His master's voice: Balls and the "investment" Brownie

Gawain

Balls was a financial journalist and worked in the Treasury, so presumably he knows how this deception was supposed to work. In my book that sort of dissimulation is worse than dodgy expenses claims. It completely destroys honest debate and drags politics into utter disrepute. Above all it directly affects electors lives. Is there a celebrity out there who has the guts to stand against this menace at the election ?

Eddy

Excellent summary, Fraser. You've done a very useful public service.

I was thinking of cancelling my subscription because money is getting tight, but I think i'll keep it now.

oldrightie

As cavalier with Governance as with his expenses, methinks.

Marty the Scot

Absolutely spot on Fraser. Once again, the media will be fed by our politicians. It will be interesting to see this 'investment v cuts' agenda over the coming months.

Chuck Unsworth

I'm sorry, time and again we hear this word 'investment' from these cretins. What it actually means is they are 'spending' our money on their pet projects. Nobody in this 'government' has asked me what I want my money spent on, they're just blowing it like dipsomaniacs in a four-ale bar.

Frankly it's time all this profligacy was stopped. The sooner we get to cuts in 'government spending' (i.e. chucking taxpayers' cash about) the better.

Michael Davies

I don't think Balls will get anywhere with the idea that Labour can somehow not cut things... it really shows his contempt for the public and that the McBride school of spin is alive and well in Labour's high command.

Flemingcrag

Ed (so what) Balls and Labour will get away with any lies they wish to tell the public. They will feed them to the very compliant newspaper journalists and the Sky and BBC reporters who in turn will report every word as the gospel truth. This is what has been happening over the last 12 years of this hopelessly incompetent Government's reign.
This confirms our Mainstream Media as the least investigative fourth estate in the world, rivals in this respect to Pravda or any other Government controlled media outlet.
If its a competition on who does the best arithmetic or financial forecasting then study long and hard on the acievements to date of Ed Ball (have reuced him to one as he couldn't count to two).
This is the man who told Gordon to do away with the tax credit on pension funds thus all but destroying them, he based this piece of guidance on the belive the stock market would always rise, it would never go down. Wonder no more at where Gordon developed the delusion he had done away with "boom and bust".

Peter Buss

I'm sorry Fraser, but you had me fooled as well. The way the article was written left one with the clear impression that it was indeed the Tory plan to cut 10% off those budgets you mentioned.Why on earth did you not scream that Labour are planning to make 7.5% cuts?
David Cameron must think that "with friends like these who needs enemies"

You and I both know that Cameon has never said what % cuts in spending he would make and it is wholly mischievous of you to pretend that he is planning so to do.

Silent Hunter

So Balls and Labour are a bunch of liars?

Tell us something we don't know. :o)

mitch

I would think there will be a severe cut in the number of balls in parliament with Ed and his fellow thief losing their seats.
These people tell us constantly how they could make more in the private sector..well now is their chance,no expenses,no ACA no subsidised food just a wage and real work.sweet!

Aless Bieri

The more cuts the better, we have never ever in the history of our country been able to afford the current spending levels and prospects don't look good for our future ability to afford them, so we have to cut.

I feel like a parent who's lent my teenage daughter my credit card for "emergencies" only to find her raiding Harrods with it.

Promising to keep up spending is just more of the same policy that got us into this mess.

Now For Change

Max

Fraser you're right about the level of cuts needed but in hindsight would you have written the article in the same way if you'd known the reaction, i.e. if you'd known the effect would be to do balls' and labour's work for them?Don't we need a sensible level of detail or do the lessons from the last election not hold any water now? Aren't the cuts going to be easier with a large majority borne out of honest language and clear direction of travel? Don't we risk going back to the point of losing on points of principle and presenting open goals?

chris

I seem to remember that in his budget speech, Darling referred to 'cuts' as efficiencies. They have never spelt out exactly how they are going to achieve this, or what it actually means. Do the mean cuts in staffing> Where?
Are they going to get the
same 'outcomes' with less staff, or more 'outcomes' with the same staff? How exactly will the money be saved?
What will they do if their projected tax income figures do not materialise? Will they go for more 'efficiencies'?
Do they agree that £700 billion of new borrowing over this and the next four years is already predicted to be £70 billion short? If they do, how will they deal with this? More efficiencies? Oh, no, Brown will borrow it (or try to) and call it 'investment'. What an idiot.

The fact is, we're all sick and tired of these bunglers. I wish I could go on the telly up against Balls. The first cuts I would tell him we need are about 50% of the total MPs. I mean across the board, but with any luck we'll see at least 50% of the Liebour lot go at the election anyway.

TrevorsDen

"Fleet St will not recognise them and buy into this fake investment v cuts agenda. " -- Fleet St is already following Labours expenses agenda.

But your post neatly encapsulates what Fleet St headline writers completely missed about the budget. Given the way they normally invent headlines from their stories this is a bit of a surprise.

Ray

True to form, Balls automatically assumes that any 'cut' in the £120 billion budget for the NHS has to involve sacking nurses. Could it not be possible that at least some of that £12 billion could be saved just by making it work more efficiently and eliminating those useless politically-correct penpushers that New Labour has recruited?

Jeremy

'Balls said it “could see 45,000 teachers laid off,”'

A dewey-eyed sop to the public sector hysterics, no doubt. And a cue for the public sector unions to take on an incoming Tory government - a la the NUM.

I really cannot stand that bloke. He's one of those public school pretend-proletarians in which Labour specialises. Ugh. Am I the only person to find his particular mixture of shiny-eyed Marxist pietism and low money-grubbing so deeply offensive?

After all, if Labour hadn't run up such a massive and potentially catastrophic level of government debt then other people wouldn't have to come in behind them and clean up the mess they've made. Again. Would they?

Perhaps we should nickname him "Flipper" - that might draw the sting a bit.

jingouk

Cuts there must be. But ... we do not have to be conned in the process.

TGF UKIP

Of course, on the other hand, Fraser, Dave could treat this as a huge political opportunity. But he won't because he ain't got the nous, the gumption nor the balls (!) to take the fight to Labour and that's why Gordon, Ed & Co will continue to crap on him to the delight of Maguire, the BBC and their other echoes.

Come on, Fraser, you're the political genius - what would you do? Let them just get away with it again or use this opportunity to take the fight to them and dump the whole steaming mess on their doorstep?

Craig Strachan

Fraser,

Much as with your stuff on "Third Scotland" you are raising an issue here that everybody knows about, but nobody wants to discuss.

It's a very necessary endeavour, but it won't make you popular - even (especially?) with the Tories.

Ted

Fraser, perhaps if you more often talked about Labour's planned cuts and asked where they were to fall rather than continually supported Brown/Balls narrative by highlighting the Tory ones and making up the figures (best guesses perhaps) we would hear a more balanced story.

2trueblue

Balls. Says it all really. Smoke and mirrors. This government has presided over the biggest economic disaster of our time and it has to be paid for. Your can't 'invest' in debt, you have to work your way out of it, and that involves spending less.

Dirty Euro

Bill the Cash. Why is the spectator not reporting on this there will be some funny headlines in the papers. He makes the best headline name of all time. Cash Bill. Bill gets some cash. I feel sorry for the mps including Kirkbride. But i suppose they have to do what is right.

Suki

There was a wonderful piece on this website in The Spectator Australia a few weeks back:

"P.J. [O'Rourke] had three pieces of advice. One: never trade freedom for security, or you’ll lose both. Two: if you’re broke, don’t try to spend your way out. Three: beware the terrible complicators. After a certain point, complexity is fraud."

www.spectator.co.uk/australia/3574091/australian-notes.thtml

It's point three that makes me think of Balls and Brown (OK, point two as well). Balls and Brown are quite simply past masters at disingenuity.

They're like the derivatives traders who the banks can no longer understand what they're up to it's made so complicated.

One of the reasons why the public are so into the expenses scandal story much is that they can understand it. We all know this government has been screwing us on the economy, crime, immigration, education but they've always got a "tractor-production" statistic to hand to tell us that everything's great - it's just that we, the little people, have misunderstood what's going on.

Even if you work full-time in politics the sort of thing Brown and Balls get up to is hard to unravel, as Fraser admits.

And look at the damage they've wreaked with it.

www.spectator.co.uk/australia/3574091/australian-notes.thtml

Tiberius

My old friend TGF jumps in with both feet yet again.

Fraser puts up an argument that many know to be sound, but the perverse NuLab reaction (this time from Balls) indulges in obfuscation which most of the electorate won't see for what it is. Just how do the Tories convert such infantilism to their advantage?

The answer is not to cry foul, but to employ subtlety. That is why Cameron and George Osborne have been politically successful where their predecessors have failed.

The trouble with dumping steaming messes on doorsteps is that the wind can change direction quite quickly and forcefully, and leave you with more than just egg on your face.

John Page

"To deal with a problem, you have to recognise it. It is amazing that, even now, we’re struggling to do that."

It's not amazing. Parties only discuss issues when it is in their own interest to discuss them.

When did you last hear a party discuss the cost of the EU? But that's another huge problem.

TomTom

If Mr & Mrs Balls paid tax on their expenses we might be able to keep those teachers employed ? How many is it that a couple on £282,000 with £48,000 tax free in housing expenses could sponsor ?

Redvers

Excellent analysis Fraser.

I was going to say that it would be nice to have a grown up debate about this....and then I read the comments already posted. Maybe this isn't the place.

Lord Boyders

Surely Brown can be asked how he was planning his 7.5% 'efficiencies' during PMQs. Put him on the spot, which were their planned cuts.

The fact is that Darling and Brown do not believe that they will be in power to apply their budget.

The Torys have to get the population at large to understand what needs to happen, before the election. They need to be elected on a cost cutting manifesto. Labour realise that cuts in spending are necessary and if their manifesto says anything else then they are liars. Which we know they are anyway. All too depressing.

Get the message out.

Publius

What else did you expect, Mr Nelson, when you keep banging on about cuts? You know how Brown's vile creatures operate.

As you yourself have said, it's already all there in black at white for the literate. Why keep spelling it out for the illiterate? They don't want to know. It's like telling people they're all going to die eventually. They know it, but they don't want constant reminders.

Roger

Fraser could you or one of your numerate friends tell us what the options are to get our debts down to say 40% of GDP in 5, 10, 15 or 20 years? I think this is the highest priority, certainly well ahead of any of the loony socialist society moulding projects dreamt up by this idiot Gov.

EC

"When did you last hear a party discuss the cost of the EU? "

EXACTLY!
There is no debate upon issues where the three main parties are agreed. eg. The EU, Climate Change - the two most notable scams to be inflicted on the British public. Similarly, there is no honest debate about immigration, welfare,religious extremism and other topics where to raise their heads above the parapets of political correctness would be to risk all.

NULAB, CAMEROONS, LIBDEM?
BROWN, DAVE, GLEGG? CHOICE? WHAT CHOICE? NO CHOICE!

THIS is why people will be voting en masse for alternative parties in June and beyond.

With regard to the recent expenses issue. Brown, Dave and Clegg have all fudged it. Their actions have simply not match their rhetoric. Weasel words!

Does anybody here know what the sum total of all MP expense claims amounts to each year?
£1 million? £2 million? What is this compared to the £ Billions that the buggers are p*ssing up the wall on the EU and ineffectual welfare?

Hugh

Fraser, a thought
if... we got a speaker who insisted on straight answers in PMQ's the bureaucratic obfuscation we get from the PM might be significantly reduced.

Hereford

Why does the press not want to start this debate that neither party want to engage it. It was happy to engage in a debate on expenses that neither party wanted.

Is the press so weak and toothless that it would rather ignore an issue of this magnitude? Or is it just that the press is, rather than being the servant of the people as it should be, actually the servant of the political parties to which it affilliates and only keen on such debates when the increased sales potential outweighs party loyalty.

If so, shame on the press.

Fraser Nelson

Hereford, often political debate is defined by what the parties want to talk about. It's difficult for newspapers to start an argument in an empty room. You need quotes to make a story, and quotes need a person. With no one saying "cuts ahoy" the country will steer towards them unalerted. The New Media at least gives space to discuss these issues - I've raised the Balls/Brown cuts on CoffeeHouse serveral times.

I should, probably, have put into the Telegraph that the 10% figure is how Cameron currently envisages implementing the cuts outlined in Bud09. But my piece was not about working out how we got here, but about what Cameron needs to do now.

Ted (and others) it may well be that my raising this point makes life difficult for the Tories. But The Spectator is not a Tory fanzine - we're not here to make life easy for them! I dont spend time asking where Labour's axe would fall because I don't for a second expect them to be in power wielding an axe. What Brown would do after May10 is relevent only insofar as he is still setting the parameters within the Tories operate. My focus is on the next government.

Peter Buss, Cameron has not expressed anything in percentage terms that is true. But my job as a journalist is to take what he does say (health protected, won't spend more than Bud09 outline) and explain what this means. To say this means at least 10% cuts across non-NHS spending is not conjecture. It's an economic fact, and one we'd best get our heads around fast.

Roger, you address a very good point. Osborne has given a robust response to the recent S&P warning and suggested he would put Britain on a trajectory to get the debt down. If he is even vaguely serious, this will mean cuts of more than 10%. Your comment has inspired me to look into this. I wonder if we could get a "make your own cuts" part of the website - a bit like political calculus, where you can play with the integers and see what happens.

I'd like to make one final point. In 2003, us journalists kept asking No10 about what would happen for the occupation of Iraq. Don't get ahead of yourselves, No10 replied, we havent decided to go to war yet. As it turned out, there was no plan for occupation and it was an utter disaster. I sometimes have the same feeling about the Tories when you ask about their plan for a radical first term. It is sometimes seen as being rude, or unhelpful, or just not relevant or premature because they are so focused on the battle to control No10. The Spectator and CoffeeHouse will be focusing increasingly, and in as much detail as we can, on the tough choices that await Cameron a year from now.
So expect plenty more of the above.

Chris lancashire

The lies and spin perpetrated by the odious Balls along with liar Brown and, before them Blair and Campbell, have gone a long way to destroying public trust in politicians. OK, expenses have brought matters to a head, but this underlying deceit has been festering for years.

Ronnie

Fraser.

I'm sorry but I really disgree with this;

'often political debate is defined by what the parties want to talk about. It's difficult for newspapers to start an argument in an empty room. You need quotes to make a story, and quotes need a person.'

For me it is this methodology that is partly responsible for the mess we are currently in. Journalists and Editors waiting for politicians to define the debate, on their terms and to their schedule. You don't need quotes to write a story, you need verifiable information and the two are far from synonymous.

For example, people have been hinting at the expenses scandal for four years. It's been a seismic event so why did we have to wait, who's quote were we waiting for?

I'd rather that parties took part in political debate rather than define it, they should never be given so much respect.

Nigel H Bradshaw

Fraser
I know, like me, you are half in Sweden, so am sure you caught this. But just in case, see http://www.thelocal.se/19648/20090525/

DW

I've worked in news reporting. You don't need the quotes before you look into the story.

IMH

Cameron could ask Brown at PMQ's where the efficiences were coming from - but you know he won't get an answer
Hitler Balls - the man who claimed for 2 wreaths on expenses !!

EC

Ronnie @ 1:11pm.

Excellent post. Agree 100%
How do you manage to stay so calm?

Politicians have not been properly held to account by a cowed, credulous or downright lazy MSM. In that, they are as complicit in the misdeeds of politicians as the proverbial prison camp guard.

Hysteria

Fraser - thanks for the post - but I too don't get the argument about "waiting for the quote" -

TGF UKIP

"But The Spectator is not a Tory fanzine." Ah! To be sure now, Fraser, 'tis the way you tell 'em and all!

I'd be a wee bitty careful too, over letting your Dear Editor hear you expressing such sentiments, otherwise it could be back to the Auchtermuchty Free Shopper for you ma bonnie wee laddie.

TGF UKIP

Ah well, Tiberius, what is most apparent is that if you are ever found wanting in your accounting duties, so accomplished are you at putting the maximum spin and gloss on Dave and Boy George's "achievements", that a place on the staff of the Fanzine must surely be open to you. At least under the present editorship, that is.

"That is why Cameron and George Osborne have been politically successful where their predecessors have failed." Now, forgive me Tiberius, but I thought political success was achieved by convincing more people of the merits of your case than your opponents could manage for theirs. And in this, of course, your heroes and idols have massively failed.

Indeed, as not just poll after poll but every chance conversation that touches on politics bears out, the Cameron Tory poll lead is almost wholly an anti Labour manifestation. Indeed, each time that Gordon has a spasm of a rally the poll lead drops from teens to around 5-7%, a lead well within the limits of being turned round during an election campaign. And this despite Dave's opponents being the worst government within the living memory of even the oldest Brit.

Your hero has drifted along seeking to cause no offence, garnishing only the applause of the green "libruls" of N. London like THX 1138 but convincing no one of either his case (if indeed he has one) or more particularly his ability to govern.

From our previous spats, Tiberius, I know only too well that you invariably fall back on your claim that there was and has been no alternative to Dave and his ultra green Blue Labour agenda. Equally I think you know how profoundly I disagree with you on this.

However, the one article which you may be sure will never appear in The Spectator would be entitled "With DD as Leader, where would the Tories be now."
Objectively written such a piece would be far too uncomfortable in its conclusions either for you or for The Fanzine.

Ronnie

EC.

Who says I'm calm? But the more you shout the less your brain is engaged. As we see so often on these adrenalin-fueled threads.