Exposing the con man
Fraser Nelson 3:24pm
To the chagrin of CoffeeHousers, I have long rated Ed Balls and his abilities. He has a degree of brilliance, albeit tragically deployed in the services of a destructive economic agenda. But as we welcome him back, it’s worth reminding ourselves that his abilities are of a specific type. He understands economics (even though he did PPE) but his speciality is in creative accounting. His only tactic is to spend, borrow and cover both up by cooking the books. He is a trickster, not an economist. More Arthur Daley than Arthur Laffer. In my News of the World column today (£) I say he is dangerous to Labour as well as the Tories, perhaps more so. But it’s worth recapping what we’re dealing with.
Until Balls came along, Brown was struggling on economics. Balls was the brains and introduced a brazen certainty, ferocious energy and guerrilla tactics. His language was so technical and baffling that no one challenged it. A businessman like Michael Heseltine saw through it and memorably declared “It’s not Brown’s. It’s Balls!” . And this is the way to treat it. A joke. A con. A ruse. But as the Tories lost their intellectual self-confidence (and heavyweights like Tarzan), they stopped challenging the message that Brown and Balls were belting out. The two worked so well together because they have the same high opinion of themselves and disdain for everyone else. This is summed up by a vignette in yesterday’s FT.
'By the time he arrived at the FT, Balls was brimming with self-confidence, leading the line in the newspapers’ football team with bruising aggression. After one woeful first-half performance, Balls told his team mates “You’re all fucking useless.”'
This sentiment probably reflects what he thinks of most of his Shadow Cabinet colleagues (including Ed Miliband). Same with Brown. To understand Balls, one must understand his self-regard. He’s convinced he is right; this is a huge weakness, given that he has been proven to be 110 per cent wrong. He genuinely can’t see this - and probably never will.
Yet in opposition, Osborne caved. He signed up to the ruinous Brown/Balls spending plan. At the time, the Tory argument was that one needs ‘permission’ to make an argument: ergo, some causes (like cuts) are simply out of bounds. Over the last decade, British spending - as a share of GDP - rose by more than any other country over any other post-war decade. The Brownites acted like sheep dogs, herding their Tory flock into accepting a high-spending consensus.
Balls, when he comes back, will want to try this trick again. He has his tricks, such as saying ‘reducing tax’ when he means ‘increasing tax’ (we caught him out for this on Coffee House). He speaks about ‘supporting the economy’ while ignoring the other side of the debt coin: the effects of debt interest. Osborne can, and should, talk incessantly about the burden of debt we are leaving for other generations. He can humanise it. Because debt is not an abstract concept: it can only be paid by people. You have to put a face on it: the face of a voter’s child, grandchild and great-grandchild. These are the people whose money Balls wishes to spend.
I can argue, with room-emptying conviction, about the importance of metrics in British political debate. He who sets the yardsticks wins the debate. Balls will argue that Osborne’s mild cuts are too harsh by keeping it all verbal. Osborne can quash this by giving a crucial figure: his spending cuts average just over 1 percent a year. Which household, or business, has escaped so lightly? Osborne might also care to publish his cuts in the international context. The only place that either metrics have been published is in The Spectator (all the more reason to subscribe, from just £1 an issue).
From his journalist days, Balls worked out that the media will use whatever metrics are fed to them. It is a flaw in British reporting, which Balls and Brown exploited to the full. Until a few years ago, the British public meant “inflation” as being the Retail Price Index. Brown told the media to switch to the far-lower Eurozone-compliant Consumer Price Index (CPI) and they did. Why? Because journalists repeat metrics.
When the IFS talks about “child poverty,” its definition is reprinted in the press uncritically. He who sets the yardsticks wins the debate. Balls concealed debt with PFI (and, on a global scale, with the so-called International Finance Facility). When the crash came, Brown even produced a fake national debt measurement that excludes the cost of the bailouts - something the Irish didn’t do, in spite of having much greater cause. It worked. Choose the right metrics, and you get away with murder. But by setting the metrics, Osborne can set the terms of debate; and he’d best do so, before Balls does.
The first battle will be crucial. Inflation is booming; this will be Balls’ first target: inflation is hurting households, he’ll say. The CPI index is 3.7 percent now, heading to 5 percent soon. He can make much mischief from this, as it can be used to present a narrative of government failure. Osborne must prove that this is another Balls con, which will be no easy task.
Osborne has had much success in his opening months. He has established a cuts agenda which has broad popular support - look at the protests in Greece and Ireland to see what an achievement that is. But we’re still waiting for his ‘growth’ agenda - which, frankly, we could have done with before the election. So far Osborne has had the huge benefit of an innumerate Labour opposition. That has just changed. Balls is, fundamentally, a con-man. He should be easy to expose. But only if he meets a response which is more robust, thought-through and forcefully advocated than those which the Conservatives used against him in the past.
Balls' fatal weakness is that, to him, the fight is everything. In government, he didn't think about the economy or the taxpaying public; he just thought about screwing the Tories - hence the "scorched earth" policy after the crash. Then, he damaged the country; now, he just stands to damage the Labour Party. To fight Osborne, he'll drag Labour further to the left. It will look untenable, and unelectable. Stephen Williams of the Lib Dems put it the best: Balls is not just a deficit denier, he's a deficit enthusiast. The Sunday Times today reports how donors are abandoning Labour as it moves further to the left. Balls' bloodlust will, in the end, prove his undoing - just as it did in the leadership contest. The question is how much damage the Tories allow him to inflict on the government in the process.
Previous
rwb
January 23rd, 2011 3:45pm Report this commentI think many Tory's and right wing commentators must be scared....given the amount of time they spend writing about Labour and not the Government.
yank
January 23rd, 2011 3:54pm Report this comment"In opposition, Osborne caved."
.
This is all you needed to say in this blogpost. In economics, economy is best.
That's why Balls will likely succeed. He has no conservative opposition, as proven past and present.
toco
January 23rd, 2011 3:58pm Report this commentAn excellent piece Fraser and most timely.Add to the pot Balls' close relationship with the Smeargate trio, the disgraced Damian McBride,Dolly Draper and Charlie Whelan and one gets everything which is distasteful about Labour.He will also play the phone hacking violin for all it is worth not realising that if it was so widespead as he would like us to believe why on earth have we not witnessed a rash of juicy exposures?Probably because it was not widespread!
Slim Jim
January 23rd, 2011 4:00pm Report this commentGreat article, Fraser. I agree that the emphasis must be more on the debt, and the amount being paid in interest. Now, do you think you can get your chums in the MSM to keep this message going?
Austin Barry
January 23rd, 2011 4:06pm Report this commentNever forget that this Arthur Daley Balls has let his 'er indoors' out and rampant. As Arfur might have said, 'The world is her lobster'. God help us all.
whatawaste
January 23rd, 2011 4:06pm Report this commentOnce again a good analysis is wasted by ignoring the big elephant in the room - European Union. What is stopping the EU spplying for an yearly budget increase of about 3 percent from now on? All the Coalition's savings (mostly from England) will be decanted off to the Brussels coffers.
Donors may be abandoning Labour due to a shift to the left, but the Tories also shifted to the left when the Coalition was formed. Labour's spending plans are summed up as less quickly less harshly than the Coalition - not much more than the width of a cigarette paper I'd say.
Even if significant growth is achived when Osborne waves his magic wand and jobs are created what will prevent a huge influx of EU migrants taking the new jobs undercutting potential british workers? Nothing. This is the big weakness in Tory policy where redundant public sector workers WILL lose out to new private sector jobs.
PS Why has the incompetent and corrupt EU allowed the economic malaise that is southern Europe to happen in the first place?
Verity
January 23rd, 2011 4:15pm Report this commentrwb - Astute point.
dearieme
January 23rd, 2011 4:16pm Report this commentAll very high-falutin', but what about his and his wife's obvious spivery on their housing expenses? They claimed a cheap house in the North as their family home and so billed all the rest of us for their expensive London house as their second home. But the children went to school near the London house.
Rick Evans
January 23rd, 2011 4:26pm Report this commentNo chance. The Balls Broadcasting Corporation will already be salivating at the opportunity to spout brazen lies and propaganda on his behalf; for them too 'the fight is everything.'
And, to be honest, Cameron, Osborne and Co deserve everything they get; the Government's craven pusillanimity in failing to stand up to the Gramscian BBC's bias is disgraceful.
laverda
January 23rd, 2011 4:38pm Report this commentA face as repulsive as Prescott and Brown and Mandelson.
Never vote labour, as Del Boy said 'You know it makes sense' or at least after 13 years you should do.
I just hope the press doesn't fall for all the con tricks labour pulled last time.
Crucify the socialist champagne thieves.
Publius
January 23rd, 2011 4:43pm Report this commentHas he sent you a barrage of threatening text messages yet, Mr Nelson?
Glad to see you're taking the fight to the enemy.
One question though. Were you not aware of any of this when Balls was in government?
Alcuin
January 23rd, 2011 4:46pm Report this commentThe figure that Osborne needs to keep reiterating is £4.8 Trillion, or close to £80,000 per citizen: man, woman and child. This includes government debt, private debt, PFI liabilities and pension liabilities. The point being that one or more of these components will default, and the most likely is the one furthest in the future, i.e. pensions. Which one would Balls suggest?
Those students currently rioting and bellyaching about their tuition fees have rather more than those to consider as the sky blackens with Labours chickens coming home to roost.
Unfortunately, Balls will also have the BBC batting for him. Personally I think it is well time for Government spokesmen to go after their BBC interrogators for giving Labour soft interviews and Coalition hard ones, and for their selective choice of both statistics and pundits to advance the case of denial and Marxism. The word "Sissons" should be used whenever possible.
Verity - Escapee from Thought Fascism
January 23rd, 2011 4:52pm Report this commentRWB - "I think many Tory's and right wing commentators must be scared...".
Many Tory's what, dear? Their cats? Their children? Their neighbours?
decafT
January 23rd, 2011 4:55pm Report this commentodd Fraser, that you suggest Osborne tackle the man, not the ball on inflation.
I fail to see how rising inflation is a con-trick by the labour party. Nor how it's anything other than a government failure.
Osborne should focus not on proving that it's a Balls con trick (how can it be?), rather on bringing it down. Obviously the Bank needs to act.
gordon-bennett
January 23rd, 2011 5:01pm Report this commentballs' greatest asset is the uncritical support he gets from the beeb.
Whatever David Cameron or George Osborne say or do will be deliberately undermined by the beeb to help out the socialists.
How else do you think the idiot left continue to hold sway in this country?
ollie
January 23rd, 2011 5:30pm Report this commentBalls has certainly ruffled feathers - though most of these have been in the media, NOT the coalition. Even Sky news have started the Balls hyperbole.
It's like the second coming of Christ in some quarters, not the return of an old fashioned tax and spend socialist who led us to near ruin in the first place.
The Tories have to start taking the attack to Labour, before the public actually start believing Balls' apologists and cheerleaders.
raymond jones
January 23rd, 2011 5:56pm Report this commentIf this Balls chap is the wide boy you say he is, then there is a place in Politics for him,but not in the labour party.He belongs with an patriotic party figiuring out ways to con Brussells and get some money back,be it bent ar be it strait.Economic warfare is warfare.
TrevorsDen
January 23rd, 2011 6:04pm Report this commentAny talk of cuts pre 2008ish would have skewered the tories. And in fact the tories nuanced this by promising to share the proceeds of growth.
The tories in opposition said as little of what they had to as they could.
Balls will no doubt try to sound clever in opposition - but his record will be a millstone.
2trueblue
January 23rd, 2011 6:05pm Report this commentRWB, can you tell me who the Tory,s right wing commentators are, please?
It is time that we as the public be allowed to chose if we wish to pay our fee to the Bliar/Brown/Balls broadcasting corporation. Cameron and Hunt could help us all out here.
The flipper Balls should be exposed. Osbourne should talk about the debt, and the debt, and the debt, that is what people understand.
Perhaps you could remind us daily what Liebore did for us on our financing side, their wizard ways of hiding debt by describing it as PFI, and all the wonderful ways you can hide debt. The thing of it is, it does not get rid of it. This man stole peoples aspirations and gave them candy instead.
He downgraded everything.
Child poverty in this country grew on his watch.
The gap between rich and poor grew on his watch.
He is one of the reasons we are now all poorer. The list is endless, use it. The man needs to be aware that we are not all stupid.
Balls and Brown delighted i using the global situation as an excuse, well chaps our inflation is the result of worldwide inflation.
David
January 23rd, 2011 6:06pm Report this commentSpot on!
Things will now really step up in intensity. Balls will be able to 'sock it to' Osborne, but lets not forget Balls is tainted by the right Horlicks he (via Brown) made of the economy. Whilst Balls' taints might be more powerful and pointed, Osborne already has a great narrative to use on Balls, which is that it was he he balls-ed up the economy in the first place.
So Balls could inflict pain on the Conservatives, but Miliband better prepare for 'friendly fire' too. He's a potent weapon, but this may well lead to more collateral damage than pain inflicted onto the Tories...
Balls has arrogance and a sense of entitlement; he's just like Brown in being the last person you'd want to talk to at a party, and yet feels the PM's job is rightfully his. I can't help thinking that everything is simply about Balls getting the leadership, from now on. And bizarrely we have a sort of Blair-Brown situation repeating itself. The sad thing for Labour is that Ed Miliband is no Tony Blair, even if Balls is every bit as rubbish as Brown.
Interesting times...
Nick
January 23rd, 2011 6:12pm Report this commentEvery time Balls attacks the Coalition's economic policy Osborne (or other spokesman) should accuse him of talking Britain down.
That's exactly the approach Balls used to take.
DZ
January 23rd, 2011 6:52pm Report this comment"He has established a cuts agenda which has broad popular support - look at the protests in Greece and Ireland to see what an achievement that is."
Really? Broad popular support? Broad popular lethargy seems to me a more exact description.
But otherwise an excellent demolition job.
Fatbloke on tour
January 23rd, 2011 7:02pm Report this commentTrevor aka "Fraser", the fastest spinner in the Nelson family even though my brother is a DJ.
I take it from the tone of your article that your underwear cleaning bill is about to go through the roof.
From the stuff in the article you and Sniffy seem to be having regular involuntary bowel movements over the fact that EB will soon be on the case.
As to the detail you write:
Shite, tripe and more shite.
Beer bar rubbish of the highest order.
However you are write.
Be scared, very scared.
tomdaylight
January 23rd, 2011 7:10pm Report this commentIf Balls manages to scalp Osborne that might not be a bad thing - provided we can get someone better to replace him, that is.
Pot Head
January 23rd, 2011 7:18pm Report this commentWe all loved Arthur Daley though!
Dimoto
January 23rd, 2011 7:27pm Report this commentFair comment from Fraser, but why do you studiously ignore this gent's gutter morality ?
That is also a major part of his character.
The cabinet is chock full of LibDems trying to prove how nice they are, "cerebral" but flacid Tories, and Tory cyphers.(honourable exception of Pickles).
How long do we have to wait, before Cameron promotes some razor-sharp, snapping, snarling Tory of humble origins, from the new intake ????
Or don't they have any ?
David Ossitt
January 23rd, 2011 7:45pm Report this comment“His only tactic is to spend, borrow and cover both up by cooking the books. He is a trickster, not an economist.”
Trickster? Joker? Beguiler? Cheat? Cheater? Deceiver? Slicker? Tricker?
All are admirable traits if one would wish to be a petty crook, a thief, a liar, to be the man who makes a career out of his ability to lead others into believing something that is not true.
Noa.
January 23rd, 2011 7:50pm Report this commentFraser.
What is it about the Conservatives in general and possibly, Osborne in particular, that they appear physically frightened of a foul-mouthed, destructive yob with a track record of demonstrable incompetence?
It's worth remembering he's also a trougher of renown; he and Mrs Balls, nee the slash mouthed Yvette Cooper, "flipping” the designation of their second home to three different properties within the space of two years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5325590/Ed-Balls-and-Yvette-Cooper-flipped-homes-three-times-MPs-expenses.html
Surely it's time that Osborne, with all the dirt, facts and resources of the Treasury now under his control publicly buried Balls and Labour once and for all.
Time to grow some in the government, not just the opposition.
Fatbloke on tour
January 23rd, 2011 8:17pm Report this commentTrevor
Can I just say that some of the stuff in your article is the worst comment I have ever read on the Credit Crunch.
In your desperation to give EB a hard time any thought of fair dealing and honest comment went out the window and all that is left is a slanted, partial and forced discussion of the events.
You had an answer, it was all EB's fault and all you had to do was cook up a series of questions that put him in the frame.
You start off with MH / Tarzan, a man so well versed in way of business that his only memorable comment related to cashflow and how keeping money of your suppliers was the first rule of solvency.
His efforts towards the destruction of an UK owned helipcopter industry are the stuff of legend so if he is worth quoting then more fool you.
As for the rise in debt in GDP terms you forget that it is all down to the Credit Crunch, a global financial event "born in the USA" where the effect in the UK was in the main down to the criminal negligence of senior managers in most of the UK's banks.
On the point about the rise in spending you omit to break it down into its two main elements, the repair of the UK public sector and the spending needed to get the economy through the worst banking crisis in 135 years. You compound you failure by not involving context in the discussion.
Maggie: Two years in, recession with spiralling unemployment and riots on the streets. Generation scarred by mass unemployment while UK manufacturing is decimated 4 times over with high interest rates and a high pound being used to brow beat a population to accept a punk monetarist right wing dogma being financed with the money from North Sea Oil.
Compare and contrast with the last 2 years of the GB premiership.
Dealing with bigger issues without the help of a resource windfall and the foundations were put in place for an economic recovery.
If you are fair and honest about these topics you will stop and think about this huge contrast.
You go big on debt and inflation without fully understanding the whole picture:
1) Half of the current level of inflation is down to government tax increases. Just how is increasing interest rates going to lower this? You are 180 degrees wrong on this, the higher rates will increase unemployment and increase the need for more revenues to pay for it.
Where will thye money come from, more consumption taxes that is where.
On the subject of debt you have all the credibility of someone trying to win Weightwatchers by cutting off a leg.
And why were they trying to win Weightwatchers?
They were trying to lose weight to get fit.
You cannot thrift your way to economic salvation in a global recession, someone should have told this basic fact to the two Italian economic muppets who keep getting quoted by all the dog boilers desperate for support.
Finally keep up all the good work.
You sound rattled and you have good cause to be under pressure.
Sniffy is a FT reject.
EB has a plan and he won't be blown off course by the Treasury view that limited AD's efforts.
Looking for a story, understand the paughling that went on in the Treasury with the debt forecast for 2009/10.
The Dec 2009 estimate, a 7+5 forecast was a disgrace and the author should be hounded from his government job.
Simon Stephenson
January 23rd, 2011 9:12pm Report this commentEd Balls
It's very simple. All you have to remember is that Mr Balls is a doctrinaire socialist who wants the UK's private market economy to be weakened and undermined. This is why he can play fast and loose with imprudent public spending - because, to him, it's not a bad thing at all if the UK economy finds itself in greater and greater difficulty. In fact, if he thought he could get away with blaming someone or something else for it, it's just what he'd be trying to bring about.
This is what the current Labour party is all about, and if you think differently they'll win.
Lola
January 23rd, 2011 9:13pm Report this commentHe's not a con man. He's a liar. And arguing with a liar is completely pointless and impossible. Liars make stuff up to win their argument. You cannot logically argue with made up stuff. So, you are right. The Coalition (gawd 'elp us) has to make the agenda from go. And that's probably going to be about the quantity of debt expressed in a way people can understand. Hence I agree with your '£80,000 each' stuff. But Balls will blame that on the banks (lie No 1) not his and Browns failure? And the answer to that lie is.....?
Paddy
January 23rd, 2011 9:19pm Report this commentThe BBC have been "bigging up" Balls all weekend.
But Balls is a liar....and he LOOKS a liar.
OK half the British electorate maybe a little stupid or uninterested.....but they will certainly see through this "wide-boy".
Simon Stephenson
January 23rd, 2011 9:27pm Report this commentFatbloke on Tour : 8.17pm
"In your desperation to give EB a hard time any thought of fair dealing and honest comment went out the window and all that is left is a slanted, partial and forced discussion of the events."
Not all that long ago I suggested to your unlamented predecessor, Richard of York, that many of his accusations displayed a high level of psychological projection. I think perhaps that you, too, suffer from this mental malfunction.
I'd see to it, if I were you.
lola
January 23rd, 2011 9:36pm Report this commentIn regards to my earlier post, I've had a think and I want to add a bit, if that's OK?
Balls IS a liar. As was Brown. The only defence I have ever discovered from such blatant tactics is to tell the absolute truth, however unpleasant it may be. (Personally, and as I am sure all of you do, I try very hard to be very truthful all the time!). Problem for the Coalition is that they've taken on board a lot of the economic lies peddled by Brown Balls and faux Keynsians. To get the 'truth' going they are going to have to start making the truthful freedom and market, importance of sound money, government spending is bad, arguments. They are especially going to have to rebut the 'cuts takes money out of the economy' lie, and the companion 'government spending creates jobs' lie.
Odds on them doing that? I am not betting at all.
Archie
January 23rd, 2011 10:32pm Report this commentNoa, I have been hoping for the same, but I refuse to hold my breath!
normanc
January 24th, 2011 6:55am Report this commentAnother aspect of the 'cuts' that the Conservatives have been slow in getting out is that the cuts are in real terms.
If you were to take the average man on the street on £25k and tell him next year he had to take a 1% cut he would expect you to, next year, pay him 99% of £25k. If you were then to explain that actually this means only a 1.5% increase he'd look at you wonderstruck and ask 'cuts? what cuts?'.
This whole cuts message has been handled very poorly. Whether that's down to CCHQ not being on the ball or the BBC running with their own 'we're all doomed under these nasty ideologue conservatives' I don't know.
Isolde
January 24th, 2011 7:08am Report this commentBalls and Brown should have been up in court
charged with criminal activities. Can we have the debt counter back please ?
toni
January 24th, 2011 11:13am Report this commentSimon Stephenson.
"displayed a high level of psychological projection. I think perhaps that you, too, suffer from this mental malfunction"
Typical of commenter’s here.
Because other's disagree with you does not indicate that they have some sort of mental illness, and only a complete sh$t like you would ever use mental illness as a term of abuse.
Still, I’m sure that in your ‘real life’ as opposed to your phantom contemptible one here, you profess to be a decent citizen.
Simon Stephenson
January 24th, 2011 12:52pm Report this commenttoni : 11.13am
I'm sorry if you've genuinely concluded that I overstepped the line. When it comes to pots calling kettles black, both Fatbloke and RoY have a great deal of history. This devalues both their personal contributions to discussions, and the quality of the discussions as a whole.
Extranea
January 24th, 2011 4:56pm Report this commentDear dear dear Fraser, you never cease in giving me a laugh. Osborne was always known as a lightweight in the city and he will be seen as such when Balls starts actually challenging him with forensic economic argument.
I have no love of new or old labour, but we need less ideology and more pragmatic decision making. The shock therapy tactics of the coalition to get the pain out the way in the first 2 years is a cynical political and ideological gamble.
I have little confidence in either alternative but at least now we will have an effective opposition.
http://extranea.wordpress.com/
George Laird
January 24th, 2011 5:30pm Report this commentDear Fraser
“To the chagrin of CoffeeHousers, I have long rated Ed Balls and his abilities”.
Me too, the mad scientist who wants to see the world burn has long attracted me as well.
Something about the eyes gleaming as the flames rise up!
“He has a degree of brilliance, albeit tragically deployed in the services of a destructive economic agenda”.
In the original Frankenstein, you may possibly remember the mad scientist shouts:
“It’s alive, it’s alive.”
Ed Ball’s economic policy, walking, talking and the politics of the mad house!
He wouldn’t run his own home that way.
“But as we welcome him back, it’s worth reminding ourselves that his abilities are of a specific type. He understands economics (even though he did PPE) but his speciality is in creative accounting. His only tactic is to spend, borrow and cover both up by cooking the books. He is a trickster, not an economist”.
What a well craft piece of scribbling.
“More Arthur Daley than Arthur Laffer”.
“In my News of the World column today (£) I say he is dangerous to Labour as well as the Tories, perhaps more so”.
I said that in my scribbling that Ed Miliband had made a massive mistake too.
“But it’s worth recapping what we’re dealing with”.
Someone who will say anything to gain power!
“Until Balls came along, Brown was struggling on economics”.
And Parliamentary expenses since he had to pay money back.
“Balls was the brains and introduced a brazen certainty, ferocious energy and guerrilla tactics. His language was so technical and baffling that no one challenged it”.
A bit damning on the House of Commons don’t you think?
“A businessman like Michael Heseltine saw through it and memorably declared “It’s not Brown’s. It’s Balls!” . And this is the way to treat it. A joke. A con. A ruse”.
It you repeat the same lie enough; people will buy into it, 101 propaganda.
“By the time he arrived at the FT, Balls was brimming with self-confidence, leading the line in the newspapers’ football team with bruising aggression. After one woeful first-half performance, Balls told his team mates “You’re all fucking useless.”'
I have met people like that in politics, brimming with self-confidence and equally dumb, they think sucking up to people above them shows they are intellectual heavyweights.
“To understand Balls, one must understand his self-regard. He’s convinced he is right; this is a huge weakness, given that he has been proven to be 110 per cent wrong. He genuinely can’t see this - and probably never will”.
Then don’t play the ball, play the man.
“Yet in opposition, Osborne caved. He signed up to the ruinous Brown/Balls spending plan”.
Now you are going over the score, George Osborne for all his faults comes from a wallpaper and soft furnishing background.
Is it surprising he found things a bit sticky?
“Balls is, fundamentally, a con-man. He should be easy to expose”.
In my party, I have been arguing the need for policies of substance over spin, sadly the George Laird view that ‘truth hurts’ isn’t taken up to the required degree which I feel should be.
Personally, I am ‘pro Balls’, it is nice to see a con man with a flamethrower and a free reign burning everything down.
Helps my crowd!
“The Sunday Times today reports how donors are abandoning Labour as it moves further to the left. Balls' bloodlust will, in the end, prove his undoing - just as it did in the leadership contest”.
Ed Miliband by picking Ed Balls demonstrates another point which I have been trying to get across in my party, short term gains don’t work.
People need to look years ahead not months in politics.
And on the financial front, I won £20 on the lotto.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
brian kelly
January 25th, 2011 9:54pm Report this commentI have just watched most of an interview of George Schultz by Charles Rose on Bloomberg. Fascinating - he has much to say which is very relevant for today's problem and includes sound financial policies - policies which this government is TRYING to implement. All our coalition leaders should watch it. These people [Reagon, Schultz, Thatcher, et al] were giants of their era and I shudder to think of what would have happened if they had not been in office at this critical time.
cuffleyburgers
January 27th, 2011 10:31am Report this commentfatbloke - you are balls aren't you? Good name!
So the "on tour" refers to the distance between your official home in your constituency wherever that is up north somewhere presumably, and where you actually live in order to milk the taxpayer for the extra few quid you really really need to keep your high "maintenance" "lady" wife ... or do you imagine she loves you for your good looks hahahahahaha
Back to top