Dear member This last two years have seen the Liberal Democrats recover since the devastation of the 2015 election. That recovery was never inevitable but we have seen the doubling of our party membership, growth in council elections, our first parliamentary by-election win for more than a decade, and most recently our growth at the 2017 general election. Most importantly the Liberal Democrats have established ourselves with a significant and distinctive role - passionate about Europe, free trade, strong well-funded public services underpinned by a growing market economy. No one else occupies that space. Against all the odds, the Liberal Democrats matter again. We can be proud of the progress we have made together, although there is much more we need to do. 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. 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. That's why I have chosen to step down as leader of the Liberal Democrats. I intend to serve until the parliamentary recess begins next month, at which point there will be a leadership election according to the party’s rules. This is a historic time in British politics. What happens in the next months and years will shape our country for generations. My successor will inherit a party that is needed now more than ever before. Our future as an open, tolerant and united country is at stake. The cause of British liberalism has never been needed more. People who will fight for a Britain that is confident, generous and compassionate are needed more than ever before. That is the challenge our party and my successor faces and the opportunity I am certain that they will rise to. I want to say one more thing: I joined our party when I was 16, it is in my blood, I love our history, our people, I thoroughly love my party. Imagine how proud I am to lead this party. And then imagine what would lead me to voluntarily relinquish that honour. In the words of Isaac Watts it would have to be something 'so amazing, so divine, (it) demands my heart, my life, my all'. Thank you, Tim ---------------- Hmmm, coming across pretty bad
I don't think people disagreed with his Christian faith - they disagreed with the views he held stemming from that. I think his resignation words only emphasise that.
Well if its true, that he has a problem with gay sex, then I'd suggest that's not very liberal. Or am I missing something?
Carried out by a "white" guy with a WASP name, so I guess this won't be classified as a terrorist attack at all, just some nutcase job!
We use "f***ing" like Indians use "very very". f'ing lovely = very very lovely.........thank you please.
What are you on about? Both sides moan about the press and the MSM. "The left" have spent the last couple of years (+a decade) moaning about the "Tory press" and the right and the left have spent the last couple of years (+ a decade) moaning about the BBC and CH4!! It is not a right wing new thing to moan about the mainstream media. There didn't used to be anything but mainstream media being 4 channels and the papers. These days they mean all platforms and the multitude of channels.
I said a few weeks ago that the word "regeneration puts fear into normal people because it means they want you out." Did you hear that lad earlier on when Victoria Derbyshire was on that echoed what I said. Regeneration meant they "tidied up" the outside of the building because of all the "rich man's blocks" (his words) they were putting up in the area. That the residents had been bullied trying to get them to agree to leave. The same happens everywhere in this country. Even in Lincoln all we hear about is XXX millions of investment in the City but it all goes on the University. Triple the mooring rents on the Brayford to get rid of the house boats because they want it to look like a rich man's marina with only "nice boats" etc. That is why they put that cladding on. My wife's Grandad lives in one of those tower blocks in Chelas Lisbon. Massive estate with 50 odd tower blocks like that one but linked together . Looked really pretty when we were approaching. Each tower painted different bright colours. Got there and the real picture was vastly different. Very run down, The inside of her Grandad's flat was black with mold and crumbling apart. Pretty scary place. They had only painted the south west faces of each block. Why did they paint only the south-west faces and not the rest or even do them up to slum standard? The main reason was because they are building posh blocks across the main road inbetween Chelas and Lisbon city centre. The other is because when they had Expo '98 That was the side that you see from the Orient area where the Expo was.
Probably his own party realising they should have picked Norman Lamb all along. Will be interesting to see if they start interviewing other MPs of different faiths about their views on homosexuality now!!!
There have been numerous cases of this in London. There is far too much money to be made in property and money means more than people. Lots of people have been "relocated" and never returned because the aim was always to sell because the price is high. Ch4 did a program on it but there haven;t been enough programs on it because it is widespread across the country. BBC2's Brent council documentary fly on the wall did show one instance of someone being told "we cannot pay all your rent, however we can offer you a council house in Birmingham." The last 10 years has seen a vast rise in London accents in Lincoln and Lincolnshire. And no they aren't this supposed "affluent retirees." London has been purging the poor out for a while now resettling them outside London so they can make money in the rich man's housing market.
Apparently BBC1 did do one: http://www.barnetlabour.org.uk/bbc1...ion_to_social_cleansing_of_west_hendon_estate This has been happening for a long time though. Not just from this government. Cheaper to get rid of people that cost the council than to look after them.
We must be right mugs then, can barely evict somebody who's phoning us to threaten to shoot their neighbours every other day. In all seriousness though while I've not heard of us getting rid of any social homes in the way you mention (it's not needed, on average a tenant only stays for a couple of years, under the conservatives policies you can just wait till they leave then convert the the property to 'affordable' for a nice rent hike on the next tenant without investing anything in the property) There have been plenty of times in the past where people have been tricked by private landlords to buy their home for the discount RTB price and then sell it to them for a higher (but still cheap price) and they promise they will rent it back to them. The residents don't realise how much security they lose doing that (social tenacies were very secure new 7 year ones are less so) And the new landlord just ends up kicking them out and renting it out at a much higher price. Was very common in richer areas where they can charge much higher rents. I've spoken to residents who have seen their neighbourhood almost wiped out that way.
Prime land around London. I know there was a documentary that interviewed people from 2 or 3 areas that had already been shafted and another couple that feared that the same was happening. Areas that are council. They buy the land off the council, people get moved out with a promise they can move back but never are of course, or the rent has gone through the roof. People who have bought their property on these estates are then offered less than the market rate for their home while their replacement "like for like" home costs them even more than they got. Local councils seem not to be too bothered by rules. They would look after you if you had the money to buy land off them and scratch their backs. While you are a nobody with 1 or 2 or 3 homes then "the law is the law." Then you will find the company with a portfolio of 50 just in Southampton doesn't need to bother with the law.
I actually agree with Farron, and I'm no fan of religion, generally speaking. People's issue with Farron quickly became what he believed in the privacy of his own home or what his religion's scriptures said, rather than his own political record. His record is very positive towards same-sex rights advancement, far more positive than other leaders right now especially. But ultimately, people latched onto him and beat him over the head with it. I do feel a bit sorry for him. He's evidently a proper campaigner, he's good at what he does and I'm assured he's a lovely chap. Really though, he could've been smarter with answering the questions of his own beliefs and gay sex. He should've known how the media would play it and acted accordingly. But I do respect that he is entitled to his religion and, as a self-perceived liberal, had no issue with his personal beliefs because they were not getting in the way of him supporting and enacting liberal policies. I also think stepping down is the right decision. He's sparked an upturn and strengthened the party's grassroots but now is a good time for someone else.
