Ed Miliband’s speech: the good bits and the bad bits

8:14 pm - January 15th 2011

by Sunny Hundal    

      Share on Tumblr

I’m not going to do some extended analysis on the speech yet, just going to categorise the bits I liked and disliked.

I’m simply quoting from Ed M’s speech and listing them as points.

Good bits
(main arguments he made)
1. Simply redistributing taxpayers’ money through the welfare state, important though that is, is inadequate and will not build the more just, more sustainable economy.
2. Recognise the way our managerialism took us away from the instincts and values of the broad progressive majority in Britain.
3. Our communities came to see us as the people who put markets and commerce before the common good.
4. Many citizens came to see us also as the people who did not understand that the state could be intrusive as well as empowering.
5. We must accept that in how we do our politics we came to be not leaders of a broad, open progressive majority built on a coalition of values, but into a political force that was far less than that.

6. I’m sure I speak for everyone here when I say that everywhere I go I see an assault on many of the things I value – from Sure Start to the way in which the trebling of student debt will kick the ladder of opportunity away from a generation of our young people.

7. Parties don’t suffer defeats like the one we suffered last May because of an accumulation of small errors. They do so by making serious mistakes, and that’s why I have said what I have said on issues like Iraq, failing to properly regulate the banks, ignoring concerns about economic security and not doing enough to deliver on the promise of a new politics.

8. I want us to become the voice and hope of those who feel squeezed by an economic system that promised to liberate them. I want us to articulate the frustration of people who are fed up with bankers taking vast public subsidies and then rewarding themselves for failure while the rest of the country struggles.

9. But economic growth and productivity masked a hidden truth: that life in the middle was getting harder not easier. Real wages in the middle may have been rising but they weren’t keeping pace with the rest of the economy.

10. In our use of state power, too often we didn’t take people with us. That is why over time people railed against the target culture, the managerialism of public service reform and overbearing government.

11. But today when we you see some of our leading bankers constantly threatening to leave the country, trying to hold the country to ransom and thinking only of themselves, it makes me angry.

12. In recent months, we have shown with our willingness to support the reduction of 28 day detention to 14 days, we are determined to take liberty seriously as part of our governing philosophy.

Bad bits

Erm… none?

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  

About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by

Story Filed Under: Blog ,Labour party ,Westminster

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Reader comments

It’s a good speech. All that remains to be seen is whether he believes what he says.

Sounds like an inspiring speech and the noises he’s making are very welcome.

Thanks for the link to the full transcript.

Back it up with policy, some grovelling to apologise for the past 13 years and then maybe we can talk. Until then, I’m not convinced that this is any more than Blair-esque platitudes.

“3. Our communities came to see us as the people who put markets and commerce before the common good.”

Compare that to this quote from a speech made by Goering in 1936:

“We must not reckon profit and loss according to the book, but only according to political needs. There must be no calculation of cost. I require that you do all that you can and to prove that part of the national fortune is in your hands. Whether new investment can be written off in every case is a matter of indifference.”

Source: John Hiden: Republican and Fascist Germany (Longman 1996), p.128.

And to this:

“The tax department chief of the Association of Industrialists (Reichsgruppe Industrie) emphasized that it was useless to attempt precise comparisons between the new and old tax regulations because the important issue was ‘the new spirit of the reform, the spirit of National Socialism. The principle of the common good precedes the good of the individual stands above everything else. In the interests of the whole nation, everyone has to pay the taxes he owes according to the new tax law.’”

Source: Avraham Barkai: Nazi Economics (Berg Publisher Ltd (1990)) p.183. Mr Barkai is a research fellow at the Institute of German History, Tel Aviv.

Sunny, how many friends have you made in the library?

It would be interesting if Blair & Brown did 1. but New Labour never redistributed in any appreciable way

7. mediocrity511

@4 National Socialists advocating socialism? Oh the horrors!

Apart from the blatent Godwinning, what is your point? That putting people’s wellbeing above the well-being of the markets is one step from rounding people into cattle trucks?

8. Peter Garbutt

Words are one thing. We had loads of them from Blair. These are going in something like the right direction, but there are still loads of problems about Labour.
First, whilst these cuts are going through, huge numbers of some of the poorest people are having their lives made much harder; can we wait for Labour?
Second, they have quite a bit of grovelling to do to explain away their introduction of tuition fees, the market into the NHS, the Iraq war……
Third, they have to reformulate their policies in a formal way; how long will that take, and how far will they move?
And, in all the hoohaa with the cuts, the greenest government ever has managed to bury the problems with the climate; Ed Miliband said nothing of this.
As for nothing bad? He spoke of growth as if it is the be all and end all. Growth may well end all, and Labour need to look at what the word “sustainability” really means, instead of using it as a fashionable accessory.

@7: “That putting people’s wellbeing above the well-being of the markets is one step from rounding people into cattle trucks?”

Try not to parade ignorance.

For years, I’ve been posting that all the hoorays for “free market capitalism” are bunkum – for a start, for markets to function effectively it is necessary to create a system of laws and enforcement mechanisms to protect property rights. What matters is the debate about what combination of markets, laws and regulations are conducive to improving prosperity.

I’ve also posted many times here that Denmark is flourishing despite being confirmed as the OECD’s highest-tax country, followed by Sweden, and despite having the least inequality of post-tax and benefits income distribution among countries for which data are available:

At least since Adam Smith, economists have recognised that markets alone may not be sufficient to provide social well-being:

“The third and last duty of the sovereign or commonwealth is that of erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works, which, though they may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society, are, however, of such a nature that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals, and which it therefore cannot be expected that any individual or small number of individuals should erect or maintain.” [The Wealth of Nations (1776), Book 5, Chapter 1, Part 3.]

There’s a large professional literature on market failure. This is a handy summary of the state of the consensus about 50 years ago: Francis Bator: The Anatomy of Market Failure

Attacking markets and suggesting that market are the antithesis of people’s well-being – as Ed Miliband did – are clear symptoms of naivety and intellectual confusion. Few believe that administrative fiat without any market system will make a better job of allocating resources among competing uses.

You missed out indifferent, which is a better description of the thoughts of Ed.
Whilst he and L/P managers sit in their middle england suits and think, life goes on. Cuts are happenning, people are realising cuts will hit them. People are scared. What do Eds words mean to people in these sorts of situations?
People all over the country of different political backgrounds have been working together to try and fight back. Not always easily but it is happening. L/P members are giving out leaflets for demos/actions which their leaders wont support. Well suppose as demos are against cuts and propose alternatives to cuts unlike the labour party, it is hard for them, how can they support actions against cuts when they agree with cuts. Difficult.
Its good Ed is thinking about changes in policy, but, whilst he thinks public services are being slashed and burned.

The public spending cuts have hardly begun so it’s rather soon to expect the prospective victims to line up to protest. OTOH this in Saturday night’s news deserves urgent attention:

“Hospitals will have to close, patient care could be hit and treatment rationed by GPs because of the government’s controversial shake-up of the NHS, health bosses and medical leaders have warned.

“The biggest restructuring of the service since its creation in 1948 is described as ‘extraordinarily risky’ by NHS leaders and medical groups in a new report.

“The analysis by the NHS Confederation – comprising the British Medical Association, the Faculty of Public Health and the royal colleges representing GPs, surgeons and hospital doctors – comes ahead of publication of the government’s flagship Health and Social Care Bill on Wednesday.”

12. Saleem Hassan

Surely you don’t buy his spiel! The LibDems told us the same thing and look where we are now. We need a real alternative and, unfortunately, it’s not going to happen.

The ordinary people don’t matter. As long as there are only two (or three) parties that have a real chance of winning and a Monarchy eating up our taxes, the UK will never be a true democracy.

Of course, as the opposition, Ed’s stance has to be against the coalition. Where was he when politicians were covertly abusing their ‘privileges’ and bankers were stealing? Don’t tell me he was unaware!

He doesn’t care about us, he just wants the power. And if he gets it, things will just continue to get worse.

I have some sympathy with the frustration evident in some of these posts. I’ve made no secret of the fact I don’t trust “Newer” Labour, but if they have sincerely repented of past sins, I am at least prepared to give them a hearing. Whether they are worth voting for is a different question.

Those who are impatient with Ed’s apparently leisurely approach to the clear and present danger of the coalition need to hear more than the lukewarm platitudes mouthed in the speech.

The reason many of us don’t find Newer Labour’s conversion convincing is that it has such shallow roots; it’s not as if the people tub thumping for Ed have spent years constructing a progressive, radical alternative to New Labour and neo-liberalism. They were overwhelmingly part of the Blairite and Brownite factions which did so much to ensure we are in the current mess.

I don’t believe leopards change their spots, and will continue to be suspicious about Ed and his Newer Labour until they can convince me that they aren’t simply doing what all three parties did prior to the GE; consciously misleading to us with the aim of attaining power, after which they can blithely announce that things are worse than they feared, so all bets are off.

Lots of stuff about the centre ground of politics and the “squeezed middle”, which says to me he’s going for the same few thousand swing voters that Blair and New Labour did, and forget about the rest of us.

And yes, events of the last few years have left the middle classes with less spare cash than they had been used to. They’ve had an even greater effect on the working classes and other marginalised people, who are getting far more than “squeezed”, and over the next 12 months will take even more pain as part of the coalition’s cuts. But they’re not swing voters, so they’re not worth mentioning even once in his speech.

I don’t particularly feel the need for extra grovelling over past mistakes. That’s just empty words. I’d far rather see new policies that indicate they’re not going to make the same mistakes again. This speech does not fill me with confidence that I’ll be seeing them.

15. Mike Killingworth

[12] Saleem, out of interest, how much of every £ you pay in taxes do you think goes to the monarchy? How much do you think a Head of State should cost you?

More generally: “life in the middle” is getting harder because increasingly people don’t get mega-rich by employing Brits (or Yanks or western Europeans). The only known answer to this is protectionism, which is no more acceptable to Ed M than it is to Cameron or Clegg. The task of government in this century is to manage decline. It is neither amusing nor glamorous and usually ends in disaster (see the history of Spain, from the death of Philip II onwards).

The social democratic project rested upon two unspoken assumptions – continuing growth, both absolute and relative, and an imperial afterglow in terms of a source of unskilled labour and places to buy our kit, whether railway signals or second-hand warships. Neither applies in the 21st century. If Sunny wants to know what was wrong with Ed M’s speech, he should consider what was missing. Even better, he might construct the kind of speech Ed’s father would have wished him to make.

16. Alisdair Cameron

Tepid,woolly stuff, I’m afraid.The problem with Labour – and it’s a tough pill to swallow if you’re looking for the alternatives to the Coalition policies – is that there’s sod all of substance it disagrees with: simply playing different mood music isn’t good enough. From leaving the banks almost untouched, to workfare, to privatising the NHS, Labour have been singing similar songs. In a nutshell, if they had different viewpoints and genuinely different, non neo-liberal policies, they would be shouting them from the fucking rooftops right now

Where was the ‘apology’ the new spin team were promising? did he bottle it?

“Real wages in the middle may have been rising but they weren’t keeping pace with the rest of the economy.”

Erm, how is this possible?

That nominal wages don’t keep up with the rest of the economy, sure: if inflation is higher than wage rises then this is true.

But real wages? By definition, if real wages are rising then they’re more than keeping up with the rest of the economy. If they weren’t, then real wages would be falling.


Galen, the reason you’re not buying their sudden conversion to social democracy-ish platitudes is because you know they’re only saying it to appeal to people like yourself. Once you’re on board, they’ll get back to what got them into power in the first place, i.e. whatever the Tories are doing but even more right wing on law and order.

I take it he didn’t use his keynote to U-turn on his good cuts/bad cuts announcement last week


Surely real wages are falling behind the rest of the economy if they grow at less than the underlying rate of productivity growth in the economy

Otherwise you could say someone who has the same real income as they had in 1970 had kept pace with the economy.

Are you seriously arguing that?

Big ommission was:

“Labour’s world view over the whole period in government was dictated by a disfunctional and discredited US President”.

24. Anon E Mouse

Since everybody knows, or certainly believes, that it was Gordon Brown’s fault that Labour overspent in the good years just blame him.

He was the most unpopular Prime Minister since records began in the 1920’s.

No one elected him either in the country or even the Labour Party.

He told packs of lies on the economy, such as ending the normal economic cycle of “Boom and Bust”, which resulted in him being easily the worst chancellor in history.

Miliband, in spite of his obvious limitations, certainly has the killer instinct – ask his brother – so should just say “OK we screwed up but it wouldn’t happen again, we know how to avoid it” or something like that.

Because everyone watching any interview or speech is going to continue to wait for the admission or apology which doesn’t seem to be forthcoming and without it Labour will never be taken seriously…

Meh – policies, please. Enough waffling about the “middle” already – as Ed amply demonstrated, it doesn’t actually exist… except in the minds of Daily Mail editors.

If Ed Miliband actually offers his support to strikers, students, the disabled, the TUC demo in March, etc, then I’ll be happier. Right now it’s a lot of hot air.


“so should just say “OK we screwed up but it wouldn’t happen again, we know how to avoid it” ”

Heh, short of opting out of capitalism I’m not sure anyone can claim to be able to avoid boom n bust. It’s a feature of the system.

@ 19 Bourgeois

I think that ship has already sailed; some left of centre voters who formerly supported the LD’s may indeed turn to Labour if they fall for the platitudes. A whole lot more will not, and since they are unlikely to vote LD for the forseeable future, that does leave them (us in fact) with something of a problem in terms of who to vote for.

Even if the AV referendum succeeds, I’m not sure how far that will help come the next GE?


What’s your issue with the Greens? Not being snarky – I think if ppl are disaffected w/Lib Dems & can’t bring themselves to vote Labour (yet) then Greens are the best option. More so if we have AV.

24 Anon E Mouse

People might “believe” that the whole mess was Gordon Brown’s fault, but that wouldn’t make it correct. I have no axe to grind, as I hated New Labour with a passion, but whatever his/their mistakes do you honestly believe we’d be in any better a position had the Tories been in power when the crisis started? No? I didn’t think so!

If anything we’d be worse off, because they’d have been even more supine to the City and the right wing establishment and media than New Labour were.

If we want a fairer, more equal society with decent public services we have to be prepared to pay for it. you can’t have Danish and swedish levels of public services and “national happiness”, whilst paying lower taxes, giving the rich a free ride, and worshipping at the altar of the bitch goddess of neo-liberalism.

@ 28 Mr. s Pill

They may be the only alternative…tho without AV it would be a totally wasted vote in deepest, darkest blue rinse land where I live. I do have some issues with their views on science, nuclear power etc…. tho’ they show signs of being less looney than previously. It’s a maybe so far 😉

31. Anon E Mouse

@26. Mr S. Pill

Agreed but Gordon Brown spent 13 years telling us he had ended it along with some waffle about “Neoclassical” drivel – the result was the same. People believed him – I did and the housing market went bonkers with people borrowing against their property to buy plasma TV’s and the like. When the market inevitably crashed it resulted in what we have now.

I don’t want to retire from capitalism just have a Labour Party to acknowledge they screwed up and it wasn’t all the global markets. They borrowed more in 2006 and 2007 at the height of the boom than before and if they can’t run an economy in those circumstances and certainly admit it they don’t deserve to run a country.

@29. Galen10

You may be correct but we are where we are and Labour screwed up and any speculation as to what might have happened is just that. Speculation.

As for Labour’s love with the bankers and big business just a quick glance at their donations and who they rewarded shows that this is not the Labour Party of old.

Public Services cost money and that money can only be taken from profitable private companies who make it. Private companies contribute taxes to the economy.

Public Services do not and New Labour, the most successful incarnation of the party knew that.

Miliband needs to come clean because we know. And he must know we know…

32. Saleem Hassan

@ 15. Mike Killingworth

The Queen gets about 65p from every tax-paying person in the UK. Doesn’t sound like a lot? Well, multiply it by approximately 50,000,000. Minus Her Majesty’s income tax, she’s left with about 36 million Quid! Not bad for a year’s ‘hard’ work.

We live in a democracy. So why should anyone take a single penny off average me because of ‘birth-right’?

The Monarchy doesn’t belong with us here in the UK. And as for the argument that they bring in trade, then just read some of the WikiLeaks Cables. Or how about Fergie’s recent antics?

I’m not calling for a coup. What we need is a referendum. How about you and I become joint ‘Head of State’? We can split the money. Silly Idea (I imagine you are saying). And so is the idea of a Monarchy in the UK.

Believe it or not, I’m just as British as you (despite my name). The ONLY thing stopping me from becoming King is my father!

And we call the UK a ‘true’ democracy. Please.

BTW: You can follow me on Twitter @sal33m.

33. Just Visiting

Bob 9

I don’t often like your tendencies to veer off-piste… and you certainly went off a long way there (Goebbles..!), but when you got to the end – you said exactly the one thing I would have said:

> Attacking markets and suggesting that market are the antithesis of people’s well-being – as Ed Miliband did – are clear symptoms of naivety and intellectual confusion.

34. Major Gripe

Seriously? No bad bits? The man is as bad and self-deluded as Brown. The reason the ‘squeezed middle’ (to the extent that he has ever been able to hint at what he means by it) found things harder despite growth is because much of that growth was virtual – coming from creating over-paid jobs for people who might otherwise have been employed in wealth-creating sectors of the economy.

Just because he says he knows what he stands for, doesn’t mean he does. This man has no clue about economics, about what he stands for, about anything. He is only thinking about his career, not about the country. No-one takes him seriously.

@34 The ‘squeezed middle’ is the same as ‘middle-class’ – it’s a term that people self-identify with rather than having an actual meaning. I think it’s quite clever.

36. Anon E Mouse

@32. Saleem Hassan

We’ve had the civil list it since 1688 – I think it may continue for a while yet.

Be careful what you wish for. After explaining to an American I wanted a republic like the US he explained that we may end up with something far far worse.

For certain we would have had President Blair for 13 years and when one considers the damage the Labour Party did to the country in that time imagine if he had the power of presidency.

Also we pay more per person for the BBC and that is far far worse. I don’t watch Eastenders…

The monarchy debate is a bit of a sideshow as far as I’m concerned. I’d much prefer a republic, but am also open to the potential problems of that; I’d probably be happier with the idea of a figure-head President who (hopefully?) represented the “best” of the UK whether directly elected by the population, or appointed by both houses of a reformed Parliament?

Anyway, the cost issue, and the class issue, are relevant but not vital IMHO: what IS important is how we can promote a truly progressive, radical future in the absence of a party which encapsulates such views 🙁

Like many others I feel disenfranchised; in fact, I’ve felt that way most of my voting life because all the current “mainstream” parties look increasingly like pale imitations of each other. I need something to believe in…… none of the current parties seem to provide it!

“The Monarchy doesn’t belong with us here in the UK. ”

In that case why do opinion polls continue to show overwhelming support for it?

There are plenty of arguments that can be deployed against the monarchy but this is just absurd.

39. Mike Killingworth

[32] On the substantive issue, I think [36] and [37] say what I want to say.

What I would like from you, Saleem, is an apology. You had no grounds whatsoever to deduce from my earlier comment that I thought for one moment that you are any less British than I am. This site is run by an Asian-heritage Brit, FFS.

@33 Just visiting

There’s a long history of governments intervening in the functioning of markets – eg Britain’s 19th century Corn Laws, eventually repealed in 1846 – supposedly to improve social well-being.

It makes better political sense to challenge and debate forms of government intervention in the economy than to challenge markets as the means of allocating resources between competing uses. I’ve no doubt that any future Labour government will still be running a market economy so challenging the principle of markets is apt to encourage the loonatic-fringe.

I quoted Goering @4 because when I first read that quote many years back, the sentiments therein seemed remarkably similar to the regular criticism of markets I was forever reading in “leftist” attacks on our economic system. I thought that others might savour the irony too.

41. Anon E Mouse

@37. Galen10

Good point.

Irrespective of selling out or whatever, with the Lib-Dem’s in coalition with the Tories it does mean that choice and certainly difference between the parties in negligible.

At least at one time Labour were anti big business and the Tories pro but now who knows?

“At least at one time Labour were anti big business and the Tories pro but now who knows?”

Absolutely. Adding to employment rights is especially likely to discriminate against small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs). Large businesses, with many employees, can more easily foresee and aborb the cost of parental leave and the temporary loss of staff with specialist knowledge or functions than can SMEs. The predictable consequence is that SMEs are likely to try to avoid recruiting staff who are likely to become new parents.

We are apt to forget that as much as half of all business employment is with SMEs.

The problem I have with ludicrous terms like the ‘ squeezed middle ‘ is nearly everyone thinks they are part of the squeezed middle. I put it in the same invented hard done by of the straight white male who suffers a terrible existence through discrimination. Politicians are engaging in populism looking for the ‘ yeah that’s me ‘ vote.

” Our communities came to see us as the people who put markets and commerce before the common good.”

There is a dangerous and erroneous assumption here that the two are mutually exclusive. The ‘ common good ‘ is usually so ill-defined that it is a meaningless cliche. Invariably appeals to the ‘common good’ usually means some failing industry should be favoured by being subsidised by everyone else. Favouritism is not the same as the common good.

Neoliberalism is another term bandied about without the user ever defining what it is exactly they are against. The British government used to own a travel agency. Do you really think the government should be in the business of selling us holidays? The British government used to have restrictions on how much money we could move abroad. Do you really think it is the role of the state to do that? The British government still owns a chain of bookmakers. Do you really think it the role of government to be in the bookmaking industry? Why does it make any sense for the state to own an airline or an oil company? The energy utilities should be in the private sector. However, they are natural monopolies or could easily become monopolies so they need to be tightly regulated. Why does it make any sense for them to be state-owned with zero incentive to be efficient?

So to pine for a world where the state owns and directs large swathes of British industry is to opt out of the reality of economics and politics. It is just not going to happen under this government or a future Labour government. We tried it and it was a monumental disaster. All over the world with only a few exceptions the tide is moving in the opposite direction and governments are extricating themselves from the economy. I can’t think of any that would serve as a template for us where government are being more interventionist except in emergency measures due to the GFC. By all means, argue for policies to increase the labour share of national income. A perfectly understandable left position. However, banging on about markets and supposed critiques against ill-defined neoliberalism will achieve nothing.

44. Saleem Hassan

@36. Anon E Mouse

Good points. In theory, though, a UK Prime Minister wields more power than a US President. However, in light of past events, this analysis needs to be revised.

And yes. After the baby swap plot, I stand beside you.

@38. Richard

Go on then, let’s keep the Monarchy. Just get them off State benefits!

@39. Mike Killingworth

Sorry Mike. I temporarily forgot what platform I was conversing on. I’m in the habit of pre-empting due to frequently being told to f*** off back to where I came from (which is The Leicester Royal Infirmary (ironically!)).


In my opinion, we need a major overhaul of the current UK political system. Replacing the current members of the House of Lords with elected individuals, introducing Paddy Ashdown’s version of Proportional Representation and axing the Monarchy’s stipend would be a good start.

45. Anon E Mouse

@44. Saleem Hassan

Agreed on the House of Lords…

46. Mike Killingworth

[44] Cheers, Saleem. It’s easily enough done.

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Ed Miliband's speech: the good bits and the bad bits http://bit.ly/i2TOGQ

  2. sunny hundal

    I went through @Ed_Miliband's speech today to categorise good bits and bad bits. I couldn't find bad bits http://bit.ly/i2TOGQ

  3. Kev

    As leader of the new libdems, he can say what he likes in opposition RT @libcon: Ed Miliband's speech: the good bits http://bit.ly/i2TOGQ

  4. Mrs VB

    RT @libcon: Ed Miliband's speech: the good bits and the bad bits http://bit.ly/i2TOGQ

  5. Malcolm Evison

    Ed Miliband’s speech: the good bits and the bad bits | Liberal Conspiracy: http://bit.ly/gCsp8W via @addthis

  6. Roger Thornhill

    Are you Hundalled again? RT @sunny_hundal: … I couldn't find bad bits http://bit.ly/i2TOGQ

  7. Broken OfBritain

    RT @sinnaluvva: Ed Miliband’s speech: the good bits and the bad bits | Liberal Conspiracy: http://bit.ly/gCsp8W via @addthis

  8. B Bigelow

    RT @sunny_hundal: I went through @Ed_Miliband's speech today to categorise good bits & bad bits.. couldn't find bad bits http://is.gd/HcCfbY

  9. sasastro

    RT @libcon: Ed Miliband's speech: the good bits and the bad bits http://bit.ly/i2TOGQ Excellent summary

  10. Malcolm Evison

    Ed Miliband gets it wrong (again)…. |: http://bit.ly/i33mEc by way of counterpoint to Liberal Conspiracy line http://bit.ly/gCsp8W

  11. Mark Ferguson

    I thought Ed Miliband's speech today was, on the whole, a good one – astonished @sunnyhundal though is was perfect http://bit.ly/fl7acx

  12. Simon Mapp

    RT @sunny_hundal I went through @Ed_Miliband's speech today to categorise good bits & bad bits I couldn't find bad bits http://bit.ly/i2TOGQ

  13. conspiracy theo

    Ed Miliband's speech: the good bits and the bad bits | Liberal … http://bit.ly/gqESpd

  14. Saleem Hassan

    My reply to one-sided @sunny_hundal analysis of Ed Miliband's speech –> http://is.gd/asQakH <– Comment 12. @libcon

  15. blogs of the world

    Good bits (main arguments he made) 1. Simply redistributing taxpayers' money through the … http://reduce.li/9t8stg #bits

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.