Tim Farron resigns

[reohn2]

Well, Jeremy Corbyn, as I understand it, has expressed unwillingness to press the button. That's about a decision that he as PM would have to make, that has caused some doubts to be raised. Especially given what some here have said about his actions in practice, I can't see anything comparable for Tim Farron.

Not that I think that the media treatment of Jeremy Corbyn has been exemplary, so if you're arguing that Tim Farron should be treated the same, I think you may be on shaky ground.

I'm arguing that they're both people of truth and honesty.
When someone asks whether you'd press the button that would begin a chain of events that would initially kill hundreds of thousands and possibly millions or even billions.
To answer with a snap 'yes' is IMHO a crass vote grabbing exercise of the worst kind.
Those kind of weapons aren't normal defence weapons they are WMD'S of the worst kind and capable of making life extinct on the face of the earth,and which is something this country went to war on the pretense that another country had WMD's far less threatening to human life on the planet

You could answer that question by saying that you may be issuing the submarine commanders with instructions to retaliate in kind if the UK or our allies are attacked by nuclear weapons, but in accordance with protocol you will not say for certain. Having made that public statement you could then choose to instruct the submarine commanders, in secret, never to use their weapons. All that is required for deterrence is the threat of retaliation, not the actuality of retaliation. Jeremy, if anything, has been a bit too honest on that subject. We all know he would not retaliate. He should have kept that secret.

Rather than lie as so many politicians do on so many things to get into power to play their own games ,look at the mess the country is now in through power mongers telling lie after lie and doing the opposite look at the state of Grenfell tower block due to lies and deceit.
If your happy to live in that kind country keep voting Tory......

[pwa]

I'm arguing that they're both people of truth and honesty.
When someone asks whether you'd press the button that would begin a chain of events that would initially kill hundreds of thousands and possibly millions or even billions.
To answer with a snap 'yes' is IMHO a crass vote grabbing exercise of the worst kind.
Those kind of weapons aren't normal defence weapons they are WMD'S of the worst kind and capable of making life extinct on the face of the earth,and which is something this country went to war on the pretense that another country had WMD's far less threatening to human life on the planet

You could answer that question by saying that you may be issuing the submarine commanders with instructions to retaliate in kind if the UK or our allies are attacked by nuclear weapons, but in accordance with protocol you will not say for certain. Having made that public statement you could then choose to instruct the submarine commanders, in secret, never to use their weapons. All that is required for deterrence is the threat of retaliation, not the actuality of retaliation. Jeremy, if anything, has been a bit too honest on that subject. We all know he would not retaliate. He should have kept that secret.

Rather than lie as so many politicians do on so many things to get into power to play their own games ,look at the mess the country is now in through power mongers telling lie after lie and doing the opposite look at the state of Grenfell tower block due to lies and deceit.
If your happy to live in that kind country keep voting Tory......

There are things that politicians should be open and honest about, but there are other things where they should keep their cards close to their chests. For obvious reasons certain security matters fall into that category. I'm sure you know that already, though.

[reohn2]

There are things that politicians should be open and honest about, but there are other things where they should keep their cards close to their chests. For obvious reasons certain security matters fall into that category. I'm sure you know that already, though.

But Corbyn can hardly be a life long member of CND/multilateral nuclear disarmament,than try to convince anyone that suddenly when you become PM you'll about face and say with a positive snap answer that yes you'll press the nuclear button without an further thought.

BTW Corbyn is on record as stating he would strengthen the armed forces with the equipement they need to fight effectively in conventional warfare and strengthen the war on cyber attack.
He's also promised to strengthen the police with more funding and officers.
In light of what's hitting the fan post Manchester bomb,his promises would be well received in that department.
One needs to ask oneself what a small island off the coast of Europe needs nuclear weapons for ,what good would the UK burnt to a crisp and devoid of life be to a nuclear aggressor,especially when our main enemy (of our own making)lies within
Methinks the nuclear arsenal is a leftover from a cold war that we just can't let go of and that such an arsenal gives the UK a feeling of importance rather than any actual,and their posession will buy us some credence with a "special relationship" with the US,which IMHO is more wishful thinking than anything.YVMV

[NUKe]

As the instructions to the submarine commanders has been mentioned. The instruction are not what to in case of nuclear war. They are there in case one has happened., and the UK has been attacked, and there is no command and control left. When they question JC he talks about avoiding war in the first place. Why old men are war mongers is beyond me. If we spent the money on ending world hunger. It would be a lot more affective at ending wars. Than some strange weapon that by the time we use it we have lost.

[pwa]

There are things that politicians should be open and honest about, but there are other things where they should keep their cards close to their chests. For obvious reasons certain security matters fall into that category. I'm sure you know that already, though.

But Corbyn can hardly be a life long member of CND/multilateral nuclear disarmament,than try to convince anyone that suddenly when you become PM you'll about face and say with a positive snap answer that yes you'll press the nuclear button without an further thought.

BTW Corbyn is on record as stating he would strengthen the armed forces with the equipement they need to fight effectively in conventional warfare and strengthen the war on cyber attack.
He's also promised to strengthen the police with more funding and officers.
In light of what's hitting the fan post Manchester bomb,his promises would be well received in that department.
One needs to ask oneself what a small island off the coast of Europe needs nuclear weapons for ,what good would the UK burnt to a crisp and devoid of life be to a nuclear aggressor,especially when our main enemy (of our own making)lies within
Methinks the nuclear arsenal is a leftover from a cold war that we just can't let go of and that such an arsenal gives the UK a feeling of importance rather than any actual,and their posession will buy us some credence with a "special relationship" with the US,which IMHO is more wishful thinking than anything.YVMV

In view of his support for CND Corbyn has only one honest approach, which is to say that under his leadership the UK nuclear deterrent would be mothballed. Then people can choose to vote for that or not, as they prefer.

But this thread is about Farron / politicians with religious beliefs. (How did we drift onto Corbyn?)

[reohn2]

But this thread is about Farron / politicians with religious beliefs. (How did we drift onto Corbyn?)

My fault I'm afraid I drew the comparison with Corbyn and Farron's honesty,honesty and politician aren't words often found in the same sentence,and where the Tory party's concerned they're extinct!

[Bonefishblues]

But this thread is about Farron / politicians with religious beliefs. (How did we drift onto Corbyn?)

My fault I'm afraid I drew the comparison with Corbyn and Farron's honesty,honesty and politician aren't words often found in the same sentence,and where the Tory party's concerned they're extint!

Hey daddyo - strength and stability are where it's at these days, honesty's so yesterday

...if only the electorate agreed, eh?

[reohn2]

But this thread is about Farron / politicians with religious beliefs. (How did we drift onto Corbyn?)

My fault I'm afraid I drew the comparison with Corbyn and Farron's honesty,honesty and politician aren't words often found in the same sentence,and where the Tory party's concerned they're extint!

Hey daddyo - strength and stability are where it's at these days, honesty's so yesterday

...if only the electorate agreed, eh?

Don't worry they're getting there,whereas Rome wasn't built in a day it collapsed PDQ,if you catch my drift

[Bonefishblues]

My fault I'm afraid I drew the comparison with Corbyn and Farron's honesty,honesty and politician aren't words often found in the same sentence,and where the Tory party's concerned they're extint!

Hey daddyo - strength and stability are where it's at these days, honesty's so yesterday

...if only the electorate agreed, eh?

Don't worry they're getting there,whereas Rome wasn't built in a day it collapsed PDQ,if you catch my drift

You like a bit of Dylan, I recall, and I agree with you that the times they are indeed, a changin'

Tell you what surprises me - that certain individuals and parties haven't twigged yet...

[meic]

and I agree with you that the times they are indeed, a changin'

Times have been a changin' all of my life. Yet things are just as they have always been and will probably remain.

[PH]

I take your point and understand the need for cabinet responsibility, where the individual is required to support or leave. I also think it's OK for a party member to not support the entire party's policy and say so. However we're talking of a party leader rather than a member, I think it is different.

Which of his personal beliefs are at odds with the Lib Dem platform, and why are they significant, then?

I don't know. What are his beliefs? Wasn't his problem a reluctance to say?
Whatever they are, he said he felt torn between living as a faithful Christian and serving as a political leader. Torn? No conflict?
He's being lauded for his honesty, yet when he says he's found being the party leader and a committed Christian incompatible he's being disbelieved. Can't have it both ways!

[Vorpal]

I take your point and understand the need for cabinet responsibility, where the individual is required to support or leave. I also think it's OK for a party member to not support the entire party's policy and say so. However we're talking of a party leader rather than a member, I think it is different.

Which of his personal beliefs are at odds with the Lib Dem platform, and why are they significant, then?

I don't know. What are his beliefs? Wasn't his problem a reluctance to say?
Whatever they are, he said he felt torn between living as a faithful Christian and serving as a political leader. Torn? No conflict?
He's being lauded for his honesty, yet when he says he's found being the party leader and a committed Christian incompatible he's being disbelieved. Can't have it both ways!

His problem, it seems to me is that the media constantly interrogated him about a non-existant problem.

What he said was

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

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

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

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

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

This sounds to me like he
a) wanted to tell them all to take a flying **** and felt guilty about that
b) felt that the focus of others on his faith was getting in the way of him leading the party

He has not once said that he could not reconcile his beliefs with the party platform, or anything like it.

In fact he said,

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

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

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

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

Which implies to me that his personal conflict was between wanting to believe in a tolerant and just society on the one hand, and being persecuted for his beliefs on the other.

[PH]

His problem, it seems to me is that the media constantly interrogated him about a non-existant problem.

Some very selective quoting, here he is in his own words:
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/06/t ... lib-dems/#
My selective quote

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

I don't believe you can separate who you are from what you do without compromise, hence why he says he's torn. There are examples of inconsistencies throughout his career, where he's struggled with this.
I can't see us agreeing on this and don't think I have anymore to add. I respect those who say he should be judged on his actions rather than his beliefs, I see the two as intertwined.

[Vorpal]

Some very selective quoting, here he is in his own words:

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/06/t ... lib-dems/#
My selective quote

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

I don't believe you can separate who you are from what you do without compromise, hence why he says he's torn. There are examples of inconsistencies throughout his career, where he's struggled with this.
I can't see us agreeing on this and don't think I have anymore to add. I respect those who say he should be judged on his actions rather than his beliefs, I see the two as intertwined.

I don't understand 'selective quoting'. I quoted the same phrase you did.

Put in context, with the rest of the text, it is more open to interpretation than you imply.

[Abradable Chin]

It doesn't seem to me that he quit because his personal beliefs disagreed with his politics, but because he was constantly being attacked for the percieved conflicts.

Most journalists are bright or at least well-educated, but they have stopped providing us with news that we couldn't have readily found out for ourselves, and instead become opinion makers and attack dogs, writing anything for two pence.
Tim Farron has done his best to say that we don't live in a theocracy, and therefore ways he might follow personally would not be thrust upon others; and even if he did, it is hard to see what people would think wrong with "love your neighbour as yourself" or "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink." yet he has been completely pulled apart for being logically inconsistent, because illogicality is the greatest thought crime.
Meanwhile, in other places, and not due to Tim Farron's philosophy, <self-censored>, but that seems to be OK with the media.