Balls steps into the spotlight

I can barely contain my indifference .....

This is probably the appointment Miliband should have taken initially, but I think Johnson will overall be a big loss to the Labour Party as a man who is one of the few people in parliament to have a human face. But has Balls got the bravery to come up with truly inventive policies and fix our broken financial system? See "Bankers do it again. . . " https://extranea.wordpress.com/

I feel a great lurch to the left as we now have two people who helped Gordon Brown Tax and spend us into bankruptcy

I'm no fan of labour but good to see a clear choice emerging in how to tackle the deficit ...

Tories: cut spending, cut growth, make a million people unemployed, stunt the recovery, reduce your tax income as the economy flounders, cut some more to reduce the deficit.

Labour: encourage growth, cut modestly and slowly, increase your income to reduce the deficit.

Mmm...it's so difficult to choose.

You can be an effective Chancellor (or shadow) without understanding finance and economics, but it's no bad thing if you do. Balls should be fine; his task is one of the easier jobs in UK politics today - to expose George Osborne as having precious little clue what he's doing.

Will this be Blair and Brown mark 2.

There was no other choice, was there? Ed and Ed are going to have to concentrate very hard on getting on, or the opposition will unravel. As the coalition is also probably going to unravel (seemingly their main danger being a middle-squeezing rise in mortgage interest rates), it will be highly entertaining but, for the country, a Very Bad Thing.

Alisatir cambell tweets that we know have the shadow chancelor that Mr Osborne did not want....

but expect Torry HQ to release the chancellors xmas list....

Point 3 - Dear Santam can i please have A shadow chancellor who was responsible for the mess we find our selve in

lol

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

I seem to recall Labour supporters on here saying what a great choice Alan Johnson was because he had a working class upbringing and could understand what it was like to be an ordinary bloke.

Ed Balls went to the private all-boys Nottingham High School, Keeble College Oxford and Harvard. But only a fool would try to make a point out of someone's suitability to govern based only on their schooling. Isn't that right, Saga?

Nick, I think that it is very interesting that Ed, despite his original reluctance, has been ‘forced’ into appointing Balls as his shadow chancellor.

There has always been speculation as to why he chose not to appoint him in the first place. Now that we have the opportunity to discuss it, I would like to offer the following thoughts.

Is it because this man was the chief designer of Labour’s ruinous economic policy? Was he worried, that a man who lives in fantasy world where debt doesn’t matter and credit rating agencies don’t exist, might appear to lack credibility? Was he concerned that the electorate might see through Balls and realise, that the main reason why he doesn’t think that there’s a problem, is because that problem is largely his fault?

Or did he just simply think that Johnson was more suitable for the job?

It's just like old times.

The new guy in the treasury versus the leader of the party.

This time it's double trouble. The new guy in the treasury and his wife in the home office.

Unlike Blair though Milliband doesn't have the charisma or the strong allies in the party to withstand the onslaught.

His judgement is certainly flawed or he is willing to gamble by putting this ambitious husband and wife team up to the dizzy heights to be shor down by their own arrogance that they and only they can possiby be right.

Liam Byrne would have been the obvious choice otherwise for the job.

As for Alan Johnson now departed from the frontline. A likeable guy and one of the last of the genuine human faces of the labour party. Perhaps just too straight to even try to defend the deplorable past record of the now shadow chancellor.

Its a big loss to the party. Alan Johnson was hugely respected and had that real ability to connect with people.
Nick, you say “they will delight in trying to drive a wedge between two Eds”, however in reality they will be far more concerned about the effectiveness and drive of Ed balls. Looking forward to the first confrontation with Mr Osborne. Actual v shadow. Someone with some serious nous AND TEETH v Mr wet but dangerous Osborne.

"4. At 6:46pm on 20 Jan 2011, jon112dk wrote:
I'm no fan of labour but good to see a clear choice emerging in how to tackle the deficit ...

Tories: cut spending, cut growth, make a million people unemployed, stunt the recovery, reduce your tax income as the economy flounders, cut some more to reduce the deficit.

Labour: encourage growth, cut modestly and slowly, increase your income to reduce the deficit.

Mmm...it's so difficult to choose."

You're no fan of Labour but quite happy to totally distort coalition and Labour policies to promote Labour.

You forgot the bit about Cameron sacrifing new born babies to Mammon and Labour passing a law so that everyone would be nice and happy and live in perfect harmony and peace.

5. At 6:47pm on 20 Jan 2011, sagamix wrote:
...his task is one of the easier jobs in UK politics today - to expose George Osborne as having precious little clue what he's doing.

He is, apparently, very keen to go after Mr. Osborne. Not as aggressively as Sarah Palin might if she were Shadow Chancellor of course, but jolly aggressively none the less. Let's hope he's still up for it.

I'd just like to clarify my remarks at '9' by saying that looking at Ed Ball's slightly puffy face and red complexion in the picture leads me to conclude that he's probably tee-total.

"5. At 6:47pm on 20 Jan 2011, sagamix wrote:
You can be an effective Chancellor (or shadow) without understanding finance and economics, but it's no bad thing if you do. Balls should be fine; his task is one of the easier jobs in UK politics today - to expose George Osborne as having precious little clue what he's doing."

Well certainly the easisiet job in politics was exposing Alan Johnson as having precious little clue what he was doing.

'his experience as a Treasury adviser'

The experience consisting of helping to inflict on the British people the greatest economic crisis we've suffered in over 80 years.

5. At 6:47pm on 20 Jan 2011, sagamix wrote:
You can be an effective Chancellor (or shadow) without understanding finance and economics, but it's no bad thing if you do. Balls should be fine; his task is one of the easier jobs in UK politics today - to expose George Osborne as having precious little clue what he's doing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
How many can you name from, say, fifty years?

I think Johnson was set up to fail, am surprised he has gone so soon (have we any reason for it - Nick's a bit light on the journalism this Blog) but am sort of pleased. I didn't want him to get a real kicking from the Coalition later on - that's what Balls deserves and will get (he's seriously damaged goods) - and he has an opportunity to take stock, gather support and be ready to take over from Ed in time for 2015.

Its an Outrage Rage make some good points at 7 , however I feel thsi move will help the coalition stick together as Balls dose not see the need for any defict reduduction plans and this will cause problems with Labour members on the right.

Will the Sunday papers tell the world what the postie has been up to ? Now Brown's attack dog enters the lists, thankfully he's in opposition now and cannot visit any more of Labour's incompetent economic policies on the country. I wonder how long it will be before he pulls a " Brutus " and leaves the slack mouthed baby Milliband bleeding on the floor. Only Milliband between him and Labour party glory now, unless Yvette sticks it to him first.

Maybe Dave will replace Alexander with Cable and really get things going!

19. At 7:13pm on 20 Jan 2011, Up2snuff wrote:
I think Johnson was set up to fail, am surprised he has gone so soon (have we any reason for it - Nick's a bit light on the journalism this Blog)

Apparently he resigned for personal reasons, so I imagine the media have elected not to enquire further.

why has he quit was he pushed or ?

Looks like Yvette is going to the be the squeezed middle in an Ed and Ed sandwich!

Ed Milli, Ed Balls, Yvette Cooper, these people want to run or should I say ruin the country again!

Just a bunch of people with no ideas and no contrition for their individual parts in bringing this country to it's knees.

Whatever "family" reason Alan has, he is right to leave the dimwits to self-destruct!

20. At 7:13pm on 20 Jan 2011, jim3227 wrote:
...I feel thsi move will help the coalition stick together as Balls dose not see the need for any defict reduduction plans and this will cause problems with Labour members on the right.

You might well be right. And there hasn't been nearly as much 'divide and rule' wedge-driving stuff from the shadow front-bench as I would expect. It all seems there for the taking, and yet they seem reluctant to go for it. I wondered if they would they rather maintain the status quo with a weak coalition and wait for the inflation and interest-rate rises before they let slip the dogs, but then I remembered that they probably don't think that far ahead. Interesting though, isn't it?

I think Balls will be a brilliant shadow chancellor, but you're right Nick to say that Johnson speaks fluent Human - he is so likeable and I'll miss seeing his face on the shadow front bench in the House of Commons.

18. jobsagoodin
Hi jobs
Helping to inflict?. Im interested in the inflict part particularly. Please can you expand on exactly what he did which inflicted economic crisis. Or part inflicted. Or helped to inflict.
Please help me to understand the particular role of Ed balls in the causing.

Osborne will need to change his trousers more often now that we actaully have someone who knows what he's talking involved in the debate.

Ed and Gordon saved tne world now we need him to save Britain from the asset stripping Hooray Henrys , Beaker and the increasingly deranged Cable.

Regardless of my opinion of 'The Labour Party', Alan Johnson has always appeared to be an intelligent, moderate & charming Labour politician who although he wasn't an economist had a dare i say a 'popular touch'. At least with him Labour tried to do a proper job of opposing the government from a moderate & thinking position. He was also a Blairite and almost appears to be the last senior Labour MP who was electable in high office !!

Instead we now have Ed Balls. Chief apologist for everything Labour did wrong in power, pensions raider, defecit denier, spend thrift, left wing lunacy, gold seller... you name it he'll defend everything ! This is a significant swing to the left. All the 'Socialist workers' here will naturally be delighted!

AndyC555 wrote:

Well certainly the easisiet job in politics was exposing Alan Johnson as having precious little clue what he was doing.

Talking of not knowing what you're doing lansley has decided to remove the responsibility for ordering flu vaccines from GPs because they made such a mess of it.. are these not the same GPs who he is giving 80 billion to so they can run the NHS.

As Robin would say You Couldn't make it up.

It's grim at the Bullingdon Club

This is a double blow to Labour:

1. Losing Alan Johnson is a blow because he has gravitas, is popular and is widely seen as responsive to the needs of ordinary people. He would have grown into the Shadow Chancellor role given time.

2. Ed Balls in this role is bad news. He is an aggressive, closed-minded and arrogant ideologue who is tarred with the brush of Brown's economic idiocy, and he wants us to borrow our way out of excessive debt. (Keynesian management works in a destocking recession, but not in a deleveraging recession, which is what we've got now).

The appointment of Balls presents the government with an open goal. Since Labour's biggest challenge is to put the Blair-Brown years behind it and show that it has moved on, appointing to this key post a man who was once described as "Gordon Brown's representative on earth" is clearly a step in the wrong direction.

Come on Eds - lets bash this "Conservative led coalition" who are destroying this country!!!

Ed Balls should have been shadow chancellor from the start of Ed Miliband leadership, he is an economist, he understands the subject in great detail, and he’s the kind of politician that can hold the government to account in the House of Commons. George Osborne will be very upset at this latest development. I would like to wish Alan Johnson all the best as he has been an excellent MP for years.

4. At 6:46pm on 20 Jan 2011, jon112dk wrote:

I'm no fan of labour but good to see a clear choice emerging in how to tackle the deficit ...

Tories: cut spending, cut growth, make a million people unemployed, stunt the recovery, reduce your tax income as the economy flounders, cut some more to reduce the deficit.

Labour: encourage growth, cut modestly and slowly, increase your income to reduce the deficit.

Mmm...it's so difficult to choose.

-> Mmm 'No fan of Labour' - Classic statement!! ;) Your 'comments' strangely sound like Ed Balls! which is NOT a compliment. What does 'encourage growth' actually mean then ??? To lefties it always means spending your way out of a recession! Unfortunately it's money we don't have without 'borrowing' from international creditors who charge us even more money. Not good!. Labour was brilliant at this and then saying it was 'investing' for the future. Brown, Balls & Milliband were all great apologists for it. Did it work ??? NO it didn't and they were subsequently kicked out of office. You and all you deficit deniers need to realise that a significant remaining part of the Labour Party (including Darling) saw this was a very bad idea and had plans to cut the deficit ... yes i said cut! They had plans if labour was returned to power to balance the books and cut the state more harshly that M.Thatcher did in the early 80s. Perhaps all this is lost on you !!??

Now we have Goondog Trillionaire's chief 'boot licker'!
What a *****-up

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

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

5. At 6:47pm on 20 Jan 2011, sagamix wrote:

You can be an effective Chancellor (or shadow) without understanding finance and economics, but it's no bad thing if you do. Balls should be fine; his task is one of the easier jobs in UK politics today - to expose George Osborne as having precious little clue what he's doing.

-> What a series of comments ! It reads like Polly Toynbee!!! More like you HOPE Balls will be fine!. I suspect you and your 'socialist' chums on here are also praying we never have any recovery at all so Labour 'might' stand a chance of appearing semi-electable again. . Unfortunately for you , Johnson has gone and with it they lost someone who did have an idea how to appeal to 'ordinary' voters. Instead we have Balls. He's not a popular man (outside of the left wing labour party,the unions & Gaurdian land) and has a history of antagnosing anyone who isn't a Labour stooge ! How arrogant to say being a shadow chancellor doesn't require understanding finance/economics. Sure oppositions 'oppose' the government. But to be a real opposition they need to have a real and credible economic plan. Not just the same old tosh.

By the way - it's obvious that Johnson walked partly for private and partly for political reasons. The private reasons making his decision final. Since he was put in the post, Johnson didn't agree with much of what Miliband wanted to do regarding the economy. Also I've heard from sources that Balls was his usual belligerant self in shadow cabinet meetings and Miliband would listen more to Balls than Johnson. So Johnson today weighed this up with his 'private' issues and just thought 'stuff it' and walked.

Lefty11 28

Only too happy to be of help

Due in large part to the reckless public spending that took place during his stint at the treasury Britain ended up with the worst deficit in the whole G20 and the highest in peactime history, suffered the worst recession in 80 years, and the highest levels of youth unemployment since records began (I'll spare you all the gory details but these are some of the highlights).

Quite apart from his time as treasury adviser, he was a highly inflential member of the Labour cabinet and a key ally of Gordon Brown. I think it's safe to say therefore that he had at least some influence over the economic carnage that Labour inflicted on the country during their tenure in office.

Bring on Brown MkII: the prudent, the defeater of boom and bust, the maker of wealth out debt....

Interesting how Ed Miliband would appoint the man who was Brown's biggest ally in maxing out the country's credit card. The man behind "Building Schools for the Future" on the never, never under pfi which we will be paying for decades to come. He was in the treasury when the banks were making merry with no one watching what they were up to. He may know economics but he makes bad decisions. God help us if they ever get back into power.

I've got a new policy for Ed Balls which will get him loads of votes. The FBI have arrested 127 'mobsters' for extortion and money laundering. It didn't say if any were arrested on Wall Street, but it should give Ed Balls a good idea.

Actually I think his appointment is a case of 'keep your friends close and your enemies closer'

Its a real pity that Alan Johnson is going. Appeared to be a genuinely good guy in politics - perhaps Shadow Chancellor wasn't the ideal job for him but then he would stand comparison against the selection the Tories put up between 1997 and 2010 (including our current chancellor).

Ed Balls is going to hound Osborne into the ground. He's confident enough to argue that the deficit arose for many reasons, including Labour's decision to stick with manifesto pledges to increase Health and Education spending year on year (see hm-treasury.gov.uk public finance database). He's also confident enough to argue against the clearly ideological elements of the cuts that the Tories are forcing through under LibDum cover.

The Tories can cry out he's Browns man for all their worth. People have moved on and its now down to the government to defend their policies. With Balls in place thats going to be all the more difficult.

34. At 8:00pm on 20 Jan 2011, ricescooper wrote:

Ed Balls should have been shadow chancellor from the start of Ed Miliband leadership, he is an economist, he understands the subject in great detail, and he’s the kind of politician that can hold the government to account in the House of Commons. George Osborne will be very upset at this latest development. I would like to wish Alan Johnson all the best as he has been an excellent MP for years.

-> A contrary view - Johnson was popular with many people of all political views. Balls isn't and never will be. Johnson was to the right of the Labour Party and a proud Blairite as he saw Blair as someone who made Labour 'electable'. Balls is to the left, hated Blair with a passion and saw him as useless. Sure he can argue and be beligerant performer. Unfortunately you also need some ideas.... and also some NEW ideas! Underneath all the left wing Daily Mirror rubbish, Labour is divided between it's left who are deficit deniers and it's right who actually believe Labour need to cut and rebalance the books. It will be interesting to see what happens. I suspect behind the scenes there will be alot of groaning and sharpening of knives behind Senior Labour backs ! Lastly I also think all you lefties on here underestimate Osborne at your peril.

39 richard_h2

Comments on 5 sagamix .....

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

I wouldn't read too much into saga's comments. Those of us who've been posting on here for sometime know exactly what he's about - and very welcome his comments are too, they give splendid light hearted relief and interesting viewpoints on what otherwise may be rather dull and dour topics.

Enjoy them but don't take them too seriously ! You'd miss them if they weren't here.

He spoke fluent human? What's that supposed to mean? I used to see Johnson's face on the front of the Communication Workers Union newsletters, when I was a postman. He talked in meaningless generalities then and nothing has changed. He used his union position as a springboard into politics and didn't have a clue what to do when he got there.

Appointing him as Shadow Chancellor was a huge gaffe by Milliband Jr. He was hopeless to the point where his oppenents didn't have to attack him. He just opened his mouth and did the damage himself.

Balls will be effective and brusing and George Osborne will now have to answer sharp questions about the coalition's policies.

Its bad news for Labour, Johnson gone, probably the last Labour frontliner that middle income taxpayers felt was at least trying to understand the terrible situation Brown left behind. I think maybe that's why he made some presentational gaffs - the pressure of trying to hold it all together.

At least he tried.

As for Balls, the far left will think he's doing a good job, for a while, because he will just scream his head off at every available opportunity that we don't need to be cutting at all, and this is the kind of head in the sand economic denial of reality that the unions and the socialist left are built on.

But it won't work. The hard-pressed taxpayers who have paid heavily over the past 13 years for Brown, Balls and their stubborn refusal to see the error of their big-state ways will not support him, and once the boundaries are made roughly equal in size Labour's built-in advantage from the rotten boroughs will be gone.

Not to worry for Balls, he will doubtless claim it was Ed M's fault they lost in 2015 because he wasn't far enough to the left. Just like he attacked Darling very soon after the last election for saying the deficit should be reduced a little bit. The unions will be only too glad to believe this and Balls can then have his own personal few years of slow political suicide just like Brown, except fortunately for the British people it will only be as Labour leader not as PM.

ps Friendlycard at 32 "He is an aggressive, closed-minded and arrogant ideologue who is tarred with the brush of Brown's economic idiocy, and he wants us to borrow our way out of excessive debt."

Mr Balls in one paragraph. you should write his political obituary - though hopefully that won't be for a while yet ... he has work to do lol

44. TheGingerF wrote:

"Ed Balls is going to hound Osborne into the ground. He's confident enough to argue that the deficit arose for many reasons, including Labour's decision to stick with manifesto pledges to increase Health and Education spending year on year (see hm-treasury.gov.uk public finance database). He's also confident enough to argue against the clearly ideological elements of the cuts that the Tories are forcing through under LibDum cover.

The Tories can cry out he's Browns man for all their worth. People have moved on and its now down to the government to defend their policies. With Balls in place thats going to be all the more difficult."
==================================================================

I'm assuming here that you think "hounding someone into the ground" is somehow a good quality. Are you sure that Ed Balls is actually any good ? He was always Gordon Brown's man, and I'm not sure Balls on his own is actually up to the job, without the support of Gordy. He's got no real track record of success that I'm aware of, and there's no doubt he was central to many of the decisions which turned out so bad for us all.

I'm not sure the tories are too bothered about him either. He's too tainted and damaged by the events with Gordon Brown to be taken seriously by anyone - I've a feeling it may be him that is "hounded into the ground". He'll be too busy plotting his next career move into the top job in new Labour anyway !

True E Balls will be good for the debate ... and will give GO a competitor that will bring out the best in GO ... this is exactly what GO needs to bring out the very best in himself.

47. At 9:01pm on 20 Jan 2011, thewelshboycott wrote:

He spoke fluent human? What's that supposed to mean? I used to see Johnson's face on the front of the Communication Workers Union newsletters, when I was a postman. He talked in meaningless generalities then and nothing has changed. He used his union position as a springboard into politics and didn't have a clue what to do when he got there.

Appointing him as Shadow Chancellor was a huge gaffe by Milliband Jr. He was hopeless to the point where his oppenents didn't have to attack him. He just opened his mouth and did the damage himself.

Balls will be effective and brusing and George Osborne will now have to answer sharp questions about the coalition's policies.

-> You might find this amazing....but....In the world outside of politics, ordinary people (who vote) actually liked Alan Johnson. Apart from his mate Gordon, no one likes Balls.

TheGingerF @44

'The Tories can cry out he's Browns man for all their worth. People have moved on'

That's what you think! - I haven't moved on.

Not only is Brown's man, he instructed Brown how to ‘abolish Boom and Bust from the economic cycle’! I don’t like the results of this ‘abolishing’! - He has a lot of explaining to do!

This should give George Osbourne cause for concern because Ed Balls likes to do a lot of what Dennis Skinner waould call 'Tory Bashing'.

On the other hand, this should give Ed Balls cause for concern because he is the biggest deficit denier on the Labour front bench and this will give George Osbourne the upper hand in House of Commons debates.

Excellent appointment. Being affable and liked is bonus not a qualification for the second most senior post in the shadow cabinet.Above all you need the strength to be unpopular,Mr.Balls has been that for so long it`s now like water of a duck`s back.

He`s the bruiser with the smile.As the Duke of Wellington said of the British infantry....Recently the Commons has lacked the ballast of a big political temperament at the rising tide of his ambition.He is not yet a great man but has the fire to become one.For the first time since the election I feel a tinge of anticipation and political excitement.

40. Jobs.
Ok, thats already slightly different to what you wrote originally. Don’t want to be knit picky but your first statement sounded a tad right wing rabid tabloid.
Anyway. I guess (without sound-bites or exaggeration) you are saying that,

because of new labours spending, when the global recession hit, as with other countries, there was less money to buffer and deal with the effects. Even though Ed Balls wasn’t Chancellor and didn’t make the final decisions, he was in the inner circle and must have had input into decision making. Therefore there is some blame that could be directed towards him if you are of the opinion that the money or at least some of it that was spent under new labour was wasted. Of course if I could show you that some money was well spent, then that would limit responsibility for any overspend only to where the money may have been wasted. Subtracting from this the fact there is always money that is wasted by any government (natural wastage), it may be fair to say that Ed Balls may have been partially responsible (although not directly) for some overspend. Although what part of the overspend he was partially responsible for is subjective as it is only opinion and/or subject to debate as to where money was spent wisely and showed results an where it was not.
Of course jobs im happy for you to pinpoint exactly which part of any over spend was directly attributed to Mr Balls and exactly where and how this money was wasted and its relationship with which it directly contributed to economic recession.

Typical right wing troll: Labour are full of deficit deniers who think that you can reduce the deficit by borrowing even more! They got us into this mess and unless they wake up and realize it they will be out of power for a generation.

Typical left wing troll: The ConDems are using the deficit as an excuse to push through their reckless, savage and ideologically motivated cuts. These cuts are actually counterproductive, as they push the country into recession, thereby making it harder to pay off our debts! It's not exactly rocket science is it.

Who is correct? Obviously neither extreme is correct, so let's ask a gentler question: who is closer to being correct? I don't know. But you don't either. In fact, nobody knows, and anyone who says the answer is obvious is saying so for political reasons.

Richard H"

"I suspect behind the scenes there will be alot of groaning and sharpening of knives behind Senior Labour backs ! Lastly I also think all you lefties on here underestimate Osborne at your peril."

Never have.Mr.Osborne shows how far you can get in politics with money and connections but very little knowledge and experience.

He also shows how dangerous these wealthy amateurs are with their dated economic thinking and reactionary attitudes.His orthodoxy of balancing the books and fiscal retrenchment is that of another age.Neither he or Mr.Cameron have made the intellectual case for the speed and depth of deficit reduction which is only supported by a few tame economists.

The policy is neo-thatcherism.They are selling of what`s left of state assets to their friends and donors in the city at knock down prices.The woods are going,local authorities are selling their services to private providers,80 billions worth of assets in the NHS are coming under the hammer.All this under the control of two men who in the words of Mervyn King are more interested in politics than economics.

The new oligarchs are growing fat on the proceeds of collective labour,corporation tax down from 28% to 24%,bankers who only survived by courtesy of taxpayers getting richer,bloated corporate London and lean unemployed midlands and north.It can`t go on.

. At 9:22pm on 20 Jan 2011, sad_old_pedant wrote:
"Typical right wing troll: Labour are full of deficit deniers who think that you can reduce the deficit by borrowing even more! They got us into this mess and unless they wake up and realize it they will be out of power for a generation.

Typical left wing troll: The ConDems are using the deficit as an excuse to push through their reckless, savage and ideologically motivated cuts. These cuts are actually counterproductive, as they push the country into recession, thereby making it harder to pay off our debts! It's not exactly rocket science is it.

Who is correct? Obviously neither extreme is correct, so let's ask a gentler question: who is closer to being correct? I don't know. But you don't either. In fact, nobody knows, and anyone who says the answer is obvious is saying so for political reasons."

Wise words.In economics there are few certainties and macro economic forecasts are not one.Those who pretend otherwise are chalatans because our instruments are not precise enough to know the future.

What we do have however is a balance of probability, and of those making that assessment a knowledge of economic stability and growth in the light of contemporary knowledge is an advantage.Mr.Balls has this competence,Mr.Osborne relies on his advisors, and a set of very dated ideas which he contributes.

All this just goes to prove that Mr Ed Milliband is out of tough with voters. We kicked out the Brown regieme, and Ed just goes and puts one of the key figures of that regieme in one of the highest positions in opposition? I didn't know that Ed Milliband had a sense of humor

Happy days. That muppet Ed Balls as shadow chancellor along with Wallace as PM.

Which members of the disgraced Labour government will return next? Brown himself?!

Sorry to see AJ leave, as he is one of the few people in government who has real working experience - being ruled by geeks has its drawbacks.

However I do think he was a square peg in a round hole and either Cooper or Balls were the natural choice - just wonder whether Miliband will be able to control Balls or will Balls dictate pilcy?

Instead we now have Ed Balls. Chief apologist for everything Labour did wrong in power, pensions raider, defecit denier, spend thrift, left wing lunacy, gold seller... you name it he'll defend everything ! This is a significant swing to the left. All the 'Socialist workers' here will naturally be delighted!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would have thought it was a swing to the right. New New Labour.

Why do you keep dismissing Alan Johnson in such a derogatory tone as a "former postman" whilst never labelling George Osborne as a "former shop boy is Selfridges"? - both are equally true.

Do you really think Osborne is worthy of your great respect merely because he went to public school, or does he deserve your great admiration because he will one day be the eighteenth Baronet of Ballintaylor and Ballylemon.

Well now we have a Shadow Chancellor who intellectually dwarfs the eighteenth Baronet and his daft pals from the Bullington Club. Keep fawning all you like, Mr Robinson. The fun is about to begin !

I think you folks take the differences between the parties far too seriously.We`ve had the same type of Neo Liberal policies and thinking since 1979 .....and while the light entertainers (who pretend to be conviction politicians) come and go surely the Westminster party game was up ages back when Blair morphed into an even greater puppet of the USA than Thatcher?After that our so-called representative democracy descended into patently fraudulent farce.

My guess is that Ed M knows Balls will overshadow him and Balls will use this period of unelectability to put policy clear water between Labour and the Coalition.Naturally if Labour ever get re-elected he will revert to New Labour/Tory form.

Balls is a public schoolboy career politico who will manage Osbourne very effectively.But can anyone really take any of this seriously now?None of the parties has a leg to stand on now it`s obvious that they all administer Britain for the USA rather than represent or reflect public opinion any longer.

45. At 9:00pm on 20 Jan 2011, richard_h2 wrote:

-> A contrary view - Johnson was popular with many people of all political views. Balls isn't and never will be. Johnson was to the right of the Labour Party and a proud Blairite as he saw Blair as someone who made Labour 'electable'. Balls is to the left, hated Blair with a passion and saw him as useless.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Very contrary but interesting nevertheless.

The world economy is in a huge mess. We need someone like Ed Balls to give vigorous opposition to this tory government's disasterous path.We had the greatest balance of payments deficit in our history this month because oil is going up and we produce much less. The response from the treasury was that they were taken unawares that our oil production was so low.The value of the pound has gone down inflation is rising.Anyone who remembers the 70s must have deja vous.

Ed Balls always comes over on TV as nasty

Does inability to remember tax rates really count as personal reasons?! And now we have a defecit denier instead, lol, Osbourne must be shaking in his boots!!

"...Osbourne must be shaking in his boots!!"
................

I agree with you on that one.

58 Bryers

"Mr.Balls has this competence,Mr.Osborne relies on his advisors, and a set of very dated ideas which he contributes."

Just to make it abundantly clear, should anyone ask, John Maynard Keynes, is alive and well and working away at the bottom of my garden on his latest general theories. Wouldn't want anyone to get any thoughts into their minds that Brown/Darling/Balls/Cooper relied on a set of very dated ideas.

I love reading this stuff! It is better than a comedy show! The typos are the best bits.

At 61 above it says "Will Balls dictate pilcy" I love it - because he probably will!!

I don't think Mr Osborn will be the slightest bit worried. Balls made a complete B***s up of the economy, and once again the Conservatives have to come in and sort things out.

Like it or not, there comes a time when a country - like a family - has to live within its means. That time is now. But the fittest will survive and we will come out the other side. We have no choice but to cut our borrowing and decrease our spending - and the sooner the better.

Short tem pain for long term gain. Live with it.

Mystic Froot Bat @49

I'm not a huge fan of confrontational politics, but with Balls v Osborne I'll make an exception. Our different views won't be reconciled and we'll see who's closer to the mark over the next 2-3 years.

The success that Balls can take credit for in some way is his support of the Labour economic management over 10 years to 2007 and then his no doubt assistance to Brown and Darling as they made sure growth returned to the UK economy prior to the election. Labour did not cause the world recession, Tories and to an extent LibDums agreed with Labour spending plans up to 2008.

John B @ 52 - fair enough, but then I suspect you're not one of the voters Labour would have a chance of turning before the next election. As I said above there are lots of deniers to Brown/Balls economic competence out there, but mainly for political reasons than any real understanding of the underlying numbers from 1997-2010 (not to mention £350bn of inherited debt from Clarke).

TWO EDs ARE BETTER THAN ONE !!......what can be more obvious??

70. At 11:02pm on 20 Jan 2011, mrnaughty2 wrote:
58 Bryers

"Mr.Balls has this competence,Mr.Osborne relies on his advisors, and a set of very dated ideas which he contributes."

"Just to make it abundantly clear, should anyone ask, John Maynard Keynes, is alive and well and working away at the bottom of my garden on his latest general theories. Wouldn't want anyone to get any thoughts into their minds that Brown/Darling/Balls/Cooper relied on a set of very dated ideas."

My dear: If a scientific idea is true it is true for all time.A "dated" theory in the sense commonly understood is one that has been superseded.
Ptolemy is dated,Newton and Einstein are not.

68/69

If he is shaking and I hope he isn't, (not too keen on shaking Chancellors) it won't be in his boots. More likely to be in a nice pair of Lingwoods Rusian Calf Shoes made out of baby reindeer.

67. At 10:35pm on 20 Jan 2011, pez1960 wrote:
"Ed Balls always comes over on TV as nasty"

I tought this was a political blog,not an edition of CBBEES.

54. At 9:21pm on 20 Jan 2011, bryhers wrote:
Excellent appointment. Being affable and liked is bonus not a qualification for the second most senior post in the shadow cabinet.Above all you need the strength to be unpopular,Mr.Balls has been that for so long it`s now like water of a duck`s back.

-> So let me see you think he's 'excellent' because he's a bruiser and unpopular. Next you will be recommending Dennis Skinner as the next Labour leader. Really voter friendly. Politics is a battle between ideas. Judging by this appointment Labour have no ideas left. Whether you like it or not, the ideas Balls espouses were rejected at this years election. Does Balls and his ilk ever try coming up with some new ideas OR admit any mistakes for their past ? (too many to list) ... Nope it will be the same failed policies and blaming everyone else before stabbing his leader in the back!. Just being a 'bruiser' isn't good enough anymore. For someone who supposedly is super intelligent Balls is rude, dogmatic, irrational and never willing to listen to anyone else's point of view. I suppose at the moment these are huge plus points to Ed M but he should watch out!

He`s the bruiser with the smile.As the Duke of Wellington said of the British infantry....Recently the Commons has lacked the ballast of a big political temperament at the rising tide of his ambition.He is not yet a great man but has the fire to become one.For the first time since the election I feel a tinge of anticipation and political excitement.

-> Oh dear '..rising tide of his ambition....Not yet a great man'.... Are we talking about X-Factor, Britain's Got Talent OR.. Ed Balls ? Please don't tell me you see him as some next Labour Prime Minister ....ha ha ha ...thanks for making me laugh

bryhers @57 says of Osborne:

"His orthodoxy of balancing the books and fiscal retrenchment is that of another age"

Oh dear .... maybe you should borrow Johnson's economics primer as he doesn't need it anymore.

balancing the books is the orthodoxy of every age. sooner or later it must be done, and the later it is the more painful.

50. At 9:11pm on 20 Jan 2011, nautonier wrote:
True E Balls will be good for the debate ... and will give GO a competitor that will bring out the best in GO ... this is exactly what GO needs to bring out the very best in himself."

nautonier, presumably you are saying that up until now GO has been working within himself?

Gawd help us!

Richard H2

I know some things are hard to contemplate,but if you can imagine Mr.Osborne as Chancellor you can certainly think of Mr.Balls as PM.

As for the rest of your rant,it`s a view of the economic performance of the Labour government which is now beingf confronted by the opposition.Were you aware that on the eve of the recession,the deficit at 3.5% of GDP was the same as the one inherited from the previous government? or that debt was lower?(IFS 2008).Did you know that that the money was spent to bring underfunded public services to European levels? That client satisfaction with the NHS is the highest in our history? or that crime fell in nearly every year of the Labour administration?

Or that the soaring deficit of 2008-9 was due to the collapse of private capital? That sovereign debt in Europe,Japan and the USA is a consequence and not a cauzse of that collapse?

I like evidence and analysis,dislike rants and bluster.

72. At 11:12pm on 20 Jan 2011, TheGingerF wrote:


John B @ 52 - fair enough, but then I suspect you're not one of the voters Labour would have a chance of turning before the next election. As I said above there are lots of deniers to Brown/Balls economic competence out there, but mainly for political reasons than any real understanding of the underlying numbers from 1997-2010 (not to mention £350bn of inherited debt from Clarke).

---------------------------------------------------

Don't get carried away Ginger, I’m certainly not a denier simply because of political (for the sake of it) reasons. This Brown/Balls Phenomenon involved borrowing £175Bn during economic growth (2001 –2008). This policy is supported by no economic theory yet published. In fact, the economic model that Balls advocates, (Keynesian) prescribes the exact opposite of what Labour did during this period. As such, which path would you have preferred to be on prior to the financial crisis? 350 –175Bn or 350 + 175Bn??

JB

Don't get carried away Ginger, I’m certainly not a denier simply because of political (for the sake of it) reasons. This Brown/Balls Phenomenon involved borrowing £175Bn during economic growth (2001 –2008). This policy is supported by no economic theory yet published. In fact, the economic model that Balls advocates, (Keynesian) prescribes the exact opposite of what Labour did during this period. As such, which path would you have preferred to be on prior to the financial crisis? 350 –175Bn or 350 + 175Bn??

A common misconception often propagated by people who should know better.
It`s normal for governments to go into debt in recessions,partly because whatever their past finances,tax revenues fall faster than the rise in demand resulting from increased government spending.This policy is frequently called deficit financing which conveys the behavioure of recession hit economies.

Of course the current crisis was unprecedented in its intensity and depth.Alan Greenspan described it as "A once in a lifetime tsunami".I expect you are aware that none of the countries affected,Germany,Japan,USA etc.have achieved a GDP greater than their pre crisis level.

. At 11:35pm on 20 Jan 2011, beginagain25 wrote:
bryhers @57 says of Osborne:

"His orthodoxy of balancing the books and fiscal retrenchment is that of another age"
Oh dear .... maybe you should borrow Johnson's economics primer as he doesn't need it anymore.
balancing the books is the orthodoxy of every age. sooner or later it must be done, and the later it is the more painful.

Indeed,but you can do it by cuts, (retrenchment), or growth,(Keynesian measures).My difficulty with the policy of the present government was that the intellectual case for the policies of 1931 were never made.Before their assimilation into the Tory party,the Lib-Dems had Mr.Cable who was economically literate and were going to follow a policy of moderate cuts so that the fiscal and monetary measures already in place, (Growth started in the last quarter of 2009), would not be aborted.Growth faltered in the third quarter 2009 and unemployment is now rising again.Doesn`t look good does it?

57. At 9:39pm on 20 Jan 2011, bryhers wrote:
Richard H"

"I suspect behind the scenes there will be alot of groaning and sharpening of knives behind Senior Labour backs ! Lastly I also think all you lefties on here underestimate Osborne at your peril."

Never have.Mr.Osborne shows how far you can get in politics with money and connections but very little knowledge and experience.

-> Typical of the left, the eternal hangups with 'money' and 'connections' & perhaps 'class' too. So you must also have a huge problem with large parts of the modern Labour party in the 90s/00s?! All those champagne socialists.....Blair, Mandelsohn, Lord Levy, Geoffrey Robinson, Shaun Woodward (i could go on - sizeable list). We didn't hear the left complain during Labour's long reign did we ?

He also shows how dangerous these wealthy amateurs are with their dated economic thinking and reactionary attitudes.His orthodoxy of balancing the books and fiscal retrenchment is that of another age.Neither he or Mr.Cameron have made the intellectual case for the speed and depth of deficit reduction which is only supported by a few tame economists.

-> Again a point based initially on envy. But what would you now be arguing if Labour had actually won the last election and initiated it's own plans for 'cutting' yes i said 'cutting' the deficit?. These were plans Darling (the chancellor at the time) had which i quote 'We will cut deeper than Margaret Thatcher....' with 2 parliaments of pain and 25-30% cuts! Check out the Gaurdian on 23th March 2010. I guess your orthodoxy is to spend spend spend and spend again. It's not 'another age' to argue to balance books if we don't have any money left. Regarding economists there are many econmists who agree with the govt and equally those who don't. Getting economists to agree on anything is impossible !

The policy is neo-thatcherism.They are selling of what`s left of state assets to their friends and donors in the city at knock down prices.The woods are going,local authorities are selling their services to private providers,80 billions worth of assets in the NHS are coming under the hammer.All this under the control of two men who in the words of Mervyn King are more interested in politics than economics.

-> So what did you have for 13 years of New Labour then?. Intellectually this argument just doesn't stack up. If you disagree with 'Neo-Liberalism' (not Neo-Thatcherism) that much, then why weren't you protesting about these policies under New Labour?. Instead we had Labour doing it's best under Blair to be more 'Business friendly' and 'City Friendly' and to be all things to all people which was of course very skillful act by Blair . The left just sat aside for years like a dummy just happy the Tories weren't in power. Meanwhile Blair and Brown were more than happy to look after the rich and powerful friends they had made in the city (gongs, parties, warming speeches to the city faithful etc). Both of also invited someone round for tea....let me see.....oh yes, they had afternoon tea and special chat with Maggie Thatcher. Amnesia maybe ?

beginagain25 @ 78 wrote
balancing the books is the orthodoxy of every age. sooner or later it must be done, and the later it is the more painful

>>

Ooh, way to trot out banal economic fallacies. You'll be telling us next that government debt is a burden on our children - and our children's children (of course).

This blogger has a minute knowledge of economics but even I know that the Keynes model is essentially a counter-cyclical method and so it is puzzling that Ed Balls allowed the precise opposite to occur on his watch.

Or did he persuade himself that he and Brown really had abolished boom-and-bust (even the Tory sort)?

Unfortunately, Ed Balls is one of those very intelligent people who, if allowed into positions of power, do enormous damage.

For example, millions of pensioners will rue the day that Ed Balls decided that Pension Funds could no longer claim tax credits.

Nevermind eh?

Today Ed Balls seems pretty cheerful with his lot.

I guess a part of being a politician is never having to say you're sorry.

This is going to be great fun to watch unfold in the months ahead.

Ed Balls was responsible not only for the destruction of the financial regulation and the spend-spend-spend policy that got us into this mess, but he was also the one responsible for the coup when a democratically elected PM who won 3 elections in a row got usurped by someone else without a single vote being cast.

Ed Balls' is obviously going to start a campaign (probably already has) to become labour leader in the same way that he operated before. Except this time, instead of the "leaks" being done for his glorious master (Brown at the time), he'll be doing it for himself.

I reckon in 12 months' time, we'll have Ed Balls as labour leader, and that's great news because it means they won't get elected in 2015 (who's going to vote for the man who helped Brown destroy the country? union members maybe, and benefit claimaints, but definitely not anyone else)

Yay! Go for it Ed (balls) - start your whispering campaign right away. I'm sure there's stuff you can leak behind the scenes, and your current party leader is far too stupid to be able to counter your attack.

Ed Balls for leader please! I'd definitely vote for you to become labour leader; it'd be a great way to make sure your party never gets elected in 2015.

I can just imagine the kind of chats that Ed Balls and Brown had when Brown was PM/Chancellor, maybe something like:

Brown: I want to spend more money, but it's run out.
Ed: Tax more then.
Brown: We can't tax as much as I want to spend; people won't be able to afford to eat if we did that.
Ed: Borrow more then.
Brown: We're already up to our eyeballs in debt; the chinese won't buy any more bonds.
Ed: Print more then.
Brown: ok. Let's use the chinese money we borrowed to pay for more ink, then use that ink to print more money.
(I imagine that's how it went, maybe the tea-boy mentioned "why don't you just stop increasing spending by more than inflation?", and perhaps a nokia or 2 went flying across the room)

Welcome to the team, Ed (balls) - most people who hate labour are very pleased you got your new job, and are hoping that you get to become leader very soon.

The quickest way to make the cuts to reduce the budget deficit is to elect labour. They have no credible program of reducing the deficit so the markets will do it for them when they stop financing the debt and the IMF bail Labour out again with strict conditions attached i.e. immeadite cuts and tax rises as Ireland have just had to endure.

Contrast this with the progressive rebalancing of the economy between private sector wealth creation and the structural deficit reduction program which the Goverment is folllowing modelled on the sucessful approach used by Canada. Yes our Governments program was not produced out of thin air.

In the long term india and china can now afford to increase their level of consumption which is driving up the price of food and commodities. Unless we increase our wealth creation - making things and selling things not consuming state services paid for by debt we will find ourselves increasingly poorer in the world unable to afford, our high standard of living and the high level of state benifits we are addicted to.

So forget spending, all politicians want to spend as much as they can, beacause it make the public happy (buys votes) and gives them the feeling of power (boosts ageing egos). Labour and Conservitives just belive the maximum income to the state it is achieved in different ways (Google Laffer Curve if your interested) challenge the politicians on their policies for wealth creation - making goods and services the world want to buy from us so your grand children can eat!

Friendlyucard @ 32

You say that Keynesian management works in a destocking recession, but not in a deleveraging recession, which is what we've got now.

A deleveraging recession does indeed seem to be what we've got now as the masses, fearful for their (job) prospects, appear to be paying down debt (deleveraging) just as fast as they can.

So what is the economic textbook/cookbook remedy for extracting the country from this situation?

bryhers

I know some things are hard to contemplate,but if you can imagine Mr.Osborne as Chancellor you can certainly think of Mr.Balls as PM.

-> So you do want Balls as PM then !

As for the rest of your rant,it`s a view of the economic performance of the Labour government which is now beingf confronted by the opposition.

-> My rant (your words) were actually my views/comments which im entitled to express. Thank you. If you don't like them and want to comment back then argue your points back. The way i see i

Were you aware that on the eve of the recession,the deficit at 3.5% of GDP was the same as the one inherited from the previous government? or that debt was lower?(IFS 2008).Did you know that that the money was spent to bring underfunded public services to European levels? That client satisfaction with the NHS is the highest in our history? or that crime fell in nearly every year of the Labour administration?

-> Wasn't this blog about Ed Balls ????,,,,,,OK Regarding statistics , why don't we just go a simple search of the BBC news website and what do we find.... In 2009 when Labour was still in power, Darling announced record borrowing of £175 billion . In July 2009 , UK debt of £800 billion pounds. Personal debt at huge and sustainable levels. Problems in the NHS with patient health and people dying. Doctors blaming Labour . NHS IT project fiasco - overspent by a HUGE margin, not on time and large parts had to be removed. Spending a total fortune on National ID cards which no one wanted..... For every dodgy statistic you spout I could equally quote alternate ones reported by the BBC news which show Labour was not quite as fantastic as you spout. Pardon me but the BBC is not reknowned for it's right wing bias!

Or that the soaring deficit of 2008-9 was due to the collapse of private capital? That sovereign debt in Europe,Japan and the USA is a consequence and not a cauzse of that collapse?

-> Ok I don't agree with these points at all. But if I did agree you are totally right and the defecit was the result of collapse of private capital. So in 2008-2009 the UK government could see we had huge financial problems and deficit. At this point they had a choice what to do. Why then did they go on spending our money like there was no tomorrow and not show any restraint at all ? Also you need to address the fact that the LAbour Govt if it was reelected had plans to implement huge cuts which were very similar to the what the Tories are now doing.

I like evidence and analysis,dislike rants and bluster.

-> I've argued my points. In return you've introduced statistics when we talking about Ed Balls!.You've changed this - not me. If you want to argue points then stick to what you are talking about !!!!! Also if you want to reply again then avoid the childish comments about your 'evidence and analysis, dislike rants and bluster'. I could have equally said this to you , but i didnt!

The man responsible for neo classical endogenous macro economic growth theory?

They have got to be joking... but then they are the labour party.

It's grim up north London...

Ed Miliband and Ed Balls - surely the political equivalent of Jedward.....

Apologies..

he came up with 'post-classical-neo-endogenous-macro-economic-growth-theory' ...

or to you and me ... 'no more boom and bust'

Judge for yourselves

It's grim up north London...

At least pretend your not totally biased Nick.

"In his place comes Ed Balls - the obvious choice for the job given his economic training, his experience as a Treasury adviser and minister and his passion for the fight. Yet those are exactly the reasons Ed Miliband snubbed him for it the first time round.

The Tories will portray the new shadow chancellor as the "son of Brown", responsible for failing to regulate the banks and for spending too much public money. "

What utter drivel. This is such a loaded article it's amazing. My kid can hide his true aims better than this and he's not yet 3.

Could it be that the reason Milliband didn't give him the job was because he was "responsible for failing to regulate the banks and for spending too much public money". See what I did there Nick?

Are you getting desperate to have some effect before the BBC has to sack loads of people who will have to work at Tescos once they enter the dreaded "private sector"? Let me save you the trouble: it's happening.

"Of course the current crisis was unprecedented in its intensity and depth.Alan Greenspan described it as "A once in a lifetime tsunami".

Bryhers...I think you'll find unprecedented means hasn't happened before. Once in a lifetime would suggest an event that has happened may times in history. And indeed, busts following booms have happened many times in history. So any economic plans based around something that's happened many times in history never happening again would, in my opinion be reckless. Now, whether the bust occurs because of the oversupply of houses or tulips or money, history has taught us time and again that the bust is going to happen.

A prudent government would do all in its power to slow down a bubble once it saw that one was formng. Labour did the opposite. You always mention the countries that suffered during the bust but not those that didn't. It wasn't global, the bust affected most those countries that behaved recklessly in not controlling the banks and the money supply and the most reckless were the UK and the US.

Even worse, asyou now accept was that Labour actually continued to spend the bonanza in tax and even borrow more during the good times. Whatevevr the figures and which ones each side chooses to use, they would ALL hve been a lot healthier without that wild and improbable gamble that Brown took with the financial future of everyone in the UK.

The failure of that gamble is Labour's legacy and that they now have someone as shadow chancellor who denies that they even made mistakes is a sure sign that they'd just do it all again if they ever had the chance.

Bye bye to the last of the Blairites then. The current shadow cabinet is now a Broon Dream Team.

That should go some way towards them not being re-elected in five years time. Balls will probably spend as much of his time plotting against Buzz Lightweight as he will giving Osborne a hard time. Even though, just like his mentor, he is obviously not the leader that the party wanted, that isnt going to stop him going down exactly the same path to get the same result as Brown did. Buzz is weak, spineless like Blair. Balls is not going to stop until he gets to be the biggest kid in the playground. It was, by all accounts, Ball's SpAd who outed the story to the Sunday Times.

So much for the distraction story that the BBC is running about someone else sniffing around Postie's other half. Postie has been carrying on with a CS for months and the whole lobby has known about it and for a change, kept schtum, until now.

And yet, there are the plebs who will STILL vote for them. Even though they can see that should Labour be successful in 2015 or if the coalition implodes before then, that we will end up just going back down the same ol' Brown road towards Mugabenomics as we were doing before.

What a crazy old world, eh? Madness.

"Also if you want to reply again then avoid the childish comments about your 'evidence and analysis, dislike rants and bluster'. I could have equally said this to you , but i didnt"

Richard, you'll have to get used to that from bryhers. One minute she's on her high horse of intellectualim, the next she's makng snotty remarks about people flying 'Air Chav' to LA.

"The success that Balls can take credit for in some way is his support of the Labour economic management over 10 years to 2007"

Oh yeah. Blinding success that was..... arf....


"and then his no doubt assistance to Brown and Darling as they made sure growth returned to the UK economy prior to the election."

Sounds exactly like the fairytale that it is... Who do you think was briefing against Darling at the time?? Who do you think was pulling the strings? Just who do you think spent more time in the bunker with Gonzo Brown than he did in his own department, for which he was the Secretary Of State?

Well well...Balls Bounces Back

Given he has a completely different view of how to get pout of this crisis and go for growth, its clear he was never behind Alistair Darlings nor Ed Millipeeds preferred stratgy then if its:

Tax Employers More; news Ballsy NI is a tax for the individual and Employers = what NO rate do you think is right 16% Eer, uncapped?
High rate tax payers should pay more, how much more 40% to 50%/60% for those earning £45k plus?
50% up to what, say 80%...look out 1979 "Brain Drain"
Borrow more, dont cut anything - its like paying the minimum payment on your credit card, takes over 20 years add up the interest in interest payments or bite the bullet and pay what we can, cut our cloth to suit and within 3-4 years have some sense back in the budget.

These are just a few issues he needs to answer!!

Finally, given the current global Sovereign Debt crisis is still out there, it would be great to get IFS/OECD/Ratings agencies etc to come up with UK interest rates, GDP growth, inflation numbers TODAY (assuming Liebour won the last election) and projecting forward..me thinks miles different; specifically INTEREST RATES. Not sure where the GROWTH comes from Ballsy.... Get the FSA to tell you whats the best option lol

It seems that the reasons for Alan Johnson demise are personally sad, which is of course more than a shame, but we shouldn't forget either that he has participated in brilliant news management of the story.

Apparently from last night's TV, all this started to brew up nearly a week ago.

When was it brought to a head or made public?? Before PMQs?? As part of the normal Monday to Thursday political week?? No, Thursday evening, immediately before Blair is recalled to the Iraq Enquiry.


Ed M has at best luke warm support from his own MPs, he appears to have lost control of his colleagues in the Lords, and now he's appointed Ed B, who, whatever the camophlage, actally disagrees with his Economic Policy.

Ed B is of course a tough bruiser, which will make him a tough shadow for Osbourne, but he'll be even more of a pain to Ed M., who is just about to lose control of his Economic Policy as well.

Back to the Blair Brown years!!!!!!!