I’m quite suprised at the outrage from the left of the Labour party at Ed Balls announcement and speech this morning. Well, not surprised exactly, but puzzled. I suppose it is a return to the status quo for Labour shadow Chancellors. having to remind the rest of the Labour party that they will be inheriting a budget situation they cannot know, and that our plans for our next government will be based on what we inherit, not what we would like to inherit. The logical alternative to accepting the cuts, is that the 1997 Labour government should have immediately legislated to return to 1979 tax and spending structures.
In effect, what those who are angry at Ed Balls are angry at, is his refusal to bend the rules of space and time to reverse the result of the 2010 General Election. When we win the next General Election, we will inherit a political and economic environment with significant challenges, and it is those we will have to deal with, inside what will still be a very tight spending framework, with further cuts likely needed as a result of the failure of George Osborne to deliver jobs and growth.
Of course, it’s rather comforting to reject all of this, as the likes of Neal Lawson are wont to do, which leads you to the sort of incoherent babble Neal published in the Guardian today.
Incoherent babble is harsh, but it’s all can think of saying. What else can one say about an argument that states something as Tory-delighting as “Labour must accept that economic efficiency and social justice do not go hand in hand.” and then saying in the very next parapraph that “the political challenge is not just developing the right political economy but developing a state that can credibly regulate markets to meet society’s needs and save capitalism from itself” – in other words that social justice and economic efficiency do, in fact, go hand in hand. As Neal says “So where does that leave us? Confused, that’s where.”. On this, we agree.
I have no idea what Neal wants to do about the deficit Labour will likely inherit in 2015. He appears to be arguing for major stimulus now, and possibly, maybe cuts later. Since this is clearly not going to happen, it offers no guidance at all for what Labour should do in 2015. It is a demand that Ed Balls and Ed Miliband place themselves in favour of a world in which none of us reside, as it is a far, far better one than the one we will actually be in.
I suppose that is a comforting strategy, of a sort.
It's just too much counting the angels – or the devils – on the head of a pin. If Labour wants to engage the public's interest then they have one sure-fire route. In fact, one wonders if all Ed's advisers are thick for not noticing it. Labour has to go on the attack against the bonus culture, the uber-rich, the bankers, etc. The public would love it and admire him for it. He has nothing to lose since the party is mainly funded by the unions. What fun he could have attacking Head Prefect Cameron on why nothing has been done of real use to change casino capitalism and the climate of greed that exists now. The public would love it!
Educate yourself, Hopi:
http://pragcap.com/deficits-are-good-during-a-balance-sheet-recession