Labour won't reverse Coalition cuts, says Balls

[Vague_Boy]

Well, well, well.....

 

We won't reverse Coalition cuts, says Balls

 

The Shadow Cabinet has been banned by Ed Balls from promising to reverse any of the Coalition Government's spending cuts as part of Labour's attempt to regain credibility on the economy.

 

In an interview with The Independent, the shadow Chancellor said: "No matter how much we dislike particular Tory spending cuts or tax rises, we can't make promises now to reverse them. I'm clear that I won't do that and neither will any of my Shadow Cabinet colleagues." Mr Balls has ordered Labour frontbenchers to clear any spending commitments, however small, with him and Ed Miliband.

LINK

 

But why not Ed? Surely the cuts are "ideologically motivated" by mustache twirling villainous Tories?

 

Or could it be that maybe, just maybe, that even a clown like you can recognise that we're heading for bankruptcy?

 

"A more balanced, medium-term plan to get the deficit down will still mean tough choices in the years ahead," he will say. "Tough choices on tax and spending – like the cuts to welfare, education and Home Office budgets."

So cuts are inevitable then?

 

And yet this is the same Ed Balls that came out with the following:

 

Ed Balls: Government cuts economically unsafe

 

Labour leadership: Cuts pledge was a mistake - Ed Balls [July 2010]

 

'There is an alternative to these cuts', says Ed Balls

 

And yet now it seems that there isn't?

 

C'mon Ed, it's almost like you're flip flopping depending on what you think people want to hear.

 

Surely that can't be the case.

[andygardener]

Balls by name..talks balls by nature.

 

Anyone who thinks the last lot have anything to offer after the unholy arse they made of britain needs their head examining.

[I1L2T3]

There's none so blind as those who will not see

 

Pre-election: Darling lays out plans for deficit elimination plan over 2 parliaments

 

Labour fights election on that platform

 

Post election: Labour stick to Darlings's plan

 

Balls becomes shadow chancellor. Says he will stick to Darling's plan. As chancellor he has maintained the party line. Granted he isn't happy but he is doing his job sticking to the party line.

 

Tories point out that planned Labour cuts are only £2bn a year less than coalition.

 

 

The thing is all main parties are committed to one thing - cuts. Where they differ very significantly is how to deliver growth. And in that area they are all utterly clueless, and largely impotent in a globalised economy. Unfortunately.

[ampersand]

Don't wish to be pedantic, but he didn't say they won't reverse the cuts (or some of them) - he said they won't make promises to do so

 

It is a very different thing - if you promise to do something you lose a bit more of what little credibility you have if you don't then do it

 

If you don't promise to do something it keeps your options open and enables you to make an appropriate decision based on the situation at the time you are in a position to do something about it and not three years before the event just because you are under pressure to say something

 

I don't understand all this banging on about Labour not having many clearly defined policies - they are not in power, and won't be for another three and a bit years, so what policies they have now will be irrelevant come the next general election

[alchresearch]

Saw him on the news this morning, going on about how he'd reduce VAT and get people spending again.

 

Does he not get it? People are worried about their jobs and will cut back on any non essential spending. I'll buy food as normal, clothes when they're needed but I won't be investing in anything I don't need, no matter what the VAT rate.

 

Brown made the made mistake a couple of years back, he blindly assumed that people would rush out and start buying non-essential items just because the VAT was reduced to 15%. Wasn't the phrase "lets spend our way out of recession" used?

 

Sensible people could see the storm clouds on the horizon and started to save for that inevitable rainy day.

 

Its no wonder the YouGov opinion poll published Sunday showed that 75 per cent of Britons do not believe that the Labour Party is 'fit to govern,' while 68 per cent say the party needs to change 'fundamentally' to return to government.

[Conrod]

He's saying that Labour must radically re-think its spending policies if it is to become electable again. Translation: he admits Labour screwed up in spades and almost bankrupted the country.

 

He's also saying that he will make no promises to reduce the coalition's saving and tax measures. Translation: He agrees the coalition is doing what any government in their position has to do to dig us out of the mire

[andyofborg]

He's saying that Labour must radically re-think its spending policies if it is to become electable again. Translation: he admits Labour screwed up in spades and almost bankrupted the country.

 

He's also saying that he will make no promises to reduce the coalition's saving and tax measures. Translation: He agrees the coalition is doing what any government in their position has to do to dig us out of the mire

 

up until a couple of years ago cameron and osbourne were promising to maintain labour's spending plans

 

back in 1997, labour promised to follow the previous government's spending plans

 

all oppositions promise to maintain their predecessor's spending plans and then after a couple of years go their own way

[ampersand]

all oppositions promise to maintain their predecessor's spending plans and then after a couple of years go their own way

 

Which is why it is stupid to say now what you will do in three year's time - general principles yes, specific policies no - because the economic situation will be different, and the policies required to deal with it may be different

 

Which is also a reason why there is nothing wrong with changing your economic policies - I think it was Keynes who originally said, "when the facts change I change my mind - what do you do?" - although that may be a bit of a paraphrase - because the economic situation is constantly changing, there is nothing wrong with adapting your policies to fit the needs of the moment

[wednesday1]

Which is why it is stupid to say now what you will do in three year's time - general principles yes, specific policies no - because the economic situation will be different, and the policies required to deal with it may be different

 

Which is also a reason why there is nothing wrong with changing your economic policies - I think it was Keynes who originally said, "when the facts change I change my mind - what do you do?" - although that may be a bit of a paraphrase - because the economic situation is constantly changing, there is nothing wrong with adapting your policies to fit the needs of the moment

 

 

Spot-on. When these ConDem muppets have finished the economy will be a total basket case. To go back to where we were 5 years previously will be totally unrealistic, we will be lucky if we can afford to go back 6 months!