Here’s a wacky idea: why don’t we decide on the basis of the best evidence and the strongest arguments available what would be the right economic strategy for our country, and then argue the case for that, instead of looking to see what the Tories are doing and then doing the opposite just because that suits us politically?

If we’ve got a good reason to back away from Darling’s plans – and of course, Ed Balls argues that we do – then great, let’s do that and argue for that. But if we think Darling was right all along, and the Tories come to agree with us, we should accept that we’ve won a consensus – not just shift to whatever position is politically expedient. We can’t be seen to be disagreeing with them just for disagreement’s sake.

In any case, this talk about the Tories moving towards Darling’s position seems thoroughly misguided. If I understand it correctly, the suggestion is that they’re considering going slower than planned on deficit reduction to begin with, and then going faster than planned in order to catch up with where they were planning to be by 2015. So it’s no more accurate to say they’re planning to slow the pace of deficit reduction than it is to say they’re planning to speed it up or they’re planning to keep it the same – it all depends which period of time you’re talking about (2011-13, 2014-15, or 2011-15).

One line of attack if we did stick more-or-less with Darling’s approach might be: “they’ve seen sense on the economy being too fragile to withstand deep cuts now, but by storing up an even bigger shock for later they risk triggering a fresh crisis just as we’re making progress. What we need is a steady pace of reduction.”

Though the Treasury denied the newspaper report – I wouldn’t be surprised if Osborne steals Darling’s clothes. In which case that whole strategy is shot to pieces.

You have this totally backwards. This possibility is a reason to stick to the Darling plan. If Labour does this, Osborne would be humiliatingly adopting Labour policy. This would do a lot to restore confidence that Labour remains economic competent. However, if Labour vacates this policy, Osborne is free to take it.

He can then say, ‘Look, we slowed down the pace of deficit reduction, in recognition of the choppy waters we face. But you want to abandon it altogether. You are now attacking your own previous moderate position from the left. Labour has totally lost touch with reality.’ This line would have traction. What you repeatedly ignore in your posts on the deficit is that the public are convinced of the need for deficit reduction, and they think cuts are necessary to that purpose. They just want to go slower than the Tories. You are arguing for vacating the ground in which the public currently stands and going further left, to the point where Labour is publicly attacking its old position. It’s terrible politics.

Now here’s my main point: What’s clever about Ed Balls’ plan was that it forced the Tories to justify their plans rather than put Labour on the back foot.

This is where Labour needs to be. The party needs a message that constantly demands of Tories justification for what they’re doing and pointing out why it’s not working.

Where do the Tories hope to be with tax revenues in two years time? How does Osborne measure success for his plans?

If we don’t ask that, and constantly dissect that, then in two years time he could shift the goal-posts again and claim his cuts were successful. This strategy needs an aggressive approach and it needs someone forceful to put the Tories on the defensive. It needs Ed Balls or Yvette Cooper, and their approach to tackling the deficit.

All this can be done whilst retaining the four year plan to halve the deficit. I have no idea why you would think that it can’t.

On the subject of candidates, there are still all sorts of reasons not to choose Ed Balls. He is still who he is, and in the past that has been a destabilising influence. I think Labour should think twice too before choosing a top table that looks like the final triumph of the Brownites, since one of the emerging Tory attacks is that Ed Miliband is Brown’s protege.

And I’m not convinced that Cooper, who tends not to fight back well in tough interviews, is up to it.

Seem to have Ballsed up the blockquoting. Sorry.

@1: I don’t think Sunny’s argument here is incompatible with acting on the best evidence available. It’s mainly a question of tone and emphasis: the point is to frame the debate so the Tories have to justify their policies, rather than Labour having to constantly explain why they’re not ‘deficit deniers’.

I think Labour should think twice too before choosing a top table that looks like the final triumph of the Brownites, since one of the emerging Tory attacks is that Ed Miliband is Brown’s protege.

A quick look at the politicians who topped the poll would seem to confirm that this pretty much is the final triumph of the Brownites. Cooper, Healey (Brown’s old PPS) and Balls: three of the Brownite inner circle for years.

Or, labour could be even bolder and promise to eliminate the debt via a one off wealth tax – http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2010/08/16/a-one-off-wealth-tax-is-radical-but-astonishingly-popular-says-john-underwood/
That’s the debt, not the defecit. For all the Tory talk of how much interest we are paying, the elimination of the defecit will not bring interest payments down one iota. They will be higher in five years than they are now (if the rate of interest stays the same). That’s the radical solution – do it once than make balanced budgets a legal requirement.

@6 – go for it, please!

‘Ed M wants Yvette but fears the move will create bad blood between all three (Ed Balls wants the post really badly).’

I know Labour does fratricide, regicide, and, of course, suicide, but surely even we draw the line at mariticide.

At any rate, I think Ed Balls will do better facing off against someone who is already having problems with internal fights and implementing policies they don’t necessarily agree with. So Business or DWP I suppose, but Business really, since that’s also an area where he can talk of growth policies.

@1 – I do have the same worry to an extent, but if the Tories’ Plan B is our Plan A you can only get so far with Itoldyousos. Besides, if we can get them to do that, the next step is seeing what else we can get them to implement.

@6

Bloody hell. Let’s do that.

Surely the fact that it is feared that Ed Balls would behave badly if he didn’t get the post, even if it went to his wife, is not a good advertisement for his approach to politics. The last thing Labour needs is another vengeful chancellor.

I’ll also say this: if, having topped the vote, Yvette doesn’t get the plumb job, that’ll be bad for the status of women in Labour. Even when they win, it will be said, they lose.

Surely the fact that it is feared that Ed Balls would behave badly if he didn’t get the post, even if it went to his wife, is not a good advertisement for his approach to politics. The last thing Labour needs is another vengeful chancellor.

And then again, I have seen it said that if Ed Miliband does not make Ed Balls Shadow Chancellor, given that his credentials for the job are farcically more obvious than anyone else’s, he will be demonstrating that he cares more about media reaction to his team, than he does to getting the best team in the first place. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t.

Here’s a wacky idea: why don’t we decide on the basis of the best evidence and the strongest arguments available what would be the right economic strategy for our country, and then argue the case for that, instead of looking to see what the Tories are doing and then doing the opposite just because that suits us politically?

Heresy! Actually doing things which are in the interests of the country and not just the short-term but ultimately futile interests of some Labour politicians? Heresy!

Ed Balls should do Health. There is a big fight to save the NHS over the next couple of years, and his skills are needed there to demolish Lansley like he did Gove. Then in two years time, he could have his pick of Shad Cab jobs.

I don’t think EdM will be foolish enough to offer either Ed or Yvette any economic post. They both have the blood of the deficit on their hands. Might aswell get GB back. GO would love it.

I am a bit worried about the lack of talent in the shadow cabinet. Lost a few good people which is a shame and have kept some of the dross. EdB does not come across well. He may be a prize fighter and land punches but this doesn’t translate into votes sadly. It would also confirm the popular press position that the old GB bunker team have taken over and are heading into the wilderness….

I am struggling to come up with a suitable shadow chancellor. Feel sorry for EdM right now! Hopefully will pull something out of the hat.

“Feel sorry for EdM right now! Hopefully will pull something out of the hat.”

With a masters degree in economics from the LSE, EdM has excellent personal credentials for the job of chancellor and that is likely to inhibit others – incuding DM – from wanting to be chancellor unless they too have corresponding post-grad credentials in economics, as have Yvette Cooper and Ed Balls.

“post-grad credentials in economics”

Not sure that’s what the country needs. It hasn’t done us much good before! Would be great to have someone with industry experience in the role. Is there anyone like that in the party?

@16: ” It hasn’t done us much good before! Would be great to have someone with industry experience in the role. Is there anyone like that in the party?”

The LibDems have Vince Cable, who was chief economist for Shell before becoming an MP, and the Conservatives have Andrew Tyrie, now chairman of the HoC Treasury Select Committee, who was previously senior economist at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Osborne, as is painfully evident, has had no economics education and has spent all his life in politics after leaving Oxford with a history degree.

The Parliamentary Labour Party has long been strong on academic economists – Douglas Jay, Harold Wilson, Hugh Gaitskell, Roy Jenkins and Tony Crosland – but none had commercial experience to match that of, say, Cable.

Btw I’ve reasons to recall the general election in June 1970, when Roy Jenkins had been chancellor in the run up to the election. One of the main Conservative complaints in the election campaign made by the late Iain McLeod, shadow chancellor at the time, was that Jenkins had budgeted for a fiscal surplus – as indeed he had – and that this was overly stringent. But in the context of the then prevailing fixed exchange rate regime, a fiscal surplus was just what was needed to correct for the balance of payments deficit. Labour lost that election – despite an early lead in the opinion polls.

The debate seems to be about regaining economic credibility with the floating voter or undermining the economic credibility of the Tories.

David M and Darling are/were in the first camp and Ed Balls in the second.

From his campaign, it seems like Ed M is more in the second camp and picking Balls would confirm this unless, he’s trying to have it both ways with himself regaining credibility and Balls as the attack dog.

They’ve chosen Johnson. At least if he was chancellor we could have jolly puns about “being shafted by a big ol’ Johnson“…

May I predict next Sunny headline:
“Why Alan Johnson is a brilliant choice”

Sunny, I agree with you, my choice would have been Balls. But I can perfectly understand why Miliband chose neither. Bearing in mind the Blair/Brown soap opera that was so distracting for New Labour. And the DMiliband/EMiliband soap opera which was an even greater distraction for the leadership contest. It is easy to envisage a Balls/Cooper soap opera distracting attention away from Miliband’s reshaping of the party. For this reason I can understand Milibands decision.

@cjcjcj

“Why Johnson is an excellent choice to undermine the Tories’ economic policy and repeatedly punch the government in the face (and how really all along I knew it would be him)”