Ed Balls's Labour conference speech - live blog

Minute-by-minute coverage of the shadow chancellor's speech to the Labour conference.

Press F5 or refresh to update the page.

12:39 In contrast to Vince Cable, who spoke of "grey skies" in his conference speech, Balls ends on an optimistic note. Labour must show that there is "reason to hope" and a "better way", he concludes.

12:38 Britain might be a "safe haven" for Cameron, Osborne, Boris Johnson and their friends, says Balls. But Tory Britain is not a "safe haven" for the 16,000 companies that have gone bust in the last year.

12:36 He promises to examine proposals for a National Investment Bank for small businesses.

12:34 He adds that Labour will commit to use any windfall from the sale of the state-owned bank shares for deficit reduction, not tax cuts. Balls promises"fiscal responsibility in the national interest".

12:33 Here's the much-previewed passage on Balls's new "fiscal rules".

Before the election he promises that he will spell out "tough fiscal rules" that a future Labour government would have to follow. They would be independently monitored by the OBR.

12:29 Balls is announcing his five-point plan for growth:

1. Repeat the bank bonus tax and use the money to build 20,000 affordable homes.

2. Bring forward long-term investment in schools, transport, and roads.

3. An immediate one year reduction in VAT on home improvements to 5 per cent.

4. Reverse January's VAT rise for a temporary period to stimulate growth.

5. A one-year National Insurance holiday for every small firm that takes on extra workers.

"Call it Plan A, call it Plan B, call it Plan C, I don't care what they call it. Britain needs a plan that works," he cries.

12:25 But he refuses to accept that Labour was "profligate" during its time in office. We went into the crisis with a lower debt-to-GDP ratio than in 1997, he reminds the hall.

12:24 Sounding a note of contrition, Balls admits that Labour made "mistakes", namely the 75p pension rise, the abolition of the 10p tax rate, loose controls on eastern european migration, and light regulation of the banks.

12:23 Balls cites the IMF's warning that Osborne may need to slow the pace of his cuts if growth continues to disappoint. He repeats one of Labour's favourite attack lines: "Osborne's plan is hurting but it's not working".

12:21 He attacks Osborne's deficit reduction programme as self-defeating "if you choke off the recovery then borrowing doesn't go down, it goes up," he warns. The government cannot afford to tolerate rising unemployment.

12:19 Balls attacks Osborne and Cameron for praising austerity across the world and "urging even deeper cuts". They are ignoring the lessons of history, he says. It is not just a failure of leadership but an "abdication of responsibility too", he warns.

12:17 This is not a "crisis of public debt" but a "global growth crisis", argues Balls. We must learn the lesson of the 1930s, he says. Piling austerity on austerity does not work.

12:16 These are "the darkest, most dangerous" economic times in my lifetime, says Balls. Britain is facing the threat of something most of us have only read about in the history books: a decade of stagnation.

12:14 He pays tribute to "our leader and my friend, Ed Miliband", praising Miliband's response to the phone hacking scandal and his calm, resolute leadership.

12:13 Balls takes to the stage. He begins by saying how pleased he is to deliver his first conference speech as shadow chancellor.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Paul Farrelly
Show Hide image

I represent a Leave constituency - but I want to delay triggering Brexit

Unlike most of his colleagues, Labour MP Paul Farrelly refused to vote for starting Brexit negotiations in March. He explains why. 

Not quite top marks, but eight out of 11 will do - for the justices on the United Kingdom Supreme Court, who have ruled that our country remains, indeed, a parliamentary democracy. 

Furthermore, they have ruled that legislation is necessary to trigger Article 50, which starts the Brexit process, not simply a plebiscite, nor a government diktat fancifully dressed up as a "royal prerogative".

Last June, my constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme in the area home to the historic potteries industry voted 61 per cent to 39 per cent to leave the European Union. Yet in December, I was one of just nine Labour MPs to vote - twice - against rushing for the door by the end of March, come what may.

It was the third time since 2015 that I’d defied the Labour whip (quite modest compared with our leader’s record). The last was when - with the Tories’ true statesman, Ken Clarke - I refused to vote for the legislation paving the way for the referendum in the first place. 

I thought it a reckless gamble with our country’s future, which profoundly disregarded the lessons of the past. Six months down the line, I now realise that, of the "December nine", I was the only one with a Leave majority (though not a majority of all voters) in my seat.

Why? Was it a political death wish? A deliberate slap in the face for my electorate, who have returned a Labour MP now since 1919?

No, it simply made no coherent sense to hand the government a blank cheque before Christmas, before we'd seen what Prime Minister Theresa May wanted to achieve, and given our verdict in the national interest. 

Does that make me – like the judges again, no doubt, according to Ukip, some Tories and the Brexit press - an "enemy of the people"? Certainly not. 

My parliamentary next door neighbour Sir Bill Cash, doyen of the anti-EU lobby, has spent the last 40 years defying the "will of the people" from the overwhelming 1970s referendum. So I think we "rebels" can be cut a little slack for wanting to ask a few hard questions to hold the government to account.

On the face of it, Labour’s continued, official support for the government’s timetable renders today’s Supreme Court verdict of little practical consequence - in the Commons, at least. 

In December, our front bench had tried to be clever, crafting a mild motion calling for debate on a published plan before Article 50, to stir a Tory rebellion. But the PM smartly agreed to the demands, tacked on her timetable and Labour got trapped into riding her coat-tails. 

But at least now, through amendments to a government bill, we’ll have the chance – and so will the Lords – to influence the terms of departure, and who in the future has the final say.

In the PM’s speech a fortnight ago, I was pleased with her commitment to protecting the UK’s science base. Last week, I was at the opening of the fifth Innovation Centre at Keele University’s Science Park on my patch, for which European funding has been vital. That’s been hammered out, until 2020, but what happens further out is wholly up in the air. 

I was happy as well, of course, with the passage on workers’ rights. Ten years ago, I introduced the Private Member’s Bill to stop abuse of agency workers – a Labour 2005 manifesto commitment – which was then delivered at European level. That was aimed directly, too, at tackling the sort of levelling down that, all those years ago, was already stoking anger at immigration in areas like mine.

But these were, really, just warm words for the wider audience. The key concerns for our industry, local and national, about tariff-free trade and access to the single market are still there in spades. And in the 21st century economy, we have not squared "control of our borders". The demand for skills, not least when incomers from outside the EU – the element the government ostensibly can limit – formed the majority in the last statistics.

The reality is that, once Article 50 is triggered, the government will not control the agenda.  That will be in the hands, like it or loathe them, of the other 27 member states. 

The PM’s statement was workmanlike, with no real surprises; but what hardly helps the negotiations are the frenzied Noises Off-style gaffes. For Boris Johnson to liken any French President, on his way out or not, to a Colditz camp guard just stores up more trouble for tough times ahead.

In my formative years, way before politics, I organised international youth exchanges. Every summer, teenagers from all over Europe gathered to tend war graves in Berlin – where wounds of conflict were still fresh, and the Cold War divided the city by the Wall. 

My involvement came from growing up in Newcastle - in Staffordshire, where the German cemetery from both world wars lies next to the Commonwealth memorial on Cannock Chase. I grew up believing that the European Union and its forerunners, for all their frequent frustrations, were part and parcel of the architecture of peace, not just prosperity. 

Those loftier arguments, however, got lost sadly in the bewildering trading of facts and fictions in the referendum. "Turkey, population 76 million, is joining the EU. Vote Leave." Well no, it’s not, but those huge, bright red posters certainly changed the tone of the debate in the last few weeks on many a street last June, not just in Newcastle-under-Lyme.
 
After a narrow 52 per cent to 48 per cent Leave vote, we are now, though, where we are. 

For Labour, on our front bench Keir Starmer has been trying to make the best of a bad hand. Thanks to the Supreme Court, he now has an extra card. But I still just don’t like the way the dealer has stacked the deck.

Paul Farrelly is the Labour MP for Newcastle-under-Lyme. He has sat on numerous select committees, and currently sits on the Culture, Media and Sports committee.