Day 3922: That Milipede Moment

Tuesday:



And now, over to our LIVE-ish feed from the Hard Labour Conference in Liverpool where Mr Potato Ed is just rising to address the sheep delegates. The mood is ELECTRIC. Literally: they've wired up the seating to ensure he gets a standing ovation…

Thank you Comrades, Congress, Concords.

It’s great to be here in Liverpool.

A generation ago a Labour leader came to Conference to condemn the behaviour of a Labour Council in Liverpool.

Thank goodness the Liberal Democrats were in power here for a decade and fixed everything, eh!

Concords, I've got a couple of jokes for you. Harriet Harman.

I'd like to thank Harriet for her unswerving loyalty. To herself. And for applauding my apology for invading Iraq. Even though she voted for invading Iraq. Thanks for that one, David.

Concords, a year ago I was elected your leader.

No, don't laugh.

No, don't cry!

But ask me what has been important to me this year, I say my new son Sam. Giving him his first dagger. Showing him his brother's back.

But Concords, let's get down to business. Which, of course, we can hate again now.

But today we face a choice. Will we change or carry on? Will we stick or twist? Should I stay or should I go? And will you still respect me in the morning?

But Concords, the choice facing the country is urgent. Yes, urgent! Because the election may be three-and-a-half years away – now signed into law – but I could be ousted tomorrow!

But I have to say to you, are we ready? Are we ready to ask the country: will they stay with the new coalition government or can we persuade them to throw the coalition out for the reheated old mantras of the very people they chucked out only eighteen months before?

But Concords, I’m going to tell it to you straight.

This is the lesson I have learnt.

To be true to myself.

Sorry, Mr Ed, I've got to interrupt you there.

Are you familiar with the opera "Peer Gynt" at all? Because Mr Peer Gynt, the hero of this tale, claims as his motto "to thyself be true" when of course he ISN'T at all, he's always changing what he does or says and never finishes or achieves anything, and eventually it is pointed out to him, once he's lost EVERYTHING, that even his MOTTO isn't his but nicked from the Goblin King.

Sorry, I just thought I should mention it, is all. Please carry on with your speech…

But I remember the moment it came home to me most was when I heard the terrible news that Milly Dowler’s phone had been hacked. I was at a party at the time. I was handing Rupert a cocktail. You can make halfway decent pocket money waiting, even on minimum wage.

But this is the lesson I learnt, rule one of British politics: Don’t mess with Rupert.

But I did mess with Rupert.

But I did it because it was right.

It was the right bandwagon to jump on and the right time to do it!

But that’s the lesson I have learnt most clearly in the last year: you’ve got to be willing to break the consensus, not succumb to it.

Nobody ever changed things on the basis of consensus.

But I know what you're going to say. Consensus is the basis of democracy, our whole system of government. But that's why we opposed a real chance of real democracy in the House of Commons. But don't worry. The lesson that I have learnt is that we're not IN government!

But that’s the lesson I have learnt: I may not know who I am, but I know I’m not Tony Blair.

I know I’m not Gordon Brown either.

Great men, who in their different ways, achieved great things.

But I’m my own man. And I’m going to do things my own way. Except when the Unions tell me not to. (Sorry about ditching the reforms, Peter.)

But Concords, we need to tell people that times are scary. Yes they are. Woo! As scary as that! As scary as finding David at the bottom of my bed at four in the morning. With the scissors. Again.

Concords, the world economy is falling to bits. But we can't let the coalition use that as an excuse. No, that was OUR excuse! Let them find their own excuse. Better yet, let them take the blame for what we left of the economy.

A year ago, lots of people thought the Government was taking the right course: The Governor of the Bank of England; The International Monetary Fund.

But one person in particular stood outside the consensus: Labour’s Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls.

Hang on, sorry, me again.

Mr Balls has only been your Shadow Chancer since January, you idiot.

It was Mr Alan Johnson a year ago. Postman Pat, remember him? You know, you appointed him and he made all those mistakes about not knowing anything about the economy. And then Bully Balls leaked that thing that made him resign and made you look like a twonk.

Sorry, sorry, carry on…

But concords, you’ve seen a series of crises hitting our country over the last few years: recession… riots… Rupert…

I call it the something for nothing culture.

But as young people confront the choices they have in life, they see routes to success today based on a wrong set of values.

The something for nothing of celebrity culture.

The take what you can of the gangs.

The job for life of a safe Labour seat.

Concords, I say to you: riots! Phone hacking! Bankers! Fill your boots!

And that's why I say to you Mr Balloon is WRONG to talk about Broken Britain, because I say to you BRITAIN IS BROKEN!



Let’s be clear about one thing: the problem isn’t the people of Britain.

Britain, Britain, Britain…

We've had running water for over ten years, we have a tunnel connecting us to Peru, and we invented the cat.

Concords, the people of Britain are wonderful… except for the ones who are horrid.

The teachers, the nurses, the young people… the rioters, the phone hackers, the M.Ps… er…

So I say to Mr Balloon, let's put the politics aside. You agree that I'm right and I'll agree that I'm right too.

You see, Concords, this country needs a new kind of politics. That's why I say to you today, and I say it in all humility: yah boo sucks! Nick Clegg's a Tory and he smells!

Yes, he may be in favour of social mobility but I say what's wrong with daddy fixing you an internship then a cushy number as Mr Frown's SPAD? Only we can represent the proles because only WE know what's good for them!

Concords, it wouldn’t be responsible to make promises I can’t keep. That’s another cheap Nick Clegg’s joke.

Labour would NEVER make promises on tuition fees that they didn't keep. Except when we promised not to introduce them and then did. And except when we promised not to increase them and then did. And except when we promised to support the Browne review and then opportunistically voted against it because it was politically expedient to embarrass the Lib Dems.

So when I promise to cut tuition fees from £9,000 to £6,000, you'll know how much that promise is worth.

And that's why it’s right, as a down payment, to tell you that we would use every penny of the sale of bank shares to pay down the debt.

After all, it was the TAXPAYER who saved those banks, so it's only right that they shouldn’t see a penny back and we should use all their money to pay off the debts that WE ran up. Er.

But concords, that's the lesson I have learnt.

Mrs Thatcher did some good things. But she did some bad things and that was very wrong.

And then came New Labour. And I am very proud of all the things that we did. But let me apologise for doing some of them.

Harriet, you may clap now.

Concords, we got some things wrong. In 2003, we accidentally spilled some ink over Tessa Jowell's biology homework and in 2007 we stayed up past our bedtimes and were crabby in the morning. And that is all!

But I'm very sorry for doing it.

But this is the lesson I've learnt: it was wrong and I pledge to you it will never, ever happen again unless the dog eats my schoolbooks and I don't even have my fingers crossed or anything.

But concords, we won't win back the trust of the British people by mentioning great men of the past.

I mentioned Gordon Brown once. But I think I got away with it.

Concords, for thirty years we've had a Tory-led government. Or a Tony-led government. Same difference. Yes… you may boo.

And what happened?

Your living standards have been squeezed by runaway rewards at the top.

And we have seen immigration policy which didn’t work for the people whose jobs, living standards and communities were affected.

Big vested interests like the energy companies have gone unchallenged, while you’re being ripped off.

No, sorry, sorry, it's me. One last time.

Just wanted to ask, Mr Ed, as a former SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE, was there anyone, anyone at all who you can think of who might have challenged the energy companies? Anyone? Any names spring to mind? No? Nobody? You're sure? You're quite sure about that? No one at all then.

Okay, just carry on with your speech and I promise no more interruptions…

But that's the lesson I've learnt: NHS, Labour, lovely. Tories, waiting lists, betrayal.

It’s all got to change.

But it will not happen with the old set of rules.

But that's 21st century Britain: still a country for the insiders.

What’s my story?

My parents fled the Nazis.

And came to Britain.

They embraced its values.

Outsiders.

Immigrants. But not the bad sort.

Who built a life for us.

So this is who I am.

The heritage of the outsider.

The advantages of the insider.

Think of me as inside out.

The guy who is determined to break the closed circles of Britain.

Not like Nick Clegg, no. He just wants social mobility and an end to foot-in-the-door internships and spadships like the ones I benefitted from. That doesn't mean he'll break the circle of insiders. We won’t let him. Er.

We can't let him!

But this is the lesson I've learnt: we know waiting for the Tories to fail won’t win us back your trust.

And we won’t deserve your trust if that’s what we do.

But it's the only plan we've got!

We can’t spend our way to a new economy. But Ed Balls is damn well going to give it a try anyway!

We can’t pay our way unless as a country we invent things. So I'm going to invent a world where I'm a credible leader and we have polices that are popular, and successful and even exist!

We can't be anti-business, even though we are, because that isn't even a choice any more. If it ever was. Or was it?

But let me tell you what the 21st century choice is:

Are you on the side of the creators or the strippers? The producers or the predators? Swap Shop or TISWAS?

Concords, there are things that Britain does brilliantly. But sometimes we are evil.

And I can tell which is which.

With my magic pointing stick.

But concords, that's why I'm here today. Because this is the lesson I've learnt. I have to offer you a New Bargain. And that's like the New Deal only, you know, cheap.

But my top demand of my Shadow Cabinet, my party, my team, is this:

Remember I'm ED not DAVID!

But my SECOND demand is ambition. Ambition to change our country. It’s why we were founded. It’s in our souls.

Those of us who have souls.

It’s the only point in doing the jobs we do.

Though of course it's a sign of vile treachery and betrayal of their principles in the Liberal Democrats.

Because Concords, that's the lesson I've learnt: people like values.

So I say to you this: I've got values. Good values. Great values. Huge lovely values. Best values! Cheapest values! Bargains!

I don't know what they are. You don't know what they are! But the important thing is that they're there and they're real and in a real sense so am I.

So concords, that's the lesson I've learnt:

To promise you the right values.

Whatever they are.

To fight for the New Bargain.

Whatever it is.

And to fulfil the promise of Britain.

Whatever that even means!

Concords, I've been Ed Nose Day, I'm here all week, try the veal, Thank you.

And the audience groans and rolls over in their seats and here we must apologise for the power cut in the hall preventing us from broadcasting the standing ovation.

Day 3668: Economic Credibility Means Knowing the Difference Between DEFICIT and DEBT - A Brief History

Sunday:

"On this central question of why do we have or why did we end up with a deficit of more than 10% of our national income, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats I think are pedalling a very dangerous myth because they want to tell people that it was somehow all because of a decade of overspending under Labour. It wasn't. It was because of a financial crash; a financial crash that happened all round the world."

Ignore the bit about "peddling a very dangerous myth" and this statement is SUBSTANTIVELY TRUE. But also MASSIVELY MISLEADING. Let me explain:


The quote comes, of course, from Mr Potato Ed, Leader of the Labour Party and (though he'd rather we all forget it) former economic advisor at the Treasury under Mr Frown, answering Mr Andy Marrmite about Hard Labour's mistakes on the economy.

He's trying to create a very NARROW definition of Great Britain's economic problems, one which he can then palm off on the handy scapegoat of the not-so-very-much-beloved bankers, and thus absolve Hard Labour of responsibility for what happened while they were in Government.

So let's take this to bits:

The DEFICIT isn't the same as the National DEBT.

The DEFICIT is the amount by which the Government's spending in one year EXCEEDS its income for that year.

The DEFICIT is how much DEBT we ADD to the mountain of DEBT that we have already.

A deficit of more than 10% of what the country earns is, of course, appalling. Imagine adding 10% of what you earn to your credit card bill, and shudder.

You certainly can't do that on an ongoing basis. But in an EMERGENCY and so long as you pay it back again, you probably can. At least that's the theory of the famous economist Mr John Milton Keynes: if the economy contracts, the government can borrow to tide things over; when the economy grows, then the government can pay the borrowing back.


Now it is TRUE that the only year under Labour where the DEFICIT exceeded 10% of GDP was 2009/10 (although it is budgeted to do so again this year, 2010/11).

When the banking sector collapsed, the TAX coming in from their vast boom in profits also collapsed. At the same time, the Labour Government chose to cut VAT in the hope that this would stop a big fall in consumer spending, and that further reduced the tax money coming in. PLUS they increased spending (like good little Keynesians) at the same time.

This meant that the difference between spending and income suddenly jumped wider because of the credit crunch.

So it's also TRUE that the big deficit was because of the banking crisis.

But – and this is where the MISLEADING bit comes in – NO ONE IS DENYING THAT.

The REAL complaint of the Liberal Democrat / Conservatory Coalition is NOT that Hard Labour borrowed too much in one year of the emergency; the REAL complaint is that Hard Labour were borrowing YEAR IN, YEAR OUT throughout the BOOM years while the economy was growing and NEVER PAYING ANY BACK. And that ain't no myth!


In every year since 2001, the Labour Government spent MORE than it raised in taxes and used borrowing to cover the difference. That difference was of the order of thirty to forty billion pounds each year. Compared to the TOTAL earnings of the British economy, that was QUITE SMALL: only about 2 to 3% of the GDP. But it was MORE borrowing on top of borrowing, year in year out.

Between March 2001 and March 2007 the TOTAL amount owed by the Government increased from just over three hundred billion pounds to just under five hundred billion pounds. That's about 60% MORE debt.

Now, left-wing economists – by which I mean "Labour apologists who talk about the economy", in case you think I mean "people who know what they are talking about" – will tell you that it's FINE to run a deficit; we've run a deficit in thirty out of the last forty years, they will say; so long as the economy grows, then the level of debt remains manageable.

There's only one problem with this approach: it's TOTAL BOTTOM WASH.

Surely "we've been running up the credit card for most of the last four decades" is an argument that it is MORE URGENT to start cutting the debt not LESS!

In the last forty years, Great Britain has struggled though economic hardship every time the debt has gone out of control and, with enormous pain, we've managed to wrestle our total debt back down again TWICE: once in the late 'Eighties and again around the year 2000.

Historically, well let's say for the last half century, a level of debt in the British economy of 30-40% has been seen as SUSTAINABLE. It was much higher after World War Part Two, and that was why RATIONING got WORSE after the war was won than while it was going on. It was much higher in the Nineteen Seventies when, you may have heard, the economy was a total BASKET CASE, with rampant inflation and the IMF intervening.

After the recession of the early 'Eighties, the Conservatories managed to cut the total debts by about 10% from a hundred and sixty-seven to about a hundred and fifty billion pounds. Meanwhile, the economy grew sharply, meaning that the level of debt fell as a percentage of GDP, even if we weren't repaying that much.

But then Black Monday and the Poll Tax riots all happened, and Mr Norma Lamont lost all control of the economy, meaning he and then Mr Fatty Clarke more than doubled the national debt to three hundred and fifty billion pounds by the end of Mr Major Minor's Government. As a share of GDP that took us from a low of 26% to a peak of 42.5%.

Then Hard Labour reduced the debt again by about 10% from three hundred and fifty to three hundred and eleven billion pounds over the course of their first term. Remember, for that Parliament, Lord Blairimort and Mr Frown stuck to the CONSERVATORIES' spending plans while Mr Frown raised lots of extra money by (a) RAIDING the PENSIONS of their Advance Corporation Tax credits (b) levying a WINDFALL TAX on the privatised utilities and (c) auctioning off the 3G telecoms licences at hugely inflated prices.

But then from 2001 they spent more than they raised in taxes. Yes, I know I'm repeating myself but it's the MOST VITAL point. They spent more than they raised in taxes.

This meant that the ratio of debts to the size of the economy gently increased from 29.7% to 36.5%. Hard Labour were able to CLAIM that the debt was remaining ROUGHLY THE SAME.
And – and this is important – they were able to say that this remained LOWER than the figure they inherited from the Conservatories, which had been 42.5% of the economy in March 1997.

But remember, they were left in a BAD position regarding DEBT. Getting BACK to that position isn't a GOOD thing; it's a measure of FAILURE.

And at the time, the whole economy was growing too, inflated by Mr Frown's BOOM off the back of cheap Chinese loans and the sub-prime housing bubble.

Remember Prof Keynes' rules: when the economy is growing, you PAY BACK the debt.

THAT is the issue that Mr Ed needs to explain: why were they NOT paying back the debt in the boom years?

Times were good and the Labour government STILL needed to borrow to cover its spending: if that's not a DEFINITION of OVERSPENDING, then I do not know what is.

In fact, the Labour Government was getting EXTRA money because the BOOM was inflating its income. So there's the NORMAL sustainable amount of tax from the NORMAL sustainable economy; then there's the EXTRA cash on top of that from the boom, and then there's the spending HIGHER STILL.

But then the Labour Government's OTHER policy – of being intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich – led to the casino banking disaster and all bets were off.

The total GROSS debt jumped to A TRILLION POUNDS. Net Government debt, which is the total we owe, less the value of assets that the Government own – e.g. shares in banks – increased to seven hundred and seventy-two billion pounds or from less than 40% of GDP to more than 60% of GDP (and may rise almost to 70% of GDP).

To tackle this DEBT we need to STOP ADDING to the mountain and start paying some back.

What would Mr Ed do?

"there's three ways you can cut the deficit: tax revenues, spending cuts and economic growth"

This again is misleading.

First, he talks about cutting the DEFICIT not the DEBT. To cut DEBT we need to ELIMINATE the deficit; we need to run SURPLUSES, probably for many years. Hard Labour's plan is only to HALVE the deficit, or – in plainer language – to KEEP ADDING to the DEBT.

Then there's the sleight-of-fluffy-foot over "economic growth".

The government controls taxes and spending directly. If spending is more than taxes, then you can see clearly that they could raise more tax or cut their spending and it will close the gap.

But how does "economic growth" work? Well, if GDP is more next year than it was this year, then you can borrow the same amount in cash terms and it will be a smaller PERCENTAGE of the GDP.

In other words, you've not really FIXED the problem; you've just used INFLATION to make it look smaller.

Of course inflation CAN help you with your debts: inflation makes wages go up and the costs of goods go up, so you can expect to get more money in from the existing taxes.

Some people might call that "raising more tax revenues", of course.

Then, as long as spending DOESN'T INCREASE by as much as the tax income, the deficit will get smaller.

This is EXACTLY what the Coalition are doing. Remember, the Liberal Democrat / Conservatory government is going to spend MORE this year than Labour did last year. Just not-as-much-more as Labour would have done.

Some people might call "increasing spending by less than the growth in the economy" "real terms cuts" or just CUTS (in particular people like Mr Potato Ed).

So Mr Ed's three ways of cutting the deficit are "tax revenues, spending cuts and economic growth" where "economic growth" basically means "raising more tax revenues" or "real terms cuts". Which is just the first two again, isn't it.

And how does a Government MAKE "economic growth" anyway?

You could INCREASE SPENDING to invest in growth – but that means INCREASING the deficit.

Or you could CUT TAXES to stimulate growth – but that means INCREASING the deficit.

Or you could do nothing and HOPE for growth – which at least DOESN'T increase the deficit.

The Coalition strategy is to spend LESS but BETTER, to try to invest for growth without increasing the deficit; and to change taxes around in the hope of finding a combination that will stimulate growth better (or at least less worse) than the current arrangement (hence increase VAT but cut corporate tax and freeze employer's NI; increase tax on capital gains but cut income tax for basic rate payers). It may not work. But at least it's a PLAN.

Mr Ed opposes cuts and says that the VAT rise was wrong (and presumably the NI rise would have been right). It appears that he is opting for option three: do nothing and hope.

Essentially, he's offering us a third alternative that DOESN'T EXIST; he's trying to tell us that there's a PAIN-FREE third way that the Coalition have overlooked (or ignored for "ideological" reasons), but it's just not true.


Mr Ed refuses to accept that spending more than you earn when we were earning the most we ever have was a mistake. It seems, though he won't be drawn on any actual policy, that he would go back to the same old attitude of never pay any debt back.

But if you don't ever pay it back, then you create a RATCHET effect, where you keep adding to the debt in the good years and every crisis you jump to a new and higher level of debt: 60%... 80%... 100%... where does it stop?

Or, more to the point, where does the economy go Greek and IMPLODE?



Numbers quoted are from HM Treasury.
.

Day 3629: Now Labour's Opportunism Threatens Climate Change Talks

Wednesday:


Once upon a time, back when HE was Climate Change Secretary, Labour Leader Mr Potato Ed said it would be "profoundly irresponsible" to use one "mistake" as an excuse not to act.

Well, today we learn that he won't let THAT get in the way of EMBARRASSING the Liberal Democrats.

Mr Potato Ed is REFUSING to allow the Liberal Democrat Environment Secretary, Mr Chris Huhney-Monster, a "pair" for the Tuition Fees vote tomorrow. So Mr Huhney-Monster has a choice: come home from the VITAL Climate Change Summit in Cancun OR miss the vote and risk letting the Government LOSE!

This is a MASSIVE breach of protocol by Hard Labour and a really dirty trick by Mr Potato Ed.

"Pairing" is a LONG-STANDING arrangement between Government and Opposition Parties for two MPs, whose votes would otherwise cancel each other out, both to be absent. This allows Government ministers to get on with important business on behalf of the country and in return lets a Labour MP, er, get a night off*.

It's done by a formal agreement between the Whips Offices (which is just one of the reasons you can't "pair" with a rebel on your own side – never mind that if they're wound up enough TO rebel, they're hardly likely to agree to taking a stand by not being there!)

It's been used for TIGHT votes before to allow Hard Labour ministers attend important events such as – not un-coincidentally – the 2004 Higher Education Act (which you MAY recall was a bit of a tight pinch itself with seventy-one Labour rebels opposing, er, the Hard Labour Government manifesto-pledge tripling of tuition fees).

So, with the extra concessions we've won, how close IS the Tuition Fees vote?

Liberal Democrats plus Conservatories make three hundred and fifty-two of the six hundred and fifty MPs in the House of Commons. BUT the five Sinn Fein members do not take their seats, and Mr Speaker Cashcow and his three deputies do not vote either. And Hard Labour have, er, misplaced a seat because Mr Phil Woolas is a CONVICTED LIAR. So at full strength, the Liberal Democrat/Conservatory Coalition has an effective majority of EIGHTY-FOUR.

That means it needs forty-two rebels to bring the Government majority down to nothing.

There are eighteen Liberal Democrat Ministers, and Captain Clegg has announced that they will all vote FOR the Tuition Fees policy. (Or all bar one, if Mr Huhney-Monster can't make it!)

So even if ALL thirty-nine other Liberal Democrats rebel (and they aren't going to - scores on the doors from Mr Paul) PLUS the one or two Conservatory rebels vote against, that's only forty-ONE. And the Government gets a majority of TWO.

And Hard Labour themselves are ALL OVER THE PLACE on the issue of funding for higher education, with only today their Shadow Chancer being arm-twisted into performing a tarmac-melting hand-brake turn on the graduate tax, a policy that will – of course – just put the SAME burden of paying for their education on future graduates, which is why it's been referred to as "infinite tuition fees". So they will ONLY be opposing this rise in order to try and score a mythical point over the Government.


Climate Change is MORE important that Tuition Fees; even the CONSERVATORIES think so, even if Mr Potato Ed clearly doesn't. We can demonstrate we've NOT lost all our principles AND show contempt for Hard Labour's opportunism AND just squeak through!

So personally, I say Mr Huhney-Monster should skip the vote and DAMN THEIR EYES!**




*Yes, unfair. Once in a while even Mr Potato Ed must get an evening engagement too.

**Mr Blackadder says this, so it MUST by okay!
.

Day 3558: Mr Potato Ed

Tuesday (again):


And so the party assembly has anointed the younger son of the aging communist to be the next leader. But enough about the Labour Party, let's talk North Korea…

No, no, no, let's talk about Mr Ed Millipede, the Ed Boy, the Big Ed, Ed and Shoulders, Ed's you Lose Tails we Win [that's enough "Ed's", er, Ed]

He says he wants a NEW politics, a GROWN-UP politics, and he doesn't like being called names [oops!].

Well here's your FIRST challenge, Mr Ed. If you don't like name-calling, then tell your chums to stop with the "Con-Dem-Nation", okay?

All summer, your Party has been hooting like a chorus of gibbons in full cry with "Traitor" and "Gerrymander" the FIRST resort in any argument. You NEED to tell them to stop. You need to tell them to GROW UP. And you need to do it SOON if anyone is going to believe you have authority over your rabble.

Grown up politics ISN'T saying "don't call me names; you smell!" It's putting your own childishness aside FIRST, and asking others to join you.

Look, the Coalition are DOING the new politics.

So either you get on board, or you stay in your playground with your "I've got my own new politics too, so nerr".

Because, believe it or not, it WOULD BE terrific to welcome you on board. If you're willing to contribute IDEAS rather than JEERS then there is a place for you at the table.

You say, for example, on the economy that the plan of outgoing shadow chancellor Mr Alistair Dalek is a place to start; you say that you won't oppose ALL the Coalition cuts. Okay. So lay out the things that you think SHOULD be cut. HELP the Coalition to form a plan that is FAIR.

You say, for example, that our politics is broken and that you will vote yes to AV; well, hello, but Captain Clegg's been saying that ALL YEAR – would one little "I agree with Nick" hurt that much? You should be getting your Party to campaign as a whole for reform, and you should stop with the opposition for opposition's sake about the size and number of seats. Everyone knows that the system is biased in your favour, and you just look selfish and partisan when you whinge about your advantage being cut. Drop it, and you'll look more mature and statesperson-like overnight.

And you say that some of the political figures from history whom you admire most are Keynes, Lloyd George, Beveridge; you should probably be straight with people and use the "L" word.

Lesbian, lesbian, lesbian.

Er, no, you should use "Liberals".

During your leadership election campaign you spoke of "exterminating the Liberal Democrats"; and how VERY not in keeping with your heart-warming story of your parents flight from the Nazis, I am sadly forced to add. You've really got to get over that.

And then you say:

"I won't let the Tories or the Liberals take ownership of the British tradition of liberty"

Well, begging your pardon Mr Millipede, but if you think you can "take ownership" of Liberty (like you used to think you would "take ownership of the means of production" before you jettisoned those principles) then you're DEAD WRONG.

Liberty isn't yours to take. It belongs to ALL of us, and the Liberal Democrats exist to protect it, not possess it.

You say that too often your Party seemed too casual about Civil Liberties.

You're DEAD WRONG about that too.

You weren't CASUAL; you set about DELIBERATELY to DESTROY some of our ancient liberties and protections.

• Freedom from being locked up without trial;
• freedom to go about our business without intrusion by the state – whether it's being watched by CCTV wherever we go, or retaining our DNA even if we're innocent, or fingerprinting and database-ing our kids;
• freedom to just LIVE without having to prove our identity to the state.

And you PERSONALLY voted very strongly for introducing I.D.iot cards, very strongly for allowing ministers to intervene in inquests, and very strongly for Hard Labour's anti-terrorism laws.

And you PERSONALLY voted very strongly for a stricter asylum system; how VERY not in keeping with your heart-warming story of your parents' flight from the Nazis, I am sadly forced to add. AGAIN.


I will say I am GLAD to hear what you had to say about IRAQ (even if your brother wasn't).

I've heard members of your party saying they're glad to admit it was a "mistake". Iraq was NOT a mistake. Letting the gap between rich and poor get larger was a mistake (in the sense it was not the INTENTION of your policies it just happened in spite of them); arguably allowing the banking bubble to blow the economy to pieces was a mistake (you certainly didn't MEAN for it to happen, though it was highly negligent to carry on wishing that that boom would never end with not plan B in case it did); but Iraq was not a mistake. It was quite deliberate and it cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.

I've heard your deputy, Harriet the Harminator, saying the Iraq War was wrong merely because there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction found. That is NOT good enough. Let us be quite clear: the ONLY justification in international law for war is an attack or imminent threat of an attack. "Intention to attack" was the Monkey-in-Chief's PRETEXT for the war (and a PRETTY THIN pretext it is too, basically: "well he MIGHT attack us one day"). The presence of WMD's would have been NECESSARY but not SUFFICIENT evidence that Mr Saddam meant to attack us.

So I am GLAD that you went much further than that, that you said the War was WRONG (not a "mistake") and that you laid out (some) reasons why it was wrong, even if your reasons don't go as far as mine.

And I think we can give you the benefit of the doubt on the "I was against the War but just didn't tell anybody". It's a stupid line, but we appreciate the need for a new leader to save face here. After all, we allow Mr Balloon a similar measure of benefit of the doubt.

I'm afraid I'm much LESS glad to hear your not-so-very-coded language on IMMIGRATION.

You say:

"All of us heard it on the doorsteps about immigration. Like the man I met in my constituency…"

Just activate your Mr Balloon Quote-o-matic, why don't you.

And:

"I don't believe either that we can turn back the clock on free movement of labour in Europe. But we should never have pretended it would not have consequences. Consequences we should have dealt with."

How VERY not in keeping with your heart-warming story of your parents' flight from the Nazis, I am sadly forced to add. YET AGAIN.

You're in DESPERATE DANGER of turning the clock back. Do the lessons of the Labour Losership campaign mean nothing to you? Did Diane Abbot die in vain?

It's NOT about immigration, it's about JOBS, it's about HOUSING, it's about SERVICES. You NEED to keep the focus there and not slip into SCAPE-GOATING and the proto-xenophobia that follows.


Let's not get carried away and pretend that it was a GOOD speech. It was all a bit:

"Friends, Romans, Dinosaurs, lend me your ears; I come not to bury New Labour nor to praise it, but to do BOTH"

A ritual denunciation of the ancien régime while praising the Party for all their achievements in government. Praise for the Party for their victories in the election against Lord Cashcroft against the British Nasty Party, and then a sharp reminder of how BADLY they did in the election. A slap for the Left-wing Unions to prove to the Right-wing Press whose whipping boy you are. Er, aren't. (The battle is a BIT lost before you start if they can force you to denounce the unions who elected you inside of three days from your election.) You've clearly learned from Hard Labour's summer that the way for you to do best is to be as nebulous as possible so people can read any protest they like into your vacuousness. Your delivery was dreadful but you did the necessary.

I'm afraid I can't bring myself to TRUST you at your word. You've reneged on too many policies, adopted too many all-things-to-all-people positions, and you're frankly just too SYNTEHTIC.

So, I'm going to call you "Mr Potato Ed" because just as Mr Balloon looks like an empty plastic bladder with a smile drawn on it, so Mr Potato Ed could be a lumpy vegetable with a random collection of replaceable plastic expressions pinned to the outside. Don't like the Iraq War hat and I.D.iot card spectacles? Never mind, just swap them for a Civil Liberties bow tie and some sticky-out mea-culpa ears. Don't like that Hard Labour snarl? Not to worry, we'll replace it with some kissy-up-to-the-Liberals lips. And so on.

But it would be WRONG to judge you on just one speech. We will judge you by your ACTIONS, starting with who you pick for what job in your Shadow Cabinet, particular who gets to be Shadow Chancellor.

Best of luck.

PS:

Beware the redundant rhetorical flourish.

"And there was one more lesson that I learnt."

Sadly it clearly wasn't ARITHMETIC because

"We do not have to accept the world as we find it. And we have a responsibility to leave our world a better place and never walk by on the other side of injustice."

That's TWO more lessons, Eddy. Sorry.
.