Ed Davey, the LibDem Foreign Affairs Spokesman has written a wonderfully incoherent article for LibDem Voice on the Georgian crisis. I thought Nick Clegg had ordered his troops to turn their fire on Labour rather than the Tories, but Davey appears not to be listening to his leader. He lays into Cameron for his "macho language" and then a few lines later talks about Russia being a "brutal bully". I think Cameron just used to the word "brutal". And then to cap it all, despite the Russians being "brutal bullies" he then says they have been "deliberately excluded and antagonised". Breathtaking.He then writes...
Russia might be more impressed by macho talk from Dick Cheney and the Conservative Leader if it was accompanied by pledges to return defence expenditure to Cold War levels and introduce conscription. Yet the cold logic that led Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher also to propose major rearmament seems to have passed the neo-Conservatives by.What on earth does that mean? That he supports a massive increase in defence expenditure? he then goes on to reaffirm the LibDems' commitment to abandoning the British nuclear deterrent - just at the time that the Russians are threatening a NATO ally (Poland) with being nuked.
It was Ed Davey, of course, who was behind the LibDems' policy of constructive abstention on the Lisbon Treaty, and who conjured up their embarrassing walkout from the House of Commons when the Speaker refused to call his abstention on an In/Out referendum.
Davey was once a LibDem rising star. In his current job he is totally out of his depth. Ming Campbell must be shaking his head in disbelief.
Of course, the real story is that Nick Clegg never wanted Davey in the job in the first place. He offered Chris Huhne the job of Foreign Affairs spokesman, but Huhne turned it down and insisted on Home Affairs. And the rest, as they say, is history. A bit like the LibDems.
30 comments:
Iain, lay off 'im. 'E ain't wurf it"
He is a LibDem. They will never be in power and their opinions on treasury matters or foreign affairs are of no interest.
The words 'raving' and 'idiot' come to mind.
Labour's not his threat in Kingston & Surbiton, the Conservatives are. If the way the Lib Dems run the Council are anything to go by he's probably a bit worried about being out of work in 2010.
I'm probably not alone in tending to tune out any story about the Lib Dems.
God forbid a hung parliament.
There's a certain irony in "incoherant"...
:). How did I ever get through school, eh? Thanks for pointing it out.
Iain,
You deserve extra marks for the word! We need it as a a noun to describe that sort of bollox. It's a great addition to our language.
Never mind. When euthenasia becomes legal, the LibDems are safe.
Most are already brain dead.
Never mind. When euthenasia becomes legal, the LibDems are safe.
Most are already brain dead.
As others have noted and as the electorate at large has realised, the Lib Dems are totally lacking in credibility. This article from Davey only does more to highlight that fact.
Is this a trifle tough on Ed here? I thought I had stumbled onto Guido Fawkes' blog for an instant. The thing to remember about the Lib Dems is they seek to "punch above their weight". Never mind perfecting what you do at the level you are actually equipped to contest at. Once you understand that overreach is intrinsic to their modus operandi, it makes much more sense.
@golden rose who said...
'The thing to remember about the Lib Dems is they seek to "punch above their weight".'
Boxers who punch above their weight invariably get thumped back harder than they can hit.
Madasafish said...
Never mind. When euthenasia becomes legal, the LibDems are safe.
Most are already brain dead.
August 17, 2008 4:09 PM
Or even....'euthanasia'
Iain, Ed Davey is very obviously promoted way beyond his capabilities. This moronic drivel is all I now expect from the LibDems these days...
Any suggestions as to who I should vote for at the next general election? No stupid Brooon suggestions please!
Ed's point, surely, is that threatening Russia over Georgia would only be credible if the US (or UK under the Tories) had the capability to do something about it.
With significant troop commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq already, Russia knows that there is little we can do in reality and so anything we say is "cheap talk". As such we should either (a) spend more on defence (b) pick our wars more carefully (c) work with allies - such as exploring Sarkozy's suggestion that France join Nato. In addition, we might want to think about whether additional troops would be more useful than more nuclear weapons and/or expensive Eurofighters.
What is incoherent about that?
When Iain attacks someone else it's always worth looking round to see what he's trying to suggest we don't look at. Today is it by any chance Caroline Spelman's sleazy antics? Go on Iain, tell us it ain't so.
Just looks like the typical LibDem opportunism when they attack someone else.
Consistency with their own policy doesn't come into it. Just the opportunity to attack.
If Ed Davey's remarks are anything to go by the LibDems Labour targetting strategy is screwed.
It's sensible for Clegg to adopt it as the narrative and momentum is anti-Labour and if the LibDems don't join in they'll either appear an irrelevance or, worse, pro-Labour.
However MPs like Ed Davey will screw it up for them because they feel the pressure to attack the Tories since they are challanged by them. Therefore their selfish seat considerations being expressed to a national media only undermine Clegg in that strategy.
However that's the comeuppance the LibDems deserve with their lack of any coherent core belief for the party to rally around since it is just an eclectic bunch of anoraks with an interest in politics but nothing else. The all things to all people message is coming home to roost.
@tim leunig
" such as exploring Sarkozy's suggestion that France join Nato"
Are you Tim Leunig the Lib Dem who wrote the Policy Exchange report? In which case that explains every thing. France is a founder member of NATO and always has been, it just decided to leave the NATO integrated command in 1969 and all non-French NATO forces left France at that time. It has always remained a member of the alliance, probably more relevant today than during the cold war when the main purpose was to respond to nuclear attacks.
If you are the same Lib Dem, then I am not surprised by such wolly thinking. The Lib Dems are becoming increasingly irrelevant in modern politics.
I read the ful article to see if you had been fair Iain. It's not quite as incoherent as it first seems - he thinks it silly to talk tough but not have the military firepower to back up that talk: it is, so why is his conclusion to scrap Trident? Consistency?
If ever I wondered why the Lib Dems wouldn't get my vote on foreign policy, it is when their Foreign Affairs spokesman talks glowingly about France joining NATO. That level of ignorance, let alone an inability to fact-check simple things, does not recommend him.
Got to say Ian, that Dave's Georgia retoric was embarrassing stuff.
The failures of Iain Dale
To understand anything
And to say anything intelligent
You did not read what I wrote
Idiot
Anon 11:31 PM
What the hell does that mean? Who are you talking to? Why haven't you got a name? Does your mum know about this?
FibDums are numpties compleat.
In general, handwringing appeasers.
p.s. I think the right spelling for Iain's new word is
"Incohearrant"
word verification: mcrcin
When I saw the title of The Failures of Ed Davey, I thought the post was going to be a lot longer than that!
"At August 17, 2008 6:09 PM , Tim Leunig said...
Ed's point, surely, is that threatening Russia over Georgia would only be credible if the US (or UK under the Tories) had the capability to do something about it.
With significant troop commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq already, Russia knows that there is little we can do in reality and so anything we say is "cheap talk". As such we should either (a) spend more on defence (b) pick our wars more carefully (c) work with allies - such as exploring Sarkozy's suggestion that France join Nato. In addition, we might want to think about whether additional troops would be more useful than more nuclear weapons and/or expensive Eurofighters.
What is incoherent about that?"
hahahaha this is from the man who offended the entire North East! Tim (I Love you Ed) Leunig!
Yes, the Limp Dumbs are dreadful in general, and on Georgia in particular.
But Diddy Davy Cameron didn't exactly cover himself in glory either, with his call to ban 'Russian oligarchs' from Harrods, did he?
Just like Tony Blair - all soundbite, no spine...
:LFAT
I suspect the reason the article isn't longer than one might have thought is that Iain missed two words from the post title. It's my guess it was intended to be:
The Failures of Ed Davey last week."
Ah, thanks for this. Whenever I feel even the slightest warmth towards the Lib Dems (such as when thrown Cameron's lovely line about his favourite political joke), along they come with their beardy-sandals pacifism, arguing that we should ignore what happens in the rest of the world - genocide, invasions, whatever - so long as we can sit back chewing our muesli and smugly pontificate how we shouldn't involve ourselves in "illegal" [sic] interventionism.
God help us if we have PR. The rule of these prigs will be eternal.
What a spent force they are! What an embarrassing load of idiots. Is it true that the dreadful publicity seeking addict, aka Grope-it Opik, is actually thinking of trying to become their President?!m I mean, does that not just some them up.........?
Yes Ed Daveys piece was really embarrasing. Some of the apologists for it are only digging a deeper hole.
Post a Comment