On that article (which is 2 years old so can be forgiven) remember after yesterday Kennedy didn't have numbers 2 and 4 weren't resolved either. However they were 'anti that war' it's just the Lib Dems aren't 'anti all wars' and criteria must be met first. When we supported the Syria bombing Farron sent out a message to members on those 4 criteria and how it was met in his eyes. I don't think out policy has changed since Kennedy and in retrospect it's quite clear he was right to demand that criteria had been met.
I didn't think the Syrian drone strikes had approval by the UN?
One of major issues coalition goverment is it diluted our message somewhat. I don't think Clegg and Farron are that far apart (which would make sense considering they are member of the same party) just that whilst in goverment Clegg was somewhat gagged of expressing his opinion and then in turn couldn't get a coherent message out thinking he'd be in coalition again and didn't want another tuition fees fiasco again.
I agree. Worst of all, the Tories seemed to get the recognition for what looked to be Lib Dems work. But for me that wasn't the biggest issue.
Had I known the Lib Dems would have joined the Conservatives in coalition, I would never have voted for them. Lib Dems fought a campaign of being a kinder party; it's what won them the votes they did. Ideologically, they were far more in line with Labour than the Tories. It's what most of the Lib Dem support wanted. And they backstabbed the majority of their party by forming a coalition with the Tories.
They then had to support the Tories through an ugly kind of austerity. I don't necessarily have a problem with austerity if the burden of the pain is shared in accordance with peoples ability to own the burden. The coalition have dirtied the concept of austerity by putting so much of the onus on disabled people (benefit cuts), on the public sector (job cuts, infrastructure sell-off), on consumers (VAT rises), on students (tuition fee rises). To do so whilst reducing the tax burden on those earning more than £150,000 represents a real low. I agree with balancing the budget, but the strategy taken by the coalition had too much human cost.
On gay rights I think Farron tries to seperate his public liberal beliefs and his more personal Christian ones and they get conflicted. It's something I do from time to time having to seperate how I should think due to being a liberal with how I do and the liberalism doesn't always come out on top but I try my best to try to adhere to them. I suppose like all things you know how you should act but you don't always do.
I made a point about Crabb the other day (it should be pointed out he categorically deny's he belive's in a gay cure) that okay he's wrong and has almost admitted he was about the Marriage Equality Act by saying he has no problem with the result. However we on left forgive Corbyn for his association with Gerry Adams and Sadiq Khan for some of the people he's shared platforms with. So why don't we with Crabb?
Farron knows the parties viewpoint and is willing to argue for it as our leader even if he is personally conflicted. Plus in politics your ever going to agree on everything.
On some issues, I would agree. But gay rights is the defining 21st Century liberal issue, gay marriage the barometer by which countries are identified by how liberal they are. It's not something a liberal leader can afford to dither on, especially when leaders are the focus of politics. (2015 was as much an election of Cameron vs Ed as Tories vs Labour. 2010 Lib Dem success was largely down to the work of Clegg.) New Labour's illiberal politics is the reason I have voted Lib Dems, but Labour have now gotten away from those illiberal trappings, so the argument is less straightforward. And Labour won't go into a coalition with the Tories, so there's that too.
On the Lib Dems side is that they can afford to be a bit more avant garde than Labour on liberal issues. Labour can't escape the populist thinking of the day whereas Lib Dems can afford, electorally, to be ahead of the curve. Although this is perhaps more conceptual than what is actually happening. I'd like to see the Lib Dems more ardently support e.g. sex workers, trans people, drug addicts (rehabilitation over criminalisation) and immigrants.
