Wow, a strongly worded letter. Things must be dire.
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.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.
Zach’s is made up by tbe right wing ltress though. I guess repeat a lie often enough…
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. 😅
Why is just about everybody showing themselves to be a better leader than Starmer lately? Like, I know he’s shit but I didn’t expect him to be this shit, even Badenoch has been scoring points against him easily. There’s incompetence and then there’s “Keir Starmer a year into being Prime Minister”
Because he’s a technocrat, not a leader. He might be good at doing one thing (he was director of public prosecution and his dad was a tool maker, did you know?) but it doesn’t translate into leading at the top of politics. Same with Sunak. Both very earnest at wanting to do the best for the country (as they saw it), but both also absolute shit at selling their visions for the future properly.
Christ, date I say bring back Blair?
If he’d take a fucking principled stand on something it’d be something at least. Horse may have bolted in that regard though.
How in the name of all that’s holy has he managed to get the fucking letterhead crooked in an email. I agree with him, but that bloody letterhead has me seething.
Because it’s a scanned letter. Not the email itself…
So he’s typed a letter, printed it, scanned it, emailed it, managed to get all the text perfectly straight but the letterhead is still crooked relative to the body of the document and all this is somehow meant to be better?
