Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Why would as anyone want to vote Reform.  OTT by Davey but why ate you saying it was disastrous?  Just catching up on Newsnight and they are having an adult conversation on this 

Edited by malumbu
Reform not refit, must emember to put glasses on
  • Like 1
On 23/09/2025 at 23:01, malumbu said:

Why would as anyone want to vote Reform.  OTT by Davey but why ate you saying it was disastrous?  Just catching up on Newsnight and they are having an adult conversation on this 

I wasn’t asking if anyone would vote Reform? But as you’ve brought it up. It was a very theatrical speech as usual by Ed Davey. Why he mentioned Nigel Farage’s name 38 times but Keir Starmer’s name just once in his once in a while chance to push his party’s plans for the future I don’t know. There was nothing laid out by this man in the plan for the future and his general election grab for 2029?  

  • Like 1

Never mind my opinion just yet. You started a thread calling it disastrous and him losing the plot - but nothing he said matches those descriptions so I’m asking what do you mean? 

11 hours ago, Cancerian said:

That was my question about Ed Davey and has he lost the plot? Are you a Lib Dem supporter? What do you think about his speech? 

 

Am I a LibDem supporter? Hmm - well I live in a LibDem/Tory marginal seat and definitely voted LibDem  to get the awful Tory (now Reform) minister out. But traditionally I would be more Labour aligned (but I'm not tribal - never joined a party)

Was this Ed Davey speech a good one? well the usual platitudes about growing an economy, cutting energy bills, etc etc - all the usual stuff that doesn't mean much years from an election - just directional aspirations.

But what I DID like was a political leader willing to call out Trump/Farage - something Starmer, sitting on a huge majority, is too timid to do

At no point did I see anything disastrous or someone losing the plot - and from what I've read across teh political spectrum the speech was broadly praised.

 

So again - where do you get disastrous or "losing the plot" from?

Edited by Sephiroth

Ed has experience of having to care for others (his mother and son) he understands more so than other MPs how NHS and Social Services need funding and to work together. David Cameron had a seriously disabled son but he appeared to lack empathy with others who have family in the same situation. I vaguely remember that when his son died - he thanked the NHS for the care given to the family. Gordon Brown, I believe is another very genuine person - and fully committed to improving lives of families. His daughter died shortly after birth and one of his sons was diagnosed with Cystic Fibrosis.   I far rather trust Ed and Lib Dems than I would Reform or Tories.

I have known a few MPs of different political  persuasions, met with them, been canvassing etc over many years and those who stand out for me are Paddy Ashdown, Susan Kramer, Tessa Jowell, Helen Hayes  .

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • But actually, replacing council housing, or more accurately adding to housing stock and doing so via expanding council estates was precisely what we should have been doing, financed by selling off old housing stock. As the population grows adding to housing built by councils is surely the right thing to do, and financing it through sales is a good model, it's the one commercial house builders follow for instance. In the end the issue is about having the right volumes of the appropriate sort of housing to meet national needs. Thatcher stopped that by forbidding councils to use sales revenues to increase housing stock. That was the error. 
    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...