The biggest argument in British politics is the economy not the deficit


11:30 am - June 11th 2011

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

The Guardian today publishes the speech David Miliband would have given if he had won. The resentment of defeat that some D Miliband fans still feel burns brightly I guess; Don Paskini rightly compared them to die-hard Thatcherites.

But, the speech gives an interesting insight into the elder brother’s thinking. It also illustrates why it’s better for Labour that Ed Miliband won. I would say that wouldn’t I? But hear me out.

David’s immediate concern was that of strategic positioning:

He planned to tell Labour’s conference that the deficit “is the biggest argument in politics, and the biggest danger for us. George Osborne says we are in denial about the deficit. Because he wants us to be. So let’s not be. It is a test.”

This has become received wisdom among the political classes: that the public pay so much attention to the deficit and debt related issues – they junked Labour because the party did not have a “credible deficit reduction plan”.

But has anyone actually polled people to ask how many voters gave two monkeys about such a plan? I suspect that jobs, economic growth, inflation and well-being come up higher on that list. Of course, if you’re feeling the full impact of a massive crash during an election – you punish the party that stood aside while the bubble was created.

But I don’t want to get into an argument about why Labour lost the election. The future is now the key. And this is where David Miliband falls down – there is an important strategic difference in seeing the deficit as your main concern or the general well-being of the economy as the biggest issue.

Look across the pond. Obama is facing the same dilemma as George Osborne: the US economy is also stalling and unemployment is stubbornly refusing to go down.

While Obama and Gordon Brown tried to stimulate the economy, it jump-started and started to recover quickly. Then Obama started to accept the deficit reduction debate and ruled out more stimulus, as George Osborne did here. Both economies have stalled again.

You may argue governments cannot pump stimulus money into the economy forever, and you’d be right. But that was never the plan: it was to let the economy recover enough to pull it out of the hole. But neither have and neither will anytime soon.

As the Politico pointed out last week:

By ceding the argument to Republicans that the deficit is the problem, Obama helped steer the focus in Washington to cutting government spending, robbing the White House of its ability to argue for more stimulus measures. At the same time, the rise in fuel prices over the past six months has offset efforts late last year to boost consumer spending and job creation.

The strategic mistake by Obama is spelled out even better by the US blogger Digby

Maybe he couldn’t have gotten any stimulus anyway, but by succumbing to deficit fever they sure as hell lost their argument that the Republicans are the ones obstructing job growth with their insistence on austerity. After all, nowadays the only people who aren’t arguing for austerity are dirty hippies and liberal economists.

When you are presiding over an epic economic meltdown policy substance matters. And if you can’t get the right policy it’s equally important that you don’t get blamed for the wrong one. Depending on “the cycle” or “the markets” to magically fix things just in time for the re-election campaign while you give lip service to your opposition isn’t a serious way to govern.

In brief, Obama let the deficit become the debate rather than job creation (guess what, job creation is a better route to reducing the debt than austerity, as Ireland will tell you). Obama had hoped the economy would recover and create jobs in the same way that Osborne is doing now. But as everyone on the left has been point out repeatedly, the problems are so deep this strategy won’t work.

Ed Balls and Ed Miliband know this. Which is why they keep talking about jobs and won’t get drawn into deficit mania. David Miliband was happy to try and get drawn into that in a futile bid to get credibility.

But what happens two years from now when the economy is still sputtering along and unemployment still remains stubbornly high? The political classes cannot imagine such a scenario but most of them are economic illiterates – the UK is in an even deeper hole than the US.

People won’t feel better off after five years of Coalition rule. Even Conservative economic commentators are quietly pointing this out.

Yesterday’s massive survey showing how confidence has slumped should have set more alarm bells ringing at the Treasury and a national debate about why the economy is in the doldrums. Instead, the Westminster media was more interested in gossip from six years ago.

Either way, if the economy continues to stagnate, as most economists expect, Ed Miliband can at least then turn around and say the Conservative austerity-driven plan failed because it didn’t create the jobs and growth that Osborne promised.

But David Miliband would have made the mistake Obama just did and made reducing the deficit as the barometer of success rather than jobs and economic growth. By 2015 Osborne would have turned around and declared he did what he set out to do and win the election again.

    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 ,Economy

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


that’s like saying “the biggest decision to make when I get up is whether to have breakfast or my first meal of the day”.

markets are already losing confidence in Obama because he’s weak on the deficit. as you say we’re in a worse position than the USA and Osborne dealing with the deficit is the same thing as him sorting out the economy.

markets are already losing confidence in Obama because he’s weak on the deficit.

No they aren’t. Markets are losing confidence in US government debt because the US has some exceptionally silly laws that limit (in cash terms) the size of the national debt, which the Republicans who control the House of Representatives are refusing to raise. So even though the amount of money Obama is seeking to borrow is easily serviceable, there’s a risk that if the Republicans don’t stop playing silly buggers, the US government won’t be able to borrow it. Which would have all sorts of heinous consequences. That’s why people are talking about a US debt downgrade.

The deficit isn’t a major problem in the short term in either the US or the UK. Anyone who claims that it is is either economically illiterate, or lying to advance their pro-cuts/pro-Osborne agenda.

#1 Only a right-winger who doesn’t bother reading the news properly thinks markets are more jittery about the deficit than they are about the refusal to raise the debt limit.

“guess what, job creation is a better route to reducing the debt than austerity, as Ireland will tell you”

Job creation in the private sector certainly, as public sector swelling is just a money merry-go-round at best. And whats the best way to stimulate job creation? Do just what ireland did, massively cut corporation tax!

Dirk: if (e.g.) a private school employs a teacher who teaches kids things, and a state school employs a teacher who teaches kids things, are you seriously suggesting the first is “real” and the second is just a “money-go-round”? If so, you’re nuts. If not, your argument fails.

Also, Ireland’s corporation tax cut led to economic growth because MNCs are large relative to the size of the Irish economy. Countries with small tax bases can profit from being tax havens; countries with large tax bases can’t.

5. I dont understand, unless your framing it in terms of social value, in which case id agree with you but that isnt whats being discussed here. My point was simply that swelling the public sector to artificially increase employment levels would have at best net effect of zero, and more than likely, an adverse effect on the recovery of the private sector.

As for your second point, well yeah, unless its extended to SMEs/one man bands aswell, tax cuts would do dick all. Since when has corporation tax only applied to MNCs?

Why we need a double dip: http://www.cobdencentre.org/2011/06/a-dose-of-curative-double-dip

Yes it’s free-market and therefore you’re unlikely to agree but worth a look to see an alternative and honest perspective from the Right.

there’s a difference between not having such drastic cuts and denying ther deficit, whichis what Labour’s doing, there’s not one point in this article Sunny where you say that labour accepts the needs for such cuts, and i was strongly opposed to David milibands leadership, after this I wish i hadn’t been.

9. Planeshift

“markets are already losing confidence in Obama ”

We’d better sacrifice some more virgins then.

Great post, Sunny – I agree with every word of it.

John reid – completely wrong. Ed&Ed’s position is that deficit reduction is necessary, as always, when you come out of a recession – but only when you’ve got some growth. This is pretty much classic Keynesian counter-cyclical policy. People who insist on the need for immediate cuts will always vote Tory – it’s what they do best. As Sunny says, we have to shift the debate away from the deficit, which may not be easy, but the alternative is simply not a viable strategy. This is the weakness in David M’s speech – too many hostages to the govt.

Dirk:
1) the private/public division you’re making is completely artificial. It is no more or less beneficial to the economy to create private sector jobs than to create public sector jobs, assuming the jobs – like my teacher example – involve the same economic activity taking place.

2) the Irish tax break boosted the economy solely because it encouraged MNCs to put operations in Ireland as a tax dodge. Cutting tax rates on SMEs makes bugger all difference, because they’re not in a position to offshore in the first place.

One problem is that Labour didn’t keep their powder dry. It’s fine to say that the economy needs a cyclical deficit. But, as Chancellor, Gordon Brown had already famously promised to balance the budget over the cycle and then used his “cyclical deficit” to fund spending when the economy was starting to overdo the champagne.

Obviously this makes it that much harder to say, “But this time we really, really need a cyclical deficit but we really, really will bring the budget into surplus when the economy is right.” Even though a counter-cyclical fiscal policy is probably the right thing to be doing.

@12 johnb

“Cutting tax rates on SMEs makes bugger all difference, because they’re not in a position to offshore in the first place.”

I presume you’re talking about this in a specific context? Otherwise, ignorant as I am about much in economics, why wouldn’t a tax cut to this sector act as a stimulus?

@ 12:

“It is no more or less beneficial to the economy to create private sector jobs than to create public sector jobs,”

Public sector worker receive their pay from the government, and this can only be done by taking money in tax out of other sectors of the economy. So public sector jobs cannot (normally; I wouldn’t like to rule out the possibility that there might be specific circumstances when this can happen) boost the economy in the same way that private sector jobs can.

Dirk is spot on (comment 4). It’s always worrying when Statists talk about ‘job creation’ as their solution involves bundling milions of people onto the taxpayer payroll. This ultimately drives down initiative in the real economy and is why our bloated public sector is like a ten ton weight round Britain’s neck.

The bit of the conversation that appears to be off the agenda is tax cuts – huge ones. They should take precedence above spending and overall debt reduction then we can allow the economy to grow itself out of the mess. Until slashes in personal and business taxation are on the radar I suspect we’ll be crawling our way to recovery through economic treacle.

Is David Milliband right? Well the lack of a plan is certainly a crater in Labour’s strategy, but then how many people care about the deficit per se is a different issue entirely. Still would have been a better bet than his kid brother though – Ed’s just another Michael Foot waiting to happen.

http://outspokenrabbit.blogspot.com/

Public sector worker receive their pay from the government, and this can only be done by taking money in tax out of other sectors of the economy.

Meanwhile, private sector workers receive their pay from their employer, and this can only be done by taking money in cost-of-goods-sold out of other sectors of the economy. In both cases, some stuff gets done, and some people pay for it. It’s the same thing.

The difference is that the people paying for work to be done in the public sector are not doing so as part of a specific voluntary transaction. But while this fact has obvious moral and political implications, it doesn’t make a blind bit of difference to the economic impact.

There is a separate point that *is* related to economics, which is the argument that the work done by private sector organisations is more likely to be economically beneficial than the work done in the public sector. However, this isn’t necessarily true, and generally isn’t confirmed by empirical studies: while the stereotypically useless public sector jobs get a lot of press, there are plenty of equally pointless (sometimes useless to literally everyone, and sometimes beneficial to the employer but useless or negative to society) jobs in the private sector.

This ultimately drives down initiative in the real economy and is why our bloated public sector is like a ten ton weight round Britain’s neck.

[citation needed]

Ed’s just another Michael Foot waiting to happen.

So he’ll win the next election unless Cameron manages to win a spectacularly lucky military victory shortly beforehand? I’ll take those odds (see: Tory versus Labour approval ratings right up to the start of the Falklands War…)

“guess what, job creation is a better route to reducing the debt than austerity, as Ireland will tell you”

You mean deficit, not debt. No one is talking about reducing the debt.

“But David Miliband would have made the mistake Obama just did and made reducing the deficit as the barometer of success rather than jobs and economic growth.”

No, he wouldn’t.

His speech is important because of what it shows about how he would have handled the politics and the rhetoric.

His speech acknowledges the deficit and makes the right noises about spending responsibly. He proposes an all-party commission on public spending led by Alistair Darling. He backs the Office for Budget Responsibility.

None of that means anything in terms of policy or substance. It’s pure politics.

He *then* goes on to make the pro-growth, pro-jobs, pro-spending case, attacking Osborne. It’s only by first making the right noises about the deficit that enables him to do this. It creates a space. Again, it’s politics rather than policy.

It’s subtle, it’s clever and it’s exactly the message Labour should have been making. The policy doesn’t matter. For one thing, Labour is out of power and it’s deficit-reduction plan is irrelevant except insofar as it earns voters’ trust. Secondly, Ed or David M would be pursuing some variation of the Darling plan anyway. There is very little room for manoeuvre.

The difference is presentation. You can call that spin and positioning/triangulation if you like. It’s the difference between appearing sober and responsible, saying, “We won’t let public spending get out of control, reducing the deficit is important etc” and appearing at an anti-cuts demo while masked anarchists smash up Oxford Street.

Public spending is a toxic issue for Labour, especially post-crash. It needs to be handled with care. The David M approach is clever, subtle and reassuring. The Ed M approach is appropriate to a student protester and is deeply stupid.

20. Charlieman

There are a lot of Johns around. I politely suggest that john space b posts as Good Old John Band.

21. John reid

18johnb, the liderals/sdp were on 32% labour 30% tories 30% just before the Falklands and all governing parties have a swing back to them just before the election, the exception being the tories in 1997, who although had been 34% behind labour in 1995, come the election started off 13% behind and ended the election 13% behind.

Gordon was on 22% in 2009 and went up to 29%, So even without the falklands Thahtcer could have gone up 7% say taking 3.5% each from laobur and the SDP/Liberals

that would have been Toires 37% ,sdp/liberals 28% and labour 26.5% ,
actually Michael foot gianed out of the Falklands in that tony Balir joined laobur shortly after the war was over.

22. John reid

11johnbax, deinying reality is a weakness, and Alistair darlign wanted to cut straight away,and that was laobur policy, So the 8.8 million who voted laobur agreed with that weren’t those who vote Tory.

SO no I’m not wrong

23. Paul Newman

John B- You think that the Public Sector and Private Sector are the same. Ok; I work in a small Company accessing EU licensed Security to provide UK Policies of all sorts retail and wholesale.Tell me what you think the State can help us trade more profitably ?
No-one in the state has the faintest idea how it works either any more than I know how to mend a a car or run a gym. The real Economy is specialist and decisions it are hugely sophisticated. This is not because its workers are better, although obviously they are, but because learning to cope with diffuse information not bureaucratic scaffolds requires institutional improvement over time.
You seem to be suggesting taking money away from this activity and giving it to ignorant unqualified bureaucrats does no harm.In fact you say that because both are reallocating resources that reallocation is necessarily equivalent . Duh ..

I suppose that because Messie and I can both kick a football that makes us equivalent as well . That is your logic , ridicuolous isn

These are both excellent sites if you want to learn a bit more about the deficit myth.

http://pragcap.com/resources/understanding-modern-monetary-system

http://moslereconomics.com/mandatory-readings/

This is the best and highly readable attempt that I’ve come across for the general reader to critically evaluate and disentangle the various rival macroeconomic theories: How the economy works (OUP 2010) by Roger Farmer:
http://www.econ.ucla.edu/people/faculty/Farmer.html

Roger Farmer is a Brit who is a professor and chair of the economics department at UCLA.

As I’ve only just discovered, Roger Farmer presents his take on: How the economy works, in a series of short (highly recommended) lectures:

1 of 5: Roger Farmer: “How the economy works”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXxp4WO4cTw&feature=related

2 of 5: Roger Farmer: “How the economy works”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0BDdJ9Ifp0&feature=related

3 of 5: Roger Farmer: “How the economy works”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKdrfNG0ZqE

4 of 5: Roger Farmer: “How the economy works”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_Ci7i-bNoI

continued below

Continued:

5 of 5: Roger Farmer: “How the economy works”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nneIHseIcKw

This is real, high quality analysis from a distinguished academic. For those interested, many of his academic papers are available online in PDF format. Try googling: Roger Farmer PDF

Given that I’m a founder contributor to this site and have been blogging on UK centre-left politics as john b since 2003, I ain’t changin’ no pseudonyms. If other john b fancied modifying his, that would be appreciated.

John Reid:
The situation’s obviously different this time round, in that a credible, independent third party was performing well in the polls in 1982. However, it’s clearly true that the Tory vote went up from 30% pre-war to 51% post-war – and that without the war they would have had no chance of a landslide. It’s more or less impossible to predict who’d have actually won if the vote shares had worked out as you list above, because of the distortions of FPTP.

Paul Newman:
Ok; I work in a small Company accessing EU licensed Security to provide UK Policies of all sorts retail and wholesale.Tell me what you think the State can help us trade more profitably ? No-one in the state has the faintest idea how it works either any more than I know how to mend a a car or run a gym.

I have literally no idea, from that description, what your company does. However – if, in theory, the state were to hire you to do exactly the same work you currently do, but funded from tax revenue rather than by your clients – then the net result would be that the same work you currently do would still get done. The burden on your clients would fall; the burden on everyone else would rise. This might not be very fair, but it wouldn’t have any economic impact aside from the distributional one.

7. Richard

No Austrian prescriptions, thanks. The school fails to explain the Melbourne Land crisis of 1871 (gold standard, no central bank). If a theory cannot explain reality, even in one instance, it should be thrown out.

Loose money causality has been debunked: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/financial-lobbying-and-the-housing-crisis/?gwh=F0CCA413D56B40A14EB15803D3039DA0

You should also know that your school was basically constructed by big business as defense of their rent seeking.

Sunny,

Obama did do a second stimulus but it didn’t have much effect, which undermines your point slightly.

However, this does not been stimulus on its own is ineffective. The best way to think of many Western economies is that they have huge vampire squids (the FIRE industry) sucking all the life out of them.

Stimulus? No point, it will be absorbed.

We need to shift the tax burden off labour and capital and onto land and rent, as well as severely limiting what the financial sector can and cannot do (Adam Smith himself suggested banning loans to ‘projectors’ (speculators) in 1776). Once this happens growth will not be sucked up to the top and people’s living standards will start to improve again.

With all the news and OPs in the Telegraph and Mail about public spending by the Brown and Ball plotters, I was surprised to find no comparisons with our west European peers to show just how profligate the Brown plotters were in government spending.

That made me suspicious – it’s an admitted personal character failing – so I set out to see what international comparisons I could find in accessible OECD data. The results of that quest surprised me:

General government expenditure on 2007 as percent of national GDP – selected countries reporting higher percentages:

44.0% UK

52.6% Sweden

45.8% Portugal

48.8% Austria

51.0% Denmark

47.3% Finland

52.3% France

44.4% Greece

47.9% Italy

45.5% Netherlands

Source: OECD National Accounts At A Glance 2009 – Table 16.1 Total general government expenditure
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44866925/National-Accounts-at-a-Glance-2009-OECD

Readers will need to be patient and scroll down to find Table 16.1

Another source online, which is far more challenging to access, is:

OECD National Accounts At A Glance 2011 (forthcoming)
http://www.etui.org/en/content/download/14316/76037/version/1/file/OECD+-+Brussels+2011.pdf

“It also illustrates why it’s better for Labour that Ed Miliband won. I would say that wouldn’t I?”

Well, you backed the Lib Dems in the last election. I didn’t expect you to be anything more than the standard bien pensant middle-class lefty who deserted Blair over Iraq and found yourself in the Lib Dem fellow-traveller mould, until you found the Lib Dems weren’t automatically left of left after all. Now you’re in Ed’s 1980s Sandanista-disco Foot Revival Club, to the shock of nobody. You post moronic OPs arguing that Tory Cabinet ministers shouldn’t be able to sleep at night.

So you would say that, wouldn’t you? And no bugger is listening to you, and even inarticulate oiks like me are readily taking the piss out of your ludicrous idea that Joe Public would really be all the way with Milipede’s Militant tendency, if only those Tory scum Hodges and Watt would shut their disloyal traps.

Har har har har har.

@31 Parasite: Just, this.

@32. Your point is, caller?

34. Paul Newman

John B -What you have essentially repeated is that because an exchange and some work is involved in both cases they are equally beneficial. Imagine a Company where the invested hugely in Human Resources and not in Sales and Products Not hard actually. In both cases resources are allocated and work is done
What do you think would happen to such a company .Thats right ; it would lose its customers and all its de-stressed, feeling-part-of-the-team, employees would find their stress levels increased and paint ball skills reduced, by being unemployed.
Come on you can`t seriously believe what you are saying is true …can you?
All of this in any case requires a static state to even be imagined. How can a new Company compete when established ones are subsidised it just gets more and more absurd.

You are kidding.Its obvious .

It would be interesting to see what your take would have been if you had actually bothered reading the speech.

Parasite @33: primarily, that drinking half a bottle of gin before political debate isn’t necessarily wise or likely to lead to comprehensible comments. It’s a good song though, albeit Warren Zevon’s original is better.

Paul N @34: sure, but you’re telescoping steps. If you think it’s *inherent* to state-run business that it’s done badly (ie allocates resources inefficiently compared to a private company doing the same work), then you need to make that assertion and justify it.

@ 2/3 Sunny

No, you’re quite wrong here. The markets are jittery because the Obama administration has no idea how to budget, and is due to run massive deficits well into the future and by around 2030 financing that debt will be a overwhelming part of the federal budget. Those Obama austerity measures people are talking about are not even a scratch on the surface of the problem – barely a tickle. Of course, thats before the unwind of QE, or the huge unfunded state and federal pension liabilities are covered.

In short, markets are worried because the US is in a huge amount of trouble if countries like China stop funding it.

In general though, talk about the deficit and debt does matter. Denying it and stating that the government needs to spend more might as well read, to most voters out there, as “the government wants more of my money and taxes will go up again”. It’s mainly the major beneficiaries of this spending who are vocally cheering for more spending or campaigning against cuts, and there are no prizes for guessing who they are; Unions and the so called progressive left.

it’s clearly true that the Tory vote went up from 30% pre-war to 51% post-war

34%. Labour’s polling peaked in December 1980 and fell steadily all the way to March 1982, when it stabilised at about 30%, where it stayed pretty much up to the election. Similarly, Tory support bottomed in October 81 and rose steadily up to the election, with an enormous blip in the middle.

If you look at leadership ratings in the early 1980s, it is abundantly clear that Michael Foot could never have won the 83 election.

“If you look at leadership ratings in the early 1980s, it is abundantly clear that Michael Foot could never have won the 83 election.”

Hence Gerald Kaufman’s famous description of Labour’s manifesto for the 1983 election as “the longest suicide-note in history”.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    The biggest argument in British politics is the economy not the deficit http://bit.ly/loWnM3

  2. Altany

    The biggest argument in British politics is the economy not the deficit http://bit.ly/loWnM3

  3. Joanny Stewart

    The biggest argument in British politics is the economy not the deficit http://bit.ly/loWnM3

  4. Vicky Castle

    The biggest argument in British politics is the economy not the deficit http://bit.ly/loWnM3

  5. Vicky Castle

    The biggest argument in British politics is the economy not the deficit http://bit.ly/loWnM3

  6. Mabel Horrocks

    The biggest argument in British politics is the economy not the deficit http://bit.ly/loWnM3

  7. sunny hundal

    The biggest argument in British politics is the economy, @DMiliband – not the deficit http://bit.ly/loWnM3

  8. sunny hundal

    The biggest argument in British politics is the economy, @DMiliband – not the deficit http://bit.ly/loWnM3

  9. Michael Bater

    The biggest argument in British politics is the economy not the deficit | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/kw3hfY3 via @libcon

  10. lee james brown

    RT @libcon: The biggest argument in British politics is the economy not the deficit http://bit.ly/loWnM3 < spot on.

  11. Ray Sirotkin

    RT @libcon: The biggest argument in British politics is the economy not the deficit http://bit.ly/loWnM3 < spot on.

  12. Ray Sirotkin

    The biggest argument in British politics is the economy, @DMiliband – not the deficit http://bit.ly/loWnM3

  13. Soho Politico

    .@sunny_hundal writes post rubbishing @DMiliband speech, apparently without reading it. http://t.co/ThaEB9N

  14. Watching You

    The biggest argument in British politics is the economy, @DMiliband – not the deficit http://bit.ly/loWnM3

  15. janice ware

    The biggest argument in British politics is the economy, @DMiliband – not the deficit http://bit.ly/loWnM3

  16. RebeccaDunlop

    The biggest argument in British politics is the economy not the deficit | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/mVbUMcy via @libcon

  17. Samuel Tarry

    RT @libcon: The biggest argument in British politics is the economy not the deficit http://bit.ly/loWnM3

  18. Brian Moylan

    RT @SamTarry: RT @libcon: The biggest argument in British politics is the economy not the deficit http://bit.ly/loWnM3 #economy #ukpolitics

  19. Rosa Edwards

    The biggest argument in British politics is the economy not the deficit | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/mVbUMcy via @libcon

  20. Clive Burgess

    The biggest argument in British politics is the economy not the deficit http://bit.ly/loWnM3

  21. Robert Frost

    The biggest argument in British politics is the economy, @DMiliband – not the deficit http://bit.ly/loWnM3

  22. sunny hundal

    The biggest argument in British politics is the economy not the deficit – http://bit.ly/loWnM3 (me, yesterday)

  23. Mabel Horrocks

    The biggest argument in British politics is the economy not the deficit – http://bit.ly/loWnM3 (me, yesterday)

  24. Looming strikes, cuts for cancer patients and the Ed and Dave show: round up of political blogs for 11 – 17 June | British Politics and Policy at LSE

    […] Hundal at Liberal Conspiracy believes that the speech illustrates why it’s better for Labour that Ed Miliband won, but Fraser Nelson at The Coffee House believes that Labour is working towards […]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.