Metropol

Tim Farron's abysmal performance with Andrew Neil's Interview was cringeworthy. His days are numbered.

I don't doubt that Mr Farron is a genuinely decent bloke, unfortunately, he is one of the biggest wet blankets the libdems have had as a leader in a long time.

Makes the ming campbell era look positively electrifying.

Mind you, it's still a better prospect than five more years of Teresa May.

Honestly, I'd rather have Chancellor Diane Abbott than Farron in any sort of power.

And yet The Economist has endorsed the Lib Dems for the first time ever... though very much as a "least worst" option.

I've just seen a clip from LBC where Farron is asked whether he thinks being gay or gay sex is a sin.

Surely the question is meaningless?

What after all, is a 'sin', anyway?

An action which displeases God and is punishable by eternity in Hell.

I don't get how you can be a leader of a "liberal" party and believe in this guff.

The question seeks to establish where his true loyalty is - with the people of this land, and his natural supporters, or with a mythical imaginary friend in the sky?

Alexia wrote: ↑Fri 02 Jun, 2017 18.21 An action which displeases God and is punishable by eternity in Hell.

I don't get how you can be a leader of a "liberal" party and believe in this guff.

The question seeks to establish where his true loyalty is - with the people of this land, and his natural supporters, or with a mythical imaginary friend in the sky?

Mr Farron does indeed seem to suffer from an ideological schizophrenia. i wouldn't want to live in his mind, for sure.

but going back to your point, if i was asked if i felt something was a 'sin', accepting the definition of a 'sin' that is something which "displeases God" and is "punishable by eternity in Hell" is also meaningless.

what is "god"?
what is "hell"?

given that both are objectively undefined, the question is inherently unanswerable.

i think the various interviewers who asked this question are intellectually lazy, i can't help but think there might be a better question he could be asked which will reveal his true internalised views.

If you're lamenting the Metropol Election Chats of yore, we'll be up all night over on ChatPS. No need to register!

Well, this is interesting.

This is an excellent result for Labour.

The only coalition which looks possible is Tory + DUP - which would not be straightforward and would give a combined majority of only 2 or 3. Another General Election in the short term is completely inevitable. For me that leaves an interesting conundrum - Theresa May's position is untenable and there is no way the party would support her as their leader through another election, but on the other hand who is there that would attempt to pick up the pieces and reform in in the 2-3 months they have to prepare for a general election? All while knowing that there is significant momentum (lowercase 'm'!) behind Corbyn and plenty of seats with sub 2000 majorities to eat in to.

If I were Boris Johnson or one of the other likely contenders I would give it a wide berth.

As it stands, Corbyn will have the keys to Number 10 by Christmas. How the Conservatives will try to prevent that, I do not know - but I am fascinated to find out.

I would have said Amber Rudd was a dead cert to replace May, were it not for her tiny majority of just 300.