'devil incarnate' Nick don't be silly. George Osborne the challenger with an appalling deficit to deal with. A deficit Mr Balls and co created, bedsides what does wealthy Mr Balls along with Ed Miliband living in his £1.5 million pound house care about the working people.

when the banks fucked the world over
how many govts were involved and were they all leftist?

They were all hoodwinked into oblivion by the credit default swappers
behave yourself luddite

Luddite later writes, "Besides that, he [Balls] looks and sounds mentally unstable."

Criticising in others what you fear most in yourself?

How can Mr Balls lecture us on deficit reduction? His policies created the deficit. How can he lecture us on the bankers? He created the very banking regulations that failed us.

@ New labour Poster
Really? I think there might be an ironic twist to your name?
In relation to your first sentence - I'm not sure if you can really blame Ed Balls for the global financial crisis but thank you for clearing up that Osborne didn't go to Eaton.

Luddite
22 January 2011 at 10:34
"transferring massive amounts of private debt into the public domain, all the debt and none of the assets"

"
The size of the eventual "taxpayer profit" remains a matter of guesswork. Assuming that the status quo ante is restored, the UK's banks ought eventually to trade at roughly twice their so-called "book value", in line with the historical norm. That would imply — say in 2013 or 2014 — a share price for RBS about three to five times the current level, and for Lloyd's about twice, while the disposal of Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley might raise about £5 billion. On this basis the taxpayer's profit — and the shareholders' loss — would be well in excess of £100 billion. Contrary to Kay's conjecture in his FT column, the state's intervention in the banks would lead to a significant drop in the national debt."
http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/3321/full

@Jan

You're right we do have a housing crisis, but prices rose astronomically under New Labour, despite people warning about house prices and lending for years, what did they do to stop it?

Our population also grew by quite a bit, adding to the demand, something which didn't appear to bother them too much if I remember correctly. Perhaps the housing crisis is worse than it could have been?

Don't think this means I am defending the Tories by the way.

ED BALLS IS A DISASTER

what have we learnt, we rely too much on banking for tax revenues.

let's adjust our economy so that if foreign banks started to move operations abroad tommorow and we lost let's say 20 billion pounds in tax revenue we would still have other healthy sectors in the private economy.

under labour banking was seen as an industry we had a competitive advantage in but i say - it may be better to drive foreign banks abroad, lose the tax revenue if need be - we would have a few painful years the economy would adjust and diversify into other sectors like manufacturing.

"The appointment of Balls is good news for the country"

Darn right it is. It guarantees Labour lose the next election. Good, indeed.

Eddy S, Why can't we have both, a vibrant finance sector, alongside a booming manufacturing sector,

thinkov, Gordon Brown, squandered billions even before the credit-crunch came along.

What did Brown 'squander' it on Luddite? He is blamed for not fixing the roof whilst the sun was shining. Those that blame him for this don't acknowledge that it was the Tory party that had stripped all the lead off the roof before running off with all of the slates. So the roof required major fixing after the vandals had finished - making schools dilapidated and hospital waiting times a disgrace.

And the same destruction is underway now. Will we ever learn?

The statistics don't support the idea that Labour overspent. There was a government surplus for the first half of the Labour period and a deficit of only 2-3% for the second half up to the credit crunch.

Now a deficit of 2-3% is sustainable *indefinitely* with GDP growth at the same level. Indeed, government debt was a lower percentage of GDP in 2007 than it was in 1997 under the Tories!

All this is a matter of public record. Anyone claiming otherwise has swallowed a load of Tory spin without bothering to check the facts.

For crying out loud. You are meant to be an economist. So perhaps you can admit there are different views out their on economics to yours. Rather than assume the coalition has no idea on economics perhaps they just have a different view to you. I also agree with those who have said using the word "slasher" hardly shows you to be an impartial seeker of truth, as one rather hopes for in academia, but a biased pig-headed fool who refuses to consider other people have an opinion other than your own. An ability to see other sides to an argument is something I would expect from a pupil doing economics at sixth form, it is sad a professor at a prestigious university is so unwilling to consider other opinions.

I think Osborne will be nervous that Murdoch is picking a fight with him over petrol prices.

Eton George is bound to face his nemesis some day - the country cannot stay asleep forever. No-one in this government of latter day spivs deserves his comeuppance more than boy George - and sooner would be better than later. BUT - how likely is it that the press and the BBC will report the facts without their customary weasel-like Tory bias? Whatever the reptiles print or the weasels broadcast - Poison Osborne is in for some hot-chamber roastings and ignominy. And who wants to be remembered as the Ignominious Chancellor? - oh dear - what a shame - never mind! Seize him Ed!

Ed Balls will be good for the country because the next 2 years will be crucial for the opposition. Johnson was an excellent human face and appealed to voters, but Balls will be a forensic debater and it will be a lot harder for Osborne in the coming months.

That said, Balls also has an achilles heel due to his closeness to Brown regardless of the economic facts.

Overall I see this week as bad for the Tories and good news for an effective opposition. http://extranea.wordpress.com/

So here are the facts; let's not argue about which 'economist' is greater because as pointed out earlier to Hans Castorp, having a fixed view on what is correct economics when running a country is a nonsense- a nose in a textbook is not how to run an economy, no matter how many curves, names and concepts you might acquire- common sense and instinct are the pre-requisites in any succesful venture, and since these are not measurable qualities i.e they can only be judged, we've ended up up in an intellectual cul-de-sac where it's all about who's got the better perceived academic credentials (the press and therefore the public love a man with a clipboard)- this is not surprising as the current generation of 'leaders' have never built a business, run an enterprise or worked there way up in an organisation EXCEPT in politics-that's right folks, they have spent their entire careers doing politics(I leave it to you to decide what that is). As an aside, the left have shown recently that they have no instinct or commonsense when they got rid of their best candidate, David Milliband- I mean what was that about???? Oh yes, the desire for power at any cost runs deep within the labour party now, let's not forget the Blair/Brown debacle(this current party REALLY annoys me, they are meant to be a credible opposition and represent the working man, but instead decided to represent every minority group under the sun EXCEPT the working man! Grrrr)Sorry, I digressed, back to the Facts.
Balls was heavily involved with Economic policy for a prolonged period of time preceding the biggest build up of debt in the history of our nation- FACT. Now to be clear, that is a FACT i.e. it's not open to political persuasion. That is in notional and %gdp terms (and claiming the bank bail out was not their fault is childish- bankers are sharks with suits on, so if you swim without a shark cage don't come crying after... )AND even without the bail out they caned the credit card HARD, even they admit that now, so enough Atal and Thinkov.
Noprovisions were made for the bubble build up (oh, and stating the tories were endorsing wrong policies whilst in shadow cabinet is like running someone over on the pedestrian crossing and blaming the passengers because they thought it was OK to move on- it's all about responsibility son, and when you hold the keys to no 10, best to man up)
So, the asset bubble was fuelled and encouraged, banks badly regulated, immigration 2m+ encouraged affecting education WHILST keeping 3m+ on the dole (nice one from the party that represents the working man), HMRC allowed to disintegrate into a shambles (I have 6 years personal experience dealing with them, their innefficiency is simply not believable, the number of mistakes they made led me at times to think it was deliberate, but compensation followed so i guess not- I can't stress how bad they were, and they were collecting the money for govt!!! I mean if you run a business sort out the invoicing luv... They abolished tax relief on pension fund dividends, a screaming disgrace and signalling their real intent to penalise the thrifty whilst telling the man in the street thay were all for the savers (disgrace and shameful...) They sold gold at 270$ (currently 1670$ ... that's right folks, they sold gold 6 times cheaper than where its trading now, and were so unsure that it ws the right thing to do they ANNOUNCED the sale 2 weeks before- those who nhave a basic understanding of supply and deman get this point, that they were so effing unsure they waited 2 weeks to see how strong the reaction would be.Ah, nearly forgot, for the cynics he sold it just before an election (can u hear him now "because it's the right thing to do"), and for the 'ecocknomists' he sold it on a 20 year low... look, if you're knowingly about to embark on a mahoooosive dose of pump priming, hold on to some assets luv(groan, economics 101- so dumb it's unbelievable, like losing at blackjack WITH x-ray vision. Hey, maybe he believd he was prudent... so that would mean he was at least deluded, at worst mentally unstable.. er... and his sidekick> Mr balls.
So, to all the people who worry about schools and hospitals (rightly), please know that the 2 Buffons lost 15Bn quid or so on that little caper. Add in the 11BN quid on a broken computer they spent, and let's chuck in the £4Bn Maude saved last year (1 YEAR) and imagine that he could have saved that HALF that every year . So 2*10 years= 20Bn (been generous withthe years, assumed it took a while to get 'hooked' on spending. mmmm not looking great. I wonder what £50 Bn give or take might buy these days?

Ok, so the last calculation is rough, but it's hardly exhaustive of their spending.
So there we have it, Balls the partner in crime to the Hight priest of Clowns... What's his latest mantra? (I notice he's gone a little quiet on 'too fast too quick' since the euro and US blow ups, strange that...) He wants a VAT cut, er, not to gain favour with voters and busineses, no no no, perish the thought he might try and bribe the electorate with cheap rubbish from China, the cut would boost the economy and consumer spending because CLEARLY that's what we need right now. It's the right thing to do... definitely nOT trying to get power at ANY cost. With all his economic wisdon , what we really really need right now, and what Osbourme has failed to grasp because he simply is not of the same intellectual calibre as Balls, is MORE consumer spending. That is the key to the growth that we need. It's not supplying Africa with British engineers to build the bridges so desperately needed there (to be financed by some of the mineral and oil wealth that the Chinese are currently sucking up with no real competition from the West (CLOWNS CLOWNS CLOWNS), it's not getting British firms in to that part of the world to build the infrastructure (20 year plans). No NO NO, we need to spend in the shops. We don't need to sell the high end planes trains and automobiles that we manufacture to rich Asians- No we need to get the high street going full steam again. The answer is not to develop special economic zones with tax breaks in the North of England because the last govt of zombies thought that making Newcastle 40% dependant on public sector was a great plan (after all, Nissan only managed to build and operate it's most efficient plant in THE WORLD in Newcastle not because there are hard workers there, but they just got lucky- those lucky lucky japanese!) No mate, we need to spend, and borrow if we haven't got it.Yeah babe, spend spend spend because that is what defines a society, not it's cultural and spiritual values, but what trainers you're wearing. It's not about the ABSOLUTE standard of living one enjoys, it's about the RELATIVE to the richer guy that me that reaaly counts, and therefore that is why the previous bunch encouraged every kid to be a rock star/football player/hedge fund manager, because that's what counts. And that's what you vote for when you vote for Balls. A textbook full of theories learnt by rote to gain status in a world where the package is more important than the content, and no common sense.

For a healthy democracy we need Balls, a strong opposition and a future Chancellor.

I believe Gideon (I love calling him that btw), went to the same School harriet harman (the queen of hypocrisy - I love calling her that too)

Ed Balls will thankfully tear Osborne apart, his knowledge of economics is far, far superior than the miscalculations of Osborne, this is great news for Labour. It's also good news for those suffering at the mercy of a political party which only knows one word; the word 'cut'.

The increase in fuel to between 4 and 5p in April will be absolutely disastrous, but Osborne won't slow down the escalation by releasing it from its link with the RPI, he's not shrewd enough to realise the implications.

If the media do, as they should, turn on this coalition, the coalition's day become numbered, it's the same for any party once the press turns against them. I can't wait for that day.

what we should have learnt is the answer to the following question - when should we run a budget surplus - the answer is when we have a sustained boom - especially in the housing market. this we did. let's leave party politics out of it - and learn this for when the next boom arrives as it surely will (not soon mind you).

we need to start taking lessons from the chinese and look to re-balance our economy away from services and towards manufacturing. government can provide the right conditions. the chinese currently hold $3 trillion in foreign currency reserves alone and are hoarding/acquiring assets like no tommorow.

Des, I agree - but isn't it just better to think we've got the right one now? There were many reasons why Ed Miliband chose Johnson, but he's gone for reasons of his own, the reasons have become irrelevant. What matters now is what Ed Balls comes up with when challenging Osborne.

I'm more concerned with Osborne's miscalculations than I am of those made by our newbie shadow leader.

Dream on serf.....dream on Luddite....

Why does everyone talk about Balls as if he is the best thing since sliced bread? And all this talk of him being a top notch economist. Are you all deaf, blind, stupid and suffering from memory failure? Have you completely forgotten how much damage Balls and Brown did with their perverse idea of economics? It is now widely accepted that Brown has been the worst Prime Minister this century and the legacies of his economic insanity is like and endless parade of skeletons coming out of the closet.....Balls will just carry on where Brown left off. He destroys anything he touches...The man should be sent to prison, not given a job.