160
LibDem leader Ed Davey wrote a letter to Keir Starmer (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk
28 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 36 points 1 year ago* (10 children)

In my opinion (don't @ me bro): The last credible leader and party we have in this country.

The way I see it, the only remotely "leftist" options we have are Zach "I can make women's breasts bigger through hypnosis" Polanski, Corbyn's not-quite-a-party that can't-quite-decide whether trans people should exist, or the Lib Dems.

As much as people see Ed Davey as a "joke leader" because of his stunts (because the media would only platform Mr Toad otherwise 🐸), I'm increasingly impressed by him. He's on the right side of basically every issue lately, you guys.

And is often the only person who is.

--
ETA: He also wrote to Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage. His letter alludes to that but doesn't make it super clear.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago

    I agree that Ed is a very competent and credible leader fronting possibly the most professional parties in Westminster (despite the stunts and gaffs). However I feel like you are parroting smears on Polanski and to and extent Corbyn.

    The hypnosis breasts incident was instigated by a Sun journalist and repeated every time he reaches any headlines by the right wing press. For a story that was largely fabricated.

    The Corbyn party I feel you have more of a point as they seem quite unorganised and split (and they have so much overlap with Green that there isn't all that much point). But didn't they cut association with the guy questioning trans rights?

    Just to add as well, there are other leftist options in the country who are doing quite well and currently seem pretty competent, though they are not English.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Ok, so Zack Polanski is absolutely spot on on every issue, more so than Ed Davey, who is a free marketeer who is happy to sell our power infrastructure to foreign interests. Ed Davey privatised Royal Mail and failed to investigate the Horizon scandal whilst in post as the minister for postal affairs. All prominent politicians have some shit in their past, so why are you picking on Polanski?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Corbyn's interview a few weeks ago called out vilifying of Trans folk and made clear they should feel safe from discrimination to live their lives.

    Yes there is one MP that has slightly different views but still made clear there should be safe spaces. Let's not make perfect be the enemy of good as I don't think any party has every MP with the same view on trans people and all issues close to our heart. I'm pretty confident Your Party will have a progressive view on Trans rights.

    Politics is like bus routes. You'll never find anything that goes exactly to your door, so you pick the one that gets you closest so you can walk the rest of the way.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    To extend your analogy.

    Corbin is promising to run a bus route that will maybe go in the vague approximate direction of where you live. But for some reason it's refusing to publish a route map.

    Until they have their conference they haven't set out any kind of road map.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    But for some reason it’s refusing to publish

    The reason is pretty darn clear and well documented.

    To ensure the overtaking of the party by workers and leadership. The way labour was. Is impossible.

    Equality including trans is part of the proposed founding. The roadmap to that founding process was sent out to supporters yesterday. And is expected to be complete by mid Nov.

    Official website and most of the forums openly opposed and ban anti trans members. I say most. I've not found any that don't. Only a few vocal idiots complaining about bans on social media. But it's the internet. I'm sure these sad trolls gather somewhere. Nothing official agrees with or tollerats them.

    Your repeated failure to understand how important membership authority is to a huge % of left wing supporters. And the processes required to make that happen. In no way backs up your accusations. And so far you have nothing else to support your claims. Your single MP example is (as all are until local members vote). An independent MP expressing his personal views. Not a party representative in any way.

    The founding proposal is clear. Only local party affiliations will have any right to appoint MPs. Leadership will not be allowed to parachute supporting MPs into constituencies as Labour and the Tories do.

    Yet you use the very process and time nessesery to support that. As some form of evidence the party fails to stand up to your ideals. It fails provide the proof you think it dose.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Yes, because he's a democrat. He can hardly set out positions without agreement.

    He'll not open the bus route without consulting the people to see if that is the optimal route, or seeing that there are enough drivers available to cover the routes.

    The funny thing is, people blast Keir for being an autocrat and not listening to folk and then unironically bash a democratic approach because they're hoping for someone to tell them what to do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Zach's is made up by tbe right wing ltress though. I guess repeat a lie often enough...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    I've just done a bunch of googling.

    Mostly he's just quoted as saying he didn't charge for the session. The "strongest" quote I could find said it "[was] not a service I ever have or would offer outside of the context of this article", which I guess just means he was dumb enough to be sucked in by the tabloid "journalist" who asked him to try it. 😬

    In the same interview, he was asked for details about how the article misrepresented the events, and he pointed to a 6-year-old [at the time] radio interview that was obviously longer available.

    Idk. It's slightly more nuanced than I'd assumed, but I now just think he's weak, a bit thick, and a poor communicator. 😅

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent