Sir Ed Davey - Lib. Dem Leader

[pquinn]

confused_buyer said:

Were there to be an election tomorrow on current polling the Lib Dems would likely have zero MPs.

Given how they've somehow manage to stuff the House of Lords over the years it'd still be decades before we were actually rid of Lib Dems in politics.

[JagLover]

Murph7355 said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

I suspect their stance of keeping EU membership front and centre of their policy priorities is smart. It should play well in 3-4 years time at the next GE when the withdrawal impact is beginning to bite and they should pick up a strong LG position along the way. Whist electoral outcomes 3 years out are guesswork, it's not improbable that neither party takes an overall majority in the next GE. It's very likely that the price that the Lib Dems will exact for entering into any coalition Govt in future is a second referendum on EU membership.

Have you been round to Derek's to play pass the bong?

If they couldn't capitalise on that position at the last two General Elections, there is no way on this Earth they are going to be huge beneficiaries of persisting with it in 4yrs' time when we'll have been fully out for that length of time.

Let's just say hypothetically we are doing demonstrably badly solely as a result of not being in the EU (good luck with that), do you think in that circumstance the EU would simply do a Dallas and readmit on all the old terms?

Or do you think things will have moved on in the EU (as they already have) and any rejoining would then involve removal of the veto, joining the Euro and increased contributions?

If you think the UK electorate would be up for rejoining in those circumstances, I think you've been cheating in the game with Derek

I think most people will be sick and tired of the EU debate (I suspect most already are). We'll be getting over other economic and geopolitical issues that make people realise Brexit wasn't the be all and end all after all. We'll have settled into new trading arrangements and people will actually realise the sky hasn't fallen in and may even realise the truth behind all the predictions - that they were hypothetical relative GROWTH estimates...so they'll never feel the pain so directly attributable to Brexit according to Remain voters.

The LibDems, and Labour for that matter, need to focus every single ounce of energy on matters that have a much more direct bearing on people's every day lives. Getting the country's finances sorted, education, health care, ageing demographics, revamping our economic base, energy, transport etc etc etc. Whoever puts the best case forward on those fronts in 4yrs' time will be the one that gets into power. And whoever does that without having "look at how bad they are" as the core argument will win out too - positive politics on what they will improve is going to be key.

Agree with all of that.

Most of the forecasts of negative impacts of Brexit focused on growth not being as high as some estimated future figure, not an actual fall in GDP.

Given all the lurid predictions of disaster the reality is likely to be a giant let down for the remain side. In four years time it will have faded as a political issue.

Also, and this is very important to remember. The Lib Dems were a political force mainly due to their base in the southwest. They fulfilled the Labour role of being an alternative to the Tories in those seats and did so by attracting working class support. How do you think basing their 2024 campaign around re-joining is going to go down with those voters?

[confused_buyer]

JagLover said:

Also, and this is very important to remember. The Lib Dems were a political force mainly due to their base in the southwest. They fulfilled the Labour role of being an alternative to the Tories in those seats and did so by attracting working class support. How do you think basing their 2024 campaign around re-joining is going to go down with those voters?

That's the problem. They are blissfully unaware that most of their voter base was Tories who for some reason didn't really want to vote Tory but certainly wouldn't vote Labour. The membership is the polar opposite to that and whilst they may be proud of their 120k members you need a few more than that in votes to win anything.

If they stay a one issue anti-Brexit campaign group they will push themselves further into irrelevance and if they simultaneously become some sort of Coryn tribute act as a new home for angry Momentum members and students with too much time on their hands they will never regain the voter base they had but in fact lose what little is left.

[Carl_Manchester]

Sir Ed was on Question Time last night, a bit of a missed opportunity really.

Summary: Talks about more government handouts, track and trace failures, no noise about removal of freedoms and boris threatening the use of the army on the streets.

[Carl_Manchester]

Sir Ed was on the Andrew Marr show this morning:

The interview starts at 16 minutes 40 seconds.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000n22c/the...

[anonymoususer]

Carl_Manchester said:

Sir Ed was on the Andrew Marr show this morning:

The interview starts at 16 minutes 40 seconds.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000n22c/the...

Not seen it but I'm sure its an excellent interview seeing as it features both an excellent interviewer and interviewee
Insighful political interviews like this are at the very heart of the excellent coverage on the BBC

[Carl_Manchester]

Sir Ed and the Lib Dem’s. will vote against the extension of the governments Coronavirus powers today.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/coronavirus-a...

[Carl_Manchester]

Sir Ed is going down with the ship on this one.

[eliot]

who?

[Johnnytheboy]

It's good this thread has popped up: I'd quite forgotten who is the leader of the LD's. It's nice to be reminded now and then.

[pquinn]

Johnnytheboy said:

It's good this thread has popped up: I'd quite forgotten who is the leader of the LD's. It's nice to be reminded now and then.

I'd forgotten about the Lib Dems - they're an invisible rump of a party these days.

[the tribester]

pquinn said:

Johnnytheboy said:

It's good this thread has popped up: I'd quite forgotten who is the leader of the LD's. It's nice to be reminded now and then.

I'd forgotten about the Lib Dems - they're an invisible rump of a party these days.

Took the words from my mouth.

[SpeckledJim]

Carl_Manchester said:

Sir Ed is going down with the ship on this one.

It’d be funny if somehow the vote ends up very close, and Davey’s vote leads us to a No Deal Brexit.

Not ‘good’. But Swinsonian levels of ‘funny’.

[anonymoususer]

Carl_Manchester said:

Sir Ed is going down with the ship on this one.

So thats 11 against

[Derek Smith]

anonymoususer said:

Carl_Manchester said:

Sir Ed is going down with the ship on this one.

So thats 11 against

It's a way of absolving themselves of blame. As some have suggested on the Starmer thread, voting for the deal does limit one's ability to take the high ground if (when?) the financial problems become apparent. Just suggesting that it was better than no deal at all, if only just, will not be much of a defence.

The libdems are rather active around my way, especially with regards local problems, particularly the way the councils, almost all tory, have treated the electorate as theirs to own and ignore. The local tories had a number of in camera meetings - that's my reps making decisions and not telling me of them - but two recently voted in libdems have changed all that. There's going to be a financial problem with the rather expensive rebuild of the high street, with lots of big named shops, you know, the ones that no longer exist or are contracting. The libdems will gain from that if they have any sense, and, no doubt, point of the lack of work on demolished areas.

It's fair to say that no one could have predicted, at least with precision, the impact of a pandemic mid demolition, but I can confidently predict the libdems will mention it one or twice in their election literature next time.

I live in a safe tory seat, and the previous incumbent, and his replacement, have turned their backs on the electorate. Labour don't stand a chance, but the libdem vote went up at the last election. I'll vote for them, for local reasons, ie to get rid of the fat, lazy ones who enjoy their little sinecure.

[SpeckledJim]

Derek Smith said:

anonymoususer said:

Carl_Manchester said:

Sir Ed is going down with the ship on this one.

So thats 11 against

It's a way of absolving themselves of blame. As some have suggested on the Starmer thread, voting for the deal does limit one's ability to take the high ground if (when?) the financial problems become apparent. Just suggesting that it was better than no deal at all, if only just, will not be much of a defence.

The libdems are rather active around my way, especially with regards local problems, particularly the way the councils, almost all tory, have treated the electorate as theirs to own and ignore. The local tories had a number of in camera meetings - that's my reps making decisions and not telling me of them - but two recently voted in libdems have changed all that. There's going to be a financial problem with the rather expensive rebuild of the high street, with lots of big named shops, you know, the ones that no longer exist or are contracting. The libdems will gain from that if they have any sense, and, no doubt, point of the lack of work on demolished areas.

It's fair to say that no one could have predicted, at least with precision, the impact of a pandemic mid demolition, but I can confidently predict the libdems will mention it one or twice in their election literature next time.

I live in a safe tory seat, and the previous incumbent, and his replacement, have turned their backs on the electorate. Labour don't stand a chance, but the libdem vote went up at the last election. I'll vote for them, for local reasons, ie to get rid of the fat, lazy ones who enjoy their little sinecure.

A vote against the deal is a vote for a no deal exit with two days notice.

If they can find a clever set of words to rationalise that for their supporters then fair play to them.


It'll be interesting if that gets used by either side in the future. Not that it'll make much difference either way. The effects will be apparent in a few years (good and bad) but who did what in December 2020 will be long-gone as a topic of discussion in parliament, IMO.

[Carl_Manchester]

Sir Ed Davey: "Hello World..."

[768]

Ssshh. Let him nod back off.

[Carl_Manchester]

"Looks like I'm going to need a bigger hammer" - Sir Ed Davey 24th June 2022.

[andyA700]

Johnnytheboy said:

Oxbridge aside, he always struck me as a bit dense.

He is a total, utter wazzock, there is no hope for him and people like him.

https://twitter.com/bbcpolitics/status/14395129872...