Why Spud’s so pissed with Ed Davey

Snippa’s really very annoyed with Ed Davey.

I could go on. But let me summarise instead. This is hard-core, right-wing neoliberal economic illiteracy. It manages to make George Osborne look left-wing. And it shows not the slightest understanding of economics, the role of government in society or the nature of money and its relationship to tax. It’s also callously indifferent to society, the role of government, all who work in it and all who are dependent upon it.

For all those who had, like me, considered voting LinDem for tactical reasons I do seriously wonder whether it might be time to think again. The idea that the LibDems should ever be trusted near government ever again does look to be in doubt once more, although I am aware that for many the doubt never went away.

Hmm. It’s about this speech. Which contains:

New laws to require a financial institution or large corporate to publish their multi-year strategy to move to net zero.

And there’s the cause of the ire. Ritchie’s carbon accounting network hasn’t even written a report yet. And already someone is solving the perceived problem. Meaning there’s no opportunity for a grant or two to suggest the policy that has already been adopted.

Shame really, eh?

20 comments on “Why Spud’s so pissed with Ed Davey

  1. I do hope someone forwards on spud’s comments to Ed Davy.

    I think it is important that people spud criticises (everyone sooner or later) are informed.

    He works so hard to burn bridges, I wouldn’t want his efforts to go unnoticed.

  2. Not just economic illiteracy, but “hard-core, right-wing neoliberal” economic illiteracy.

    The burning rage. Can’t be good for the blood pressure, at his age and weight. Not good at all.

  3. Still think the LDs should be renamed the IUs. Not sure whether to allow them to keep the “Party” bit of their name as they don’t seem to be quite the opposite of that one…

  4. It’s a bit odd though, the LidDems are pushing for the demographic which wants fiscal sobriety but also wants men in dresses to have access to women’s changing rooms and toilets just on their say so.

  5. There’s a growing case for the LibDems to be investigated by the trading standards office.

  6. MBE: The word ‘party’ is not part of their party name. They are “The Liberal Democrats”. (I have to counter-sign forms regarding this.)

    And I’m surprised that Ed is hard-core neo-liberal right-wing when I have leaflets going out saying “As a member of Greenpeace, I agree with Ed Davey’s proposals….”

  7. I think we can all agree that this denunciation will cost the LibDems somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 to 15 votes.

    Poor bastards. How does one recover from that?

  8. “New laws to require a financial institution or large corporate to publish their multi-year strategy to move to net YEAR zero.

    FIFY

    Or possibly:

    “New laws to require a financial institution or large corporate to publish their multi-year strategy to move to net zero China. when electricity prices are sky high.

  9. @Kevin that’s why it would be interesting to have them publish plans imagine the outcry over the increase in offshoring

  10. The fragrant Donna Laframboise was once at pains to remind people, that just because someone believes in man made climate change doesn’t automatically make them a fool.

    I however have to diagree in Davey’s case.

    He is a fucking idiot.

    There’s something about being a south coast MP that rots the brains.

  11. @Anon

    Interesting, thanks!

    But what’s the opposite of “The”? Perhaps they can keep the “The”, so their name is still 33% accurate after all?

  12. MyBurningEars Said:
    ”But what’s the opposite of “The”?”

    “Some”? They are authoritarian totalitarians, but they aren’t the only authoritarian totalitarians?

  13. The economist and social theorist Thomas Sowell once said that activism is “a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.”

    nuff said, really.

  14. What I like here is this section – it reveals perfectly the mindset.

    And it shows not the slightest understanding of economics,

    This from a man who walked out of his undergraduate course on the first day and who rejects economists who have stood for centuries in favour of adolescent scribblings

    the role of government in society

    I think it shows a very good understanding that the state has become a gigantic behemoth that needs to be recreated as fit for purpose, rather than set up as some kind of omnipotent entity that blots out the rest of the economic ecosystem

    or the nature of money and its relationship to tax.

    Enjoying the idea that anyone advocating the ‘Green New Deal’ has even the vaguest notion of ‘the nature of money’ or indeed anything else related to it. Murphy has consistently proven ignorant of both. Also continues to peddle the dubious theory that the tax burden can be raised significantly without social collapse

    It’s also callously indifferent to society, the role of government,

    What does this mean? How is Murphy (uniquely apparently) a man who ‘knows nuthin about nuthin’ qualified to judge the needs of ‘Society’? Additionally while I have some issue with the Libdems, they at least are clear that the role of government is not to control all aspects of everyday life – nor should North Korea act as a blueprint for any examination of ‘society and the role of government’, as Murphy seems to think it should.

    ‘all who work in it and all who are dependent upon it.’

    I think he needs to look at countries like NK or Zimbabwe – despite massive state control and following his policies on People’s QE and the Green New Deal, I think any unjaundiced observer could say those administrations are ‘callously indifferent’ to both ‘those who work in government’ and ‘those dependent on it’. However, he inadvertently reveals his priority. Never mind who pays the piper – it’s those who are the beneficiaries who need the utmost consideration. What a miserable piece of scum the man is. Truly a monstrous carbuncle on the base of the contemporary intellectual scene.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.