television programmes. For the press, we included election news found on the front page, the first two pages of the domestic news section, the first two pages of any specialist election section and the page containing and facing the papers’ leader editorials. Our methodology.

In this report we focus on the following features of news coverage during the opening stage of the formal campaign: 1, the visibility or presence of the different political parties and other organizations and individuals in the news; 2, the quotation time given to these individuals and institutions; and, 3, which topics attracted most media attention.

Executive summary

• The Conservatives dominated mainstream news media coverage in the first week of the campaign. They were the most frequently reported party and the most extensively quoted. Their lead in coverage and quotation terms was particularly notable in national press coverage, with their current dominance building upon the considerable advantages they enjoyed in the 2015 General Election.
• The advent of multi-party politics in the UK – much discussed in the previous election – is currently in abeyance, at least in national media terms. All the minor parties had a reduced presence in the first week of the 2017 campaign, when compared with the same period of the 2015 General Election.
• The dominance of the two main parties was most apparent in press coverage, but it was also evident in TV news coverage. The SNP and UKIP were the parties who lost greatest ground in comparison with their national media exposure in 2015.
• The two main party leaders were the most dominant figures in coverage by a considerable margin. The appearance of Phillip May, the Prime Minister’s husband, on the BBC1 entertainment programme, the One Show, in the middle of the week, propelled him to become the 5th most prominent political personality reported in the first week’s coverage.
• Our analysis of the issues confirms the extent that Brexit has dominated the media campaign in this initial period. The next most prominent substantive issues were the economy and business. These represent matters that the Conservative party would prefer to focus upon in their campaigning. Issues that the Labour opposition have sought to prioritise, such as health and education, have thus far been marginalised.
• The side-lining of the nationalist parties seems also to have limited discussion of devolution and related matters.
• Despite the prominence of Brexit, coverage of immigration, which was a touchstone of the 2016 EU Referendum campaign, was comparatively limited in the first week of the campaign.

The interesting bit I though was that they have comparisons with 2015:

[IMG]http://blog.lboro.ac.uk/crcc/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2017/05/report-1-fig-1-2.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://blog.lboro.ac.uk/crcc/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2017/05/report-1-fig-1-3.jpg[/IMG]

 

[Huw_Dawson]

His opinion on homosexuality is that it's fine. The fact that he wobbled on the theological side of things does not somehow implicate some secret anti-gay agenda. But politics is about trust - I can see why not immediately answering 'no' can make folks not be pleased.

At the core it sort of rankles me a bit to not vote for someone because of their religion - it does really matter what their political opinion is, and there is the question of 'is that just a political opinion' - because Farron is still shiny-new to most he doesn't get the benefit of context and known past actions.

 

[King_Moc]

His opinion on homosexuality is that it's fine. The fact that he wobbled on the theological side of things does not somehow implicate some secret anti-gay agenda. But politics is about trust - I can see why not immediately answering 'no' can make folks not be pleased.

At the core it sort of rankles me a bit to not vote for someone because of their religion - it does really matter what their political opinion is, and there is the question of 'is that just a political opinion' - because Farron is still shiny-new to most he doesn't get the benefit of context and known past actions.

Oh, come on. He failed to answer the question five times and instead gave the cop out "but everyone's a sinner really". He is not fine with it and has clearly been persuaded by people within the Lib Dems to learn how to lie about it.

 

[Miles X]

His opinion on homosexuality is that it's fine. The fact that he wobbled on the theological side of things does not somehow implicate some secret anti-gay agenda. But politics is about trust - I can see why not immediately answering 'no' can make folks not be pleased.

At the core it sort of rankles me a bit to not vote for someone because of their religion - it does really matter what their political opinion is, and there is the question of 'is that just a political opinion' - because Farron is still shiny-new to most he doesn't get the benefit of context and known past actions.

He could be atheist and have the same answer = same result. Is nothing to do with religion why people don't want to vote for him, it's because he turns LGBT off with his comments.

Nobody has any business telling LGBT to vote for him despite his comments.

 

[Ravensmash]

He could be atheist and have the same answer = same result. Is nothing to do with religion why people don't want to vote for him, it's because he turns LGBT off with his comments.

Nobody has any business telling LGBT to vote for him despite his comments.

What about his voting record?

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Oh, come on. He failed to answer the question five times and instead gave the cop out "but everyone's a sinner really". He is not fine with it and has clearly been persuaded by people within the Lib Dems to learn how to lie about it.

That's fiction. He's been a vociferous supporter of LGBT rights in his time as leader. His religion can say whatever it likes - he has his view of what the country should look like, and that is firmly pro-LGBT.

To suggest anything else is a witch-hunt. It's the same old loop of 'but that one time he abstained' or 'but he's a Christian.'

It's easy to cast doubt. It's annoying that this is brought up as a cheap attack, too. And it worries me that the sort of but-her-emails campaigning is being used to smear.

 

[peanutbutterlatte]

A pint of Peroni is probably going to be £5 or close to it anywhere south of Birmingham tbh.

Yeah drink Fosters like the rest of us you snob

 

[Plasma]

I'll give it to Farron, he's a much better speaker and has way more passion than anyone in the Labour party.

It's not hard most of the Labour party have about as much charisma as a wet tissue.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Yeah drink Fosters like the rest of us you snob

It was Peroni or wine. And I am not drinking wine that I have not bought personally from Aldi.

 

[Miles X]

What about his voting record?

What about it? I have no issue with his opinion on LGBT within politics.

That's fiction. He's been a vociferous supporter of LGBT rights in his time as leader. His religion can say whatever it likes - he has his view of what the country should look like, and that is firmly pro-LGBT.

To suggest anything else is a witch-hunt. It's the same old loop of 'but that one time he abstained' or 'but he's a Christian.'

It's easy to cast doubt. It's annoying that this is brought up as a cheap attack, too. And it worries me that the sort of but-her-emails campaigning is being used to smear.

He thinks being gay is a sin. Pretty homophobic.

If you swap gay with black you wouldn't be chirping the same song, GAF would be up in arms.

 

[Halph n Halph]

They should have done the event in a Sam Smiths pub, only way to get a cheap pint in London.

The Glass House Stores was my favoured Sam Smiths haunt. Cheap ale and a late night buffet at Mr Wu"s.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

His opinion on homosexuality is that it's fine. The fact that he wobbled on the theological side of things does not somehow implicate some secret anti-gay agenda. But politics is about trust - I can see why not immediately answering 'no' can make folks not be pleased.

At the core it sort of rankles me a bit to not vote for someone because of their religion - it does really matter what their political opinion is, and there is the question of 'is that just a political opinion' - because Farron is still shiny-new to most he doesn't get the benefit of context and known past actions.

Ehhhhh you've tried this line a few times but that's really not it. No one's not voting for him "because he's a Christian". I imagine most people don't care at all about his religion, I certainly don't!

 

[Stallion Dan]

Some old people are the worse

"I've paid my due"

So, fuck the rest of you.

Better than the young with no life experience thinking they know it all and think the real world is the dreamworld in their head.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Ehhhhh you've tried this line a few times but that's really not it. No one's not voting for him "because he's a Christian". I imagine most people don't care at all about his religion, I certainly don't!

I actually disagree - it is his religious view that is under a microscope. The only stuff I have seen otherwise is usually related to his abstention on equal marriage third reading, which, from my reading on the matter, was ascribed to him being displeased that an amendment to scrap the spousal veto did not make it.

He was asked about what his religion says about what is sinful, not what he thinks is right or wrong. I have no doubt his religion says sodomy is a sin, but in the end he firmly said he does not. And as soon as he said he did not, the counterpoint by his interviewer was "but the Bible says..."

The one thing I do think is right is that it was absolutely something he should have not allowed to be a thing, and it damaged the public's perception of his leadership. That's the point that was made to him when he was interviewed on ITV a bit ago and I think it is fair.

But it is definitely a bit of the nasty smeary American politics. It makes me uncomfortable that this is apparently where the UK press is going.

If you want an actual example of a Lib Dem who let his religion get in the way, I'd present Simon Hughes for your shredding apart instead. I want him back in parliament, but I'll never be happy that he abstained on the third reading because of what he thought all marriage should represent. Getting hung up on a word was childish of him.

 

[Empty]

tories to means test the winter fuel allowance

[

think this is quite sensible and an improvement from osborne's nakedly political budgets

fun that labour go into the election with a much better retail offer for the elderly than the tories though even if it won't cut through

 

[chromatic9]

Oh, come on. He failed to answer the question five times and instead gave the cop out "but everyone's a sinner really". He is not fine with it and has clearly been persuaded by people within the Lib Dems to learn how to lie about it.

Woah there. Sounds like another bonkers conspiracy theory.

 

[boxoctosis]

Simon Hughes, and the 1983 bermondsey election.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/02/happy-memories-of-the-bermondsey-by-election-30-years-ago-2/

An awful hypocrite. The worst hypocrite in my eyes. A terrible man.

Anyway, Tim Farron is just lying now, someone has told him what to say. His views are clear to me, I can't vote for someone with beliefs like that, religious or not. It's bigotry.

 

[JonathanEx]

Media update: Dave have their political show Unspun starting now for an election run, twice weekly.

Also ITV's debate is tomorrow, I know, I forgot too. No May/Corbyn, but not empty chairing, they'll send spin doctors but only for the shitty spin rooms. ITV not allowing anyone but leaders. Full update - https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ders-to-itv-debate?CMP=twt_a-media_b-gdnmedia

 

[QuicheFontaine]

tories to means test the winter fuel allowance

think this is quite sensible and an improvement from osborne's nakedly political budgets

fun that labour go into the election with a much better retail offer for the elderly than the tories though even if it won't cut through

I think it's sensible too (I've got a mate who's uncle is rich - seriously rich, like Times rich list rich) who still receives winter fuel allowance. He thinks it's hilarious! Doesn't return it though, hmm...

But wasn't the point of it not being means tested is that means testing is expensive, so you end up spending more to give money to the right people than if you just give it to everyone?

Are Labour keeping it?

 

[Empty]

I think it's sensible too (I've got a mate who's uncle is rich - seriously rich, like Times rich list rich) who still receives winter fuel allowance. He thinks it's hilarious! Doesn't return it though, hmm...

But wasn't the point of it not being means tested is that means testing is expensive, so you end up spending more to give money to the right people than if you just give it to everyone?

Are Labour keeping it?

i think means testing admin costs being more expensive than just giving everyone the benefit is true for some policies but idk if it's the case for this one. given the size of the winter fuel allowance i'd assume not but happy to be corrected by anyone itk.

yeah saw corbyn talking about labour keeping triple lock, winter fuel allowance and free bus passes yesterday

 

[EmiPrime]

Simon Hughes, and the 1983 bermondsey election.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/02/happy-memories-of-the-bermondsey-by-election-30-years-ago-2/

An awful hypocrite. The worst hypocrite in my eyes. A terrible man.

Anyway, Tim Farron is just lying now, someone has told him what to say. His views are clear to me, I can't vote for someone with beliefs like that, religious or not. It's bigotry.

Farron is one of the few MPs to give a toss about trans rights and one of the few MPs to be outspoken against the gay blood ban, he even submitted a bill to have it repealed. The Lib Dems aren't saying job done after equal marriage and will keep campaigning for the much less sexy/vote winning aspects of LGBT equality. I don't care what his kooky religious views are, his actions and Lib Dem policy are more important.

You're being unreasonable.

 

[chromatic9]

The extra cost for the hiring of migrant workers and paying more for the NHS in the Tory manifesto is quite a bizarre way of trying to curb immigration. Probably most who have concerns of this issue of~300k net a year do realize some immigration needs to take place and some of it is beneficial. We end up scaring away or penalizing people we need.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Woah there. Sounds like another bonkers conspiracy theory.

Once again - easy to cast doubt. No man may look into the soul of another.

Of course, my suspicion is that no amount of argument I could do otherwise would change people's minds - because it's a very easy beatstick to use on a leader of a party you do not support to pretend he's some anti-gay nutcase. "But her emails!"

It deflects from the issues that you don't want to talk about. "But her emails!" It puts your opponent on the defensive. "But her emails!"

When you have piles of pro-LGBT policy in the manifesto, expounded by the leadership, it doesn't matter because the leader of the party you want to tear down has a faith. And so it's easy - damned easy - to cast doubt, to constantly repeat refutable claims.

If I give you a good reason - that he wasn't comfortable trying to explain the nuances of his faith and his liberal philosophy on national television when he didn't regard the former as relevant to the topics he wanted to talk about - are you going to listen? Or does the fact it come from the wrong party leader contort your worldview?

If you want an example of British politics being dumbed down, this is an excellent example. It isn't about the issues - it's about what mud you can throw at the other party's leader.

And if you support Corbyn this election - or maybe May, and think all those lines about her being robotic are unfair, you should know better than that.

On Simon Hughes, that 1983 election was regarded by all sides as horrendous. Hughes and the Labour candidate ultimately reconciled and Hughes was ultimately backed for the leadership when Kennedy stepped down by the same Labour candidate. Plus it ultimately turned out that Hughes is bi. Funny old world - all parties have skeletons and stuff to look back on and vow "never again must this happen". All things considered I'd rather Bermondsey elects a Liberal MP than a Labour MP, but personally considering his baggage I would have preferred if Hughes had not stood.

 

[Empty]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39956541

The Tories will promise further measures to curb immigration in their manifesto, the BBC understands.
Firms will be asked to pay more to hire migrant workers and they in turn will be asked to pay more to use the NHS.
Theresa May will restate her commitment to bring net migration down to the tens of thousands, saying high immigration levels can harm community cohesion.

.......

She will announce extra costs for employers who choose to hire non-EU immigrants in skilled jobs by doubling the charge known as the Skills Charge.
The revenue will go into skills training for UK workers. Non-EU migrants will also have to pay more to use the NHS. The manifesto will also rule out removing students from the immigration statistics.
The Immigration Skills Charge, which was introduced in April 2017, is levied on companies that employ migrants in skilled areas.
It applies to immigrants from outside the European Economic Area and is currently set at £1,000 per employee per year, with a reduced rate of £364 for small or charitable organisations.
Under the Conservative proposals, it will double to £2,000 per employee per year

may's immigration polices are so bad

 

[chromatic9]

Once again - easy to cast doubt. No man may look into the soul of another.

Of course, my suspicion is that no amount of argument I could do otherwise would change people's minds - because it's a very easy beatstick to use on a leader of a party you do not support to pretend he's some anti-gay nutcase. "But her emails!"

It deflects from the issues that you don't want to talk about. "But her emails!" It puts your opponent on the defensive. "But her emails!"

When you have piles of pro-LGBT policy in the manifesto, expounded by the leadership, it doesn't matter because the leader of the party you want to tear down has a faith. And so it's easy - damned easy - to cast doubt, to constantly repeat refutable claims.

If you want an example of British politics being dumbed down, this is an excellent example. It isn't about the issues - it's about what mud you can throw at the other party's leader.

And if you support Corbyn this election - or maybe May, and think all those lines about her being robotic are unfair, you should know better than that.

Just for the record as there's a lot "you" in your post. I've not once criticised or brought up Farron's religion or his alleged stance. Perhaps direct your diatribe to others that clearly have and uncross your wires.

All I did was make a joke about someone possibly claiming it sounds like a conspiracy and you actually followed through with it here.

That's fiction. He's been a vociferous supporter of LGBT rights in his time as leader. His religion can say whatever it likes - he has his view of what the country should look like, and that is firmly pro-LGBT.

To suggest anything else is a witch-hunt. It's the same old loop of 'but that one time he abstained' or 'but he's a Christian.'

It's easy to cast doubt. It's annoying that this is brought up as a cheap attack, too. And it worries me that the sort of but-her-emails campaigning is being used to smear.