I’m interested in the election of Tim Farron (who?) as the new leader of the Lib-dems. Very interested. He was voted on Thursday, it was in the papers yesterday. By this morning it has been relegated to the ‘un-newsworthy’. No longer of interest. They’re talking about Pluto, they’re talking about cricketing catastrophes, they’re talking about how to make killer kale with beans and fucking quinoa, but nothing about the Libs. Its as if they’re just some 4th rate, virtually unrepresented, hopeless group of almost-political no-hopers or somefink.

But the election was fascinating (zzzzz). There was Tim Farron and… er… someone called Lamb. And Tim Farron won. Wow. Brilliant. Nick Clegg resigned as leader and there were only 5 other MPs who could have stood. So Tim’s vote alone represented 12.5% of the political party vote. If you can name 3 out of those 5 other mps you win a chance to sit for the Esher by-election as Lib-Dem candidate.

Ok, there’s that geezer with the cardigan. Jenny Fascist, no; she became a peer before they slung the anti-semitic bitch out of the party altogether. There’s Jane, er, whassername and another bloke with a beard. Unless he shaved. And Michael Nebach. I think.

Anyway, Tim Farron. Great choice. He’s loud and northern, left wing (though as the libs are further left than labour these days, that barely earns a comment) and he’s an ‘evangelical Christian’. And they are a really annoying bunch. I don’t mind Christians as a rule, they kind’a do their thing, pray a bit, go to church, shake hands a lot and go home. But evangelical means that they bang on about it all the time. They evangelise. Try to get everyone else on board with them and Jesus.

If old Timbo wants to stand outside Waitrose with a “JESUS IS MY DUDE” sandwich board, that’s fine by me.

But he brings his baggage with him. Within 24 hours of his election he was asked, as a vocal opponent against gay marriage, if he thought homosexuality a sin. He hedged. We’re all sinners, he dodged. Wouldn’t be drawn into a debate he could only lose.

So how could he ever stand to run a country when he disagrees with most of the laws? Ok, with one of the laws. And don’t mention Sunday trading.

The Sun published pictures of 9 year old Princess Elizabeth making a nazi salute with her mother in 1933. Oh. My. Gooooooooood!!!!!!

Then you have to think: this is the Sun. They don’t use the word ‘context’ in such a rag. They just create their own for maximum sensationalism.

Firstly, the (future and current) Queens might have just been larking around, making fun of Herr Hitler’s followers in Die Fatherland. But secondly, and much more importantly; it was 1933. The very start of the Nazi party. They were fairly obnoxious, but there was no indication of the horrors to come over the following 6 year advance to power and another 6 of the war. The Nazis were fairly benign nationalist lederhosen sponsors. You can’t interpret the gesture using values that weren’t to exist for another 3/4 years. Well you can, but you’d be a misguided tosser. Or the Sun. Same difference.

Happy Saturday

A xxxx