“but in the meantime – Ed Balls’ article in this week’s Tribune makes many of those for me.”

“It’s just bad politics to try and win a political argument with your opponent by accepting they’re partly right.”

Even if they are partly right?

‘Your’ proposals (which Ed Balls has kindly outlined on your behalf) represent a huge political gamble. You are relying on the general public to accept that the state of the economy is not Labour’s fault and that Labour has a better plan to fix it, within 6 months of the election.

I wouldn’t put money on it working.

“Nothing else needs to be said.”

That’s too strong, I think. Saying we’re opposed to ‘deep cuts now’ and that cutting the deficit isn’t ‘the most urgent priority’ (and needs to be done ‘steadily’)invites legitimate questions that we need to have answers to:

If we’re opposed to deep cuts now, does that mean we support deep cuts later? Or shallow cuts now? Do we or don’t we think public spending needs to be cut, and if so roughly when, how, and by how much?

If the deficit isn’t the *most* urgent priority, how urgent a priority is it? Just how ‘steadily’ should we aim to bring down the deficit, and to what level? And exactly what contribution do we expect our pro-jobs, pro-growth strategy to make to deficit reduction? Does it negate the need for £5 billion of cuts? £50 billion?

Is the argument ‘slow and steady wins the race’ – ‘it’ll actually take Osborne 10 years, not 5, to eliminate the deficit because his rushed approach will do so much economic damage; but with a steady, pro-growth approach we really could eliminate it in 8 years’?

Or is the argument ‘there’s no need to race’ – ‘Osborne really could eliminate the deficit in 5 years with his approach, but he shouldn’t; a pro-growth, anti-cuts approach could bring it down to 3% of GDP over 10 years, and that’s perfectly acceptable.’

Especially given your hisory of backing the wrong horse…

Semantic quibble: I don’t think there is a “consensus that cutting the deficit is the most urgent priority for our country” – that is not consensus public opinion nor consensus among economists. It’s what the government is saying.

Substantive quibble. I’m still not clear on what the substantive difference Balls and you are advocating is here. Are you saying that the Labour party should be saying “cuts are not necessary” and “if we were in charge we would not be cutting at all”. If so, is that because you believe it to be true or because it’s a politically expedient lie? Or are you just suggesting Labour says they’d be cutting less severely and later, in in charge, and doing some stimulus too* (this latter position is actually what I’d call the “economic consensus”)

(* how can you cut and stimulate at the same time? cut overheads & expenditure, increase investment, more aggressive monetary policy)

“The latter two believe Labour should talk openly of the need for cuts…” – because this is what Labour were doing before and during the election, but of course consistency doesn’t matter to Labourites does it? How can you be for the cuts *on principle* before the election and against them just a few months after? Does it happen to be because someone else is doing the cutting and therefore it suits your party to attack them for it on supposedly *principled* grounds? Burnham and David Miliband are sticking to what was in their manifesto – bravo to them.

“…and how far they would go” – this is a basic thing any Labour leader needs to be able to answer. What would you do? Carry on borrowing? Ignore the debt and listen to the “New Economics Foundation” *snigger* ?

You are relying on the general public to accept that the state of the economy is not Labour’s fault and that Labour has a better plan to fix it, within 6 months of the election.

Yes.

Especially given your hisory of backing the wrong horse…

Do I?

Or are you just suggesting Labour says they’d be cutting less severely and later, in in charge, and doing some stimulus too* (this latter position is actually what I’d call the “economic consensus”)

Yes. But it’s also about what you put forward as your main narrative. David Miliband wants to gain credibility by echoing a bit of what Tories are saying. Ed M and EdB want to focus on undermining what Tory strategy is by focusing on growth.

It’s a difference of what you emphasise when attacking your opponents, and what mix of cuts / taxes you would have now and in 4 years time. Ed Balls says DM’s plans to halve the deficit in 4 years time is too fast and too deep.

Understood, thanks.

fwiw, I’m surprised politicians think ‘growth’ resonates well with voters … isn’t unemployment more important? Then again, I suppose growth is another way of saying general economic health, meaning job security and pay rises.

“Ed Balls says DM’s plans to halve the deficit in 4 years time is too fast and too deep.”

Yes, we should only go Balls-deep.

@8 – Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive, and Dodge!

@Sunny:

This, for me, gets to the nub of the problem with your analysis:

“David Miliband wants to gain credibility by echoing a bit of what Tories are saying. Ed M and EdB want to focus on undermining what Tory strategy is by focusing on growth.”

It’s a caricature of where DM stands. His claim is that it is only by focusing on jobs and growth that it is possible to cut the deficit in half in a parliament, and also that if cutting the deficit came at the expense of the economy, he’d stop doing it.

In general, in order to distinguish sharply between DM’s plan and those of the Eds (to the extent that Ed Miliband has a plan, or a narrative, of course), one needs to overlook aspects that are central to the former. It’s not plausible to distinguish between them on the basis that only the Eds emphasise jobs and growth. In addition, Ed M got a big cheer last night when he talked about making bankers pay. But that’s not unique to him either – DM wants to double the bank levy. Etc. etc.

His claim is that it is only by focusing on jobs and growth that it is possible to cut the deficit in half in a parliament, and also that if cutting the deficit came at the expense of the economy, he’d stop doing it.

SohoPolitico – I’m not sure that is the case, otherwise DM and Darling would be where Ed Balls / EdMiliband are.

Duncan has laid out the numbers here:
http://duncanseconomicblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/06/4-year-plans-the-numbers/

The problem is that the numbers still focus on big cuts, but assume that the key difference – that Labour would change if the economic conditions did – won’t be said by the Coalition.

I simply don’t buy the view that an ‘escape hatch’ argument (which Osborne will adopt anyway if pressed on this) is enough to say that there is a massive gulf between these plans.

This isn’t just about getting credibility, but also about what you emphasise. DM wants to emphasise his own deficit reduction plan to get back credibility (but I think it will lose him credibility because in essence it accepts Tories are right) whereas the two Eds want to focus on growth and unemployment.

@Sunny:

“DM wants to emphasise his own deficit reduction plan to get back credibility (but I think it will lose him credibility because in essence it accepts Tories are right) whereas the two Eds want to focus on growth and unemployment.”

No, he doesn’t. You are simply wrong about this. As Duncan has also laid out, David Miliband has:

‘put the creation of jobs, rather than halving the deficit, at the centre of his policy. He also made the case for increased public sector investment… he still wants to halve the deficit, but he is making a case that the creation of jobs is the key purpose of economic policy and that public sector investment has a role to play.’

Duncan also says, in relation to DM:

“here we have David Miliband – the ‘Blairite’ candidate – giving the most detailed proposals for financial reform and coupling it with rhetoric which places the “jobs deficit” over the “fiscal deficit”. And talking about the need for a publicly owned bank (!).”

http://duncanseconomicblog.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/labours-economic-policy-debate-kalecki-clinton-dalton-and-david-miliband/

This isn’t about what David Miliband chooses to emphasise about his policy: it’s about what you, as a supporter of another candidate, are emphasising/de-emphasising about it.

Manning The Pumps

It’s not about backing a horse, it’s about manipulating the system to defend your values. Sunny joined the Labs & supported Ed M, not because he’s backing a winner, but because he’s thinking in terms of who will protect the values he believes in. Politics should be about values and not parties. Like Tony Benn says, no side will ever win – generations and generations will fight the same battles over and over again.

The state of the economy IS New Labour’s fault, for their naive and reckless reliance upon the markets to act morally. But for the coalition to use NL as an excuse to eff the economy up even further is just plain bonkers.

Sorry for putting words in your mouth Sunny.