The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Balls pulls it off

He had the spirit and confidence of a man who knows he is winning the argument.

By George Eaton Published 26 September 2011 14:40

Ed Balls's speech to Labour conference was perhaps the most confident and memorable he has ever given. His delivery was faltering at times but his well-honed message was as clear as ever: George Osborne's plan is hurting but it's not working. With growth down and unemployment up, Labour's Keynesian rottweiler had plenty to get his teeth into.

As an alternative, Balls offered his own five-point plan for growth, the most eye-catching part of which was a one-year National Insurance holiday for all firms that take on extra workers. In the most effective line of his speech, he declared: "Call it Plan A plus, call it Plan B, call it Plan C, I don't care what they call it. Britain just needs a plan that works".

The section on Labour's "new fiscal rules" was less detailed than some expected but Balls set out his intention to offer "fiscal responsibility in the national interest", a message we haven't heard from his party for some time. The next Labour government will, he promised, "get our country's current budget back to balance" and set "national debt on a downward path." The timeline for doing so, however, remains unspecified (rightly, Balls refuses to set arbitrary targets).

Sounding a note of contrition, he also offered a fulsome list of Labour's "mistakes", namely the 75p pension rise, the abolition of the 10p tax rate, the failure to get "all employers to train", and the weak controls on migration from eastern Europe. But he rightly refused to accept that Labour was "profligate" in office, reminding the hall that "we went into the crisis with lower national debt than we inherited in 1997 and lower than America, France, Germany and Japan." (As a percentage of GDP, debt fell from from 42.5 per cent of GDP in 1997 to 36.5 per cent in 2007.)

Not all of what Balls said went down well with the party faithful. There was silence as he insisted that Labour could not promise to reverse particular Tory spending cuts or tax rises, and as he warned that pensions strikes this autumn would play into George Osborne's hands. Significantly, he added that under Labour "contributions and the retirement age would be rising too." His pledge to use any windfall from the bank sell-off to reduce the deficit, not to cut taxes, won applause, although some on the left would prefer a radical commitment to mutualise the banks and turn them into engines of growth.

But he finished strongly with a rhetorical assault on Osborne's boast that Britain is a "safe haven". It might be a safe haven for David Cameron and George Osborne and Boris Johnson and their friends, he said, but it is not a safe haven "for the 16,000 companies that have gone out of business in the last year". Unlike Vince Cable (who spoke of "grey skies" in his conference speech), he ended on a positive note, promising to show that "there can be a better future". And rightly so. History shows that progressive parties don't win elections unless they offer a hopeful vision of the future.

Balls had the energy and spirit of a man who knows that he is winning the argument. With even the IMF now warning that Osborne may have to slow the pace of the cuts if growth continues to disappoint, the consensus is slowly turning against austerity. As the economic data continues to worsen, Balls will win further converts to his approach.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Party Conferences 2011 Ed Balls Labour

More from George Eaton

66 comments

Tue, 2011-09-27 22:45 — Indu Pendent (not verified)

@matt

Foxy, try reading that book I said about.

We know what Labour did with the £110BN PFI borrowing - Ed Balls says not all Labour borrowing was well spent and PFI are notoriously bad value for money (because of the governments cost of capital). I've worked with Labour PFIs and know they are a jucy gravy train for suppliers - the good old days.

But please could you tell me
- what did Labour spent the £350Bn on borrowed before 2008?
- do you think the coalition should increase (EB) or deacrease (EM) borrowing?

Which hand are you all in with - EB or EM? Or are you going to fold a busted flush, like some of your friends are doing?

Mon, 2011-09-26 17:55 — Jimmy21 (not verified)

Ed Balls is quite simply my biggest fear as chancellor. He is the reason why I will not vote Labour. The guy wants to add to debt and continue to spend, spend, spend. For me to consider Labour, I'd like to see a chancellor more in the mould of Alistair Darling, who seemed to be level headed and sensible.

Mon, 2011-09-26 18:20 — mcquade

"But just as Justine Greening said 'you would not put Fred Goodwin Back in Charge of Banks "

And what about all the other bankers responsible for crashing the economy who are still in post and being paid by the taxpayer? I haven't seen this government making any moves to remove them from their jobs. Greening's words are hypocrisy of the highest order.

Mon, 2011-09-26 18:28 — mcquade

"The guy wants to add to debt and continue to spend"

Although you seem quite happy for this government to be adding to the debt by an eye-watering EXTRA £46bn, so long as it's a Tory and they're spending more on welfare as people lose their jobs in the tens of thousands at a time.

Mon, 2011-09-26 18:47 — Hugh Markey (not verified)

This Saturday's Daily Mail has quite a page spread on one of these recalcitrant bankers. The accompanying photo displays a very insouciant individual facing redundancy with equanimity.
This is one of the banks to which the Labour government acted as a life-saver. Since nationalisation forty-three K (430,000) little people who worked in this bank have been thrown onto the State's unemployment roles.
Of course the bank's numero uno has been clawing in about £100,000, consulting would you believe, since he was quietly requested to pick up his pension pot -£5 million and take it easy.
You know the taxpayer stands by promises made - even if they have not been made in the name of the British Government. Surely Justine as a former public accountant/auditor is appalled at this behaviour. Unfortunately, it is a fact of business that whoever pays the piper calls the tune!

My Word is My Bond!

Mon, 2011-09-26 18:54 — FA

There's a gap between the rhetoric and the policies. Balls appears to have largely accepted Alistair Darling's deficit reduction. All of the growth ideas are good though they aren't costed. The bankers' bonus tax isn't a money tree. the rhetoric however is more aimed at the party faithful since Labour clearly borrowed too much in the boom years before the financial crisis instead of funding its expenditure through taxation.

Until some mea cupla on the deficit is made Labour won't be able to turn the page and until Labour say what they would cut they won't be credible. If I heard correctly I think Balls said he'd accept the government's cuts.

If a mea culpa on regulation helps not hurts the same must apply to public spending before the financial crisis. I imagine the reason why Balls doesn't is because the doesn't believe it was a mistake. This is still a serious flaw in the DNA of Labour's economic policy-makers - an instinctive belief that public spending is always right.

It seems quite obvious that Labour should have made it its historic mission to heavily cut taxes on the poorest working people - not just a credit here or there but a massive cut. Yet this never came up in the minds of many.

Mon, 2011-09-26 18:56 — FA

mcquade

"And what about all the other bankers responsible for crashing the economy who are still in post and being paid by the taxpayer? I haven't seen this government making any moves to remove them from their jobs."

It isn't for the government to tell private companies who to hire. In any case most of the bankers who were personally involved in decisions that were disastorous have lost their jobs. It sounds like what you want is for "bankers" in the general sense to suffer.

Mon, 2011-09-26 20:31 — martybee (not verified)

Keep quiet and let the whole system go down the pan where it belongs..Capitalism..rewards the few when the sun is shining and nicks your raincoat when it rains. Ever increasing economic growth is impossible to achieve on finite resources.

Thu, 2011-09-29 02:14 — Indu Pendent (not verified)

@macus
Not sure what we are disagreeing on.

- proven over the past 60 years to have UTTERLY failed. Yes agree.
- Tax and inflation makes people poorer. Yes agree
- GOVERNMENT HAS NO MONEY APART FROM THE MONEY YOU GIVE IT. Yes agree

But
"If it hits a surplus then it should give that money back to the people". Yes agree. Except, government should use surplus to cool economy to control inflation (its the timining of when the surplus is given back).
- Giving a surplus back to the people rarely happens. It is treasonous, but true. Yes agree.

I'd also say
- QE did not work, it just created inflation.
- fiscal stimulus gets abused by politician who use it to manipulate voters rather than in the national interest.

Fri, 2011-09-30 23:29 — Luddite (not verified)

Why should he? So he can keep on paying our new aristocracy.. (The pubic sector) Dave C wake-up.. Labour's f**k-up on a monumental scale, do you think Miliband's groveling apologies will win back the working class vote?

Thu, 2011-09-29 02:27 — Indu Pendent (not verified)

@matt

Foxy, you are not worth the effort until you answer me as I asked first - should the coalition increase or decrease borrowing?

Do you know what a busted flush is (its what your hand)?

Mon, 2011-09-26 22:31 — Eddy S (not verified)

balls is a man full of contradictions, he didn't support darling, he got his wife in the treasury to spy on him and try to run a parallel treasury operation.

he didn't think we were prolifigate before the election but now says he won't reverse cuts proposed at the same time as proposing tax and spend policies .

Mon, 2011-09-26 23:01 — Indu Pendent (not verified)

Please can we get history correct

1) North Sea oil kept running all the way through the Labour project (Foxy, you always forget to mention this)

2)Thatcher got rid of some of UK Industry but can not hold a candle to the last government. Labour shrink UK "grubby" industry at its fastest rate since the 1970s.

3) @la potenza di stronzatenza
"Aren't Ed Balls figures correct regarding national debt versus GDP?"
Yes - Ed (swaggers in a starched uniform) has sexed up the borrowing figures exactly like he did in the treasury - its why the country is in such a mess. Once a crook always a crook. Keynes says the national debt should reduce when the economy grows i.e. a fiscal surplus - Labour ran a deficit from 2001 onwards and from 2000 excluding the wind fall from sale of 3G rights.

Thu, 2011-09-29 07:59 — Richard Albright1

Ed Ball's said he would place in the the party's election manifesto a clause that would include tough new 'independently monitored' rules which would prevent a future Labour chancellor from allowing Britain's deficit to balloon once again. If we don't trust ourselves why should the electorate?

Mon, 2011-09-26 23:31 — Scotty

I can never forgive labour for failing to make the most of a healthy economy when they had it in their grasp - instead of improving our competitivness by improving our education standards, ins tead of just paying teachers more for less, and getting our youth to gain skills instead of attend useless university course, media studies for heavens sake instead of electrical/plumbing/ engineering/research - no, instead they talked a lotjob and did absolutely nothing.
And who was in the labour gang at the time - millie and balls.
THe world economic crisis is not labours fault but what is their fault is that they wasted our wealth instead of preparing for a rainy day.
Who was it who said it was the end of boom and bust - brown the labour buffoon.

Tue, 2011-09-27 02:43 — vinny 8 (not verified)

mrs m l bonwick-jones @14:51

gold is only at a record high because of the global crisis which no one could have predicted , we are going through the most dangerous period sine the 1930's

so come on smart alec what will be the price of gold 10 years from now then? and yet you expect gordon brown to be able to predict price of gold 10 years forward

Thu, 2011-09-29 12:19 — Marcus (not verified)

@Dave C - Pretty much all of post war western Europe.

Tue, 2011-09-27 07:33 — Luddite (not verified)

So who actually encouraged the splurge in public spending? I've never read or heard such a pathetic attempt at proportioning blame. So the banks are going to pay down the national debt!! Keep-on fantasising.. Labour's not fit for government with men such as Ball's running the circus.

Fri, 2011-09-30 07:25 — Luddite (not verified)

1% (matthew fox) Look here son!! all politicians "make up facts" it's the nature of the beast. I stated Gormless Gordon sold 40 ton of gold at $252 an ounce, that was wrong in 'fact' it was almost 400 tons of Britain's gold reserves. Thanks to that spectacularly poor timing, taxpayers missed out on billions of pounds they could of kept in the Treasury's coffers just when the country needed it most.

Tue, 2011-09-27 10:26 — la potenza della speranza (not verified)

@indupendent

grow up.
I happen to agree with some of what you are saying but the name calling is unnecessary.
Labour did not run the economy by Balls' Keynesian bible by any means but like Balls pointed out in his otherwise extremely underwhelming speech, deployment of nurses and policemen in the UK didn't cause the worldwide banking crisis.

Wed, 2011-09-28 12:22 — Marcus (not verified)

@Indu Pendent - sorry, but i disagree. Ed Balls is a follower and protagonist of Keynesian social and economic theory.

That theory and doctrine has been proven over the past 60 years to have UTTERLY failed.

The countries following it have seen a substantial drop in the competitiveness of there economies and much higher taxation on ALL peoples. This is a fact, not an opinion.

The thing people often ignore in economics is the most dangerous tax of all. Real terms inflation. The kind of inflation that is not measured by statistics other than the pure cost of the item.

Tax and inflation makes people poorer.

Also, separate issue i've read on here. PEople talking about government as though it has legitimate money of its own. GOVERNMENT HAS NO MONEY APART FROM THE MONEY YOU GIVE IT.

If it hits a surplus then it should give that money back to the people. This is why governments aren't really interested in having a surplus. Its about power.

Giving a surplus back to the people rarely happens. It is treasonous, but true.

Wed, 2011-09-28 12:44 — Dave C (not verified)

Marcus,

Which countries can you identify as actually following Keynes' policies i.e. accumulating a surplus during the good years and, if necessary, deficit spending to get out of any recession?

Thu, 2011-09-29 13:19 — la potenza della speranza (not verified)

@indupendent

"Neither did cute little babies or old grannies"

Well at least we agree on something.

Tue, 2011-09-27 11:06 — Marcus (not verified)

Talk about blinkers........... Most people thought it was a terrible speech by a man running out of time in his political career.

He will never be Chancellor.

Labour need to formulate a plan and then convince the people that they have a real plan. Balls might convince the already converted, but he will never convince the people.

I fear the same is true of the other Ed too.

Our democracy needs a strong opposition offering real choice. At the moment we do not have one.

Tue, 2011-09-27 11:20 — BigC (not verified)

More lies from Ball's I see...

"we went into the crisis with lower national debt than we inherited in 1997"

No you didn't...Debt in 1997 was about £350 Billion, in 2007 it was about £500 Billion. Looks like a rise to me!

"As a percentage of GDP, debt fell from from 42.5 per cent of GDP in 1997 to 36.5 per cent in 2007."

Yes it did....But that's NOT what Ball's said....he said we entered the crisis with a lower national debt, NOT a lower national debt ratio. (and they are not the same thing!)

Tue, 2011-09-27 11:35 — BigC (not verified)

@vinny

Quite right, no one can predict the price of gold in the future with any great certainty, but you could certainly see that, at the time of Brown's sale of Gold, prices were at a record low!

Would you sell your prized asset at a time of record low prices? (against the advice of your financial adviser?)

And why did he need to sell the gold in the first place? According to Brown at the time he'd abolished boom and bust, so why the need for extra money? Or was it because, as we know now, he was already running out of money to waste?

Tue, 2011-09-27 12:27 — matthew fox (not verified)

@BigC

The National debt in 1997 stood at £413.2 Billion.

I don't know where you got £350 Billion.

Wed, 2011-09-28 13:57 — Benedict (not verified)

If he lived on lentils and brown rice, he'd be a lot thinner.

Tue, 2011-09-27 12:35 — matthew fox (not verified)

Indu Pendent, your history old chap.

But let us revisit the £350 Billion of North Sea Oil revenues.

First you where in denial, then you had to acknowledge it.

Revenues in the 80's where a substantial percentage of Government income, but Mrs T, bless her, made sure it bankrolled her spending cuts and tax cuts.

I have been very charitable, I haven't included the £50 Billion Privisation receipts generated between 1979 and 1997, where did all that money go, should I ask Sid?

Tue, 2011-09-27 13:02 — BigC (not verified)

@Matt

The official government measure of the "National Debt" is the "Public Sector Net Debt"

I got my figures here...

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?chart=G0-total&year...

Where are your's from? and what was the figure for 2007 in the figures you used? (I'd hazard a guess about £600 billion, so my comment still stands!)

Tue, 2011-09-27 13:15 — BigC (not verified)

@Matt

Also, seeing as you keep raising it, where did you get your £350 Billion North Sea Oil Revenue figure from as well?

And what was the figure for the Labour years?

Fri, 2011-09-30 11:03 — Awake!

Matt Fox
Why did brown sell HALF the nations Gold reserves at 20 year low in prices? WHY??

Fri, 2011-09-30 11:08 — Dave C (not verified)

Luddite and Awake!

Now the price of gold is high and given the likelihood that the gold bubble will burst sooner or later, would you you support George Osborne if he sold off some gold?

Tue, 2011-09-27 13:47 — matthew fox (not verified)

The Office of National Statistics Old man.

Click on the link below, weep and then wipe the smirk off you smug face.

http://cluaran.free.fr/debt.html

Sat, 2011-10-01 16:28 — matthew fox (not verified)

I am not your son Luddite, it would mean your sister is my mother.

Mon, 2011-10-03 11:29 — Awake!

@ Dave C
No , definitely not seel the gold. Govets need to take 20 to 30 year views, (difficult with a political system that votes every 5) but my thinking is thus,.
1.Whatever does happen going forward, whatever comes as part of the many 'solutions', the west will print it's way out of this effectively.
2.Asia and middle east govts are buying gold and putting into their reserves. As the se nations become richer they will keep buying. Also, culturally gold is viewed as a safe investment (how much privately held gold is held in India?)
3. The crisis is not over. just as one 'never tries to catch a falling knife', then the reverse is true in trying to sell the top on something. Sure the volatility on this asset has exploded, but the trend is still one way.
3.It's not for the Chancellor to buy and sell gold like a market trader. To be fair to Brown, i seem to remeber him explaining that he coudn't see the intrinsic value of gold in an advanced economy etc... he was wrong not just because it went up but because he didn't understand portfolio diversification. He thought other western govts would copy him cos he thought he was that clever, remember all the praise that he was such a genius... well no one did copy him and our asian neighbours were very thankful for his advertising of the fact he was GOING to sell the stuff.
@ dave C
WOULD U SELL YOUR SPARE WHEEL IN YOUR CAR CO THEY WERE TRADING A LITTLE RICH?

Sat, 2011-10-01 17:06 — Dave C (not verified)

Luddite asked "Why should he?"

Well you may have heard George Osborne saying that reducing the deficit is paramount. If he sold the gold reserves (310.3 tonnes) at August's prices he could have raised $18.45 billion which is equivalent to putting a penny on income tax for five or six years.

Mon, 2011-10-03 11:50 — Dave C (not verified)

Awake!

Gold isn't as useful as a spare wheel.

Warren Buffett, ... noted wryly: "You could take all the gold that's ever been mined and it would fill a cube 67 feet in each direction. For what that's worth at current gold prices, you could buy all - not some - all of the farmland in the United States. Plus, you could buy ten ExxonMobils; plus, have $1trn of walking-around money. Or you could have a big cube of metal. Which would you take? Which is going to produce more value?"

The new gold rush: http://www.newstatesman.com/economy/2011/08/gold-bubble-price-financial

Tue, 2011-09-27 14:25 — BigC (not verified)

Who said I was being smug?? I was simply asking a reasonable question about your figures, no need to become abusive.

I never questioned that your figure was incorrect, I just wanted to know where it had come from. By the way, your link is not to the ONS website, just to someone who's extracted data from it. I was after the original data as I couldn't/can't find it myself.

Incidentally the figures you link to show an even worse increase than mine do! (My figures were an increase of about £150 billion in 10 years, yours show over £200 billion in the same period!)

Tue, 2011-09-27 14:50 — Indu Pendent (not verified)

@la potenza della speranza
Stronzatenza, I think the hat fits.

"Labour did not run the economy by Balls' Keynesian bible by any means"

Ed is not a Keynsian - he see public money to be used to manipulate voter preferences.

"nurses and policemen in the UK didn't cause the worldwide banking crisis"

Neither did cute little babies or old grannies.

However, Labour did cause the structural deficit.

Tue, 2011-09-27 15:15 — Indu Pendent (not verified)

Office of National Statistics figures showing the raw government debt are useful to cut through the stronzatenza. See the summary table M1:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/psa/eu-government-debt-and-deficit-returns...

Government debt during Labour's term before adjusting for inflation and before the impact of the bank crisis show debt nearly doubling under the last government. To this needs to be added the increase of debt of individuals to assess the impact of the last government's effectiveness at managing the economy.

Government debt under the last government was:

1998 £410, 000, 000, 000
1999 £405 Bn
2000 £400 Bn
2001 £385 Bn
2002 £402 Bn
2003 £441 Bn
2004 £487 Bn
2005 £529 Bn
2006 £573 Bn
2007 £618 Bn
2008 £752 Bn

After 2008 government debt was boosted by the financial crisis - underwriting the accumulated liability for the government's guarenttee of the banks which steadily grew over the term of the last government. It means the above figures understate the true debt loaded on to our kids.

Its obscene of Balls to say the national debt fell under Labour or that Labour did not cause the national debt to risk massively.

Tue, 2011-09-27 15:19 — writeoff (not verified)

Balls’ whimpering apologies just confirmed he has bought into the Tory framing of the whole debate. It was an utterly pathetic performance. If anything confirmed Labour are going to lose the next election, it was that speech. Boohoohoo we spent too much. Why not say the truth – you pssed it up the wall in incompetent private sector scams and deals, in PFI and management consultants, in not scrapping the marketisation of the NHS the Tories began but rolling it forwards; in being a half-rsed neo-liberal government just like all the rest since 1979. Instead he thinks the OBN (OBR if you insist) is the way forwards, as if a bunch of rich unelected economists can be trusted. The Bank of England has confirmed they can’t. We need a government of the people acting in the interests of the people, not just the balance sheets and their rich mates. What are the Unions getting out of these shysters? No support over strikes or pensions, just weasel words. Pull the plug on the idiots and start a new party so Labour can rename itself Management and have done with it.

Tue, 2011-09-27 15:37 — BigC (not verified)

@indu

Thanks, that was the link I was after! I was using the PSND figures, but those are even worse!

I'd laugh, but it was my tax money they were p**sing up the wall!

Tue, 2011-09-27 16:01 — matthew fox (not verified)

@BigC

I get it now, your in the wrong, and for some strange reason, I am in the wrong.

Not only do you question the veracity of my figures, you have the cheek to paint yourself as some sort of victim.

I have got a better idea, check your facts first, before you go all in, dear friend.

Tue, 2011-09-27 16:20 — BigC (not verified)

@matt

Yes, I was in the wrong for using the PSND figures instead of total debt (as shown in your link and the ONS link from Indu), although, as I said above, PSND is what the government use, so I think I could be forgiven for that.

Read my post's above again...I Never questioned the accuracy of your figures or said you were wrong, just wanted to know where you got them from, as I couldn't find them myself.

You abused me without any cause. My questions were polite and not unreasonable. So, yes, I am a victim in this case.

Agreed about checking the facts first, but in my defence... I had researched & thought I was using the correct figures. I am happy to correct that but as I said above, the total debt ONS figures actually support my point more than the PSND figures do!

So to coin your phrase, read what people actually say "before you go all in, dear friend"

Tue, 2011-09-27 17:55 — C Baker

Ed balls has no control over the european bank, euro zone financial crisis and never mentions bank regulation. So he better go back to lala land if he thinks once the banks and financial institutions are finished screwing the governments of the world, that there will be any pot left to piss in.

We are far beyond whether a few million pounds given to students or pensioners, or child benefit is the debate.

Listen to Vince- regulate the banks!

Wed, 2011-09-28 20:30 — Awake!

Indu
'Thats an American sized stimulus or a Euro zone rescue package. But what did our kids get for it'
it makes my blood boil.
The next election campaign? Big poster, official debt stats, quote from Balls next to it, job done...
the Left is self destruct- Balls can't open his mouth but dig firther. I actually believe in strong opposition. My heart is left but my brain right. Ok so in crisis the head must rule, but flippin 'eck give us an alternative... jeez can't someone at NS ring these twats up? The only suppoet here foe Balls is from people whio think he's well 'ard? he's a bully that's all, and he was fearful after his speech in one of the interviews afterwards. A shadow chancellor with fear in his heart?????? yeah, real fighter that one...
WAKE UP- winners don't entertain fear or losing!!

Mon, 2011-09-26 15:51 — Mrs,M L Bonwick-Jones (not verified)

Balls pulls it off -you must be totally mad! Ed Miliband can be forgiven as he was only a junior minister - but Ed Balls!
He made one or two useful remarks about employment, But just as Justine Greening said 'you would not put Fred Goodwin Back in Charge of Banks and you should never put Ed Balls back in charge of the economy'.
He totally oozed insencerity, Thinks we should spend more_ the man has a problem! He thinks George Osborne is wrong for wishing to cut the national dept, he even said we do not have a dept problem!
He did apologise for a couple of things
such as the 10p rate and for being too soft on banks but that was all.
He said Labour DID NOT have a spending problem, Labours spending record was not profligate or inneffective!
No mention of the tri-partite banking system that failed, no mention of the selling off of our Gold at a record low, and gold is now at a record high,
no mention of the failure to make sure Taxes were spent wisely, no mention of the foreign policy, no mention of the EU Employment Laws AND THE EU BAILOUT FUND, Ed Balls got his hands dirty in all these things, although it was very kind of him to say that all of this was not George Osborne or David Cameron's thought and that things were always going to be difficault, Thankyou Mr Balls close the door behind you!

Wed, 2011-09-28 21:05 — matthew fox (not verified)

Well done Big C, I hope you learn from your howler, armed with poor research, there was only going to be one outcome.

I hope you fact check Indu Pendent comments, otherwise you will open yourself to criticism.

Indu Pendent is under the impression Christine Lagarde and the credit rating agencies criticised public sector pensions, yet when asked to supply the evidence, spurns opportunity after opportunity, for some reason,which I can't fathom.