Quite a U-Turn Mr Balls

Zippykona, fair enough, he sounds decent. But their party needs some changes too, particularly at the top.
Its a strange position when a political party’s biggest liability ( IMO – Clegg ) is also their most successful politician, being deputy PM. I guess it goes to show what “successful politics” is in this country now.

Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, has moved to challenge accusations that Labour is not credible on the economy by telling the public sector unions that he endorses George Osborne’s public sector pay freeze until the end of the parliament, and that he accepts every spending cut being imposed by the Conservatives.

Listening to him on BBC R4 this morning, I’m not actually sure what has changed. On the one hand he says he won’t be able to say he will reverse any of the cuts, and then in the next breath says 20% cuts in the Police budget are too much, Labour would cut 12%.

Which view am i commenting on when you decide let me know 😉
I heard him on R4 as well thankfully i have forgotten the words he kept repeating every answer but he did not seem to accept every cut. I was half asleep though to be fair

I was heartened as a public sector worker to know those on benefits are getting 5 % this year whilst i get nothing for the next 5 years ……Thanks

.what are the top rates of tax in France and Germany?

This will surprise you

Not what you expected eh
The burden of taxation went up under thatcher as well she just changed how it was collected .iirc every govt has increased the burden for over 100 years Thatcher just changed it from income tax to VAT and council tax. Given VAT rise and NI increases i am pretty sure this lot have increased it to

Only slightly topical but when Portillo was an mp he was the anti Christ.
Watching the train programme he seems ok.

Many people thought Harold Shipman was an excellent GP…

Elfinsafety – Member
We’ve tried socialism red in tooth and claw in the 1970s.
No we din’t.

Correct.

Britain has always bin a relatively right-wing, conservative nation.

Incorrect. We have neither a commanr nor a free-market economy. We have had for all of the lives of anyone on STW a mixed economy. The only debate has centered around the relative merits of Keysnian and Monetarist economics and more recently whether policy should be governed by rules or discretion.

1950s and 1960s Tories and Labour were both broadly Keynsian by persuasion and believed that the econ could and should be fine-tuned through gov manipulation of aggregate demand. Different experiments with fixed and floating exchange rates cue stop-go, BoP crises etc and the birth of monetarism. Completely new orthodoxy, pain, recover pain…cue a recognition that fiscal and monetary work best in combination.

Labour and Tories both flirt with using rules and discretion. Irony that it is the Tories that finally succumb to abandoning fiscal rules in favour of discretion (normally a Labour policy) under Osborne with a suspension of the Growth and Stability pact. Meanwhile Europe flirts again with fixed exchange rates and rules. Everyone ignores them and discretion comes back. Oh no it doesn’t the Panto Damen introduced new rules for the Xmas panto season, then they are relaxed immediately afterwards in Jan to give politicians discretion again. Good job our man wasn’t tied up in all those meetings discussing the rules then?

So all parties have run mixed market policies with varying degrees of emphasis on fiscal versus monetary policy, rules versus discretion. Ironically traditional roles often reversed in practice as we have now.

So no socialist, no free-market experiment. The only constant is that governments have shown themselves capable only of reacting to events not driving them and a self-serving agenda that guarantees them power and influence – enter Uncle Nick stage right.

Incorrect.

Not incorrect. Notice I said ‘relatively’ right-wing and conservative.

This is actually true.

Not really. Strong Keynesian influence, brief flirtation with monetarism. Centre politics dominate. Extremes marginalised. Strong government intervention in economic affairs.

teamhurtmore – Member
TandemJeremy – Member
mcboo-its still a correct analysis no matter how yo wish it wern’t.
TJ – its amazing isn’t it? Where do we go from here. The correct analysis is so obvious isn’t it and you have laid it out so clearly. Why is everyone ignoring it? What are they missing?

UK – neither the Tories, the LD, nor the Labour party understand economics (aren’t they all just neoecon free-marketeers with no respect to the superior model of the state?). Its so confusing, those Labour people claiming that the Tories were cutting too far, too fast. The Tories not even starting austerity. The Lib Dems changing their minds with the wind. Oh, and now the Labour party saying that the Tories aren’t cutting enough. What a bunch hey? They can solve tax in an instant – positive and negative – its glorious equality and harmonious society. Better still we can integrate with Europe and have a nice, strong currency. That will do our industry a world of good, won’t it? And yet they don’t get it.

Why, oh why, cant we be like those nice Germans. Look at their strong banks like Commerzbank. Why is it so hard to simply copy their success. They are such good europeans looking after their friends. Give them a lovely strong currency, lend them loads of money and sell them lots of BMW and Audi’s (I wonder if they do any mtb or work in IT. Guess Canyon have got that sorted out?). And then tell them that is all their fault after all. Even play a role in education. Such nice friends. Who needs enemies?

When the Germans are such good europeans why are those strange people at the Guardian writing yesterday that ‘The GB economy is still benefitting from strong export growth to EU [how very dare we?] and its weakness is actually drag on European growth. Its all our fault again, and yet nobody, repeat nobody gets it.

And lets not get started on The Establishment hey? The RW press, bloody Ed Balls (ex Tory student, now masquerading as a socialist (sic)), all those Eton boys. Did you know, your don’t even have to be clever to go there, you just have to be rich. Bloody scandal and look at them all running (or not) our beloved country -well not yours obviously, you guys are too sensible. And the BBC – gov, RW apologists. Make FOX News look LW.

Its so hard when you are so right, not to get upset that so many, many people really don’t get it. Still who needs money? That wealthy rich elite with their £41k can keep it. True wealth is having all those things that money cant buy. Oh and we have no money as a nation because its all flawed….so UTOPIA, sorted!If you just fit in something about Hope brakes??

i would say we are conservative as anation in the non political sense it why we still have aristocracy and have evolved a govt style since Charles 1

Sweet Jesus of Nazareth… 🙄

I’m talking about British history, not just the last 60 odd years. And even in that time, Britain has still bin relatively right-wing and conservative, compared to say the Soviet Union. We’ve retained the monarchy, don’t forget.

Ya get me?

So, relatively right of centre, overall.

Are you religious Elfin?

Of course relative to a pure command economy, we are RELATIVELY right wing and conservative. But so?

Periods of economic history that have been associated with right wing economic and political policies – fact not rhetoric – relatively few. Hence we have a central-bias to politics and a strong belief that governments should play an active role in the allocation of scarce resources.

Excuse me if I ignore feudal Britain!

Still going back to OP – quite a U Turn Mr Balls. Amazing what politicians will do to cling to power/try to win power.

Why can’t they all be like that nice Mr Salmon – a model of integrity and consistency.

Anyway 1hr of light left, get out on your bikes

Is his wife a Tory mp ?

She’s a labour front bench bod.

classic nonsense from teamhurtmore.

You don’t like the message ridicule the messenger. weak even for you.

No answer to the fact that we are taxed less than most. Hence no need to cut, There is no imperative for the cuts, its a purely political decision.

Still going back to OP – quite a U Turn Mr Balls. Amazing what politicians will do to cling to power/try to win power.

Would it be too much to say that Balls has listened to what other people have said, including the Tories, looked at the numbers as the situation developed then changed his mind. Only a fool sticks to Plan A when it becomes apparent Plan B is better?

TJ come on get your terminology right – I thought it was neoclassical nonsense?

Tax and spend – we know its right. Who is actually cutting TJ though? The Labour party are saying that the Tories are not cutting enough?

Did you see what happened on Friday night/afternoon?

But really TJ – why when it is so obvious, does nobody get it??? It is bizarre isn’t it??

classic nonsense from teamhurtmore.

You don’t like the message ridicule the messenger. weak even for you.

No answer to the fact that we are taxed less than most. Hence no need to cut, There is no imperative for the cuts, its a purely political decision.

allthepies – Member
She’s a labour front bench bod.

Does that mean she is right wing and capitalist?

We’re taxed less than most, but our public sector is larger as a % of the working population than most. That means some need to cut.

teamhurtmore – Member

we are RELATIVELY right wing and conservative.

= Elfin wins. 😀

Again.

Are you religious Elfin?

What in the name of the Sweet Little Baby Jesus has that got to do with anything? 😕

TJ – you mean politicians make political decisions. Whatever next? You tell me that the only fair system is a state controlled one. Ergo, political decisions must be the correct ones. Or am I missing something?

We’re taxed less than most, but our public sector is larger as a % of the working population than most. That means some need to cut.

No it means we need to tax more.

You keep mentioning this Jesus bloke?

If that’s a win, you are easily pleased. Bit like TJ then!

We’re taxed less than most, but our public sector is larger as a % of the working population than most. That means some need to cut.

Why does that mean it has to be cut?

teamhurtmore – Member

TJ – you mean politicians make political decisions. Whatever next? You tell me that the only fair system is a state controlled one. Ergo, political decisions must be the correct ones. Or am I missing something?

Yes you are missing something.

Just a good job I am not the only one who fails to understand your economic philosophy. Safety in numbers – the Tories, the Labour party, the Lib Dems, were all as stupid as each other.

I mean TJ just listen to that Balls bloke

He added that Labour must offer an economic alternative which meets the twin challenges of boosting growth now through temporary tax cuts and investment in jobs and delivering reform over the longer term to build “responsible capitalism”.

Tax cuts. Is he really that stupid. And you don’t think he means supply-side reforms do you? Whatever next, he will be going to parties in a Nazi uniform?

The new career path for you – the World Bank, IMF, EC, BoE, the world is your oyster. Given how thick and misguided they all are, they will be crying out for an orthodoxy.

Why does that mean it has to be cut?

I suppose it doesn’t. Depends on your politics.

Why does that mean it has to be cut?

Spending more than you earn is fundamentally unsustainable

As a country, we have done this on all but a handful of the last forty years

In fact its just as fundamentally unsustainable as a belief in constant growth.

Spending more than you earn is fundamentally unsustainable

Even if you earn over £40k and are one of the “elite”? 😀

To be fair TJ – its not just Ed is it? Imagine if a Tory stood up and said the rich should not be entitled to all their benefits. Imagine the reaction to that? Funny old world, when that kind of thing happens.

Anyway – back to Europe next week. Now there’s a story….

when a bloke earns 500 quid and the govt gives him 20 quid for each of his kids and 50 quid tax credit and pays his 2k a week rent theres something fundamentally wrong.
the pensions paid to some are excessive and too early.. ( who cant do some work at 55, oh hang on.. many do get a pension and still work for the people that are paying them a pension and draw a salary)
housing benifits are stupidly generous.. 2k a week!!
whole benifits system needs a 1 year consulation nationwide concensus on what the priorties should be and simplyfying the ‘system’ so that those in need of support get what they need and those that dont get nowt..
total household benifits should be clearly defined at the equivalent of 70% of avergae earnings for a household with no one working and 95% of average income for a household with 1 or more people doing more trhan 30 hours work a week
taking more much more though those on the gravy train.. wtf does the chief exec of bolton council earn 193,000 a year? 100k.. two grand a week is enough for any public servant.. they could earn more in the public sector? good let em try..
state pensions, all pensions to be paid at 60.. but only to those with assets less than 250k / income less than 20k..
vote for me..