Look, who gives the Chancellor the cold sweats after he has been tucked into his beddy-bye-byes for the night. Pre-fight noives?
Ed is contender and a lot of rated fighters on both sides of the aisle are ducking a confrontation. What about the 'you're dead' stare! And have you seen the bruiser in training?
So, what if the boy wonder wins the bout -- George'll know he's been in a fight.
And what if Ed uses his thumbs! After all, what's thumbs for?
The general consensus is George has been overmatched and won the Chancellorship on a dodgy points decision. Alistair didn't have the killer instinct.
Queensbury Rules or No Holds Barred we just gotta see tis fight.
No point arranging the set-up before the fighters are even inside the ropes.

Joe Palooka

the economy will be worse in 5 years.

Just reshufffle those Balls. Ed to Home Affairs and Yvette to the Economy. That way you give both more experience of other portfolios. Useful if either were to become PM. Opposition is about learning new stuff.

FA : 15.38

"The only way for Labour to be credible on the economy is to publish a clear economic plan which includes deficit reduction"

Before it does this it needs to decide whether to concede that some of its ideological positions are incompatible with a successful private market, and to focus on the success of that market, or to give priority to the establishment of the ideological positions, and accept that the market's success will be impaired.

Whichever it chooses, it owes it to the public to be straight with them, to identify its choice, and then to commit to sticking to it. No more promising one thing and doing something else - this approach to other people should have been discarded during childhood.

Oh well oh well did'nt Ed Balls do well today at the Party Conference.

What say you now Mr Hodges ?

Ed Balls is a star performer, credible, and easily able to knock spots off Osborne.

"The only reason this deficit is perceived as so serious is because of Cameron's PR skills"

Wish Labour had PR skills that good.

Blimey common sense at last - toxic labour need to get rid of more then one Ed!

Chris Wilcox

"The Darling Plan was working in giving us growth before Osborne fiddled with it."

The Darling Plan was to commence cuts pretty much at the same time as the coalition government in order to get the deficit under control. The suppressed growth isn't a result of the coalition's cuts since they haven't largely happened yet.

The only way to spend to growth is to simultaneously get the deficit under control AND increase spending which has the highest impact on stimulating the economy. That would mean incredibly drastic cuts to social spending (eg elderly care) in order to find the money for job creation schemes for the young. This is what Paul Collier has argued for but its quite obvious why no political party would choose this path. So what is left is walking the tightrope which the coalition is walking. If drastic cuts aren't made we lose the credit rating. If we go into recession there's a good chance we lose the credit rating.

There is no easy solution and not cutting the deficit certainly isn't it. Until Labour publicly acknowledge this reality they won't be trusted. Its that simple.

Labour members want to hear how there are easy solutions which Osborne is choosing not to use because he's stupid/evil/posh but that won't work on the public who decide elections.

This is a comment about the politics rather than the economics.

Political lies always implode eventually. Perhaps the clearest example in my time has been the 1992 election. The election campaign and its result felt unreal, perverse. Essentially a sufficient number of people bought into or clung onto the idea that change was not necessary.
In that case, it didn't take long for the dam to break.
This time, the Tory parsing of the economic situation may take longer to implode. But it will.
I'm not saying Labour doesn't have issues, or that we can just sit and wait. But let's keep a sense of perspective.

FA : 14.51

"Labour members want to hear how there are easy solutions which Osborne is choosing not to use because he's stupid/evil/posh"

Yes, and they also want to hear that no part of our present economic difficulties is the result of incompetent or mistaken policy during the period 1997-2010.

They don't want much, do they?

Why should he? Balls is one of the big hitters for Labour on the Frontbench, and is in fact making Osborne look like a novice. The fact is the Media is biased against Labour and rarely report the truth.

the cuts are politically motivated and not economically motivated, the problems in the markets with regard to other countries like greece italy is that the have no growth stratergy and therefore markets dont beleive they can pay down their debts its a crisis of growth thats what needs to be addressed and ed balls has been saying that all along and is being proved right

simon 15.09

they want a smaller state, and have said so these level of cuts they could not getaway with at any other time except for now but ridicously claiming that the country is bankrupt, a claim ridiculed by nobel prize winning economists, and if we were bankrupt where did the money to fight the war in libya come from then?

they want virtually all services to be provided by the private sector and thet see this as thier chance

the deficit does have to be dealt with but its low by historical standards, it was much higher after the second world war and the country still built the nhs and welfare state

its not class war the tories want everything to be except defence to be provided by the private sector , a philosophy that says you only get out of life what you can pay for thats why all the cuts now so they can blame gordon brown and people beleive them they want to finish what thatcher had started but was stopped from doing

I note that the security antispam question is a simple sum.
How did Glen manage to get his comment published?

Mark,

Thanks. You're right.

swantantra nandanwar

"Why should he? Balls is one of the big hitters for Labour on the Frontbench, and is in fact making Osborne look like a novice."

Yet, as Dan Hodges points out, the opinion polls are all in Osborne's favour. And it isn't because Osborne has a Boris Johnson-esque charm about him.

Too many on the left are allowing their personal antipathy towards Osborne to cloud their economic judgement.

"His prescriptions for the nation's ills may be economically sound. But they are politically unsustainable."

Are you serious? This is the problem with our entire political system. I don't know if Balls is right or wrong but surely Labour should be deciding what they actually believe and what will be best for the economy, and trying to win the argument by debating, rather than accepting an opposing argument even if it's totally wrong and will destroy the whole country?

On another note I'm sorry but I'm so so cynical about this anti-Miliband poll coming out in the Times after NI allegedly made threats to Miliband that because he made it personal so would they? Is this really not something that anyone else finds at least a tiny little bit suspicious? I'm not saying Labour should ignore what the poll tells them but let's not imagine it comes from a totally unbiased source, that there's no such thing as a push-poll, and - worst of all - that there's no room for persuasion and debate in the political process anymore.

Ian Cresswell
19 September 2011 at 18:33
'The govts case is intuitive but what matters in the end is results. The policy isn't working.
What time frame do you operate on?
This also applies to arthur Williamson.
'The current data shows the economy at a standstill, but instead of providing any evidence that their policies are working, (there is no evidence so far'
250k jobs created in private sector is no evidence? lowest bond yields historically? and contrary to blanchflowers fantasy that the yields dropped BECAUSE of anticipation of a slowdown, GO AND CHECK FOR YOURSELVES WHEN THE YIELD DROPPED. No one will cos it's easier to bash me as a Tory.Things going wrong cos of osborne? keep pushing that line buyt i think that the electorate sees for itself what's happened, it isn't being convinced by rhetoric. That's the thing with the left, it has become LAZY- it is in no way related or connected to the people who pioneerd the movt. Also, when Uk yields dropped below german, than according to blanchflower this means that germany set to grow slower than Uk- no answers still? 3rd time I've pointed this fallacy out, still no answers- OR why not load up with some greek 2 year at 50% still no answers...
No, the bedrock of left, i guess that's what posters are here, just keep saying the same thing- and when they see public opinion disagreeing with them, then they claim it's a rhetoric that's working for now, but people will open their eyes soon. It's pretty clear what thye man in the street is thinking, and he's not impressed by a party that has no roots, no humility whatsoever, no compassion, nor any alternatives, and certainly no desire to do any work on some numbers- the left has no idea who it is, or who it represents. So fo;lks, keep convincing yourselves that it will all come good for you, if it weren't for those pesky voters in any case, and certainly do everything possible to avoid a period of introspection.
Balls the bruiser is your heri it seems... u think that Cable, clegg, huhne, osborne, cameron, alexander are afraid of him? honestly, the left is so outclassed at the moment and yet the same drivel keeps getting spewed... like hoping there will be a world blow up economically and then HOPEFULLY it gets pinned on the coalition- here is a thing though-
if the blow up occurs, and it;s debt triggered/caused, who are people going to blame?

FFS it's not tribalism!

I am nothing to do with Labour, have never voted Labour except once for a councillor, but I always think actively each election and decide who to vote for based on policy and competence.

Ed Balls' arguments make more logical sense than George Osborne's. You say this yourself.

As a thinking member of the electorate I feel totally insulted and patronised by this article.

And Dan, in opposition policy IS important. You guys actually have work to do as the official opposition. In parliament the opposition is constitutionally obligated to (not to mention PAID to) hold the government to account. If the government is making bad economic claims and decisions then I expect my opposition to say so, not agree with arguments they know to be wrong and sack someone with brains (who on earth would you have instead?!) just because the government disagree with them.

What is the point of having an opposition at all?

As ever, when discussing Ed Balls you are talking about the political situation.
Nowhere do you bring into the arena, whether the Osbourne is on the right track and tackling the economic situation correctly.
You are just waffling.
You have nothing to say.
But your weekly piece is done.
You need a holiday.

The UK's AAA credit rating is secure precisely because the markets agree with the Government's spending cuts. The US downgrade was mainly due to the lack of confidence in their political system because of the inability of Democrats and Republicans to work together.

Had Labour still been in charge and insistent on spending their way out of recession, the rating might have been cut.

"So nobody is saying Ed Balls is economically incompetent or a weak performer"

I think he's performing weakly in his current brief.

I've even written a whole article about it.

Whilst I agree with a lot of this piece, if Ed Balls moves from the shadow chancellor brief his next position should be Labour leader. He may be dogmatic (well, not maybe, he is) but he's the only one with any steal who you could actually see knocking lumps out of the Tories. I thought he was incredibly disruptive in government and should have been sacked but Ed Balls would cross the road for a fight with Cameron and I think the only position he can really occupy is head of the table because he is completely unmanageable. There are plenty who say he would be a disaster as leader - and they may well be right - but who else is there on offer likely to do any better? I would have hated the idea twelve months ago but now I think it's a risk worth taking.

Keithpp : 19.37

Your apology is unnecessary, because you're only stating your opinions. But gracious, nevertheless. Thanks.

I'm quite glad now that the moderators didn't see fit to allow my response to be posted. It wasn't in any way abusive, but it was written in a more forthright way than I like.

We NEED an effective opposition - this is what keeps governments "honest". But how can Labour credibly hold THIS government to account when it seems totally incapable of holding itself to account for what went on between 1997 and 2010? Before it can accuse this government of faulty policy, it needs to concede just how much unpopular policy would be necessary WHATEVER government was now in power, how much of this is due to world events beyond the UK government's control, and how much to dealing with the effects of faulty policy made under the previous government. I don't see it as good faith to criticise a government for not clearing up the mess YOU left in the way you'ld like to see it done - particularly when during your time in power you largely denied the need to clear it up at all.