http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/7268148/balls-brownies.thtml

Balls claimed that “we went into the crisis with lower national debt than we inherited in 1997”. That is flatly untrue. Public sector net debt when Labour took over was £350 billion. In 2006-07 it was £500 billion. Even adjusting for inflation, Brown and Balls had added £62.8 billion in today’s money to the national debt they “inherited” by the time the crisis started:

and

The shadow Chancellor also attacked Osborne for “piling austerity on austerity” and said he’s “ignoring the evidence here in Britain that austerity just isn’t working”. This is his ultimate goal: to tie poor GDP growth to the Coalition’s cuts and say that everything would be better had we listened to Balls. “We said that going too far, too fast would choke off the recovery and put jobs at risk… and look what’s happened”. In other words “I told you so”. The problem is, it’s hard to claim that government cuts are hurting the economy when central government is spending more this year than last:

The cuts haven’t begun to have an effect yet, which means they can’t be responsible for our weak growth and Ed Balls is a long way from being able to say “I told you so” when it comes to the UK economy.

As a former Labour party memeber (no seriously) I’m not entirely unsympathetic to a bit of redistribution and general do-goodery. But when will Labour admit that they spent way beyond their (OUR) means during the good years leading up to the crash, leaving us with a huge structural deficit? Balls is pure box-office poison, they cannot recover while he is Shadow Chancellor.

I doubt he’s telling blatent porkies but I bet he’s being very careful with the definitions behind the stats he’s quoting. Eg is National debt the same as Public Sector Debt, does national debt include everyone’s personal debts etc. which have nothing to do with the government?

All politicians use their chosen figures to make their own arguments seem credible, that’s why nobody believes them anymore.

Daily Mash nails it again

Ed Balls to pretend we’ve never met

And subsequently….

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/good-things-better-than-bad-things%2c-says-miliband-201109274350/

It all depends on how you want to present the data

We did go into the crisis with a lower debt as a % of GDP
1997 = 42%

2008 = 36%

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1900_2011&state=UK&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=2011&chart=G0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=1280_861&color=c&title=&show=

Yep, that was after many years of Gorden (no more boom and bust) Brown riding the boom until it bust.

“Don’t let anyone tell you that Labour in government was profligate with public money when we went into the crisis with lower national debt than we inherited in 1997 and lower than America, France, Germany and Japan.”

Classic Balls. The 2008 public debt was only lower as a share of GDP compared to 1997. And while Britain’s debt was lower than these countries, he has picked nations with uniquely high debt piles amassed well before the crisis. The UK’s deficit as a share of GDP in 2008 was higher than all these countries with the exception of the US.

“When they say we made mistakes in government, they’re right… we must admit them and show we’ve learned from them. The 75p pension rise – that was a mistake. So was abolishing the 10p tax rate. We didn’t spend every pound of public money well.”’

Balls identifies a handful of mistakes made by Labour when in government.?But the first two are things that actually generated revenue for the exchequer. On the principal charge – that Labour was profligate – he offers no examples of overspending, merely observing the government didn’t spend every pound well.

Balls is obsessed with cutting taxes on consumption, that would mean even higher incentive-destroying taxes on income and capital. It was interesting that Balls said yesterday that “the issue of land taxation is one which we should actively look at” – in other words, he is moving closer to the kinds of crippling wealth taxes beloved of Vince Cable. It is strange that Balls appears to think that what the UK needs more of today is debt-financed consumption; in reality it needs to rebalance towards investment, savings and exports.

Britain doesn’t need another artificial boost to demand. It needs a genuine boost to the incentives of people and companies to work and invest, together with a credible long-term commitment to balancing the government’s books. Shame that Ed Balls can’t see this.

It is strange that Balls appears to think that what the UK needs more of today is debt-financed consumption

He wants a 2.5% “holiday” on VAT (at a cost of £12.5bn a year) to encourage consumption. Right thats what Britain needs, let’s all go shopping. Have you seen all that stuff in The Sunday Times supplement you don’t need and cant afford, go on, whack it on the credit card.

I drove past Westfield Stratford the other day…..I felt physically ill at the sight of it.

Even the sight of Balls is enough to make me feel queasy.

When he turns up on the Today program to spout more ballsbllox I cant get across the room to hammer the radio fast enough. Of course, he does represent one of the Conservative’s most powerful electoral weapons 😉

I was a massive supporter of the last Labour government, right up until it’s 101st day in power. Most people thought New Labour stodd for change, for making things better after 18 years of Tory rule.

What we actually got was wars, broken promises, a greater divide between rich and poor and an intrusive state intent on subjecting it’s citizens to unprecidented scrutiny. Against all of this was the constant drip feed of spin, which got to the point where I’d want to go outside and check if Blair had promised that the sky is blue.

Although I remain ideologically left wing, I can never, ever vote for the Labour Party again. The best thing that could possibly happen is that the least odious elements of the party break away and join the Liberals.

Who on earth would actually vote for the two ‘ed’iots? I mean if anyone is actually thinking about it, please step forward and explain yourself!

He’s counter productive to the Labour cause, isn’t he?

Vote Labour and you’ll have Balls swinging in your face for five years.

Not exactly a vote winner.

and he sacks people for telling the truth, after they’ve been asked to tell the truth.

he’s a massive tw**.

lets start an epitition calling for the two ed’iots’ to go away!

He’s quoted selectively, used examples that suit him, and isn’t necessarily putting forwward the greatest of policies. I’d not vote for him.

But he hasn’t lied in the comments quoted by the OP.

Brown and his gang were a disaster for country and party. Fast forward a year and Browns gang (E.Miliband, Balls, Y.Cooper) are in charge! Then you hear decent, sensible centerists like Dougie Alexander, Tessa Jowell, Jim Murphy who do totally get it. There is hope for them but they picked the wrong leader.

Balls is but a glove puppet. It’s his rubbery-faced, soft-chinned, council haircut boss who’s head I want to smash repeatedly against a hard object.

whatever he says, i assume that the off balance sheet PFI deals that are currently crippling the NHS have been conviently ignored.

Never was a politician better-named.

Poor old Labour Pains, what with that AND choosing the wrong Miliband…

PS: BTW, I think “mashiehood – Member” should qoute his source, or at least put quotation marks around that post… 😉

PS: BTW, I think “mashiehood – Member” should qoute his source, or at least put quotation marks around that post…

Well, I saw it in City AM, but that could have been a repost from STW, I s’pose?

Hang on just amonent, I like a good STW lynchmob as much as the next person but……

As someone said, debt was lower as a fraction of GDP which is what matters (if I owed £1million I’d be in trouble, if Tesco owe £1million it’s a drop in the ocean) after labour than before. Unemployment dropped, and remember waiting for tratement on the NHS, its now a couple of months not a couple of years?

Untill 2008 the conservatives manifesto was basicly saying “we’ll match whatever labour spend and cut your taxes”, any armchair economists want to hazard a guess what that means for borrowing?

I don’t think the sun shines out of labours arse, but given a choice of 3 parties I’n not voing in the ConDems next time!

any armchair economists want to hazard a guess what that means for borrowing?

Well if they had cut waste jobs in the public sector then they wouldn’t had needed to borrow so much ?

As an amusing side point, The Metro seems to be running a daily feature of unflattering photos of Ed
Yesterday

Today

Can’t wait for tomorrow.

Lol @ the footy pic!

😆

There was a better footie pic the other day appeared to show a high boot catching Balls in the face with Andy Burnham laughing his head off in the background.

I’m by nature more right wing than left wing, but I’m sick of both parties trying to blind us with selective stats to support their arguments about why it went wong and how we should fix it.

I can’t believe that no one in any position of power couldn’t see the boom had to end some time and we should have been planning/saving for when it did. I lost every penny of my savings/equity when the house prices dropped in the mid 90s, I could see the recent boom was going to have to end and I ensured my family/finances were prepared this time around. Was I the only 40-something in the country who didn’t lose his memory and/or common sense in the noughties?

As a natural Conservative supporter I ought to love the two Eds – best thing to have happened to the Conservative party. I thought after the last election that the Torys were doomed at the next one, given all the unpopular cuts they’d have to make. However Ed and Ed have done a wonderful job at making them seem like the only choice.

The trouble is, I’m a much softer supporter of the Tories than I used to be, and can’t help but think we’d be better off with an opposition without a pair of idiots at the top.

Still can’t believe how the Labour core can’t see what a huge electoral liability Balls is.