Thread: Tim Farron and Liberalism Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029237
Posted by jackanapes (# 12374) on
:
So, Tim Farron has been elected as leader of the Liberal Democrat party in the UK. Some have reacted by claiming that God botherers should not be trusted with a pair of scissors, never mind the leadership of a serious political party. More reasonably, others have questioned whether Christianity and 21st century Liberalism are compatible. These concerns centre around the degree to which personal faith and morality should influence policy decisions and voting.
What do shipmates think?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Could you tell us more about Tim Farron's religious background?
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
I kind of like that 'God botherers' generally think that there is an objective morality, synonymous with God's Will, and that ethics are not all just 'a subjective matter of opinion'. Seems to me, such an attitude keeps a liberal politician honest, despite the danger that some politicians may mistake their subjective opinions for God's Will.
Cheers, PV.
[ 18. July 2015, 11:01: Message edited by: PilgrimVagrant ]
Posted by jackanapes (# 12374) on
:
I'm no expert on his beliefs, but he is / isn't an Evangelical depending on who is commenting. Some further reading from various viewpoints:
Spectator
Christian Today
Scottish Liberal
Archbishop Cranmer
[mended links]
[ 18. July 2015, 13:10: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Quote from the Wiki entry
quote:
He is a church-going Anglican who describes "becoming a Christian at the age of eighteen as the most massive choice I have made.
.
In general, it seems pretty illiberal to suggest that someone of faith cannot be trusted with leadership of the Liberal Democrats.
(Sticks Host Hat On briefly.)
I guess there may be something to discuss about his beliefs re gay marriage and the rights of gay people, but that belongs in Dead Horses.
B62, Purg Host
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
I voted for Farron in the election, and heard him debate with his rival Norman Lamb. I wasn’t influenced that much by his Christian beliefs - although they did influence me slightly in his favour. I liked the fact that he hadn't been part of the Coalition and had voted against increasing tuition fees. Norman Lamb has done some excellent work as a Health Minister, but I was put off by what I saw as a naive desire for legalising assisted suicide.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
legalising assisted suicide.
TBH, I think the LibDems spent the last 5 years performing assisted suicide. Assisted by the Torys, of course.
The question of whether someone with a declared faith should be allowed to lead a major political party, yes, definitely. In the end, it is not about whether you agree with them. Their views may be abhorrent, but if they can show political ability, that is fine. Don't vote for them if you don't like their policies.
Tim Farron cites his faith as something important to him. That is, I think a positive - I am glad to see a politician who cites a clear basis for his beliefs. I would rather that that the weasaling, lying, and vassilating of Cameron.
I would like to see more faith in political leadership. This is not because I will necessarily agree with them, but because we have seen what the alternative is - leadership by paymasters.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
It's certainly causing some Lib Dems to question their ability to conscientiously remain within the Party - I know of an instance locally of someone who has resigned from membership following Tim Farron's election as leader - on the grounds that they don't believe his views on same-sex marriage are compatible with 21st century Liberal values.
They are entitled to hold that view, of course, just as Tim Farron is entitled to his.
The Lib Dems are meant to be a 'broad church' with a range of views and differences of opinion held in tension.
It's difficult to generalise, but on some of the more Dead Horse issues I suspect Farron will be out of synch with the broad consensus within his Party.
Regionally, I'd suggest that there is still a strong 'non-conformist' element and influence on the Party although that's bound to be less of a factor than it was during the heyday of British Liberalism in the late 19th/early 20th centuries.
Many Party members and activists/councillors I know around here are practising Methodists and Anglicans - although whether they would qualify as 'evangelicals' in the Bebbington 'Quadrilaterals' sense is a moot point.
I get the impression, though, that any misgivings about Farron within the Party - and many of the old stagers supported Lamb - lie more around perceptions of his potential lack of 'gravitas' than they do around the content of his faith.
It is difficult in the contemporary, increasingly secularised UK to self-define as a Christian or as an evangelical Christian specifically without being seen as some kind of wierdo or obscurantist.
Our constituency MP here, Fiona Bruce, is an evangelical Christian and I've heard plenty of disparaging comments from Liberal Party members about her being a '7-day Creationist', a 'flat-earther' and lots more besides ... although, in fairness, others are completely comfortable with whatever faith and whatever views she has - providing they don't lead to nut-job policies ...
I've certainly heard Liberal Party members defend her right to hold whatever religious views she pleases.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jackanapes:
I'm no expert on his beliefs, but he is / isn't an Evangelical depending on who is commenting. Some further reading from various viewpoints:
Christian Today
Scottish Liberal
Archbishop Cranmer
Can others open these links? For some reason they don't work for me.
[more link fixing]
[ 18. July 2015, 13:11: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on
:
There's no colon after the http, so browsers will misinterpret them and won't be able to open them.
It's possible to open them by fiddling with the url after clicking on it.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
Fixed now. Preview psot is your fiend, including for checking links.
/hosting
Posted by jackanapes (# 12374) on
:
Thanks. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The question of whether someone with a declared faith should be allowed to lead a major political party
David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher. 4 of the last 5 Prime Ministers.
I wonder where the ones who say that you can't be allowed get their information from.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's certainly causing some Lib Dems to question their ability to conscientiously remain within the Party - I know of an instance locally of someone who has resigned from membership following Tim Farron's election as leader - on the grounds that they don't believe his views on same-sex marriage are compatible with 21st century Liberal values.
They are entitled to hold that view, of course, just as Tim Farron is entitled to his.
The question is whether his presence as leader will hamper the party's progress.
I don't know anything about Farron's rise in the LibDem party, but it's surprising that they've ended up choosing someone who might be an evangelical. Seems a bit risky.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's difficult to generalise, but on some of the more Dead Horse issues I suspect Farron will be out of synch with the broad consensus within his Party.
Possibly now. I've heard it on good authority that the party lost more members over gay marriage than they did over tuition fees.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Being a Lib Dem is risky. The Party has had more ups and downs than Alton Towers.
I can't see why Farron as an evangelical is any more of a risk than Lamb would have been. He's bound to disappoint full-on evangelicals who don't find him sufficiently full-on - whereas non-evangelicals will consider him way too full-on. We'll see.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jackanapes:
So, Tim Farron has been elected as leader of the Liberal Democrat party in the UK.
Tim who has been elected as leader of the what-was-that?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The question of whether someone with a declared faith should be allowed to lead a major political party
David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher. 4 of the last 5 Prime Ministers.
I wonder where the ones who say that you can't be allowed get their information from.
Harold Macmillan was another. He was a devout high-church Anglican, and as regular attender at the church near his country home of Birchgrove as his official duties permitted - IIRC, he regularly read a lesson there.
Let's not forget that the House of Commons prayer group in the late 40's included half or more of the Labour cabinet, starting with Stafford Cripps, as well as many on the Tory front bench,
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I can't see why Farron as an evangelical is any more of a risk than Lamb would have been. He's bound to disappoint full-on evangelicals who don't find him sufficiently full-on - whereas non-evangelicals will consider him way too full-on.
That's why he's risky. He could irritate people all across the spectrum!
Cultural Christians seem to be more acceptable because they can reflect an appreciation of the country's Christian heritage while creating no expectation (or fear) that they'll vote in a particularly religious way on any given issue.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
All political parties should therefore go for "bland" leaders? Perhaps it also helps if they are (to quote Sir Humphrey) "morally malleable".
Jim Wallis (the US radical evangelical) observed the tendency in politicians to be "wind-testers" (i.e people who tested the direction of popularity and went that way). I'm not sure that's a very good indicator of integrity myself. In the UK at least the major problem facing politicians is the general cynical belief that they are self-serving and lack integrity.
Strange world. We want our political leaders to be people of integrity but would deny them the right to have consistent convictions which are not entirely popular. There's an element of "wanting our cake and eating it" in all of that.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I would like to see more faith in political leadership.
It would be easier to have faith in political leadership if they showed themselves to be more trustworthy.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Jim Wallis (the US radical evangelical) observed the tendency in politicians to be "wind-testers" (i.e people who tested the direction of popularity and went that way). I'm not sure that's a very good indicator of integrity myself.
As Mhairi Black said this week, quoting Tony Benn, we need politicians who are sign posts pointing us towards better things rather than weathercocks.
We'd all have a lot more faith in politics if there were a lot less cocks in political leadership.
In relation to Tim Farron I'm in a "wait and see" position, as I don't know enough about him to judge at the moment - and, of course, zero data on leading a political party.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
It seems very odd and deeply disturbing, that someone - anyone - should argue that a politician's being a Christian, in this case a member of the CofE, the established church, the same church as has the Queen as its supreme governor, should be regarded as rendering him unsuitable to be leader of a political party. If people were to start saying that it was wrong that an avowed atheist or a person of no known current religious practice like Ed Miliband, should be leader of a political party, all the chattering classes of Islington would go berserk with accusations of outragious prejudice.
As for arguments about the possible political implications of to which ecclesiastical party a person might lean, that really is something from the era of Gladstone. Even in the very, very unlikely event of there being a Lib-Dem Prime Minister in our lifetimes, the PM doesn't appoint the bishops these days.
There was a similar disturbing argument a few years ago about whether Ruth Kelly's faith should have barred her from political office. This wasn't on the traditional fears of Papal Aggression or potential allegiance to a foreign power, but on the simpler ground that she was known to be someone who took her faith seriously.
If it is regarded as wrong that a politician should have already decided they don't like abortion or euthanasia, it should equally be wrong for them already to have decided that they do. At least that would mean we'd be for ever spared of having to hear Lord Falconer speaking about anything else, ever again.
Does that make it an insult to other known practising Christians in politics if the media doesn't seem to regard them as at risk as well.
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
So, the problem seems to be that this guy might be evangelical, rather than liberal. Seems kind of ironic to me, for the leader of the Liberal Party. Or don't words mean anything anymore, in this Vale of Political Expediency?
Cheers, PV.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Ah well - since when was political liberalism required to align itself with theological liberalism?
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
So, the problem seems to be that this guy might be evangelical, rather than liberal. Seems kind of ironic to me, for the leader of the Liberal Party. Or don't words mean anything anymore, in this Vale of Political Expediency?
Cheers, PV.
The words mean different things in different realms. There is nothing fundamentally inconsistent about an evangelical supporting the Liberal party.
The problem seems to be that he associates with a position that has elements with extreme views that are not currently popular. I think he needs to make his position clear, and stand by it, while making it clear that he is open to other views, that he can listen and lead his party in the right way.
It does make me wonder what the Conservative Evangelical wing of the church think that they have achieved by making their position one that appears to be incompatible with high political office. Given that the Evangelical church has a superb record of important political involvement, I think they have lost their way.
And I wonder where the Christian challenge to the political direction will come from instead. We need people who will challenge the flow, the popular direction, and will do this from a definitively Christian perspective.
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Ah well - since when was political liberalism required to align itself with theological liberalism?
Indeed. We even have to be careful with political liberalism, it seems. There are liberals who really want us all free, and liberals who only really want the rich free. We should not confuse the two, any more than we should confuse the two political wings of Christianity. But I do think that political liberals who want us all free, and Christian liberals, have much in common and own the label.
There are evangelicals, and there are conservatives. Neither of them are really, consistently, liberals, only liberal towards those who agree with them. So we should call them what they are. And let the liberal title be honestly earned and owned by those who wear the cap, because it fits.
Best wishes, PV.
[ 19. July 2015, 20:22: Message edited by: PilgrimVagrant ]
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
We even have to be careful with political liberalism, it seems. There are liberals who really want us all free, and liberals who only really want the rich free. We should not confuse the two, any more than we should confuse the two political wings of Christianity. But I do think that political liberals who want us all free, and Christian liberals, have much in common and own the label.
It appears Farron was elected leader of the Liberal Democrats largely because he had consistently dissociated himself from the coalition, in particular voting against the bedroom tax. He's also claiming that he can separate his private opinions (about which he is not forthcoming) on dead horse issues from a public politically liberal position. So it looks to me that he is a counterexample to your above generalisation.
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
We shall see.
I confess, I am suspicious of a politician who will not tell us his deepest convictions. Maybe that suspicion is misplaced.
We shall see.
Best wishes, PV.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
Of course personal faith and moral convictions should influence policy decisions and voting. I would like to know more about the faith (or lack of it) and any moral code held as important to a candidate before an election, and find it disappointing that it is not seen as important enough to mention. Or perhaps it isn't seen as pc, or is perceived as harmful rocket material from the direction of the press, best avoided....
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
He's also claiming that he can separate his private opinions (about which he is not forthcoming) on dead horse issues from a public politically liberal position. So it looks to me that he is a counterexample to your above generalisation.
Isn't that kind of the point of liberalism as a philosophy? Voting for people's freedom to live as they want, even if it isn't the morally correct way to live from your POV, seems to me to be the very essence of liberalism.
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
He's also claiming that he can separate his private opinions (about which he is not forthcoming) on dead horse issues from a public politically liberal position. So it looks to me that he is a counterexample to your above generalisation.
Isn't that kind of the point of liberalism as a philosophy? Voting for people's freedom to live as they want, even if it isn't the morally correct way to live from your POV, seems to me to be the very essence of liberalism.
Uh huh. But there is a conflict here, between the evangelical desire to convert us all to their point of view on these so-called dead horse issues, so we can, from their point of view, be saved, and the (theologically) liberal idea that God will sort out these dead horse issues in His own good time, and, meanwhile, we have no business casting judgment while we have planks of our own to remove.
Furthermore, the politically liberal idea that we should all be free works well with theologically liberal stance, and is not at all compatible with an evangelical stance, which is more consistent with the neo-liberal conservatism that is persuaded it has special access to Ultimate Truth, both religious and political.
So it seems to me, anyway. If you think me mistaken, please advise.
Thanks and best wishes, PV.
[ 20. July 2015, 20:32: Message edited by: PilgrimVagrant ]
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
He's also claiming that he can separate his private opinions (about which he is not forthcoming) on dead horse issues from a public politically liberal position. So it looks to me that he is a counterexample to your above generalisation.
Isn't that kind of the point of liberalism as a philosophy? Voting for people's freedom to live as they want, even if it isn't the morally correct way to live from your POV, seems to me to be the very essence of liberalism.
Uh huh. But there is a conflict here, between the evangelical desire to convert us all to their point of view on these so-called dead horse issues, so we can, from their point of view, be saved, and the (theologically) liberal idea that God will sort out these dead horse issues in His own good time, and, meanwhile, we have no business casting judgment while we have planks of our own to remove.
Furthermore, the politically liberal idea that we should all be free works well with theologically liberal stance, and is not at all compatible with an evangelical stance, which is more consistent with the neo-liberal conservatism that is persuaded it has special access to Ultimate Truth, both religious and political.
So it seems to me, anyway. If you think me mistaken, please advise.
Thanks and best wishes, PV.
I think you are mistaken.
There are plenty of evangelicals (certainly in the UK) who believe in a liberal state and a conservative church. They believe that the heart of the message is personal conversion to faith in Christ and that the best political environment for that is one in which there is freedom to preach the Gospel, and people to make their own moral decisions. These people tend to be Baptist or free church and contra the article quoted above that's the tradition to which Tim Farron belongs, as far as I know. These people believe that Christians have no business imposing a Christian morality on people who aren't Christians. Life change follows personal conversion, and so religious freedom is at the heart of their engagement with the public sphere.
The politically liberal idea that we should all be free works very well with the evangelical view that the truth of the Gospel, given the freedom to be heard brings internal moral change from the heart which cannot be imposed from outside. It seems to me that theological liberalism, in which the Gospel is construed often in terms of economic equality, is most often associated with rather wet socialist politics. Political liberalism sits far better, IMO, alongside a tradition which has free personal conversion at its centre.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I also have not seen much if any correlation in UK conditions between political, social or theological liberalism - whatever that word might mean in each context.
There is a slight correlation between being theologically conservative and not being socially liberal. Even that depends on what your touchstones are for being 'liberal'. Even if you do it entirely by people's attitudes to various dead horse issues, they aren't consistent because the reasons why people think as they do don't necessarily derive from their social attitudes. It's one of the things that throws secular journalists.
I don't think there's any correlation between any of the other permutations. There are, for example, many significant Roman Catholics (not usually a mark of being either theologically or dead-horse liberal) in all three UK wide political parties. I haven't been able to find figures for the new Parliament, but
this article from the Tablet in 2010 gives the figures for the previous one.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
But there is a conflict here, between the evangelical desire to convert us all to their point of view on these so-called dead horse issues
I'm certainly not going to deny that we have a desire to convert people (or, more accurately that we would preach the gospel through words and deed, and that thereby people would convert). But, that's conversion to a living faith in Christ Jesus, not a defined position on particular issues.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
But there is a conflict here, between the evangelical desire to convert us all to their point of view on these so-called dead horse issues, so we can, from their point of view, be saved, and the (theologically) liberal idea that God will sort out these dead horse issues in His own good time, and, meanwhile, we have no business casting judgment while we have planks of our own to remove.
As a theological 'liberal' on this particular dead horse issue, the only reason I don't want to go about converting conservatives is that I doubt that my efforts would be effective. I don't believe God will sort it out - the ethics of the matter are about as sorted out as they need to be.
We have no business casting judgement on our conservative brothers and sisters, as long as they aren't causing harm by their views, true.
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
Farron has been savaged by the ''liberal'' media for his beliefs. Archbishop Cranmer has outlined this on his blog site.
Mind you Farron has a mammoth task to salvage the damage Clegg and crew have done to the party.
I applaud his beliefs and only wish there were more Christians in politics. Despite all the nasty comments from our illiberal media.
I am sure Farron will do the best job he is able to.
Saul
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Farron has been savaged by the ''liberal'' media for his beliefs. Archbishop Cranmer has outlined this on his blog site.
As an aside; As someone of a mostly conservative-evangelical bent, I'm constantly bemused by the amount of attention conservatives pay to the 'cranmer' blog - in a previous age someone who referred to themselves in the third person would be confined to writing letters to the editor in green ink.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I notice that Farron delivered a scathing attack on the Govt's Welfare Bill, which passed through the Commons last night. Interesting that he seems to be taking a more left-wing approach, although I suppose this is partly a reaction to the demolition derby which has happened to the LibDems, following the coalition. 'Widening inequality is economically stupid'.
Strange that he is now positioned to the left of Labour, but it's all a bit empty with 8 MPs.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Farron has been savaged by the ''liberal'' media for his beliefs. Archbishop Cranmer has outlined this on his blog site.
As an aside; As someone of a mostly conservative-evangelical bent, I'm constantly bemused by the amount of attention conservatives pay to the 'cranmer' blog - in a previous age someone who referred to themselves in the third person would be confined to writing letters to the editor in green ink.
That particular piece was by a guest writer. They tend to be less..er...esoteric.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Strange that he is now positioned to the left of Labour, but it's all a bit empty with 8 MPs.
I don't think it's that strange. On many issues, the LibDems have been to the left of Labour for a long time - at least, left of the Labour leadership, a lot of people in the grass roots Labour movement are much further left than their leadership. As Labour moved right they passed the LibDems on the way.
In 2010 it would have made a lot more sense for the LibDems to join with Labour, having a lot more in common than with the Tories. But, Clegg had said he would seek coalition with the largest party, and that's what he did. For a lot of LibDems that seemed to be the biggest betrayal of all - the specifics of voting on tuition fees etc were just symptoms of the bigger issue of betraying thei left of centre political views.
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
Cranmer's blog doesn't proceed to consider the hypothetical situation of, say, a Muslim elected as party leader. Nor am I sure the same level of attention would be brought to bear upon an Orthodox or RC Christian.
Personal views are always going to matter in public office, but it's known and accepted that adherents of the religious systems mentioned above have many ethical positions established for them, though there is always room for a bit of manoeuvre - and often challenge - but within the system.
In Protestant Christianity, why some decide one thing and others decide another thing is a legitimate question.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Historically, I think Leprechaun's view fits with used to be called 'the non-conformist conscience' and I'd agree with him that political liberalism can sit comfortably alongside the kind of Free Church - and particularly baptistic - evangelicalism that he describes.
I'm not sure whether Farron is from an Anglican evangelical background or a 'free church' one but the two tend to be pretty close in terms of political and moral views in my experience - and for some time now I think it would have been possible to see the evangelical wing of the CofE as the Liberal Democrats at prayer on most issues other than the Dead Horse ones.
Locally, quite a few Lib Dem members and activists have some kind of church affiliation - mostly Methodist and Anglican as they have traditionally been the strongest bodies hereabouts.
That said, there have been rumblings and some people have left the Party over Farron's views on Dead Horse issues. There's going to be a discussion about it all at one of the informal local party meetings in September.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
... In 2010 it would have made a lot more sense for the LibDems to join with Labour, having a lot more in common than with the Tories. But, Clegg had said he would seek coalition with the largest party, and that's what he did. For a lot of LibDems that seemed to be the biggest betrayal of all - the specifics of voting on tuition fees etc were just symptoms of the bigger issue of betraying thei left of centre political views.
Perhaps, but with all due respect, that's wishful rewriting of history. The maths of the 2010 election result meant that Labour could not have formed an administration with just the Lib Dems. Any prospect of forming one would have depended on too many other variables.
There was another fairly absolute kibosh to any prospect of such a thing, which is that so far as anyone can tell, Gordon Brown would only have been willing to carry on with a solely Labour minority administration with external support from the other willing parties. He also assumed it meant the administration carrying on with him in charge. By all reports, and one can't disagree with them on this, the Lib Dems were very clear that any prospect of deal with Labour must mean somebody else, not Gordon.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The maths of the 2010 election result meant that Labour could not have formed an administration with just the Lib Dems. Any prospect of forming one would have depended on too many other variables.
They couldn't have formed a majority administration with 315 MPs. But, if every non-Tory MP either voted with them or abstained that would have swung every vote in the Commons. It might have needed more consultation on bills and accept amendments from other parties - but that's not a bad idea anyway, getting bills passed because they're good ideas rather than just because the whips get the members to vote the "right" way - but it would have been a government.
quote:
There was another fairly absolute kibosh to any prospect of such a thing, which is that so far as anyone can tell, Gordon Brown would only have been willing to carry on with a solely Labour minority administration with external support from the other willing parties. He also assumed it meant the administration carrying on with him in charge. By all reports, and one can't disagree with them on this, the Lib Dems were very clear that any prospect of deal with Labour must mean somebody else, not Gordon.
Well, that's a different argument. And, whether Brown could manage a minority government with less MPs than the Tories for any length of time is another question. It would require a certain amount of compromise of personal dislike.
But, it's all academic now. Except for my original point that in 2010 the LibDems were politically closer to Labour and for many grassroots members and supporters an attempt to form a coalition with Labour (even if that attempt proved futile) was the ideal choice. Not doing that was seen by many as a betrayal.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The problem seems to be that [Farron] associates with a position that has elements with extreme views that are not currently popular. I think he needs to make his position clear, and stand by it, while making it clear that he is open to other views, that he can listen and lead his party in the right way.
It does make me wonder what the Conservative Evangelical wing of the church think that they have achieved by making their position one that appears to be incompatible with high political office. Given that the Evangelical church has a superb record of important political involvement, I think they have lost their way.
And I wonder where the Christian challenge to the political direction will come from instead. We need people who will challenge the flow, the popular direction, and will do this from a definitively Christian perspective.
In a so-called post-Christian age it's unsurprising that 'high political office' and evangelical beliefs are problematic bedfellows.
At the moment more moderate or possibly liberal Christian leaders would be a better fit for the culture we're in. David Cameron is more a Christian of this type, and he introduced SSM to the nation.
Being CofE seems to be more of the age than the alternatives, and for some reason I find it easier to imagine a Muslim PM than a Baptist or a Pentecostal one, etc. And Tony Blair waited until he left office to 'come out' as RC.
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
Cameron's views on Christianity seem to duck and weave a bit.
He stated that his faith tended to be like Radio Chiltern or similar, reception dropped in and out.
Cameron may or may not have a faith, but whenever he strays onto Christian doctrine (like he did last Christmas) the results seem messy and I'm not sure doctrinally where he stands on say Jesus' sacrifice on the cross for instance.
But that's another debate!
Saul
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I would have thought that you'd have become aware by now, Saul the Apostle, that there are plenty of different views among professing Christians and between Christian traditions as to what Christ's sacrifice on the cross means ...
Yes, Cameron's religious views do seem to flicker and fade - but he has acknowledged as much and his Chiltern's Radio analogy is probably apt.
Whatever we think of Cameron and/or his religious views it doesn't strike me that he is expressing a dishonest opinion there - he's simply stating where he's 'at' ... and you can certainly find plenty of people across the CofE and more generally whose religious position would be similar to his.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, Cameron's religious views do seem to flicker and fade - but he has acknowledged as much and his Chiltern's Radio analogy is probably apt.
Whatever we think of Cameron and/or his religious views it doesn't strike me that he is expressing a dishonest opinion there - he's simply stating where he's 'at'
Of course - but by the same token I'd argue that therefore we don't really know what he actually believes and therefore we can't really know what sort of morality he would sign up to.
Those who are, are generally making a category error (except the writer of the cranmer blog/God is just like WG Grace/God is an Englishman just like me but more so contingent)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Cameron's views on Christianity seem to duck and weave a bit.
He stated that his faith tended to be like Radio Chiltern or similar, reception dropped in and out.
Cameron may or may not have a faith, but whenever he strays onto Christian doctrine (like he did last Christmas) the results seem messy and I'm not sure doctrinally where he stands on say Jesus' sacrifice on the cross for instance.
I think this is the point, really. Lots of British people may identify with Cameron's vague faith, while feeling at best somewhat uncertain about Farron's certainty.
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
It's all orthodox Christianity which is problematic in high office now, not simply "evangelical".
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think there is something of a mild back-lash against the more, shall we say, 'authoritarian' anti-religious stance of certain popular writers and thinkers, Vatican-chic but I think there's something in what you say ...
David Alton the former Liberal and Liberal Democrat MP and later life-peer, had well-known issues with his own party over his views on abortion - although it's meant to be an issue where there is no substantive position within the party itself ...
In practice, though, I tend to find that many Lib Dems tend to assume that the de-facto and default position within the party is a pro-abortion, pro-same-sex marriage one ...
It'll be interesting to see how this issue is handled at the discussion sessions the local branch plans for September.
So, a strongly RC or o/Orthodox believer in a high political office might well find themselves out on a limb -- not just evangelicals.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think there is something of a mild back-lash against the more, shall we say, 'authoritarian' anti-religious stance of certain popular writers and thinkers, Vatican-chic but I think there's something in what you say ...
David Alton the former Liberal and Liberal Democrat MP and later life-peer, had well-known issues with his own party over his views on abortion - although it's meant to be an issue where there is no substantive position within the party itself ...
In practice, though, I tend to find that many Lib Dems tend to assume that the de-facto and default position within the party is a pro-abortion, pro-same-sex marriage one ...
It'll be interesting to see how this issue is handled at the discussion sessions the local branch plans for September.
So, a strongly RC or o/Orthodox believer in a high political office might well find themselves out on a limb -- not just evangelicals.
Even moreso I'd have thought, seeing as it's much more difficult to (consistently) buy into "two-kingdoms" theology if you are RC or Orthodox (or Anglican actually!)
ETA: Just googled and the Catholics do have a similar "two-swords" doctrine. Excuse my ignorance.
[ 24. July 2015, 09:53: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Even more so I'd have thought, seeing as it's much more difficult to (consistently) buy into "two-kingdoms" theology if you are RC or Orthodox (or Anglican actually!)
ETA: Just googled and the Catholics do have a similar "two-swords" doctrine. Excuse my ignorance.
I think you may need to explain that.
Incidentally, I thought 'two swords' was a reference to an attempt to base the respective authorities of the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor on a far fetched foundation of the single verse Lk 22:38 If that's your reference, I'd be surprised if that is still Catholic teaching, or has been any time in the last 450 years.
I think again, you might need to enlighten us how it relates to the discussion on this thread.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Nah, sorry Leprechaun, as someone who has been involved with Free Church and 'new church' settings as well as the CofE - and with plenty of RC and Orthodox contacts to boot - I don't 'buy that'.
Heck, I've heard a number of RCs and Orthodox people here in the UK criticise the CofE for being part of the 'establishment' - even though their respective Churches are part of the establishment in other parts of the world ...
I can see where you're coming from, though ... but agree with Enoch that it may not be as much of an issue as it looks from outside ...
Equally, I took Vatican-chic's comment to refer to Christians with a relatively 'conservative' or orthodox theology (small o) rather the RC or Orthodox Churches per se ...
What I took Vatican-chic to be saying was that Christians of any 'orthodox' persuasion - not just evangelicals - would be put in an awkward position if they were to attain high political office.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Even more so I'd have thought, seeing as it's much more difficult to (consistently) buy into "two-kingdoms" theology if you are RC or Orthodox (or Anglican actually!)
ETA: Just googled and the Catholics do have a similar "two-swords" doctrine. Excuse my ignorance.
I think you may need to explain that.
Incidentally, I thought 'two swords' was a reference to an attempt to base the respective authorities of the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor on a far fetched foundation of the single verse Lk 22:38 If that's your reference, I'd be surprised if that is still Catholic teaching, or has been any time in the last 450 years.
I think again, you might need to enlighten us how it relates to the discussion on this thread.
Sorry, I didn't mean to be opaque. I can just do it naturally obviously.
I guess the normal two-kingdoms position is that the church should be separate to and a prophetic voice to the state. The corresponding political view is something with it's roots in Mill or someone I guess: that the state's job is to promote and allow freedom, not to enforce a religious morality. Thus someone like Tim Farron should be able to say "I think homosexual sex is a sin" (if he does think that) but I will always, perfectly consistently vote for people to have freedom to make whatever legal relationships they so wish.
I'd have thought, since Anglicanism is wedded to the church-state connection, there's much more expectation that the state should govern along the moral lines set by the church.
The new church setting is interesting - lots of it influenced by more Calvinist views which are different again.
According to Wikipedia - always reliable - Roman Catholicism does have a doctrine of certain things being within the bounds of the church to legislate and certain things being within the bounds of the state. I am totally ignorant apart from google of any RC political philosophy, so sorry if I got that wrong!
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In 2010 it would have made a lot more sense for the LibDems to join with Labour, having a lot more in common than with the Tories. But, Clegg had said he would seek coalition with the largest party, and that's what he did. For a lot of LibDems that seemed to be the biggest betrayal of all - the specifics of voting on tuition fees etc were just symptoms of the bigger issue of betraying thei left of centre political views.
There is a strong philosophical difference between Labour and the Lib Dems which is generally underplayed if not ignored entirely. To caricature grossly, Lib Dems do not believe that you solve problems by making rules about stuff. In that respect, they have always been a lot closer to the Tories than to Labour. Their emphasis on localism has, to my mind, always been inexplicable to many Labour supporters. Nevertheless, it once again reflects an important divide - Lib Dems think localities should govern themselves whereas Labour has tended to centralise aggresively.
The Lib Dems have never been a yellow version of Labour.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
I have it on good authority that Farron intends to be open/receptive to different views on this particular Dead Horse, and a friend to the community involved.
I am not a LD so all this has really passed me by, but I would say that the Channel 4 interview etc is more down to a media 'church illiteracy' (sorry, it's early - can't think of a better term!). The media can just about understand the differences between Catholicism, Protestantism, and Orthodox. Different strands within those categories are beyond them, let alone the existence of Christians on 'opposing' sides regarding things like Dead Horses. For me the issue with the Channel 4 interview was a lack of understanding that there are a variety of Christian standpoints.
It's a bit like when Dawkins et al assume that all Christians take Genesis totally literally - nuance in Christianity (and indeed other faiths) is beyond the media's comprehension.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
There is a strong philosophical difference between Labour and the Lib Dems which is generally underplayed if not ignored entirely. ...
The Lib Dems have never been a yellow version of Labour.
I hope I wasn't implying that the LibDems and Labour are/were in some sense identical, or even particularly close. The differences in philosophy were sufficient for the SDP to leave Labour in the first place, although as a centrist group it might be said that the SDP and New Labour were a bit closer than the SDP and the Labour Party they left.
What I was stating was that a coalition (which is between politically distinct groups) made more sense between LibDems and Labour than between LibDems and Tories. At least as far as LibDems being politically closer to Labour on more positions than they were to the Tories. Clearly the numbers game of actually forming a majority coalition, and the pre-election commitment from Clegg to seek coalition with the largest party (and the rather commendable, if highly unusual, integrity to actually do what he'd said).
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
Although Clegg received much criticism from Lib Dems for going into coalition with the Tories, I don't feel he had much choice. Some Lib Dems like Shirley Williams thought they should've gone into coalition with Labour, but even if the numbers had worked, I think that would've been profoundly undemocratic. Labour had failed to convince the electorate to give them another majority, and the Conservatives were the largest party both in terms of seats and % of the national vote.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
Although Clegg received much criticism from Lib Dems for going into coalition with the Tories, I don't feel he had much choice. Some Lib Dems like Shirley Williams thought they should've gone into coalition with Labour, but even if the numbers had worked, I think that would've been profoundly undemocratic. Labour had failed to convince the electorate to give them another majority, and the Conservatives were the largest party both in terms of seats and % of the national vote.
The fact was though that the Conservatives had not convinced the electorate to give them a majority either. There was no obligation upon the Liberal Democrats to act as if the Conservatives had done.
If the Liberal Democrats had felt (correctly as it turns out) that the majority of their voters would be opposed to a Conservative coalition then it would be perfectly democratic for them to refuse to enter one.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
BTW, is Farron in the CofE? It would be ironic, I suppose, if his colleagues thought that having a leader who was active in the established church was problematic. Maybe that proves how pointless establishment is!
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
BTW, is Farron in the CofE? It would be ironic, I suppose, if his colleagues thought that having a leader who was active in the established church was problematic. Maybe that proves how pointless establishment is!
I don't know if he is, but if he is the fact that he's in the Established church is irrelevant - there are plenty of Anglicans in the Lib Dems, just relatively few evangelical ones.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Well, perhaps the Lib Dems would be even more alarmed if he were an evangelical from some other denomination. Actually, I can't imagine a non-CofE evangelical getting anywhere near the leadership of any well-known political party. It's probably more likely if you're a RC, as Andy Burnham is.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Well, perhaps the Lib Dems would be even more alarmed if he were an evangelical from some other denomination. Actually, I can't imagine a non-CofE evangelical getting anywhere near the leadership of any well-known political party. It's probably more likely if you're a RC, as Andy Burnham is.
To my knowledge, he attends an independent church.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Ah well, perhaps that indicates the start of an independent evangelical takeover! Maybe the members are right to worry! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I wonder if any journalist has investigated the church's teachings. That would be very interesting.
[ 02. August 2015, 19:17: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I have a relative who attends the same church as he does. As far as I know it's a modernised Open Brethren assembly.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
How does the denomination see his political ascendancy? Are the other members concerned, ambivalent or overjoyed that he'll bring the Open Brethren to greater public attention?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
... What I was stating was that a coalition (which is between politically distinct groups) made more sense between LibDems and Labour than between LibDems and Tories. At least as far as LibDems being politically closer to Labour on more positions than they were to the Tories. Clearly the numbers game of actually forming a majority coalition, and the pre-election commitment from Clegg to seek coalition with the largest party (and the rather commendable, if highly unusual, integrity to actually do what he'd said).
As I said on this thread on 21st July, any notion now that a coalition between Labour and the LibDems was ever going to happen after the results in 2010 is wishful thinking.
Gordon Brown was only willing to consider a minority Labour administration led by him, with other parties not in government but agreeing not to vote him down. Any alternative would have required his front bench to be willing to stage a palace coup against him and do a deal while metaphorically stabbing him in the back.
First of all, that isn't the Labour way. Second, even if it was, that would have meant them throwing away hanging on for the prospect of what they actually wanted - a Labour administration - for something they didn't know whether they could get.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Gordon Brown was only willing to consider a minority Labour administration led by him, with other parties not in government but agreeing not to vote him down.
Source? That was not the impression I got at the time, nor is it the impression I have got from subsequent accounts.
My understanding is that Brown accepted that any deal was going to require his resignation.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
How does the denomination see his political ascendancy? Are the other members concerned, ambivalent or overjoyed that he'll bring the Open Brethren to greater public attention?
The Open Brethren are resolutely not a denomination. Also, they tend to ascribe to a classic free church view of the state: ie, it should just let us get on with living quiet godly lives. So I would imagine it doesn't cross their mind that one of the "theirs" is in a position of power and that might serve them well.
OTOH, I would guess that, unlike everyone else, they are finding his answers on dead horse issues rather too liberal.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, I think Leprechaun has nailed it ... it would be wrong to think of the Open Brethren as having any kind of cohesive 'party line' on an issue like Farron's leadership of the Lib Dems.
As far as our local branch of the Lib Dems goes - they seem almost equally divided on the issue. Some think that his religious views are neither here nor there and that he is entitled to them - whatever they might be ...
Others have reacted with horror and think they've got some kind of raving looney-tunes Appallachian snake-handler in charge ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
With most people somewhere along the wide spectrum between those viewpoints.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The Open Brethren are resolutely not a denomination.
Sorry for the tangent, but do you mean that they're not a denomination in the sociological sense, or in some other sense, or are you referring to something else?
quote:
Also, they tend to ascribe to a classic free church view of the state: ie, it should just let us get on with living quiet godly lives. So I would imagine it doesn't cross their mind that one of the "theirs" is in a position of power and that might serve them well.
So they simply ignore it. That's interesting. The party and the nation might find it helpful to know that his religious group have no interest at all in his political activities.
The Methodists have traditionally been calmly proud if one of theirs does well politically, although they were quiet about Mrs Thatcher, probably because she was too right wing for a fairly left of centre denomination.
[ 03. August 2015, 17:44: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
A correction:
quote:
... do you mean that they're not a denomination in the sociological sense, or are you referring to something else?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
The Open Brethren would be rather different to the Methodists, the Baptists or even groups of independent Baptists or the 'new church' networks in terms of the ties that exist between their various congregations ... I'd be surprised to find that they even had some kind of in-house magazine ...
Their churches would certainly interact - youth-camps perhaps, socials, sharing pulpits ... but this would probably be regionally rather than in any national sense. They may well attend some of the evangelical conferences and camps - but more as individuals or small groups from each church rather than anything more 'collective' than that.
My guess would be that over the years, though, they've become increasingly similar to other evangelical groups - more 'modernised' ... but beyond the ties of marriage (there'll be inter-connected families alright) and friendship, there wouldn't be much by way of formal connectivity ...
They'd be rather like the FIEC - Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches - but the FIEC would probably go in for in-house publications and other more formal means of creating and maintaining an identity.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
The usual caveats about Wikipedia apply but here's their entry on the Open Brethren:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Brethren
My guess would be that Farron's assembly wouldn't be that different in 'feel' to any other independent evangelical group - or indeed some of the more avowedly evangelical churches within the Baptist Union. I 'passed through' the Brethren very briefly in my early days as an evangelical -- when I was 19 or 20 ... those I knew tended to fellowship quite widely with other evangelicals or all stripes - but they were largely very suspicious of RCs and of the CofE to an extent.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
My best friend's husband grew up in an Open Brethren church and his parents still attended until very recently. Really very like most FIEC type churches I think, there were people into women wearing headscarves (for instance) but they were very much a minority. So it does seem to be quite a loose grouping of churches. When I was growing up, there was a congregation of Taylorite Brethren in my city and some of the children went to my schools - hard for me to picture more liberal Brethren after that!
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
There is a MW report on an Open Brethren service here and another thread going relating to the denomination in Ecclesiantics.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0