[Boiler]

Yes, considering what was said about Tommeh and his jail time.

[Andy McDandy]

By all means Youngian, I'm fairly sure Susie Boniface said similar (about an LD PM by Christmas, not about fancying the honourable member for Abingdon).

[youngian]

I'm fairly sure Susie Boniface said similar

I failed to read an article I saw a few months back by someone with good antennae like Stephen Bush about why Cable (or his successor) would be PM soon. Not that much furniture to move around after all to envisage that.

Every poll predicts a hung parliament and we all know Corbyn won’t step down even to put his party in power so what will the next move be to establish a government that commands a majority? A LD leader with cross party support (like Birgitte Nyborg in Borgen) is a feasible option.

[Arrowhead]

That the lib Dems haven't made great decisions since the last terrible decision to go into coalition

To be honest, in my opinion it wasn't so much the decision to go into coalition which was the show-stopper for them. More the fact that, having entered into the arrangement, they then did a very good impersonation of a lobotomised Tory party echo chamber for five long years. Especially when they kept witlessly repeating Osborne's "mess we inherited from the last Labour government" mantra at the drop of a hat.

[youngian]

Especially when they kept witlessly repeating Osborne's "mess we inherited from the last Labour government" mantra at the drop of a hat.

And the fact that Clegg couldn’t wait to jump into the ministerial car and didn’t even negotiate on PR and tuition fees. Osborne even made it easy for him by raising tuition fees to £9K as bogus negotiating collateral. LDs claiming there was a national emergency due to Brown’s mismanagement was mendacious self-serving bollocks.

[Winegums]

That the lib Dems haven't made great decisions since the last terrible decision to go into coalition

Thhat's right, they elected a leader who was toxic to the electorate.
They realised that and got shot of him.
They know what to do with unelectable leaders - which was David Jay's original point.

It's telling you think this way, and that there are so many people who like this post.

The problem with him wasn't that he was toxic to the electorate, it's that he's a fucking rampant homophobe who believes in gay conversion therapy. Presumably he'd be fine to lead the LDs if he'd gotten them an extra 20 seats?

[lord_kobel]

I'll repeat, it was a simple question. Why are you having trouble with it?

[oboogie]

That the lib Dems haven't made great decisions since the last terrible decision to go into coalition

Thhat's right, they elected a leader who was toxic to the electorate.
They realised that and got shot of him.
They know what to do with unelectable leaders - which was David Jay's original point.

It's telling you think this way, and that there are so many people who like this post.

The problem with him wasn't that he was toxic to the electorate, it's that he's a fucking rampant homophobe who believes in gay conversion therapy. Presumably he'd be fine to lead the LDs if he'd gotten them an extra 20 seats?

His homophobia was the reason he was toxic to the electorate.
I didn't spell that out because I felt there was no need as I know the members of this forum to be educated people and I have no wish to patronise them.
In doing so, I did of course overlook yourself, for which I apologise, I shall try to pitch lower in future.

[Tubby Isaacs]

It's amazing how the Lib Dems didn't see the Farron problem coming. Norman Lamb had Coalition baggage, but he didn't bother us with his musings on the theology of gay sex.

[Winegums]

Thhat's right, they elected a leader who was toxic to the electorate.
They realised that and got shot of him.
They know what to do with unelectable leaders - which was David Jay's original point.

It's telling you think this way, and that there are so many people who like this post.

The problem with him wasn't that he was toxic to the electorate, it's that he's a fucking rampant homophobe who believes in gay conversion therapy. Presumably he'd be fine to lead the LDs if he'd gotten them an extra 20 seats?

His homophobia was the reason he was toxic to the electorate.
I didn't spell that out because I felt there was no need as I know the members of this forum to be educated people and I have no wish to patronise them.
In doing so, I did of course overlook yourself, for which I apologise, I shall try to pitch lower in future.

The point was you've acted as though the public toxicity is why he was removed, not because of the inherent ghastliness of being overtly homophobic. I get that centrists only care about electability, but imagine for a second "principles" exist...

[crabcakes_windermere]

Farron lied (clumsily) about having changed, then when it wasn't an issue after the election he changed his mind again. I left the Lib Dems as a result because it was hugely fucking disappointing, and I know anecdotally quite a few other people did as well.

Personally, I think he should have been thrown out of the party for it. A leader who defends or fails to condemn bigotry because of their own personal blindspots is unacceptable.

[Andy McDandy]

Farron's situation was predicted in the House of Cards book, "To Play the King". In it, the leader of the opposition (styled on John Smith) is ambushed over his membership of a wee free highlands and islands church that has draconian views on homosexuality. He finds himself in a bind - cut the group loose and lose a valuable and influential backer in his constituency; equivocate and say that he's just there for the bake sales and steeple restoration fund and piss everyone off; support them and be branded a homophobe. Every way, he's fucked.

The narration makes it clear that he's a basically good man whose "crime" was to not read the small print, or to assume that any reasonable person would understand his position. I think Farron was in a similar position.

[Winegums]

Farron's situation was predicted in the House of Cards book, "To Play the King". In it, the leader of the opposition (styled on John Smith) is ambushed over his membership of a wee free highlands and islands church that has draconian views on homosexuality. He finds himself in a bind - cut the group loose and lose a valuable and influential backer in his constituency; equivocate and say that he's just there for the bake sales and steeple restoration fund and piss everyone off; support them and be branded a homophobe. Every way, he's fucked.

The narration makes it clear that he's a basically good man whose "crime" was to not read the small print, or to assume that any reasonable person would understand his position. I think Farron was in a similar position.

Farron's one small crime was to be a regressive homophobe who believed in (a) chemical leeching turning frogs gay and (b) conversion therapy for homosexuality.

Which parish was he trying to keep on side by holding these beliefs? Which wing of the liberal democrats is the religious bigot wing?

[Winegums]

I keep forgetting the LD are having a leadership contest

https://www.libdems.org.uk/jo-swinson
Jo Swinson has a really weirdly pixelated banner image.

Jo believes the economy must work for the planet and people.

As a young girl, Jo was inspired by Body Shop entrepreneur Anita Roddick. While buying strawberry-shaped soap, she would sign petitions to end cosmetic testing on animals, or read about fair trade ingredients and recycling of materials. Since then, Jo has campaigned tirelessly to save our environment.

Doesn't bode well that she's so starved of achievements that "Jo signed petitions" is on her bio.

As Minister for Employment Relations and Consumer Affairs in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Jo delivered a fairer deal for workers and consumers.

She introduced shared parental leave, extended flexible working rights, clamped down on unscrupulous payday lenders, increased penalties on employers failing to pay workers the minimum wage, improved corporate reporting, introduced new rights for consumers buying online and made gender pay gap reporting happen.

In 2009, Jo set up the APPG on Wellbeing Economics and, while Minister, she introduced new wellbeing considerations for policies on employment relations and corporate

some of this is okay. Substantial at least

Jo has loved technology all her life. Her first computer was a Spectrum ZX 48K, she learnt programming at school and wrote to the Smash Hits Games Corner about the latest cheat codes. She ran a campaign at university to have internet connections in every room in her halls of residence.

She was one of the first MPs to embrace Twitter, was Vice-Chair of the Prime Minister’s Digital Taskforce, and was later on the board of a tech start-up. She now chairs the Liberal Democrat Technology Commission.

Aaaaand back to fluff. What does any of this mean? How does it pertain to her vision for the country?

Jo joined the Liberal Democrats at the age of 17. By 21 she was taking on John Prescott in Hull, and by 25 she was the youngest member of the House of Commons, having become the first ever Liberal to represent East Dunbartonshire, her home constituency.

She was a Business Minister by the age of 32, as she quickly built a reputation for effective campaigning, backing the party’s opposition to the Iraq war and ID cards and campaigning for action on climate change.

After a decade in politics, Jo lost her seat in 2015. Never one to stand around, she went on to set up her own business and wrote her book Equal Power, before regaining her place in Parliament in 2017 and becoming the party’s Deputy Leader.

Jo is a mum of two young boys – Andrew and Gabriel – and married to former Lib Dem MP and anti-corruption campaigner Duncan Hames.

Longstanding member, lost to Prescott because he's a fucking tank. Has kids.

Entire article of fluff. No vision, no ideas. Are lib dems actually getting riled up by this?

[youngian]

Farron lied (clumsily) about having changed, then when it wasn't an issue after the election he changed his mind again. I left the Lib Dems as a result because it was hugely fucking disappointing, and I know anecdotally quite a few other people did as well.

There was a patronizing attempt from Farron and sympathetic journalists to suggest the public didn't understand the nature of liberalism. We do but didn't want an odd religious homophobe in No 10 even if he promises not to impose his views on the state. Really bad politics even May winged it on LGBT rights.