It wasn't a "Balls up"

As the Labour party's popularity in the opinion polls gradually collapses, and the pressure on Gordon Brown mounts up, we can expect to see more and more of the Labour inner circle go further and further "off message".

We have so far got to two consecutive polls showing Labour under 30%, and one cabinet minister starting to spout off on his own. This just the start of things. Time will bring more unpopularity for the government and, more and more, the cabinet descending into a rabble of incoherent voices. There are, after all, at least eight of them who have some kind of prospect of calling themselves leadership candidates. They need the oxygen of personal publicity.

Let the games commence!

That makes him the Mad Hatter, and we're off into Alice in Wonderland.

The language being used the the politicians is laughable. We all know the economy is terrible, and that we are up the creek without the paddle (or the means to procure a supporting second paddle).

Pride always comes before a fall and so the "End of Boom and Bust" has come back to haunt the PM. He is no doubt doing all he can to "save the world" or at least protect "British Jobs for British Workers" but really, letting the the man preside over the clean up after his mess is a little rich. As Scolari found out a few bad results and you are sacked. Hasn't Brown had more than his fair share of bad results.

Now the allegation against Cameron is that he would "do nothing". Which might well be a fair charge given that he isn't in power. He may lack experience and be a novice, but surely it is time to at least give the country the option to vote on it. After all I'd rather have nothing done, than more mistakes being thrashed about by the Government, who like a gambler in need of a fix, keep betting on the country's finances without limits and restrictions.

Classic New Labour Spin

Point out the worst case scenario, then claim the rewards for making the downturn not as bad as it could have been.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"Gordon Brown has consistently been the slowest to spell it out, the most aware of the dangers of undermining confidence and the quickest to criticise the Tories for "talking Britain down"."

Translation:
Gordon Brown has tried to conceal the truth from the public and tried to cast aspersions on those telling the truth?


"Others believe that it is only by spelling out how bad things are that the public will engage with Labour's argument that the Tories are proposing to "fiddle whilst the global economy burns". "

Whoa! Where's that come from? Bit out of left-field there.

I suppose you need balance, but that's a bit of a bold statement for what nameless third party individuals think might happen regarding a hypothetical strategy. But get the idea out there, by all means.

It is delightful to know that whilst more and more of my fellow countrymen and women are being put out of their jobs, their homes and their businesses the drivers of the Westminster gravy-train are trying to play games with the broader public for their own short-term political gain.

This is an obscenity!

We already know how bad things are and there is no sign of an improvement.

The only turn for the better we seek at the moment is a sign that it will stop getting worse.

I am reassured that Balls does not know when that is likely to be as I know he and his friend are totally out of touch anyway. I would be more concerned if he could tell us when things `can only get better'; to coin a phrase.

The NULab guide to clarification:

I'm sure you understand what it is you think I said, but I'm not sure you realise that what I said was not what I meant. I intended to make it clear that what I meant to say cannot be misunderstood, and that any misunderstanding is the fault of your own believing that your interpretation of what you thought I said is infallible.

Instructions for use:
To be used in all cases where the speaker has unintentionally told the truth to the electorate.

Ed Balls idea "to spell it as it really is" to instil confidence in Labour is a non-starter.

Wake up Labour. No confidence can be won back. Its been lost forever.

Why would anyone ever wish to "engage with Labour" ever again?

Haven't they learnt the 'simple facts of life' yet?

They have mucked the Economy up and the future of UK plc more than any other Government in the History of Parliament.

I'm sure the ghosts of past Kings and Queens must be turning in their graves and wondering why they haven't been locked up in the Tower of London.

I guess Mr Balls, Mr Brown and Mr Darling will soon be claiming their JSA.

Bye bye Mr Balls.

Goodness me, when the Tories suggest 'to do or not to do' they are accused of being 'the do nothing party. Nice sound bite. I do not remember any explanations or reassessing as to what was meant by an of the statements.

When the Tories say how bad it is they are talking the country/economy/sterling down. The BBC gave such items great air time in a negative light.

But when your party, Nick, say something there is always an explanation? They are all terrified that they will seen as being asleep at the wheel, or in denial, so we now have clarification of what they meant. This is the 2nd blog on the issue. If the man in question can not express himself without you translating it for us, then as I have always believed, the labour party are on another lanet and do not speak our language. Time they left.

They know nothing, they didn't see it coming and didn't want to know that it had to end. And worst of all they take no responsibility for any of the glaring mistakes they made.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Hi Nick,

Re your text:

"Gordon Brown has consistently been the slowest to spell it out, the most aware of the dangers of undermining confidence and the quickest to criticise the Tories for 'talking Britain down'."

Thanks for picking up on my earlier point.

It is clear now that the Tories can say whatever they like about the seriousness of the depression (which will at least see the economy shrink to pre-1997 levels, thereby invalidating the entire New Labour project).

After Gordon Brown using the "D" word at PMQs, and now this balls-by-name, balls-by-nature sentiment, Labour has robbed itself of a stick it used to beat the Tories. Not the cleverest of strategies.

See you in the pub.

Maybe here in southwest London we're insulated from the global economy, but I'm not sure I believe there's really a recession going on. You still can't get into restaurants round these parts on a Friday or Saturday night if you haven't booked.

Surely if things are as bad as they say you'd at least notice that people weren't eating out as much?

And another thing: I'm going to a conference in a few weeks time and tried to book a room in a nearby very large and expensive hotel. It was fully booked. Should that really be happening in a recession?

He knows Browns line on this (all down to the US, recession over in the second half of this year) is indefensible and everyone has seen through it.

For someone to have a career after Brown they need to distance themselves from this nonsense - Balls is doing just that.

They will all be found out, they are just jockying for the best positions for themselves - if they will have a career after brown, then be best placed for it, if the don't have a career after brown then maximise their cash in the bank.

Not only is Ed Balls incompetent (as his time at the Treasury with Gordon Brown ably demonstrates) he cannot read a speech put infront of him.

Ed Balls knows the importance of words. It would behove him to be more careful in future.

The charge that the Tories are a do nothing party assumes that whatever the Government does is the right thing. We know from the last decade this is not always the case. Seemingly with Labour's desire to be seen doing something they are ignoring the risk of doing the wrong thing.

I see Balls' comments, both what he said and what he claims he intended to say, as simply more hot air. He, his colleagues and no amount of experts can actually know what the future holds and nor do they definitely have the appropriate answer. He and his ilk would be bigger men for admitting this.

3 philip m-d

You are right to bring up Brown's failed "do-nothing" gambit against the Tories, often repeated by Gordon's little helpers on this board.

The contrast is with Gordon's own "do anything, the blinder the panic the better" agenda, the prime example being the VAT rate reduction. At some stage soon, I predict one of the senior Labour brethren will break cover and admit that reducing VAT was an expensive disaster. Possibly acknowledging how pathetically little help it gave to the lower paid is too much to hope, though. But if a credible voice from the centre of Labour can come out and confess the truth on VAT, it will be a move in the right direction. And a deep and substantial nail in Brown's political coffin.

Nick,

here is a bit more for you to be going on with.

Jacqui Smith claims that her sister's London home is her main residence, which contradicts her own website:

"Jacqui grew up in Malvern, Worcestershire before moving to Redditch in 1986. She still lives in Redditch with husband, Richard and sons James (13) and Michael (8)."

https://www.jacquismithmp.labour.co.uk/biography

She can't have it both ways.

She should be subject to the same scrutiny as Michael Trend.

Come on, Nick, you can do it and repair your tarnished reputation.

Balls to Brown and all the rest of them. Universally reviled in the UK, they should step aside and let the country choose who should run the future.

They're acting like scumbags waiting to the bitter end before calling an election. It's a disgrace - the damage they can do in that time will be immeasurable.

ELECTION TIME!

Arise Sir Robinson, knighted for services to the Labour party... what a trustworthy young spinster he is.

Well done Nick. You're like a little ferret that gets down someone's trousers and won't let go.
I've offered my own explanation here for what Balls was trying to say and why but your explanation too makes perfect sense.
What is perfectly clear and you've hit the nail on the head, is that this wasn't a 'Balls up'.

https://theorangepartyblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/this-was-no-balls-up.html

"Gordon Brown has consistently been the slowest to spell it out, the most aware of the dangers of undermining confidence and the quickest to criticise the Tories for "talking Britain down"."

Come off it? He has been saying that the present crisis is unprecedented and serious etc. And his puppet chancellor said it was the worst for donkey's years last summer.

It would be fair to say, however, that the suggestion in the pre-budget report last November that the economy would start to grow again in the third quarter of this year was preposterous.

Nick you say :

"He was not arguing that the recession here - or, indeed in the US - will be worse than the the era of the soup kitchens in the 1930s"

Why are you protecting Ed Ball's ? The tone of this report is very soft and almost justifying the ongoing Labour spin to cover up their involvement in the chaos that has hit the UK economy.

As many posters here today are saying this is "good cop - bad cop" stuff and both you and Robert should be smart enough to look beyond Labour's constant spin. [The bank bonus discussion also falls into this category.]

Gordon Brown is in denial which is why the country deserves an election urgently to point the ship in a new and positive direction. His credibility is shot to pieces and should be forced to resign.

Shame HRH can't step in and dissolve parliament.

Nick are you big enough of a man to have another look into what you called a "non story"?

Guido has done some excellent digging and compares, quite rightly, Jacqui Smith's conduct to that of Tory MP Michael Trend.

https://www.order-order.com/2009/02/michael-trend-precednt-is-worrying-for.html

The similarities are staggering. Yet one was found guilt of abusing the allowances system and the other seems to have gotten away with it. Has there been changes to the allowances code in the last six years? If not Jacqui Smith is in hot water.

Good Afternoon,

There are a few queued posts, so no doubt many others will be saying / thinking the same thing. However, regarding the postscript, "P.S. This is the text of what Balls planned to say....", surely the following 'quote' doesn't comprise of properly formed sentences ?
Oh, I get it, open to interpretation (obviously). Hence, another example of the hapless speaker having not intended to convey what was commonly understood.
A pattern is surely emerging ?

Regards.

There is no doubt that those who want to take over the running of the labour party, and steer it in another direction, are now starting to break ranks.

The young career minded MPs, who have many years left ahead of them, now see Gordon Brown as a liabilty for the NuLabour, rather than an asset. Whatever the outcome of the next election, Brown will be forced to stand down. He will always be associated with the demise of Uk Plc. His continuing failure to think through the consequences of his head line grabbing policies is his achiles heel.

His many mistakes have included - Failing to work out that poorly paid workers would lose money when he abolished the 10p tax band - a real brammer for a chancellor. Then, cutting vat by 2 1/2% at xmas when shops were cutting their prices btn 50 and 70% - a real howler. Now for his latest piste de la resistance. When he gave the banks billions of tax payers money as a bail out he forgot, "in the heat of the moment," to cancel future bonuses - priceless.

Little wonder there is so much dispair in NuLabour. There is no doubt there will be more off message remarks like those from Ed Balls in an effort to undermineBrown`s authority. With Mandy really running the show it is already clear that Brown`s authority is on the wane. (You only have to look at his body language. He looks totally dejected with life).

A few more disasterous polls for NuLabour may reignite a challenge for the leadership of the party. With the belief that the best possible outcome achievable at the next election, (that includes losing power; but by the smallest margin possible), is without Gordon Brown, who is widely blamed by the electorate for partly causing the recession - especially if unemployment, as forecast, does exceed 3m.

13. At 1:09pm on 10 Feb 2009, DisgustedOfMitcham2

===

TV chef Antony Worrall Thompson put five of his restaurants - The Lamb in Henley-on-Thames, the Barnes Grill, Notting Grill, Kew Grill and Windsor Grill – into administration yesterday, with the loss of 60 jobs. Last month the chef closed his Greyhound pub in Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, to try and save the rest of his business but on Friday – which also happened to be payday - he was compelled to hold crisis talks with the administrators after bookings collapsed.

Yes, I would say you are insulated.

Nick,

Has your local labour party agent sent you your "VOTE LABOUR" poster to put in your window at the coming election yet?

This makes no sense.

The clear conclusion from the phrase, "the reality is that this is becoming the most serious global recession for, I'm sure, over 100 years", is that the recession will be worse than any in the last century, including the era of the soup kitchens in the 1930s. No amount of spin, obfuscation or backtracking can alter the meaning of these words, and it is not clear why you would attempt to do so. If, in fact, he was reflecting on the Japanese economy (which frankly seems a bit far fetched if he's addressing a Labour Party conference in Yorkshire), why didn't he say so?

You then suggest that in fact, his motivation for using this phrase was because there is a conflict among the cabinet about how far to conceal the true state of the economy. Now, if that is true, and by using the phrase presumably you are arguing that Mr Balls wants to be more open on the subject, how can you then conclude that he didn't mean to say it? If however, in fact, he didn't mean to say it, surely the issue here is the government knowingly concealling the true extent of the recession, to the detriment of the country as a whole?

The rest of this blog is an unconcealled attack on the Tory party, making sure to get in the "talking down Britain" and "Do nothing" jibes. (Just as a matter of interest, who specifically said the Tories are proposing to "fiddle whilst the global economy burns"? I've googled it, and the only result is you.)

Turning this into some sort of political attack on the Tories will, I'm sure, please the Labour Party no end, but I'm not clear how that squares with the BBC's obligations in terms of its own charter.

The question here is not, what did Mr Balls mean to say (too late, he's already said it), but rather what is the government not telling us? Any political reporter worth a fraction of their salary would recognise that, but of course, he who pays the piper calls the tune, and you know who pays the piper, don't you?

Ed Balls once muttered something like "So what of taxes go up" in PMQs and had the Hansard? record changed. No-one will forget this 'open mouth, insert foot' moment. He usually means what he says until told otherwise by his master.

This man will never be PM.

He is in hock to Nulabour and will, if there is any justice, sink with Crash's ship.

Nick

can't you see how the makes you look.

Balls makes a Balls up

Your fed a line by number 10
"It was Balls"

Then the spin changes and you have to do a thinly disguised U turn

It wasn't a "Balls up"

Then you include your usual Labour provided Tory smear slogans.

The Tories weren't in this story. Labour cocked it up all by themselves.

This is either about ZaNuLabour trying to Blair people's perceptions

Or

ZaNuLabour are now collectively from top to bottom suffering from Tourette's syndrome where they can't trust their mouths to deliver what their brains are sending.

This is going to be very bad and we need our media to deliver for us so we can make informed judgments. So pull your finger out.
If you want to know how it should be done look here

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/dailypolitics/andrewneil/2009/02/d_for_depression.html?

'only by spelling out how bad things are that the public will engage with Labour's argument that the Tories are proposing to "fiddle whilst the global economy burns" '

This isn't an argument, it's an entirely spurious assertion. Repetition doesn't make it true.

nick drew

SO WHAT!

The man who thinks he's chancellor claims today "Our decision to bring forward £3bn of capital spending will support jobs in construction and industry"and that is the sum of the fiscal stimulus(discounting Vat which is just daft) I reckon this is the level of error in the tax credit system.So that is just about a fraud of an economic policy so forget claims of tories doing nothing we know who talks a lot and does nothing.

Will we see BrownVille appearing in Hyde Park before the end of the decade...?

Or should that be BallsTown, perhaps ?

#13 disgustedofmitcham2

"I'm going to a conference in a few weeks time and tried to book a room in a nearby very large and expensive hotel."

I would like to commend you on staying in a hotel that is both "nearby" and "expensive". Well done on your fiscal stimulus, sir. Well done.

So when Osbourne and Cameron point out the nightmareish situation we're in they get accused of "talking down the economy", but when Balls opens his mouth it's "tension at the heart of government about how far to spell out the scale of the economic problem."

The BBC gets less and less impartial every day.

So not all of them have been programmed into denial. But of course someone had to know the truth so the others could deny it.

Perhaps we see that events are overtaking this government and denial is no longer an option.

So where do we go now? What needs to be done? How bad is it?

They are the next questions we need answers to.

#25 briangare

"Piste de la resistance"

Wonderful eggcorn that.

Why do we bother asking New Labour politicians to say anything at all? From editing Hansard, to "Saved the World", "Re-DePression", to "worst in 100years, I'm sure" and "British Jobs for British Workers"

They have the habit and to their shame the BBC are helping them get away with it.


PS - Can a tax acountant help us out please? My assumption is, that if Ms Smith sells her house in Worcestershire I suppose she'll have to pay CGT since it's evidently not her Main Home (can you ask her Nick which house she defines as her Principal Place of Residence to HMR&C? I'm sure that answer will immediately help us understand what's going on here)

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Hmmm, let me count the days ... since the Jacqui Smith story broke.

I make it three days so far.

According to Alastair Campbell, provided the politician can ride it out for about ten days, then with a bit of luck, another story will have come along to knock this one off.

So, only another seven days to go for Ms. Smith to survive this episode.

Who put the 'moc{k}' in democracy?

"French President Nicolas Sarkozy has praised Gordon Brown for his "key role" in tackling the global downturn just days after criticising UK policies.

Mr Sarkozy caused surprise in Downing Street on Friday when he attacked the UK's stimulus plan and said the recent VAT cut had "absolutely not worked". "
----------------------------------------------

Which shows us that Mr Sarkozy has done a really good job of moulding himself on his political hero, Tony Blair. Saying one thing to one audience and immediately the opposite thing to another different audience. And both incompatible speeches saying opposite things stated with the same level of apparent heartfelt sincerity.

It also shows everyone that you cannot believe a single word Sarkozy says either.

#39 pilotspeaking

If Jacqui has not elected for her London "property" to be her Principle Private Residence then it will come down to a question of fact, to be determined by HMRC or through a tribunal process if appealed.

They would consider things such as billing address, where they are registered to vote, council tax ... etc.

However, as she doesn't actually own the property in London, it would be difficult for them to argue that is her principle private residence. She would be denied a form of relief on a property that she owns and this could be inequitable, given that she does clearly reside there.

In addition, her husband stays at their residence in West Midlands. A husband and wife can only have one PPR between them, so the PPR would probably be determined as her West Midlands home.

On the other hand, I believe the MPs elect which is their "second home" for expenses purposes. This isn't a question of fact and would probably not influence HMRC. It is not included in their manuals as a specific factor.

Basically, I think her PPR is irrelevant to the situation. Sorry.

However, you might be interested to know that she possibly doesn't pay any tax on the expenses for her second home as it might be covered as an "overnight expense allowance" which is a specific exemption for MPs.

Whilst I do not know what it does include, I have read elsewhere on the BBC website that it "may include" mortgage interest, gas, electricity, etc.

@13: "Should that really be happening in a recession?"

Disgusted, well if there wasn't a recession, then top TV chef Anthony Worral Thompson would NOT be closing 5 of his 7 restaurants.

Thousands of business would not have closed.

Unemployment would NOT be rocketing up.

GDP would NOT have shrunk.

But you would still be an arrogant, myopic fool!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

So that's Ed Balls , his wife, and Jaqui Smith gone at the next reshuffle. Comrade Brown will take a dim view of anyone who embarrasses the supreme being. The Express has a brilliant caricature of Brown dressed as Stalin today, it suits him to a T . When, Mr Robinson are you and your colleagues going to ask Mrs Smith, who " hasn't done anything wrong" why she thinks it's acceptable ( legally or otherwise ) to pocket £114,000 of the taxpayers' money when so many people are struggling to survive in this country because of the incompetence of the government she works for. She may have broken no laws, but she displays a decided lack of morality in the circumstances.

Anyone who thinks Mr Balls made this comment by accident is naive at best.

Labour do know about spin.

The overblown context of the assumed deepest recession since the invention of pen, ink and paper gives Labour an excuse to completely ruin the public finances and perhaps make all commentators forget that Brown was running a budget deficit of almost 3% in 2005/6 when the economy was growing above trend.

The Brown deficit policy obviously had Mr Balls's consent since clearly he is such an honourable politician that he would have stepped down if he had not agreed.

At least Balls and Mr Robinson are on message: the word GLOBAL is in the frame again.

Yes, the US and RoW (Rest of the World) were forcing Brown to run that budget deficit when the going still seemed good.

Yes, the US and RoW were forcing those UK banks to sell 100%-plus UK mortgages to UK customers.

Yes, the US and RoW were forcing UK banks to fund themselves substantially through wholesale markets rather than deposits.

Yes, the US and RoW were forcing the UK regulator to let UK banks become the weakest-capitalised banks in any large country.

None is the fault of the guy who in his 2006 Mansion House speech said he would resist the creation of a single financial markets regulator in Europe (speech can be found on The Guardian's website. Type into Google Brown+Mansion+House+speech+
2006).

Cheeriu

The British public needs to realise what's been happening here.

For a long time, our political elite have known full well the dire straits in which we find ourselves. Bear in mind that the hallmarks of the Blair/Brown Labour Adminstration have been Sofa Government, Spin and Deceit (10 years of stealth taxation epitomising the latter). Why should anyone expect a Brownian Government to be anything other than One Big Lie?

Brown knows too that he is largely responsible for the parlous state of the UK economy (some might call it a basket case the way things are shaping up ...). By all independent, objective accounts the UK is going to be hit hard, really hard, by this crisis, thanks to the Labour Party's economic incompetence, maladministration and contempt for the ordinary, hard-working, decent citizens of this country.

I surprise myself - hitherto a staid, professional, middle-class father and husband - at the extent to which I am yearning to see demonstrations and protests at the appalling behaviour of our ruling elite this past year or so. I am extremely angry.

I'm in no doubt that it's now just a matter of time before the lid blows off and the politicians get a rude awakening. Taking the British people for a ride is never a good idea; we're a tolerant lot, but only up to a point. We've now all but reached that point.

I, for one, am looking forward to seeing this shambles of a Government get its come uppance. Surely, it will go down as one of the worst in UK modern history.

#44:

Arrogant myopic fool I may be, but at least I don't use unpleasant language about my fellow posters.

But my point is this. There is one story that we read in the news every day. There is also the evidence in what I observe. There seems to be a staggering disconnect between the two.

Now, I know my own experiences aren't a statistically significant sample, but I really don't think it's just me. I was at a meeting with a bunch of other company directors yesterday who were also seeing little sign of anything more than a minor slowdown in the economy.

So my question still stands. What's going on? Is there some strange little bubble around southwest London that's insulating it from the recession? Or is it just that restaurants and hotels are some of the last things people stop spending on when money is tight? Or could it be that the stories we're hearing the media are sensationalising what is actually a fairly minor problem and making it sound like something huge because that's a more exciting story?

BTW, are you sure AWT wouldn't be closing his restaurants if there weren't a recession? Restaurants come and go all the time. Maybe they weren't very good? I don't know, I've never eaten there, but I'm not going to blame the closure of a single restaurant chain on a recession.

"only by spelling out how bad things are that the public will engage with Labour's argument that the Tories are proposing to "fiddle whilst the global economy burns""

So we have more facile and infantile "ya-boo" name calling from labour in lieu of any REAL solutions. And with Nick Robinson's direct assistance too.

Actually, Nick, the public are engaged in the fact that the tories are NOT in a position to do anything at all about this and probably will remain unable to do anything for another 16 months or so due to being in OPPOSITION. Do labour REALLY hold the electorate in such dire contempt that they really believe that voters will be wondering,

"I wonder why the tories have not fixed the economy yet? They are such a bunch of do nothings!!!"

The public are also very engaged in the fact that labour and Brown inparticular HAS been in direct power and has had direct responsibility for the economy for the last 12 years almost.

Therefore the public are very engaged in the serious business of knowing WHO is responsible for the mess we are in and that would be the 'achieve nothing labour party'.

NO AMOUNT of doom-mongering will divert the people from knowing this is LABOUR'S depression from the outset.

They had their chance to claw back some initiative as the recession first bit. But labour did nothing. Then they denied we were in a recession, then they claimed we were best placed to come out of the "downturn" and it all started in America. Then they panicked, knee-jerked, came up with the disastrously wasteful, ineffective VAT cut, then panicked some more, then claimed that the tories policies would not work, then they knee-jerked again, but into stealing some Tory policies whilst lying that the tories had no policies, then they misunderstood those policies and implemented them badly, then blamed the tories when they did not work!

The people are NOT going to engage in pathetic labour lies. Nick, start reporting facts instead of trying to act on lebour's behalf in their pathetic and amateurish attempts at damage limitation. You are SUPPOSED to be an impartial reporter, NOT a paid labour hack!

46 Kaybraes

Now why would the BBC want to do that? They dont want to rock the boat do they.

@48 moraymint

Well said!

'I for one, am looking forward to seeing this shambles of a Government get its come uppance. Surely, it will go down as one of the worst in UK modern history.'

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Do my posts relating to the moral equivalence of the home secretary stating an untruth that her sisters camp-bed is her primary home to claim expenses and a benefit cheat not notifying the benefits people of a wealthy live-in lover get moderated because they suggest that Ms Jacqui Smith is the moral (if not legal) equivalent of a benefits cheat?

It is true. How is this against the posting rules?

It's intellectually convenient, I suppose, for everyone to agree on what we're currently experiencing ... downturn ? recession ? depression ? .. but in the end, if you're one of those who've lost your job and in danger of losing your home, it doesn't matter a damn what Ed Balls or Gordon Brown, or anyone else calls it... it's a disaster. And, I have to say how irritating I find it, when I keep hearing about how Gordon Brown is the guy to blame for this disaster. It's the same irritation I feel when I keep hearing how social workers are responsible for the torture and murder of small children. It really is time as a society we started to put the blame where it truly lies and took steps to punish those who are responsible, whether it be for child abuse or squandering billions of pounds on dodgy investments and then having the unmitigated cheek to ask for billions more of our money so that bonuses to top executives can be paid. Can't we designate next month "Shoot an investment banker a day" Month ?

@49: DisgustedOfMitcham2, I humbly apologise for name calling. It was wrong, I was letting off steam and you were my unfortunate victim. I am very sorry.

As for restaurants, well customers are downsizing. AWT's restaurants were at the high end of the market and these are being hit hard everywhere. Prices are falling in other restaurants. Wherever people can continue with their "lifestyle" but with less cost then they will. McDonalds will probably see an increase in trade from people who used to use Pizza hut. Pizza hut will see people who dined at a nicer class of private restaurant.
More and more people are staying home and as a result, Netto and Aldi are doing very well.

Re: my above comment 43 ....

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7881533.stm

Just read in the latest report that the Additional Cost Allowance is tax-free.

So, just to put that in perspective, that's the equivalent of up to £40,688 additional salary a year then.

That'd be the equivalent of additional salary of £196,610 paid to Jacqui (£116,000 net).

In terms of "tax avoision", that's pretty good going.



For those that are interested why it is tax-free, the relevant piece of legislation is ITEPA 2003 s292, and it reads thus:

"292 Overnight expenses allowances of MPs
(1) No liability to income tax arises in respect of an overnight expenses allowance paid to a Member of the House of Commons in accordance with a resolution of that House.
(2) “Overnight expenses allowance” means an allowance expressed to be in respect of additional expenses necessarily incurred by the Member in staying overnight away from the Member’s only or main residence, for the purpose of performing parliamentary duties—
(a) in the London area, as defined in such a resolution, or
(b) in the Member’s constituency."

The usual criteria applied to expenses paid by an employer are "wholly, exclusively and necessarily" incurred, as opposed to just "necessarily" in this case.

What it means, is that Gordon Brown's department drew up legislation in 2003 that allowed MPs to claim expenses free of tax, expenses that weren't actually wholly or exclusively for the purpose of doing their job.

When you ask "why are MPs allowed to do this?" check out who drew up the rules...

OKOKOK. Now who would you vote for - Top Gear of NuLabour.

Surely as a responsible journalist you, Nick, should be reporting on Ed Balls speech from the viewpoint of the electorate and not from any other position. It seems that almost everyone at large is concerned that the government has been concealing from the public that the economic crisis is much worse than they have led us to believe.

There are many questions to ask of government about this and in a dialogue with us, the public, you could be engaging us to provide the main questions rather than guess. That is what blogs are good for, asking for ideas, opinions and questions. You may have very valid questions of your own but are they ones that we share?

The government has its own apparatus to explain the contradictory statements of its ministers and needs neither you or the BBC to do it for them.

This post of yours seems to have come from a government spokesman. Nick, I look forward to your television despatches, instead of outside of 10 Downing Street, from inside Number 10.

#55: Apology accepted. And what a splendid apology it was too: you certainly put those banking chappies we heard from this morning to shame!

You could well have a point about the restaurants. The ones round here, while there are some good ones, are certainly not top of the range. Maybe they've picked up all the people who used to go to AWT's places.

Still think it's odd that I couldn't get into a 5-star hotel though.

And yes, in a mild recession, you'd expect people to trade down a notch in restaurants but not stop eating out altogether. But in the worst recession for a hundred years? I still have a sneaking suspicion that something doesn't add up.

You say:

"He was not arguing that the recession here - or, indeed in the US - will be worse than the the era of the soup kitchens in the 1930s."

He actually said:

"I think that this is a financial crisis more extreme and more serious than that of the 1930s and we all remember how the politics of that era were shaped by the economy."

Can you explain how you can interpret the phrase "more extreme and more serious" to mean "not worse than"?

Thanks.

To disgusted of Mitcham:
You make an important point about the difference between your experience of the local economy and general perceptions of the recession.

Most NHS patients rate their treatment as good or very good,but the majority of the population believe the NHS is getting worse.
The source of this discrepancy has to be negative stories in press and television.

Despite the hurricane of invective hurled at Mr.Robinson,the BBC is not Labour or Conservative but a battleground between competing points of view, unlike newspapers which are often the political instruments of wealthy men like Lords Black and Rothermere.
Best wishes
Bryher

Nick

It is not (as you put it) the tories that are fiddling, it is the home secretary...


Any update on mandleson/oleg/tarriffs ?

I have read the 53 comments up until 4.20pm 10.02.09., and if Mr Robinson believed that he had achieved nothing else, than quietening the Bloggers over one very irritating question, he has now failed.

When are you going to ask the Business Secretary in his lofty H. of L. perch, about his time on the Russian yacht? You trawled through another guest but remained singularly quiet about Mandelson, WHY?

I am extremely disappointed in some of my fellow bloggers who were after this question. Where are you now? We do at least still have "Call an election"

No16 jrperry
You seem to speak with the same authority on political and economic issues as my acquaintances in the physics department. Most of them are happy to admit being political novices.

Disgusted

It may be Mitcham. I've been counting the regular posters on the RP blog and it's now 1 a week losing their jobs out of 50. As a sample, that's about 5% of the population per month, and that means we go past 1930 by early summer. Don't forget, even the unemployed have to be fed, and that puts an ever-increasing load on everyone else.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

disgusted 59, bryhers 61

Whenever any poster on this forum tries to make a rational argument that not everything in the UK is doom n gloom yet, Britain is not quite broke(n) yet, etc., a rabid Daily Mail / Telegraph person, if fact usually a whole pack of them, rounds on him or her straight away, telling us all how we're heading for ruin.

You have to suspect that there is a political motivation for this.

bryhers I agree with you completely on the NHS. My mum just had fantastic and very speedy hip replacement and aftercare on the NHS- but sadly to many on this blog that vastly improved position from even 5 years ago would simply constitute a waste of taxpayers' money.

I watched that last piece where Chakrabarti interviews Ed Balls.

To me it seemed to be a bit of pre-election positioning i.e. we're doing something to help and the Tories say 'do nothing'.

Plus the political comfort food of 'other countries, France, USA, ectera' are in the same boat.

I suppose politicians are sub-conciously always looking ahead to the next election and here Balls is partly setting out the store.

As in 'we in Government are doing all we can to get families and businesses through this {subtext - so you should be grateful and re-elect us}'.

Somehow, even if they succeed in pulling the economy out of this nosedive, I think it won't be enough ... English people have probably had enough of the NL Blair/Brown/Mandelson/Campbell bandwagon and just want to see some new faces.

Even though deep down, the electorate just know that it'll be failure all over again.

Tricky business politics.

56. At 4:31pm on 10 Feb 2009, ColonelDigby wrote:
Re: my above comment 43 ....

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7881533.stm

...The usual criteria applied to expenses paid by an employer are "wholly, exclusively and necessarily" incurred, as opposed to just "necessarily" in this case.

===

She doesn't even fulfil the diluted "necessarily" test because as Home Secretary she has the use of a grace and favour home in London with full security detail.

She declined that so she could lodge with her sister to enable her to keep claiming her ACA and in so doing the taxpayer has to fork out an additional GBP200,000 a year in police protection at her sister's house.

As Yvette Cooper said:

"I think there is a moral responsibility on some of these bankers, even if they are legally entitled to take bonuses, at a time when the bank is only still standing because of government intervention and why I think there is an important issue of needing to restore trust in the city, senior executives need to take responsibility and consider whether they should be taking bonuses."

Substitute politicians for bankers

Substitute expenses for bonuses

and Smith's position is morally indefensible.

It must be a virus - or something similar.

First Brown says things he didn't mean, Balls does something similar (secretly I think he is up to something, can't get respect by saying it's the Bankers fault, so go with the idea that we are telling it how it is, and it's going to be bad, gain some 'cred' for this)

And now Teacosy has joined in and contradicts himself.

My interpretation of Balls comments are

It will make the 1930's look like a practice run

Nick,

the interview of Ed Balls by Reeta Chakrabarti was nothing more than a party political broadcast. Twice he made the fatuous comment that the Tories are a "do nothing party".
1 They are not the government so cannot do anything.
2 They have put forward proposals that have been later adopted by the government. RC really needs to interview and cross examine, not act like a Zanulabour puppy having her tummy tickled by nice Uncle Ed.

Turning to your blog you have given the comment "fiddle whilst the global economy burns". quotation marks. Could you please explain who you are quoting and in what context?

Finally, I am becoming increasingly concerned that you are in danger of becoming the "Bernard Ingam" of new labour and the BBC is working at being "Satchi and Satchi". As Political Correspondent you should be explaining the situation, not repeating the Downing Street line,and "s** it" if they don't give you an exclusive.
Cut the strings and start being yourself.

#60. The BBC is totally biased towards Labour, just listen to any interview with a Labour MP and then listen to the same interviewer interview a Tory MP.

Take the recent remarks by J Brand and the chap who was in the green room with C Thatcher, it is ok to rant and compare Mrs Thatcher to all sorts of things, ON AIR,.

Get real, the BBC stands for Browns Broad......., It used to be Blairs BR....... What makes me mad is we pay for it.

#65:

Sorry, not sure I follow your maths there. Surely 1 a week out of 50 is about 8% per month?

But in any case, 2 points need to be made about that:

1. Is the sample representative of the population? I suspect not.

2. How many of those people who lose their jobs find another one within a reasonable space of time? People losing jobs is all part of the natural scheme of things: you only have to start worrying if they can't find another one.

Just in case anyone is in doubt about the effect on business of the VAT cut:

I had some work done shortly before Christmas by a major plc. They gave me a fixed price for the work of £191, which I accepted and they did the work.

I have just received an invoice saying I owe them £4. When I ask for clarification from their accounts department, they discover that it is their automated system trying to recover the VAT reduction from me (the earlier price for the work with VAT at 17.5% was £195).

They say they will issue me with a credit note for £4.

I however fully expect to be blacklisted for non-payment of the £4.

@56 Colnel Digby

Thank you for that and for your earlier advice on HMRC's view on Jacqui Smith's tax position.

In summary then, we seem to be certain that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (prop G Brown) will consider the Smith's Principal Place of Residence to be their house in Worcestshire, whereas, Mrs Smith (boss G Brown) and the Parliamentary Accounts Office consider her Main Residence to be the spare room at her sister's house in Peckham. Is that where she keeps her Moral Compass, or is that in the bottom drawer at her PPR?

I assume the Balls-Cooper publicly funded housing arrangements are similarly transparent to the electors come the great day soon?

@ 61: "Despite the hurricane of invective hurled at Mr.Robinson,the BBC is not Labour or Conservative but a battleground between competing points of view,"
----------------------------------------------

Really? well the BBC are doing a very good job of acting like the labour press office at the moment. Why else deliberately misquote Balls in a retraction to make it seem as if he never really said what he said. That is not reportage it is labour propaganda.

Why explain away blatant labour sleaze as inconsequential with a closing paragraph referring to ancient and much milder tory sleaze as if to subliminally make the reader think, oh well, it may be a bit sleazy, but the tories are worse. Every time any slight hint of current tory sleaze raises it's head, the culprit is deselected from the next election, has the whip removed and they have to repay money....

Compare and contrast with labours slithering and denial.

Jacqui Smith may not have broken any rules, but I believe that what she did has the moral equivalence of benefit fraud.

You will not hear anything like this from the BBC though.

the bias from the BBC takes the form of the following.

If a tory had recently done what Jacqui had done, then it would be reported as:
"They have not broken any rules but, IT IS SURELY IMMORAL AND WRONG AND WILL REMIND PEOPLE OF THE OLD TORY SLEAZE THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO GET AWAY FROM!"

whereas with labour it would be:
"Some people may claim that it is wrong but, THEY HAVE NOT BROKEN ANY RULES!"

Notice the difference?

BBC impartial? They do not know the meaning of the word.

Nick is about as impartial as the average Labour backbencher.

Actually no, thinking about it, the average labour backbencher is willing to criticise labour policies occasionally, unlike Nick!

#72:

Excactly. When Tony Blair came into office he said 'For eighteen years we have been able to say lots of things but do nothing'. Now we have the opportunity to do something. The same applies to David Cameron. When the time comes things will be done and he will be judged by the results.

OH DEAR YAWN!!!!!!!!

A TRUE TOUCH OF THE LOBSTERS GONADS?

He has about as much sincerity as a flim-flam man.

George Osborne didn't actually break any rules - but you didn't lead on that story, did you?!

...what about Mandleson and that yacht - there's probably a much better story there if you can be bothered to find out.....!

To trueblue:
Thank you for comment.
It is characteristic of activists on all sides of
politics to believe the BBC favours their opponents.
If there is a bias in the BBC it is towardsa a kind of diffuse centrism which all mainstream political parties inhabit.A study in the Journal of Communication,(Winter 1990,Vol 40) showed that heavy TV viewers have a bias towards centre parties,particularly if their interest in politics is weak or moderate. This may help explain the surge of support for the LIB-Dems during election campaigns when involuntary exposure to Politics on TV increases.
If you are genuinely concerned abour partisanship, look to the press.We don`t want to gag the BBC over which the public have some control.
Best wishes.
Bryher

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Over the past few months the Tories have put forward a number of policies aimed at minimising the effects of the credit crunch and leading the country out of the recession. Some of their ideas would even appear to have been adopted, at least in part, by the Government. Yet, the Prime Minister continues to repeat the mantra that they are the "do nothing" party at every opportunity.
Brown has every right to argue his case that the economy would not be safe in the hands of the Tories and that their policies would fail. What he should not be allowed to do is continue to deny that they have any policies at all. Clearly if they were in power they would "do something" although there is no guarantee their policies would be any more effective than those of the Government.
To put it bluntly every time Brown states the Tories are the "do nothing" party he is lying. Pure and simple.
In a similar vein he claims the whole world agrees with his policies despite clear evidence to the contrary including very specific criticism from German and French Ministers.
Now he claims Britain is "leading the world" in sweeping away the bonus culture. Another blatant lie. America has already capped Bank executives salaries and France have already announced there will be no bonuses in 2009 for banks receiving state aid. Meanwhile Britain has anounced a review.
What next - Britain are leading the world in disclosure of MP's expenses!!! British schools leading the way in teaching of modern languages!!! Raith Rovers leading the revival of Scottish football!!!

Post 25 an excellent point well made.

I would have posted earlier but had to suffer the chaos that is the West Coast mainline with random cancellation of trains because there may have been bad weather coming and when it didn't turn up well lets not worry about all thouse people paying a price up 8% on last year just to stand and not put the trains back on.

Got that off my chest and feel better for it!

Like a few here I wonder whether Mr Cooper, his wife doesn't like being called Mrs Balls for some reason, actually meant every word of his off message moment?

The report doesn't say which region the meeting was in, which I am sure would be very informative, but I wonder if like bananaman last year this is a tentative head above the parapet to see what happens prior to any contest for party leader post Brown.

JohnConstable @68 wrote:

"... English people have probably had enough of the NL Blair/Brown/Mandelson/Campbell bandwagon and just want to see some new faces."

True. I have long contended that I'd happily vote for a pig's head on a stick if it would ensure that Brown and Co. were ejected from office.

Ed Balls - for physiognomical reasons - would be a good contender. But only if his head was on a stick.....

Nick,

So let me get this straight. Ed Balls says something in a speech. We all read the transcript of the speech and understand what he's saying. But then the NuLabour apparatchik panics because its not "on message" and then issues a statement saying what he thought he was saying, or wanted to say, but not what he actually said.

Gordon Brown says "British Jobs for British workers" and then we get paragraphs of qualifications from the apparatchik telling us he didn't mean what he said.

Lord Mandelson tells British workers to go find jobs in Europe, then again we get "actually he meant something else entirely"

And you report all this as though there is no problem. Incredible.

You really need to ditch your political officer Nick.

SO, either we can trust what our politicians are saying when they are saying it, or we can't and have to wait for the party apparatus to tell us what they actually meant once public reaction has been gauged, quantified and an appropriate response has been strategised and created. Just which is it?

I don't for a second accept the argument that they didn't mean what they said. Speeches are prepared and approved in advance with great thought and care. These are not off-the-cuff responses to questions, these are measured, considered speeches we are talking about.

I see Barack Obama is also using the 'do nothing' phrase. This is just a cop out!

Yerrs, this is a bit of a problem. If I recall correctly Mr Balls is the Education secretary, not the Chancellor although we have heard that Mrs Balls is feeling shunted out in her treasury position. The Problem here is that Mr Balls barely has a grasp of his own job let alone economics, so why is he allowed to pontificate on these matters? In fact we already know that the problem is as bad as the 1930's for the historians its almost as bad as the 1690's when the Bank of England was first set up (Radio4 this morning). Sounds like Ed will soon be exhorting us to row for our lives to remain on good terms with Gord ( Forgive me the saviour of the world no less) .

#82. Thank you bryhers.
We have moved on a bit since the 1990's, or so my children tell me. The BBC is institutionally left wing, revealed in their dislike of middle England, their hatred of Thatcher, love of the EU, republican leanings, etc. etc. And no, we have no control over them, we simply pay for it.

70) japanbytes

'It must be a virus - or something similar. '

You will find it is no virus it is a form of political aphasia.

Brown says one thing and then Ed says something to contradict brown.

Then the spin masters panic and fly out the woodwork to try and convince us they are both are saying the exact same thing using different words.

What do you believe ?

#91:

I think the entire shower are at sixes and sevens.

This is such a non-story, it seems to be just an opportunity for a few journalists to have a titter at Balls' name- though there's nothing wrong with that.

The situation with banks and with industrial production worldwide is as bad as it was in the 30s. There's nothing remotely newsworthy about that statement. It's exactly the kind of bland, obvious statement made by all politicians to journalists.

The question is to what extent anyone such as Obama is prepared to, er, do something to prevent the same kid of human misery which took place in the 30s as a result of the banking failures etc. then...

Warning!

Having seen a very angry and militant John Prescott on breakfast telly this morning, it would appear that this is the start of the revitalisation of the Old Labour Party.

Unwilling to take any blame for the state of the country at the moment, flailing around blaming everyone but themselves.

His rant reminded me of the labour party of the mid eighties.

He should remember he has been at the heart of wasteful spending by this government on his pet projects as deputy PM, throwing about billions of OUR taxes on useless schemes.

Labour where at the helm when the wheels came off. Don't allow them to abdicate responsibility.

Why are we interested what Tinkerbell Balls has to say about this country's economic position? He was a financial adviser to this government who didn't see this economic bust coming, how can anything he say be worth listening to? Surely the "I told you so" people are the ones who should have our attention now. Do you know of any?

Did Peter Mandelson actually tell British workers to go find jobs in Europe?

As in shades of Norman Tebbits 'get on yer bike and look for work'.

Not exactly, as reported in the Indy, where Mandelson emphasized that European companies must have the freedom to operate across the EU.

Nevertheless, there is something ironic in politicians from supposedly opposite ends of the political spectrum, more-or-less singing from the same hymn sheet.

I am amazed how anyone takes notice of this man or his wife he would sell his soul to keep is power in the job he has which he can not do people now tune out when they come on as more and more lies come on the screen and we are asked to believe that Mr Balls knows what he is talking about and his wife Ms Cooper I wonder if they are on something and if not should be.

It shows you what people will sell for power and money and is sad.
Britian is being stripped off its mystical image of fair play and honesty never believed it ever myself but many others did, and now we can see the country is run by cowboys, much more honest.

"It wasn't a balls up"

Oh yes it was.

He didn't say what he planned to say =incompetence.
He didn't mean what he said = incompetence

So nothing new there.

86. MaxSceptic
True. I have long contended that I'd happily vote for a pig's head on a stick if it would ensure that Brown and Co. were ejected from office.

============================

I have a large supply of sticks, so bring them on!!!!

Speaking of Balls. Where was he in PMQs today? No sign of him on The Front Bench although his wife was there. I think we all know why.