I am disappointed as the next Keynesian if Ed Balls said this morning that he supports the Tories' cuts.
He hasn't, at least as far as I can tell. He has said:
My starting point is, I am afraid, we are going to have keep all these cuts. There is a big squeeze happening on budgets across the piece. The squeeze on defence spending, for instance, is Β£15bn by 2015. We are going to have to start from that being the baseline. At this stage, we can make no commitments to reverse any of that, on spending or on tax. So I am being absolutely clear about that.
This is not endorsement. This is about saying he has no choice on this matter: in opposition he can't stop the Tories cutting and as a result the start point for a Labour government will be that these cuts have happened and there's no point pretending now that won't have happened: it will.
And what's he's also saying is that right now there is no way of predicting what Labour will make priorities for change come the time of the next election, so he won't. I'd be saying that too if I had his job. Not that it would make it a lot of fun.
And I also have to say, his focus on jobs is right, although forcing real pay cuts on the state sector is not sustainable forever - and he must know it. But jobs have to come first. That's essential to the recovery - and for the people of this country.
Now, when is he going to talk the tax gap? Because that's not a spending commitment, that's a revenue commitment and that's something quite different?
PS And if Ed Balls doesn't mean what I think he means then my opinion changes. So I'm hoping I'm right.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
You know what the Tory mantra is going to be … Edwina Curry on R5 live was whooping with excitement at the gift that Ed Balls has just handed the Tories π
“The LP finally admits that the Osborne has been right all along”
And at a point, when the cuts are really beginning to kick in..
That’s exaclty how I read it, Richard. Firstly Labour were misrepresented as opposing all cuts, now as endorsing all cuts. That’s our media and the constraints of 140 chractes fo you. Bevan’s words must not be forgotten: “The language of priorities is the religion of socialism”.
Damn, more missing r’s. Key is dead.
I’m afraid this is a classic case of spin by you Richard. Finally the Labour Party has come out and said that there is no alternative to cuts and therefore they would be here to stay, if they got into power. This is a far cry from your opinion that there is no need for cuts. I would suggest you email him a copy of your New Green Deal.
I’m told by sources in Labour I have this interpretation exactly right
All he’s saying is he can’t plan for what Labour would do from a position that’s different from the one we face – and the reality is that the position he’ll face is the legacy the Tories will leave
I don’t think Labour has given up on opposition
At least, I hope not
that’s how i read the guardian report of the interview too. fingers crossed, huh?
What Balls said was that he’s as up the bankers’ collective backside as any other current chancellor you might like to name. He also announced, in ringing tones, there’s no such thing as a political divide or an opposition any more. The national policy is milk the poor to maintain the rich; the only difference between parties being the rate at which they’d do it. Take arms! It’s all we have left now. That or develop, as I’ve suggested, regional currencies under local control so we can ignore these posturing idiots and get on with our lives.
Well I don’t think he quite said that
But the fact we’re arguing what he did say is not a sure sign of success
Bill I agree with your interpretation and I was at the Fabian Conference where Ed Balls reinforced the comments. If the Labour Party continues to peddle this nonsense that there is no alternative then I am afraid it will be consigned to the wilderness for years because people will just say ‘vote for the Tories’ as there will be no opposition . Yes some difficult choices will have to be made but politics is about choices and frankly some policy can be ditched eg the cost of Trident, the extent of our military presence( do we really need this) and why are the military top brass still being driven round in chauffer driven cars( sorry this is a pet hate of mine). Unfortunately we have at the top of our political parties people who have no real experince of life, have never run large scale organisations or been responsible for public service delivery and yet we are trusting them to run the country. To use the expression of my old headteacher and I attended a grammar school in the 1960s, ‘the mind boggles’. Will Hutton gave the best contribution at the conference – there are alternatives and Labour should be making the case but contributions from Rachel Reeves and Kitty Ussher were absolutely hopeless and if they are considered to be the future leading lights of the Labour Party then I am in total despair.
You don’t make me sorry I missed it….
Kitty Ussher is, always, disappointing. It would be hard to meet a more confirmed Tory
There’s surely the world of difference admitting that the tories will keep cutting and saying that Labour will have to keep these same cuts?
Where is the clear blue water between them and the tories? What is the point of voting for them? Sadly, Labour is absolutely terrified of the media and the opinion of big business. Until they make at least a token break from this, Lanour is going to be indistinguishible from the other mainstream parties!
Don’t doubt – I still think just that
Today not a PR success so far
It’s true that the Balls’ line is not exactly the same as Osborne’s but the practical difference hardly substantial.
The alternative was to squeeze the existing tax gap, something Balls, being a congenital Lafferholic, helped create when he was in office.
Balls has shown his true colours by siding with Osborne when he could have chosen a more responsible and fairer alternative path. The City and its co-parasites in the tax avoidance industry will love him.
The opportunity to tackle the tax gap is one Labour has to take now
If Balls does mean what you claim, then it proves why he is unfit for public office: because everything he says is supposed to have 2 meanings, one for those “in the know” and the other, opposite meaning, for Joe Public.
“My starting point is, I am afraid, we are going to have keep all these cuts”. In any language, “keep” involves an element of choice. If he had said “My starting point will be, I’m afraid, that left by the Tories and we will have to live with the mistakes they have made”, then fair enough. But he has said he will KEEP their cuts. Not REVIEW, not REVERSE, but KEEP.
Or to put it another way, KEEP for how long? Is it not disingenuous to say “well, I said KEEP, what I really meant was to KEEP until the next budget, when I would jettison them”.
I think, by the way, that if any party attempted to speak honestly to the electorate and to ignore the media when it goes on about gaffes (Ken Clarke was the last politician to do this but is clearly gaga now) then they would walk into power. But that comment is a prime example of why politicians lose respect: because they believe they will be popular by saying things that can be interpret by each according to their position. They would be more popular, and more respected, if they told the truth.
Roger, may I suggest that you read the Triumph of the Political Class by Peter Oborne and then like me you will be completely disenchanted by our politicians. No politician is ever going to tell the truth, because frankly that would lead to a revolution in this country when the majority would actually realise that the country is being run for the TOTAL benefit of the ruling elite and what we have is a completely dysfunctional democracy.
I won’t be disenchanted. I wasn’t ever enchanted in the first place.
And then there’s this point of view; http://eoin-clarke.blogspot.com/2012/01/why-socialists-should-support-what-ed.html which offers to explain much…
And is extremely good…..
And a well argued point of view it is
I too was at the Fabian conference yesterday. I asked EdB whether he had read Debunking Economics and when he said ‘no’ suggested that he should. I also suggested that he stopped using neoclassical advisors and sought out some of those who predicted the crisis – or summat like that. He said that was the most astute question he had ever been asked – and mentioned that I was also a tax campaigner. On reflection I wonder whether he was being condescending. I guess I’m known as a bit of a nuisance at these events.
The world needs persistently awkward people
They create change
It’s why you are welcome here
The election is 3 years away so there is no point in getting worked up about what Labour would do if in power in 2015. If Balls had confidence in his own analysis IMO what he should be doing is set out the policies which he would adopt now. But that’s a big ‘if’.
Abolition of the City of London Corporation
1) Its the right thing to do for a multitude of reasons, regardless of the day to day political to and fro.
2) The coalition either agree to do it or they’re forced to defend it.
3) If they defend it you’re forcing them into a position of defending a shadowy undemocratic wealthy elite that facilitates and participates in tax evasion. Not exactly the ‘narrative’ they’d appreciate given their position on cutting public spending.
Its a no brainer for Labour – what are they waiting for ?
Let’s take today’s move and hope it moves on from there
I see what you’re saying
But these things, I have realised, take time
Guess whose letter I saw in the Morning Star the other day, Carol. π
There was one the day before in the FT. Both were sent a week or so ago and were surprised when they appeared in print.
[…] caught between the devil and theΓΒ deepΓΒ blue amongstΓΒ LabourΓΒ supportersΓΒ this weekend. On Saturday I wrote a blog in which I explained what I thought Ed Balls was really trying to say in his speeches and […]