Or, err, not.
Despite a slightly cackhanded Guardian interview  Ed Balls’s Fabians speech did not, in fact, commit Labour to supporting every Tory cut as they made it.
What he committed to was Labour opposition to the ill considered, economically illiterate, counterproductive Tory plan to reduce the deficit by whatever means they could see.
He also committed to doing the right thing
“Which is why Ed Miliband and I have argued for a global plan for growth, with clear medium-term plans to get deficits down, but stimulus now to avoid a global slump too.”
Is he capitulating to the ill informed, ineffective, counter productive Tory and Lib Dem deficit reduction plan?
“George Osborne and David Cameron took it as read that deep and immediate spending cuts and tax rises would at least serve the goal of deficit reduction – no matter how much Labour warned that going too far, too fast would be bad for borrowing as well as for jobs and growth.”
Don’t think so.
Does he have a direct, specific criticism of the Coalitions economic strategy or is he just whining?
“On the surface of things, cutting EMAs and the Future Jobs Fund saved money and reduced borrowing.
But  at what cost? How much more will it cost our society and our economy to leave those young people long-term unemployed and
unproductive; they and their children receiving benefits rather than paying taxes and contributing to the national wealth?”
Ok, yeah. The man’s got a point.
Is he betraying the public sector and capitulating to George Osborne?
“But George Osborne’s economic mistakes mean more difficult decisions on tax, spending and pay. It is now inevitable that public sector pay restraint will have to continue for longer in this parliament.
Labour cannot duck that reality. And we won’t. Jobs must be our priority before higher pay.”
Nope, don’t think so. He’s recognising that Osborne’s economic ineptitude is doing serious, long term harm to the economy and that preserving employment over wage rises has to be the priority compared to job losses for some, pay increases for others. Tiny American flags are neither here nor there.
He goes on to advocate dispersing the agreed increase in public sector wages such that those at the bottom of the pay scale get a significant increase while those at the top see nothing. Seems reasonable to me. There’s then a great deal of talk about the need for pay reform at the executive level both inside and outside the public sector.
The only really significant thing in the Guardian interview was the he said no Shadow Cabinet member should commit to reversing particular spending cuts 3 and a half years hence. He didn’t say “Labour accepts all Tory Cuts”, Jim Murphy followed  strategy last week when he opposed some defence cuts and accepted others.
2015 is a very long time away. The Tories and the Liberal Democrats  are doing untold harm to the economy with their ill judged, misconceived and counter productive austerity program. Labour would do things differently, and opposes the current cuts program – as evidenced in their support for the #spartacusreport led opposition to the welfare reform bill. However, unless something incredibly unexpected happens any incoming government in 2015 will find itself with an irrevocably damaged economy and an ongoing deficit.
At that point decisions will have to be made as to how best to go forward, reversing cuts that have been in place in for 4 or 5 years is not necessarily the best way to go at that juncture. The spin that’s been applied to this, particularly in the Guardian article is ineffective – trying to wear a scratchier, more uncomfortable hair shirt than the Tories and Lib Dems is ineffective and not where Labour needs to be in terms of narrative. Those who already agree with the Tory, Lib Dem and SNP cuts agenda will agree with it regardless, those who who could be convinced by a Labour alternative won’t be convinced by the mealy-mouthed Guardian interview and won’t read the text of his Fabians speech.
Good idea, bad politics. Which is unusual for him.
(Note to cybernats: because the SNP are accepting the Tory cuts program in Scotland rather than raising revenue to ameliorate them you should haud yer wheesht)
#1 by Richard on January 16, 2012 - 11:05 am
2015 is a very long time away.
Yes it is – even further than 2014!
#2 by AliMiller on January 16, 2012 - 11:08 am
This is a good article and I agree with most of the points you make. Wage restraint is the fairest way to keep down costs as its better to have 10 people employed on a bit less than 9 on a bit more.
I cant help feeling with your last comment in brackets you are joking? For you have admitted the Public Health levy and the end of empty-lease exemption on properties after a certain amount of time! £30Million a year for the public health levy isnt much but that money is helping to offset cuts.
#3 by James on January 16, 2012 - 11:16 am
I agree with the headline, not the body. And I agree with Caroline, not Ed, Ed, Dave & Nick.
#4 by Aidan on January 16, 2012 - 12:29 pm
Except what she’s responding to is not actually what he said.
#5 by Alec on January 16, 2012 - 4:21 pm
James, as I understand it, you’re still a member of the Green Party. Hardly one of the Left (or Right, for that matter).
~alec
#6 by James on January 16, 2012 - 5:18 pm
Alec, I see myself and my party as firmly of the left. Left of the left of the Labour Party in Scotland for one thing. We were, for instance, the only party in May’s election showing how taxes could be raised from big business and the better off to protect the services the poor rely upon.
#7 by Alec on January 16, 2012 - 6:52 pm
Then, tbh, this shows how meaningless “Left” and “Right” have become as descriptors – even more so than “Progressive” – as one side (generally those who call themselves Left-wing, and therefore Nice People) use ’em in a way which reminds me of the facile allegiance to blue and green colours when I was at school.
Q: why would anyone who considered themselves Left-wing have voted LibDem before 2010? A: ‘cos no real thought had been given to what it means to be Left-wing or what a Liberal is.
As for economic and taxation policy, that’s fine and dandy. You won’t, however, be able to find many Tories who advocate legislation which targets the economically margionalized.
~alec
#8 by Alec on January 16, 2012 - 11:06 pm
Clarification… you won’t, however, be able to find many Tories who _admit_ _to_ adovating legislation which etc. etc.
~alec
#9 by Dr William Reynolds on January 16, 2012 - 12:15 pm
I would also agree with Caroline.I would also like to know Aiden’s ideas about how the Scottish government could raise funds to ameloiorate the ConDem cuts? I did get the impression that John Swinney had done everything within the powers of the Scottish government to minimise the impact,but if there is more to be done,lets hear it.It would be interesting if Aiden could develop that theme and if others out there could comment.
#10 by Robert Blake on January 16, 2012 - 12:18 pm
It’s good that the author points out that Mr Balls didn’t say quite what was attributed to him, but there’s more than just cuts
Mr Balls seems to accept that austerity is the only answer. There is no place for raising revenue in his mind
I think this is wrong. There is scope from raising money from the City and elsewhere which would make these cuts unnecessary
This acceptance by Labour of austerity only is sad, and shows that they are still fixated on triangulating on swing voters instead of actually doing the right thing.
#11 by Doug Daniel on January 16, 2012 - 12:30 pm
Exactly. A few nice lines does not change the fact that, ideologically, there is absolutely no difference between Labour and the Tories.
The left in England are now served only by the Greens, if only they would open their eyes and realise it.
#12 by Aidan on January 16, 2012 - 12:30 pm
No, there’s more than austerity contained there – opposing the corporation tax cut and the rescinding of the baking levy for instance.
#13 by Robert Blake on January 16, 2012 - 12:46 pm
Thanks for answering, but there is much more could be done with raising money on transactions in the City, which would yield a great increase in income
Also, you had a dig at SNP supporters with your last line, but, and please correct me if I am wrong. The only lever they have is income tax variance, which the HMRC say they have been unable to implement for years, whether or not it would actually worthwhile using, as the effect is felt on the poor.
For the moment at least, the levers for this one seem to sit at Westminster, and they do not seem to be doing the right thing.
The Shadow Cabinet should be agitating for a bit of taxation on the silly money and investing for growth
#14 by Aidan on January 16, 2012 - 2:53 pm
Labour should be front and centre of the FTT – both Eds are on record as supporting it (eg. http://www.edballs.co.uk/blog/?p=907) but aren’t particularly vocal about it, no.
Of course the SNP are limited by levers available to them, but it was their decision to let the SVR lapse. They’ve also chosen to freeze council tax. As for more powers, Alex Salmond and John Swinney are in favour of lowering corporation tax, which is hardly going to help…
#15 by Robert Blake on January 16, 2012 - 3:32 pm
Since it is incumbent on us in the Labour Party to be honest with ourselves, that isn’t, again, quite what happened.
The ability to employ SVR, even if we or anyone else had chosen to use it, was about to be withdrawn by HMRC and a considerable amount of money required to update it.
Council Tax hits the poor, I pay the full amount and I get Tax Credits. Increasing Council Tax would hit me hard and there is no mechanism to increase top rate of Council Tax without hitting lower rates, there is a fixed relationship
If Local Income Tax had been implemented then it might have made a difference, but even the Liberals, whose policy it is, voted against it
Corporation Tax is one of those funny ones. I suppose they would argue that lowering the tax would increase the take, as more firms would be attracted to Scotland. I don’t know the numbers and projections myself. Do you have them?
The Eds need to distinguish themselves from people they don’t want to be confused with. They should state it clearly, often and succinctly. It does noone any favours to repeat the same soundbite six times, as Ed M did on the strikes, because you are too fearful
We need the Eds to emvbrace boldness. The right-wing press will hate them, but they do anyway, and Murdoch is not coming back to the fold anytime soon
Anyway Aidan, enjoying your replies, thanks
#16 by cynicalHighlander on January 16, 2012 - 7:57 pm
but it was their decision to let the SVR lapse
Wrong the Lab/LibDem coalition let it lapse before the 2007 SNP administration.
#17 by James on January 16, 2012 - 12:51 pm
Hovis were quaking in their boots about the baking levy, it has to be said.
I’m sorry, it was irresistible.
#18 by Aidan on January 16, 2012 - 2:14 pm
Irresistable like a jaffa cake?
#19 by Indy on January 16, 2012 - 3:54 pm
A baking levy would be a terrible mistake I fear.
Indeed, in the long list of things that are supposed to make us all feel united and fuzzy inside about our mutual Britishness – WW2, the NHS. Eastenders etc – there is one glaring omission.
Greggs.
Could be the unionist secret weapon. Indeed, were Greggs to threaten to withdraw from an independent Scotland it would even make me think.
I give you that one for free.
#20 by Alec on January 16, 2012 - 5:26 pm
Greggs was founded in George Gently territory.
~alec
#21 by cynicalHighlander on January 17, 2012 - 12:01 pm
Well it would certainly give rise to inflation.
#22 by Nikostratos on January 16, 2012 - 3:45 pm
As a life long Labour Party supporter (as me father was) another betrayal in a long line of betrayals and yes I will still vote Labour…..
#23 by Dr William Reynolds on January 16, 2012 - 3:46 pm
Actually,I believe that the council tax had lapsed prior to the SNP taking power in 2007.There were also issues about the cost of reinstaing the tax raising powers,I dont remember all of the issues but somebody out there might be able to clarify the facts relationg to the loss of tax raising powers.I mean facts,not political point scoring.Additionally,I would hope that readers of this thread could analyse objectively the options and limitations of the powers of the Scottish government to address the horrendous effects of the cuts imposed by a Westminster Government.
When I asked my question about what more could the Scottish government do,I was hoping that we could avoid the tribal politics endemic in Hollyrood between 2007-2011.My impression is that John Swinney has decided to do everything possible to assist the budgets of hard pressed families.I know that there is a dilemma about whether the council tax freeze is the best way to go.However,labours argument that it is a regressive tax does not sit well with families struggling with the bills.I know that many members of my own family appreciate the council tax freeze.Of couse it is complex and we know that every action has the potential to help and harm,At the end of the day,perhaps we should listen to voters and let them tell us whether we are listening to them.
#24 by FormerChampagneSocialist on January 16, 2012 - 6:48 pm
It doesn’t matter what Ed or Ed says. The public have already made their mind up. You can’t preside over the biggest crash since the 30’s and expect to get back into Government any time soon. Labour are out for two terms minimum. Quite deservedly so.
#25 by Craig Gallagher on January 16, 2012 - 7:36 pm
I agree with the sentiment that the council tax freeze is very popular. Certainly, when I lived on Great Western Road in Glasgow last year, the prospect of not having to pay any more council tax than the exorbitant amounts I was already paying was very appealing, especially considering I got virtually no services in return except rubbish collection.
I can’t really agree with the argument that the SNP are imposing cuts on the Scottish economy because they refuse to countenance a rise in income tax and because they support tax cuts and freezes elsewhere. It’s worth remembering that real income is stagnating while prices are skyrocketing, mainly due to the Chancellor’s extraordinarily regressive VAT increase last year. Labour, to their credit, actually cut VAT a few years back and were rewarded with modest spending increases which may have delayed the worst of the high street closures. I’m sure if the SNP had this lever, VAT would definitely not be sitting at the absurd 20% level it currently festers at.
And as for corporation tax, I believe their intention is to increase the take through a wider tax base, represented by an increase in the number of job-creating businesses investing in Scotland. While I accept this is hardly a left-wing policy, it would be economic and political lunacy to attach their own range of tax rises on top of those being implemented at Westminster. On the matter of tax rises, there is no doubt Scotland would be better served by having access to all the levers of revenue, so as to properly prioritise raises in the progressive, rather than regressive taxes that the Tories seem to prefer.
Also, I am a full supporter of FTT, whatever party supports it. Labour are missing an open goal by not pursuing it vigorously, especially given the intransigent resistance of the Tories to the EU levying one.
#26 by Allan on January 17, 2012 - 7:31 pm
VAT increases Blair advocated mind…
#27 by Observer on January 16, 2012 - 7:47 pm
You are being very kind to him Aidan, however the reality is that Labour have got to win in England & so he needs to look as if he is being hard on the deficit to please the red tops. I think his strategy is to do that, whilst sneaking things in which will actually work. Unfortunately as long as Miliband is the leader I can’t see Labour making a recovery. Although Balls would be a better Chancellor by far than Osborne, it is a sin that Gideon is there & it is economic sins that he is committing.
#28 by hosting geek  on January 16, 2012 - 8:42 pm
I think it’s a good article. I agree with most of the points he makes.
#29 by Barbarian on January 16, 2012 - 10:29 pm
Mr and Mrs Balls had no problem claiming their expenses.
I think he is correct in that pay restraints are going to have to be accepted, but why not lead by example and take a major pay cut, or donating a substantial proportion to charity?
There used to be a Labour MP (Dave Nellis?), who despite having policy ideas I loathed, was one of the few people who lived his ideals and accepted a substantially lower salary than he was entitled to. I’m not 100% on the facts but I think it is correct.
Leadership means setting an example. Balls is one of the worst and would better off as Tory.
#30 by GMcM on January 17, 2012 - 9:33 am
An excellent piece Aidan. Ed has proven that he was correct with the too fast too deep nature of the austerity program implemented by Osborne but he now needs to say ‘ok, we were right but the fact remains we will be in X position financially in a few years and we must face up to that reality’.
We won’t be re-elected by saying we told you so, but by saying you were wrong and here is how we will make things right.
#31 by Max on January 17, 2012 - 6:36 pm
Economic growth is over. The limits to growth are here now. Trying to stimulate economic growth by spending more will not work in the face of hard resource constraints especially the end of cheap oil. Stimulus spending sounds like a perpetual motion machine to me. Greek etc. default could provide some challenges too. Like a whole new round of bailouts, and appointed government to preserve the assets of the rich.
The greens especially should be leading on what a post-cheap-oil economy will look like. I expect falling government spending, bankruptcy of most existing businesses, falling tax revenue, an end to many kinds of credit, big falls in car use, more potholes, and many many more people employed in agriculture and other simple, local and essential activities. Still some good jobs in Aberdeen for those squeezing the last working fields. All beyond comprehension right now.