I know I ought to be astonished to see that Ed balls and Ed Miliband are now criticising the war in Iraq, and Labour's record of being one of the two main instigators of the war. The problem is, nothing about the duplicity of the Labour Party comes as a surprise anymore.
The two "Ed's" excuse for being able to come out as anti war is that they were not MP's in 2003. The problem is, there excuse falls apart when you realise what they were doing in 2003.
Now if Ed Balls was that upset about the war in Iraq and the illegal invasion in 2003, wouldn't you imagine he would, as a matter of principles, resigned his job as advisor to the Chancellor ?
If he was that digusted he might ahve done a Robin Cook and resigned any positions of authority that gave credibility to the War ?
Of course not. Just months after the invasion, as a good loyal Brown man, as a toady of the new labour regime, he was selected for the then safe seat of Normanton.
Getting a safe seat or stanging up against the war in Iraq ? I know which side of the argument Mr Balls came down on.
So what of Ed Miliband ? It appears that in the period leading up[ to the war, Mr Miliband too was a government advisor.
He did go to harvard in thr 2003/2004 year, but as terms run from Autumn to Summer, he must presumably still have been with the government up to the start of the war in Spring 2003 ?
Of course, a year at Harvard would have been the ideal opportunity for him to express his oppostion to the war in Iraq in articles, essays and speeches. I wonder if Mr Miliband is willing to publish all the articles from 2003/2004 ? I would guess that given that he was selected for a safe labour seat in 2005, no such speeches, essay or articles exist.
So vote for political expediency. For for Ed.