Lib Dem pains

[Abertawe]

Vote share dropped from 2015 which is pretty remarkable. Farron scraped his seat with a paltry 700 odd majority. Over 80% of the electorate just voted for parties with a clear leave stance on brexit. So much for super pro EU centre ground takeover... http://www.libdems.org.uk/lib_dems_on_course_to_make_scores_of_gains_at_general_election#

Surely Farron should do one. I said all along his approach wouldn't work. An absolute numpty of a man who played right into Tory hands with his rhetoric.

Are the Lib Dems now irrelevant bar tactical voting?

 

[Look Out There Are Llamas]

Farron has to go, Sir Vince has to replace him.

 

[Abertawe]

Isn't he just as morally bankrupt as Clegg? I find him a pretty odious man tbh.

 

[mowgli]

They even lost in Wells where the Tory was in the shit over expenditure on the last election and told a Scottish schoolgirl who said she would vote for independence to "Fuck off home then" in a school discussion with the odious prick who was born with a silver spoon in his gob.

 

[HertsWolf]

Are the Lib Dems now irrelevant bar tactical voting?

I think the tuition fees fiasco will have damaged the LibDems for a long long time. The antics of Farron and Clegg have probably exacerbated this. Unutl that time, the LibDems had strong support among young people. Now no longer. Not deserted by them, but as good as.

 

[Abertawe]

Brian Paddick has resigned his position due to Farron's abominable views on homosexuality.

 

[GodsGift]

Farron has stepped down.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

Farron is off. Happy with that.

 

[Abertawe]

Shows him up for the cowardly c*** he is walking away on a news day like this.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

It was a mixed night I think.

Pros:

• Gains in the South. Re-taking Twickenham, Kingston & Surbiton, Bath, Eastbourne (all lost in 2015) and Oxford West & Abingdon (lost in 2010) from the Tories was good. Some good swings towards the party and against the Conservatives in some of those seats so clearly some success with their targeted approach.
• Regaining a bit of a foothold in Scotland. Orkney & Shetland was their one lonely looking Scottish constituency after the last election. They gained two more and almost added a fourth, though it appears a collapsing SNP played a significant part in the victories.
• An increased seat count. Every little helps and to go from 8 to 12 is a positive result of sorts. It could have been so much better. They failed to win North East Fife by 2 (!) votes, Richmond Park by 45, Ceredigion by 104 and St Ives by 312. A few hundred votes more and they'd have 16 seats, twice as many as in 2015.
• Longstanding MPs clinging on in marginals. Both Norman Lamb in North Norfolk and Tom Brake in Carshalton & Wallington did well to retain their seats once more. The return of old hands such as Swinson, Cable and Davey should also help.

Cons:

• Virtually wiped out in the North. Farron clung on but Southport, where the party sunk to third, was lost to the Tories and Sheffield Hallam and Leeds North West went to Labour.
• Wiped out in Wales as Ceredigion fell to Plaid.
• No revival in the South West. St Ives was close, too many other seats that were once strongholds or battlegrounds are now not even in play.
• A terrible performance in terms of vote share. We were back in two party election territory in 2017 and so it was somewhat understandable that the LD vote got squeezed but they're a national party and their vote share in many constituencies means that they're now a virtual irrelevance in over half the country. That's not good enough.
• A disappointing picture overall. They missed out very narrowly in a four seats but probably have fewer realistic targets next time than they came into this election with. Were once the second party in much of the South, but have been overhauled by Labour in too many constituencies.

It's a weird one really. At the start of the campaign I would have said that 12 seats would have been a disappointing return. By the end I was expecting losses, not gains. A dozen seats represents an improvement of sorts but it's difficult to see how they progress from here. I think they fell into the same trap as the Tories. They responded to the idea that this was the "Brexit election" with their own distinct position but didn't seem to have much else to offer the electorate. When Labour put domestic policy at the forefront of their campaign the other parties didn't seem to know how to respond as they appeared to have no compelling policies of their own.

I'm quite glad Farron has gone. Any incoming leader (again, not a massive pool to choose from!) does, I think, need to try to broaden their appeal and give the party an identity based around more than just Brexit.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Delighted that his anti-Brexit strategy failed, but I feel a bit sorry for him on a personal level.

One of the basic tenets of liberalism is tolerance – not tolerance of the modern day, mushy-headed variety where it’s basically a synonym for being “nice” or “non-judgemental”, but the old-fashioned kind where you don’t automatically assume that your personal convictions should have political/legal expression. Or put another way, you don’t seek (via the state) to proscribe everything you disagree with.

Being Christian but generally a friend of LGBT rights (as Farron was) is a very good example of this sort of tolerance in action. The broad personal/political distinction he drew is arguably the most liberal thing he ever did, so it's kinda sad that he got virtually no credit for it.

 

[Abertawe]

Delighted that his anti-Brexit strategy failed, but I feel a bit sorry for him on a personal level.

One of the basic tenets of liberalism is tolerance – not tolerance of the modern day, mushy-headed variety where it’s basically a synonym for being “nice” or “non-judgemental”, but the old-fashioned kind where you don’t automatically assume that your personal convictions should have political/legal expression. Or put another way, you don’t seek (via the state) to proscribe everything you disagree with.

Being Christian but generally a friend of LGBT rights (as Farron was) is a very good example of this sort of tolerance in action. The broad personal/political distinction he drew is arguably the most liberal thing he ever did, so it's kinda sad that he got virtually no credit for it.

He's using that as deflection from what was a terrible performance. How do you go backwards in terms of vote share from the 2015 revenge vote. He also had a 48% base to work from and he still cocked it up. Worst leader in their history.

 

[Look Out There Are Llamas]

He's using that as deflection from what was a terrible performance. How do you go backwards in terms of vote share from the 2015 revenge vote. He also had a 48% base to work from and he still cocked it up. Worst leader in their history.

I'd argue Clegg, his #coalitionofchaos killed them. But yes, I tend to agree with this.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Delighted that his anti-Brexit strategy failed, but I feel a bit sorry for him on a personal level.

One of the basic tenets of liberalism is tolerance – not tolerance of the modern day, mushy-headed variety where it’s basically a synonym for being “nice” or “non-judgemental”, but the old-fashioned kind where you don’t automatically assume that your personal convictions should have political/legal expression. Or put another way, you don’t seek (via the state) to proscribe everything you disagree with.

Being Christian but generally a friend of LGBT rights (as Farron was) is a very good example of this sort of tolerance in action. The broad personal/political distinction he drew is arguably the most liberal thing he ever did, so it's kinda sad that he got virtually no credit for it.

I don't feel sorry for him at all. I don't think you should be surprised or annoyed to face persistent questions on gay rights if you don't have an unblemished voting record on such matters. This is the nub for me - the notion that he was a friend to the LGBT community and that his faith doesn't influence the way he votes and the actions that he takes simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. He voted against the Equality Act, which made it illegal for public services to be denied to people on the grounds of sexuality, and abstained on a key vote on gay marriage, his excuse being that “there were a couple of amendments that were about the protection of essentially religious minorities, conscience protections, and I kind of voted for those." It is true to say that, even when this is taken into account, he still has a voting record that is a good deal better than many other MPs, including the Prime Minister, but none of them are the leader of a notionally liberal, progressive party. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that a leader of such a party might have a spotless, rather than a generally friendly, record on equality.

 

[Leewilson]

Big problem for the Lib Dems now is trying to retain the young voters, many whom who have defected over to Labour. Corbin is flavour of the moment and they have to find a way of winning that demographic back to have any success in the near future.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Apols for the late reply.

I don't feel sorry for him at all.

I wouldn’t expect you to, TBH. If we’ve established one thing during our 12+ years of political bickering, it’s that we work with subtly different concepts of liberalism. And I think you being a friend of Dorothy probably makes a difference here too. If I were in your position, I’d probably be rather less sanguine about Farron fudging questions about gayness and sin.

FWIW I sympathise with the chap because I reckon he, like me, is basically a modus vivendi liberal trying to operate in a political culture that no longer has much time for that approach. By modus vivendi I mean he understands liberalism – and liberal tolerance in particular – as a kind of mediating force, an attempt to maximise the potential for people with different ideas to co-exist peacefully.

I’m no expert on his voting history, and if push came to shove I’d defer to your superior knowledge. At a cursory glance, however, it seems some of the blemishes on his record may be best understood in that modus vivendi context, i.e. attempts to advance LGBT rights while being mindful to protect other liberties, namely freedom of conscience, expression and religion.

For better or worse, that pluralistic and messy sort of liberalism fell out of intellectual fashion a while ago. In progressive circles, it’s no doubt been superseded by a more rigid and uncompromising ‘rational consensus’ approach, one geared towards being universally prescriptive about values. A much more intuitively agreeable approach in many ways (especially for PC neo-puritans), but not without its complications. The infamous “gay cake” row is an example of where it can go a bit wrong.

Also, a lot of the criticism aimed at Farron has made no mention of his voting history. When Brian Paddick resigned his front bench position a few days ago he didn’t mention anything about Farron’s voting record. He only made brief reference to Farron’s “views” being the problem. David Laws offered more detailed criticism, but again there was nothing about legislation or policy in there. His beef was with Farron’s “outdated”, “prejudiced” and “illiberal” views. In the conversations I’ve had on the subject, none of Farron’s detractors have brought up the Equality Act. Their focus was Farron giving a very fudgy answer when Cathy Newman asked whether he thought gay sex was a sin.

So, if I may indulge briefly in counterfactuals, I do wonder whether a blemish-free voting record would have made much difference in the long run. Be honest: if his voting record on LGBT rights was absolutely spotless, would that make everything okay in your view? Or would the Thought Crime inherent in his religious convictions still constitute a massive problem? If the latter, I do think that’s a bit of a pity – not because I’m particularly fond of Farron but because I think any liberalism worth a damn is able to distinguish between private thoughts and public deeds.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

So, if I may indulge briefly in counterfactuals, I do wonder whether a blemish-free voting record would have made much difference in the long run. Be honest: if his voting record on LGBT rights was absolutely spotless, would that make everything okay in your view? Or would the Thought Crime inherent in his religious convictions still constitute a massive problem? If the latter, I do think that’s a bit of a pity – not because I’m particularly fond of Farron but because I think any liberalism worth a damn is able to distinguish between private thoughts and public deeds.

Thought Crime is a pretty loaded term. I have a problem with Farron's private beliefs because I don't think it's possible the separate them entirely from his actions.

Someone's politics isn't just their voting record - it's also who they talk to and listen to. As an elected politician, you have an opportunity and a duty to bring causes to the fore and to make them into public issues.

Being squeamish around LGBT people and then grudgingly accepting that they do deserve human rights is basically a bare minimum for anyone imo. As the leader of a supposedly liberal political party, Farron should be understanding, championing and advancing LGBT issues - and his own (private) squeamishness prevents him from doing that.

By refusing to acknowledge the historical legacy of homophobia that informs such (private) religious beliefs, I think he renders himself unsuitable for any sort of position of leadership on the liberal left.

I wish Theresa May (or David Cameron's) record on LGBT rights had come under the same scrutiny as Farron though.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

I wouldn’t expect you to, TBH. If we’ve established one thing during our 12+ years of political bickering, it’s that we work with subtly different concepts of liberalism. And I think you being a friend of Dorothy probably makes a difference here too. If I were in your position, I’d probably be rather less sanguine about Farron fudging questions about gayness and sin.

FWIW I sympathise with the chap because I reckon he, like me, is basically a modus vivendi liberal trying to operate in a political culture that no longer has much time for that approach. By modus vivendi I mean he understands liberalism – and liberal tolerance in particular – as a kind of mediating force, an attempt to maximise the potential for people with different ideas to co-exist peacefully.

I’m no expert on his voting history, and if push came to shove I’d defer to your superior knowledge. At a cursory glance, however, it seems some of the blemishes on his record may be best understood in that modus vivendi context, i.e. attempts to advance LGBT rights while being mindful to protect other liberties, namely freedom of conscience, expression and religion.

For better or worse, that pluralistic and messy sort of liberalism fell out of intellectual fashion a while ago. In progressive circles, it’s no doubt been superseded by a more rigid and uncompromising ‘rational consensus’ approach, one geared towards being universally prescriptive about values. A much more intuitively agreeable approach in many ways (especially for PC neo-puritans), but not without its complications. The infamous “gay cake” row is an example of where it can go a bit wrong.

But you know and Farron knows that there are competing freedoms. You can't always attempt to advance gay rights whilst protecting other liberties because those liberties often come into conflict with one another. And the freedom not to be discriminated against surely trumps the freedom to discriminate when it comes to businesses providing services? I would hope this was an issue we'd put to bed as a society. Your original contention was that his liberalism was based around the idea that one's personal convictions ought not to necessarily have political/legal expression. That's fine but what I'm saying is that that claim is undermined by his voting record, which suggests that when gay rights come into conflict with religious freedoms he seemingly thinks that the faithful ought to have opt-outs or special dispensation. I think that's a wrong-headed and dangerous point of view.

FWIW, it's precisely his form of liberalism that seems "mushy-headed" to me. You can't be a friend to both us and our enemies. He seemingly wants to have his (gay?) cake and eat it.

Also, a lot of the criticism aimed at Farron has made no mention of his voting history. When Brian Paddick resigned his front bench position a few days ago he didn’t mention anything about Farron’s voting record. He only made brief reference to Farron’s “views” being the problem. David Laws offered more detailed criticism, but again there was nothing about legislation or policy in there. His beef was with Farron’s “outdated”, “prejudiced” and “illiberal” views. In the conversations I’ve had on the subject, none of Farron’s detractors have brought up the Equality Act. Their focus was Farron giving a very fudgy answer when Cathy Newman asked whether he thought gay sex was a sin.

Personally, I think this is regrettable. I would prefer that his voting record was more the focus of attention. I'd be more interested in finding out whether he'd vote differently tomorrow, and if so why, than have him ponder on theological matters. Having said that, do I, as a gay man, think that it's discomfiting that a leader of a liberal, progressive party can't give an unequivocal answer to a question about gay sex being sinful? Yes, I think I probably do.

So, if I may indulge briefly in counterfactuals, I do wonder whether a blemish-free voting record would have made much difference in the long run. Be honest: if his voting record on LGBT rights was absolutely spotless, would that make everything okay in your view? Or would the Thought Crime inherent in his religious convictions still constitute a massive problem? If the latter, I do think that’s a bit of a pity – not because I’m particularly fond of Farron but because I think any liberalism worth a damn is able to distinguish between private thoughts and public deeds.

It rather depends what you mean by "okay". I think I'm probably predisposed to be rather sceptical about him because he's a person of strong religious convictions and such people don't generally have a great track record of separating that from their politics. Furthermore, I think the argument David Laws advanced - that's it's not really sufficient to be "tolerated", that one really ought to be respected - is a fairly good one, and is something I've often felt. I've always hated the "hate the sin, love the sinner" bollocks, it's so fantastically condescending. There's a part of me I think that prefers the Westboro fire and brimstone nonsense. Appalling people, of course (I suspect Farron's probably an ok guy), but as an approach it seems fundamentally more honest!

The thing is, it's not a complete deal-breaker for me anyway. I voted Lib Dem in the General Election. I did so largely for tactical reasons, but expected that the party would support gay rights whatever the convictions of the leader. Rest assured that I wouldn't have voted for them had I been of the mindset of wanting to imprison Tim Farron for a thought crime!

It genuinely would make something of a difference if his voting record was blemish-free though. If that were the case, whilst it wouldn't negate my concerns, I would be willing concede there was something noble, and indeed liberal, about his politics.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

I'm going to ignore Ian's post, party because I'm too lazy to have this argument with two people but mostly because him criticising me for using "loaded" terminology is just too funny. Sorry, Ian.

But you know and Farron knows that there are competing freedoms.

Yep. This isn't in dispute. The modus vivendi approach to liberalism is, among other things, an attempt to wrestle with this problem.

You can't always attempt to advance gay rights whilst protecting other liberties because those liberties often come into conflict with one another.

You can’t, no. However, this is only a massive problem for liberals who think liberalism means fighting the LGBT cause (or other minority group causes) in all circumstances no matter what.

The ‘rational consensus’ liberalism dominant on the left is heavily influenced by the vaguely Marxist idea that the right side to back in any conflict is the one with the most credible historic claim to victimhood. In any squabble between LGBT folk and Christians, then, being a ‘good liberal’ means batting for Team LGBT.

The potential for problems here is obvious, unless you imagine the world to be a kind of moral fable in which LGBT people are always in the right and all LGBT claims of discrimination are fair and reasonable.

And the freedom not to be discriminated against surely trumps the freedom to discriminate when it comes to businesses providing services?I would hope this was an issue we'd put to bed as a society.

It’s not always that simple, unfortunately. Again, consider the “gay cake” row. In that case, service was not denied on the basis of sexuality. If the claimant had asked for a sausage roll and two steak pies, there would have been no issue. The dispute arose because the claimant requested something very specific (a cake bearing a slogan expressing support for gay marriage) that the defendant didn’t want to produce.

Refusing service outright on identity grounds (“sorry, no Muslims”) is not the same as refusing to provide a very specific service on moral/political/religious grounds (“sorry, Mr Rahman, but I’d rather not print your pamphlet calling for the mass extermination of all infidels"), but in the “gay cake” case these things were conflated and a judgement was made that has some very worrying implications for freedom of expression and freedom of conscience. If memory serves, even Peter Tatchell came round to that view.

IMO, a proper liberal worries about these things, even when it applies to people he doesn’t particularly like. And while I don’t know enough about Farron’s legislative transgressions to convincingly defend them, I do think there is a worthwhile general point to be teased out of all this, namely that a good liberal ought to do more (and be expected to do more) than just uncritically accept any well-intentioned equalities legislation that comes along.

I know from personal experience that it’s hard to criticise the Human Rights Act (and the ECHR it links to) without being accused of being against human rights – as though having reservations about the loose way Article 8 is written makes you an apologist for murder, rape and the Gulag. There is often a similar lack of nuance in discussions about equalities legislation – as though having any reservations about any specifics automatically makes you some kind of bigoted enemy of progress.

FWIW, it's precisely his form of liberalism that seems "mushy-headed" to me. You can't be a friend to both us and our enemies. He seemingly wants to have his (gay?) cake and eat it.

Well, as I wrote in my earlier post, the ‘rational consensus’ approach is pretty uncompromising. One is expected to pick a side. You demonstrate the basic thinking very well.

The modus vivendi approach isn’t averse to picking a side. It’s just more open to the idea that messy compromises are sometimes possible and perhaps beneficial in a vaguely utilitarian sense. I support gay marriage but I don’t think much good would come from legislation criminalising a priest or Iman’s religious objection to performing a gay marriage ceremony. Does that make me mushy-headed? Does that make me confused? Or is it an attempt to find something that kinda works for two groups of people with very different (and possibly irreconcilable) views about how to live a good life?

By favouring this sort of compromise, am I friend to your enemy; and, if so, does that make me your enemy? Genuine questions, not rhetorical. I’m very mindful that the equivocal approach I’m defending here has the distinct whiff of moral relativism (which I often criticise) about it. My thoughts are a bit messy in this area, so your thoughts would be appreciated.

Personally, I think this is regrettable. I would prefer that his voting record was more the focus of attention. I'd be more interested in finding out whether he'd vote differently tomorrow, and if so why, than have him ponder on theological matters. Having said that, do I, as a gay man, think that it's discomfiting that a leader of a liberal, progressive party can't give an unequivocal answer to a question about gay sex being sinful? Yes, I think I probably do.

It rather depends what you mean by "okay". I think I'm probably predisposed to be rather sceptical about him because he's a person of strong religious convictions and such people don't generally have a great track record of separating that from their politics. Furthermore, I think the argument David Laws advanced - that's it's not really sufficient to be "tolerated", that one really ought to be respected - is a fairly good one, and is something I've often felt. I've always hated the "hate the sin, love the sinner" bollocks, it's so fantastically condescending. There's a part of me I think that prefers the Westboro fire and brimstone nonsense. Appalling people, of course (I suspect Farron's probably an ok guy), but as an approach it seems fundamentally more honest!

The thing is, it's not a complete deal-breaker for me anyway. I voted Lib Dem in the General Election. I did so largely for tactical reasons, but expected that the party would support gay rights whatever the convictions of the leader. Rest assured that I wouldn't have voted for them had I been of the mindset of wanting to imprison Tim Farron for a thought crime!

It genuinely would make something of a difference if his voting record was blemish-free though. If that were the case, whilst it wouldn't negate my concerns, I would be willing concede there was something noble, and indeed liberal, about his politics.

I have no quarrel with any of this. Some interesting points, all well made.

 

[Abertawe]

Liberalism doesn't have to take account of rules from a made up story book, especially when said book influences a negative opinion on something that is real, ie dudes liking dudes or womens liking womens. You can choose to believe that god made the world in 7 days and that it's Adam & Eve not Steve by all means, you just shouldn't be anywhere near power. See the state of the world for proof.

 

[blade1889]

Vince Cable has thrown his hat into the ring, an interesting move. Thoughts?

 

[Abertawe]

Senile numpty.

 

[JaseTheVillain]

Look Out There Are Llamas will be delighted.

 

[Abertawe]

He's tainted with tuition fees & austerity. I've not really looked at who is on offer but he's surely not the answer.

 

[Stevencc]

Vince Cable has thrown his hat into the ring, an interesting move. Thoughts?

My main thought is whether or not he'll manage to enter the ring and pick his hat back up without putting his back out.

 

[Look Out There Are Llamas]

Look Out There Are Llamas will be delighted.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

My main thought is whether or not he'll manage to enter the ring and pick his hat back up without putting his back out.

Aye, he's 74 now. In fairness to the lad, though, he'll probably still be 74 when the next election comes around.

And looking beyond that, Prime Minister Corbyn isn't going to means-test the Winter Fuel Allowance, which somewhat mitigates the risk of Vince succumbing to a particularly harsh winter.

They might as well give him a go.

 

[HertsWolf]

Vince Cable has thrown his hat into the ring, an interesting move. Thoughts?

Fairly well respected, although obviously tainted by the coalition record and tuition fees.

 

[HertsWolf]

Refusing service outright on identity grounds (“sorry, no Muslims”) is not the same as refusing to provide a very specific service on moral/political/religious grounds (“sorry, Mr Rahman, but I’d rather not print your pamphlet calling for the mass extermination of all infidels"), but in the “gay cake” case these things were conflated and a judgement was made that has some very worrying implications for freedom of expression and freedom of conscience. If memory serves, even Peter Tatchell came round to that view.

I don't think this issue was ever really satisfactorily resolved.

 

[TheMinsterman]

As a life long Liberal until the Clegg-up, the idea of Vince running the ship terrifies me.

The party needs a cleansing and a good purge of all the bad stains from that coalition if it is going to move forward.