Best Of

The reaction of the Tories on here to prominent right wingers leaving the party sadly validates my view that the party is now just a bluer version of the Lib Dems, and incapable of forming a big enough tent to ever be electable again.

Was it not Johnson that shrank the tent with his demand for loyalty to his bastardised Brexit deal (not that I necessarily blame him for that - he probably took the only possible action to break the impasse)?

A party that could once again accommodate e.g. a Ken Clarke will be far more electable than one that can accommodate e.g. a Jenrick.

Boris attempted to follow The Donald's ruthless disregard for constitutional convention (and facts) but here, finally, the Supreme Court stopped him and the Cabinet wearied of him. Britain Trump indeed.

Here's a thing, though.

Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.

On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.

But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.

Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)

Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..

For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.

Which says a lot about the state of politics.

Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.

I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.

What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country.
When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.

🤔

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jan/18/liberal-democrat-mps-frustrated-ed-davey-leader

Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.

If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different.
I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.

I have no idea what the actual stats look like, but my impression, when I think about it, is that the LDs get quite a few slots on BBC radio (no idea about telly; does anyone watch it?) but fail to convey the impression, which Reform does sadly convey, that they are talking about the opinions, actions and policies of the next government and the next government's opinions of the present one. This renders all they say a bit forgettable as neither they nor the listener thinks it adds to the sum of useful knowledge.

Listening to Reform matters because most of us want to know how the 60-70% who want them beaten will do it. We already know that the LDs seriously contesting about 100 seats is part of the plan. In the other 530 GB seats they tend to get in the way. That's politics.

Ed Davey was on the Sunday Kuenssberg show yesterday.

I rarely comment on Ed Davey, not least because I do respect the views of some Lib Dems on here, but I just do not see him as his supporters do

He speaks about the EU with devotion and the care sector, which I understand with his own family problems, but he just comes over a bit 'meh' and his clowning around does not do anything for me

I see the Lib Dems as a southern English 'Waitrose' party and whilst they should do well in May I do not know where the money is coming from for their policies, not least because they seem to want to hand 5 billion to WASPI women but as per Davey yesterday, insist on immediate increases in defence spending

Did you miss the LD proposal to issue War Bonds?

No - I did listen to that but it's just more borrowing under a different name

Well there are only 3 available options - (1) borrow more, (2) cut spending, and (3) raise taxes. Only (1) is politically acceptable.

Borrowing more is not possible as our credit card is maxed out

Cutting spending is essential, or more specifically redirect spending into defence from reinstating the 2 child cap and end the triple lock amomgst choices

There is always a choice but not heaping more debt onto our grandchildren

Health spending is on an inexorable upward trajectory, given an ageing population and the rising cost of diagnosis, medication and surgery. Social care cost is on an upward trajectory for related reasons, as are pension costs. The future costs of pensions could be reduced by scrapping the triple lock, but that’s avoiding some extra spending, not cutting it. At the moment, welfare spending excluding pensions is also rising, and while not all of that appears justified, even levelling off the increase would be an heroic achievement by government. Education spending isn’t easily going to be cut, given existing underfunding and the backlog of capital investment and repairs in schools. Local government is already cut to the bone and struggling to fulfil even its statutory responsibilities, with a string of councils going bankrupt. Defence spending clearly needs to increase. Aid spending has already been cut (and shouldn’t have been).

Where, Big G, are these cuts of yours going to come from?

Firstly means test the state pension so that it provides the safety net for pensioners, also consider similar in the NHS

Not paying WASPI women, reinstate the 2 child cap, incentivise all the milionaires and non doms to return with their taxes, and use AI

Now, these are controversial but what is certain we cannot go on as we are

The 'means tested state pension' is already in place - it's called Pension Credit.

Any government that took away the state pension that millions had spent years contributing to would, of course, be toast. Same for restricting the NHS. I can't help feeling that you'd be shouting as loudly as any if Labour suggested either of those two policies (remember how upset you were that some prostate drugs were not going rolled-out wholesale).

Removal of the triple lock would imo be doable, as would rolling NI into Income Tax (but that's a tax increase not a spending cut)

Of course but ultimately reality will force unpopular decisions

We hear this time and time again: "the country is broke", "spending is out of control", "we can't raise taxes and further"... I have heard it all my adult life.

But somehow the country survives, things carry on, etc., so I am not convinced we cannot soldier on much as is for the foreseeable.

The reaction of the Tories on here to prominent right wingers leaving the party sadly validates my view that the party is now just a bluer version of the Lib Dems, and incapable of forming a big enough tent to ever be electable again.

Was it not Johnson that shrank the tent with his demand for loyalty to his bastardised Brexit deal (not that I necessarily blame him for that - he probably took the only possible action to break the impasse)?

A party that could once again accommodate e.g. a Ken Clarke will be far more electable than one that can accommodate e.g. a Jenrick.

Boris attempted to follow The Donald's ruthless disregard for constitutional convention (and facts) but here, finally, the Supreme Court stopped him and the Cabinet wearied of him. Britain Trump indeed.

No Farage is Britain Trump. Economically Boris was a big spender and much more liberal than Trump and Farage on immigration too, indeed Boris even backed Ken Clarke for Tory leader in 2001

In 2001 Trump was a registered Democrat.

Fair point, Farage has always been a Thatcherite though so on that basis Farage is even right of Trump economically

Here's a thing, though.

Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.

On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.

But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.

Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)

Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..

For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.

Which says a lot about the state of politics.

Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.

I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.

What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country.
When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.

🤔

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jan/18/liberal-democrat-mps-frustrated-ed-davey-leader

Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.

If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different.
I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.

I have no idea what the actual stats look like, but my impression, when I think about it, is that the LDs get quite a few slots on BBC radio (no idea about telly; does anyone watch it?) but fail to convey the impression, which Reform does sadly convey, that they are talking about the opinions, actions and policies of the next government and the next government's opinions of the present one. This renders all they say a bit forgettable as neither they nor the listener thinks it adds to the sum of useful knowledge.

Listening to Reform matters because most of us want to know how the 60-70% who want them beaten will do it. We already know that the LDs seriously contesting about 100 seats is part of the plan. In the other 530 GB seats they tend to get in the way. That's politics.

Ed Davey was on the Sunday Kuenssberg show yesterday.

I rarely comment on Ed Davey, not least because I do respect the views of some Lib Dems on here, but I just do not see him as his supporters do

He speaks about the EU with devotion and the care sector, which I understand with his own family problems, but he just comes over a bit 'meh' and his clowning around does not do anything for me

I see the Lib Dems as a southern English 'Waitrose' party and whilst they should do well in May I do not know where the money is coming from for their policies, not least because they seem to want to hand 5 billion to WASPI women but as per Davey yesterday, insist on immediate increases in defence spending

Did you miss the LD proposal to issue War Bonds?

No - I did listen to that but it's just more borrowing under a different name

Well there are only 3 available options - (1) borrow more, (2) cut spending, and (3) raise taxes. Only (1) is politically acceptable.

Borrowing more is not possible as our credit card is maxed out

Cutting spending is essential, or more specifically redirect spending into defence from reinstating the 2 child cap and end the triple lock amomgst choices

There is always a choice but not heaping more debt onto our grandchildren

Health spending is on an inexorable upward trajectory, given an ageing population and the rising cost of diagnosis, medication and surgery. Social care cost is on an upward trajectory for related reasons, as are pension costs. The future costs of pensions could be reduced by scrapping the triple lock, but that’s avoiding some extra spending, not cutting it. At the moment, welfare spending excluding pensions is also rising, and while not all of that appears justified, even levelling off the increase would be an heroic achievement by government. Education spending isn’t easily going to be cut, given existing underfunding and the backlog of capital investment and repairs in schools. Local government is already cut to the bone and struggling to fulfil even its statutory responsibilities, with a string of councils going bankrupt. Defence spending clearly needs to increase. Aid spending has already been cut (and shouldn’t have been).

Where, Big G, are these cuts of yours going to come from?

Firstly means test the state pension so that it provides the safety net for pensioners, also consider similar in the NHS

Not paying WASPI women, reinstate the 2 child cap, incentivise all the milionaires and non doms to return with their taxes, and use AI

Now, these are controversial but what is certain we cannot go on as we are

The 'means tested state pension' is already in place - it's called Pension Credit.

Any government that took away the state pension that millions had spent years contributing to would, of course, be toast. Same for restricting the NHS. I can't help feeling that you'd be shouting as loudly as any if Labour suggested either of those two policies (remember how upset you were that some prostate drugs were not going rolled-out wholesale).

Removal of the triple lock would imo be doable, as would rolling NI into Income Tax (but that's a tax increase not a spending cut)

The reaction of the Tories on here to prominent right wingers leaving the party sadly validates my view that the party is now just a bluer version of the Lib Dems, and incapable of forming a big enough tent to ever be electable again.

Was it not Johnson that shrank the tent with his demand for loyalty to his bastardised Brexit deal (not that I necessarily blame him for that - he probably took the only possible action to break the impasse)?

A party that could once again accommodate e.g. a Ken Clarke will be far more electable than one that can accommodate e.g. a Jenrick.

Boris attempted to follow The Donald's ruthless disregard for constitutional convention (and facts) but here, finally, the Supreme Court stopped him and the Cabinet wearied of him. Britain Trump indeed.

No Farage is Britain Trump. Economically Boris was a big spender and much more liberal than Trump and Farage on immigration too, indeed Boris even backed Ken Clarke for Tory leader in 2001

Is not Trump a big spender also? That was my impression.

Trump spends other people's money though