EU cannot be serious...

I consider myself to be a pretty moderate Conservative. Although I'm broadly against the vast amount of bureaucracy that hits us from Brussels on a regular basis, I also see the benefits of remaining within the European Union and so am not often prone to fits of Euroskepticism.

That said, they're really pushing my patience at the moment with the news that they are trying to increase member states' contributions to the EU by 6%. A 6% rise in the money we give at a time when the majority of the EU states are under immense financial pressure? Thank you Herman van Rompuy!

The proposed rise lead to interesting scenes in Parliament yesterday, when 37 Conservative MPs supported an amendment by Douglas Carswell to reduce our payment to the EU. In doing so these MPs defied the Government whip, which was calling for support for an amendment to merely freeze the payment (which later passed).

I understand the Government's position on not being able to reduce our payment to the EU. According to Treasury Minister - the excellent Justine Greening - under the EU's own laws, this is illegal (see what they've done there?!) At the very least, I am glad that this Government is taking a sensible stance on Europe. It remains to be seen how our MEPs will react (particularly, as the Spectator blog mentions, the Labour MEPs), but I hope that the EU finally sees sense. In the 'age of austerity' Europe currently finds itself in, this is no time to start taking more money from countries facing difficult financial decisions on national services.

+++UPDATE+++

Interesting. I see from ConservativeHome that Justine Greening actually wanted to go further:

"We want to see the 2011 budget cut. The problem with the amendment is that if we withdrew our money from the EU, under its terms that would be illegal. We cannot support an amendment that would make our action illegal, so we will have to reject it, but I can tell my hon. Friend that if he had worded the provision slightly differently, we might well have been able to support both amendments. It is with regret that we have to reject his amendment, despite agreeing with its sentiments."

A Letter to the Guardian - Part 94

A proper blog with my thoughts on Conservative Party Conference to follow shortly, but first more amusement in this week's Epsom Guardian, where my letter of last week seems to have struck a nerve with Dr. Ted Bailey of Larkspur Way:

I bashed out a vague reply on the train this morning. It will obviously be cut down extensively should I choose to actually send it in, but I thought I would post it here for posterity.

It would take too long to ‘fisk’ Dr. Bailey’s letter (‘Speed and depth of public cuts doom us’) in its entirety, but I do offer these brief points by way of reply.

I do not view my projections for the private sector as unduly optimistic. The private sector created more than 300,000 jobs over the Summer months. The lowering of business rates and cancellation of NI for the first ten employees of any new company point to this pattern continuing.

Dr. Bailey is also wrong to suggest that the UK has seen ‘already savage cuts’ since the election. I know of no Governmental cuts to Sure Start since May. As to the cancellation of the BSF, if he wishes to defend such a bureaucratic monstrosity good luck to him. He will have to explain the merits of a school building scheme where it can often take three years to negotiate the planning process before the first brick is laid on the building itself; a scheme that saw costs rocket from £45 to 55bn due to consultant spend and red tape; and a scheme that was already three years behind schedule in 2009.

The countries he mentions in his letter as currently heading toward ‘double-dip’ recessions make my point for me, in that they are examples of what can go wrong if high spending is not restrained over a prolonged period of time. Interestingly, I was going to use Ireland as an example of a country which successfully managed to heavily reduce its spending whilst increasing economic growth, in the 1980s, but was unable to do so for reasons of space. I welcome the chance to do so now!

A final note. Alistair Darling did not propose a slower cuts programme, merely a smaller reduction over the same time-scale; 40% structural deficit reduction in 4yrs, rather than total reduction as the current Government is planning for. However, with current interest rates on our debt coming in at over £100m per day, I believe cutting our debt completely in this time-frame is no longer an aspiration of an Opposition – it is a necessity of Government.

James Tarbit

Deputy Chair, Political

Epsom and Ewell Conservative Future

P.s. For the record, Conservative Future is the section of the Conservative Party for under-30 year olds. With a membership of approximately 20,000, it is the largest youth political organisation in the UK.

Conservative Future - Regional Control?

London Spin has the scoop on the new Conservative Future Chairman, Ben Howlett's plans to decentralise power to the Regional Chairman of CF.

Creating Regional Chairmen was one of the most logical things that Michael Rock managed during his time at the helm. Mirroring the senior Party in this way ensured a much greater co-ordination between the two groups, and aided in the relationship-building that CF has managed with CCHQ/CRO.

Howlett's plans make a lot of sense. It has always been a Conservative instinct to avoid centralised control wherever possible, and the idea of allowing regional Chairs to get on with things is an attractive one. He will have to ensure, however, that they take up the opportunity he is providing.

As with any voluntary organisation, you get differing levels of activity depending on how much time people can afford to offer. As a result, at times certain regions have felt a bit bereft of direction, with RCs more than a little distant. The lack of opposition at a regional level in many areas during the CF elections is also cause for concern. People always step up to the plate where there is a bit of competition.

Let's hope that the RCs take the chance they have been given, and run with it. Activity and interest levels can only increase further if they do.

Impressive Ed

Ok, alright, I admit it. Ed Miliband has impressed me.

The election of the Shadow Cabinet was always going to be heavily scrutinised to see how much of a break with the past Labour MPs were willing to stomach in the face of such a forthright speech from their new Leader.

It's a curious situation to have to be in - wanting to take your Party forward, and to stamp your authority on your appointments, but still being hamstrung by Labour's rather torturous election regulations. Full credit, then, to Miliband Jnr. for acting to ensure that Nick Brown, one of the archetypal links to Gordon Brown, will not be contesting the Chief Whip position.

There were those that said that in electing Ed, rather than David Miliband, Labour were lumbering themselves with the more ineffective brother. This kind of ruthlessness, however, is hardly the mark of an ineffective leader. Instead, it is reminiscent of the swift changes David Cameron made to change the focus of the Conservative Party after he came to power in 2005. After a slightly lukewarm Conference speech, it seems the Leader of the Opposition is finding his feet. Interesting...

A Letter to the Guardian - Brown vs. Darling II?

This letter appeared in last week's Epsom Guardian:

Quite apart from the fact that they didn't have the courage of their convictions to actually sign their name (though I can probably have a stab at the author), I felt the letter warranted a reply. I wrote into the Guardian, and am hoping to have my letter printed tomorrow. For the purposes of space, I had to reduce my original argument by about half, so the longer version is included below.

Personally, I think it is extremely foolish for Labour to continue to frame their economic argument in the crass terms of 'cuts vs. investment', though I imagine those like Ed Balls will continue to do. Given Ed Miliband used his debut speech yesterday to state that the Opposition will not fight against cuts they think are necessary/right, it brings up an interesting point of conflict between the two. Balls' name is, of course, being widely touted for the Shadow Chancellorship. Surely Labour would not get themselves into another situation where the Leader is saying one thing, and the Shadow Chancellor is thinking something different?

Anyway - the letter:

I read with interest the anonymous contribution in your last issue, (‘Budget Will Put People Out of Work‘).

The letter, as with much of Labour’s reaction to the Emergency Budget, seems to be based on the fallacy – in part put forward by a recent Institute of Fiscal Studies report - that cuts in the public sector will automatically lead to vast, lasting unemployment. A closed argument that fails to take account of the Coalition’s welfare and business policies; the emphasis placed on getting people off benefits and back into the workplace, and on rebalancing our economy.

This economic recovery will be one fostered within the private sector, and to ignore this forms a circular argument that implies the public sector is the only possible workplace in this country. Given the grossly swollen public sector that they inherited, with its accompanying pension liabilities to the tune of £1 trillion, not included in any Labour deficit projections, shifting the balance away from the public sector would seem sensible, and crass attacks such as this are unhelpful.

The argument also seems to fly in the face of the figures. The UK’s GDP grew by 1.2 per cent in the last quarter. The additional cuts announced by the Coalition that your writer finds so unpalatable amount to 0.1 per cent of GDP by quarter. Cutting in this way is not a cut in economic revival, it is merely a cut in the size of the State. A European Commission study on defecit reduction found that out of 74 consolidations, economic growth accelerated in 43 cases. You need only look at the examples of Finland and Sweden to see the benefits of growth in this way.

However, this private sector recovery will not succeed if, as your writer alleges, the Government is ‘pulling the plug’ on business. I think a local example will serve to oppose this. When the local franchise of Puccino’s risked going out of business due to rent increases, it was the Coalition’s rate cuts that ensured it could keep trading. Cuts in business rates to small and large businesses alike are offering real support whilst the recovery gets underway.

In a week when the IMF has said the Government’s plans for defecit reduction are ‘strong, credible and essential’; in a month when Moody’s Investors Service has endorsed George Osborne and stated that not sticking to his plans could affect our AAA credit rating; in a Conference season where Alistair Darling comes out in favour of a strong deficit reduction plan, it seems a nonsense to view the economic measures currently being taken by the Coalition as ‘reckless’. What this country needed after thirteen years of fiscal profligacy and staggering beurocracy was a Government prepared to take the tough decisions in order to ensure economic revival. In the Coalition government, I feel we have it.

James Tarbit
Deputy Chairman, Political
Epsom and Ewell Conservative Future

P.S. There is one thing the writer and I can agree on, however; their analysis of why ‘most people join the Tory party’ – because they wish a smaller state. After thirteen years of beurocratic interference with front-line services and degradation of civil liberties, I think many people would sympathise!

CF Elections

For the past four months or so Conservative Future, the 'youth' wing of our Party, have been going through an elections process to decide who will form the new National Executive Committee. Given the Conservatives are now in power, these roles are not unimportant.

Today the ballot closed. The results were as follows:

Chairman - Ben Howlett

Deputy Chairman (Membership) - Clare Hilley

Deputy Chairman (Political) - Alexandra Swann

Appointed Officer - James Deighton

As I voted for all four of them I am delighted that they were successful in their campaigns, however the number of ballots returned for the contest left me staggered.

Take the Chairmanship; Ben Howlett gained 113 votes. Craig Cox, the second-placed candidate, got 60. That's 173 votes. Put more contextually, that's 173 votes out of an alleged CF membership of 20,000.

20,000 members - 173 votes

Let's have a look at another of the positions. James Deighton gained 72 votes. Patrick Sullivan, the second-placed candidate, got 70. Now I voted for James Deighton. If I had switched my vote, that would have meant an instant tie between the two...and they say that the Unions had too much power in the Labour Leadership contest!

That so few people were able to vote in this election is a travesty. Running an election over the University holidays automatically stopped 1,000s of members from voting. Added to that, there were huge issues with missing or incomplete data, with little or no responsibility seemingly being taken by CCHQ. I for one had to push extremely hard for my ballot, with several e-mails and phone calls before it came through last Thursday (the final day of posting to hit today's 12 noon deadline).

I am sure Ben will have many constraints on his time in his new position. One priority, though, must be to address these issues. Promising to run further elections in the Spring will solve the University problem, but a membership without valid membership data is no basis upon which to build a strong campaigning force. Best start updating Merlin...

Litmus - Rainbow Coalition Blogging

Coalitions come in many shapes and sizes. If the one put together in May took people by surprise, then how about a combination of Tim Montgomerie, Will Straw, and Dr. Mark Pack to add to the confusion. Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat hand-in-hand? Whatever next!

This powerhouse combination, though, is not holding sway at Westminster but rather in the publication of a new political magazine for the Conference season, Litmus.

Quite aside from the clever name, Litmus promises to be a very interesting publication. A partnership between three major blogs – Conservative Home, Left Foot Forward, and LibDem Voice, it has considerable clout when polling for contributors, with Tom Watson, Lynne Featherstone, Damian Green and Chris Huhne amongst the commentators on topics as diverse as Immigration, Climate Change, and Electoral Reform.

I was particularly interested to read David Boyle’s argument on income tax. Disregarding the LibDem insistence on progressive taxation, he instead called for a movement away from income tax to a programme of corporate reform and energy taxes.

“Increasing income tax these days just serves to entrench the separation of the mega-rich”

Indeed!

Thought has also evidently gone into distribution strategy. The first issue of Litmus is available for free if you promote it for them on Twitter; very savvy. With no cost involved, there seems little more to say other than go get it.

Right-wing blogs. We still exist Iain!

So, it seems Iain Dale is worried about the future of the Right-wing blogosphere. Fired up by a disappointing drop in conservative blogs in the latest TotalPoliticics Blog Awards list, he used his column yesterday to ask where the next generation of right-wing bloggers were, and why there had been a drop in interest from that side of the spectrum.

"The comparative decline of the right is not because existing right-wing blogs have been performing badly, it is because there has been no new blood."

I think one of the commentors on his post had it right. When your Party is in power, the impetus to blog about what you disagree with is considerably weakened. Put simply, the anger isn’t there. Rather than risk blogs becoming tribalist lists of real (or imagined) success, they instead become defunct.

Some events can re-fire interest. The Blue Guerilla came out of mothballs for this summer’s Conservative Future election campaign, as to a certain extent did London Spin. They helped fill a gap in the ‘Tory yoof’ stakes created by Tory Bear’s seeming lack of blogging time. Once the results are announced next week, though, it will be interesting to see if they keep up the pace. As I have found, time for blogging is generally short, particularly when you have a day job outside politics, and a demanding toddler!

Anyway, if Iain Dale is putting out a call to action, then I’m stepping up to the plate. I may not have the most impeccable of national sources to send stories my way, but nonetheless toes will be dipped outside the calm waters of Epsom slightly more often from now on. Iain, fancy giving me your little black book?

The Big Society - A Flower Bed Too Far?

The Big Society was always one of the more diaphanous elements of the Conservative manifesto in the recent General Election. Ostensively a codification of previous attempts to conjoin local government and local community groups, it has been described as the Conservative Manifesto’s ‘Big Idea’ as well as an easy way to get cuts in through the back door.

Personally, I have always been a fan of the idea. The concept that community groups, charities, and NGOs should be more involved in the delivery of local services is not new, but if it is to succeed in any measurable way, the involvement of Westminster is welcome. Local Councils too, I had imagined, would be fans of the scheme. In the face of declining government grants, any chance to use interested parties to ensure the money goes further would be welcome. It seems, in Epsom and Ewell at least, I was wrong.

I have blogged previously about the recent Hub project – an excellent example of the ethos of the Big Society in action. A post on the Epsom Conservatives blog – run by Conservative Leader on the Borough Council, Sean Sullivan – the other day seemed to offer up another potential scheme; gardening. With less money available for landscaping in the Borough, why not get local groups involved? Hey, it worked for Newsnight!

It seems, though, that my suggestion of getting local groups involved to assist the Council in keeping its flower beds up to scratch didn’t go down too well with Liberal Democrat Councillor Anna Jones…

Not a believer in the Big Society, it would seem.

Personally, I see only positives in using the talents and interests of the local community to help the shrinking Council budget to stretch further. I’m not talking about getting local residents in to replace redundant public servants. I’m merely saying if we muck in here, they can focus their time more efficiently in other areas.

For the record Anna, time allowing, I would be willing to help out in any way I can. As far as school dinners go I’ll even cook the pudding. We could call it Jamie’s School Dinners?

LateRooms 'gets' Social Media

It is always a pleasant surprise to see a company using social media and the ‘net to their fullest advantage when it comes to identifying and adressing customer needs and, more importantly, customer issues.

A few weeks ago, I booked a hotel in Birmingham for the Party Conference through laterooms.com. Places to stay during Conference are like hen's teeth, so I was very happy to find somewhere about a mile or so away, and at a reasonable price to boot.

All seemed well, until I got a call from a rather apologetic lady at the hotel in question saying that she was very sorry, but they were full on one of the nights I had requested. They had told LateRooms this, and they had no idea why I had still been able to book it.

After cursing my luck, checking online, and phoning around, I managed to get a booking for B&B just down the road for the entire stay, and cancelled my previous booking (at no charge thankfully).

Skip forward a couple of weeks. Up pops conservative blogger Tory Bear, mentioning that (as ever!) he had no accommodation yet. I sent the following tweets:

The next morning, I got this:

Needless to say, I have written them an e-mail, letting them know that despite the problem I had I am suitably impressed with their use of Twitter. Far too often we see examples of companies using social media incredibly badly – this one springs particularly to mind. Here, however, we see a company willing to use new methods of communication to engage with their customer base, and ensure their concerns are addressed. Well done LateRooms. Just make sure your availability is updated more often next time, eh?

Paleolithic politics

I have watched the grandstanding from the TUC over the past few days with a sense of both sadness and deja vu.

I fully understand the right of individuals to petition their employers for improvements in circumstance and pay. When, however, Bob Crow can stand at the lectern and call for a campaign of 'civil disobedience' in the face of cuts that all Parties agreed were necessary to differing degrees, and garner support from the floor, then something is deeply wrong.

Yesterday, Mark Serwotka - head of the PCS Union - called for not only a moratorium on public sector job cuts, but even an increase in public sector funding to lift us out of recession. Failing to see that it will be the private sector - in particular small/medium enterprise within this sector - that will most likely provide the growth we so need, misses the point entirely and risks a further decline into deficit and debt.

The most glaring hole in the Unionist argument has been posed very effectively by City Unslicker - what would they do instead? In the face of almost unilateral agreement on the necessity of spending cuts - Labour's plan was to halve the deficit within four years - how would they ensure their aims?

The Unions obviously feel that the time has come to show their hand. It remains to be seen whether the result is similar to that of 1974, where industrial action had the result of bringing down the Government, or of the early 1980s, where the Unions' power was crushed by a government organised and determined enough to face them down.

The 'Big Society' hits Epsom

There is a shop in the very centre of Epsom, next to Marks and Spencer, that has been lying empty for months. Previously a newsagent, the family who owned it evidently decided they could make more profit by moving from a shop to a market stall and so moved out into the square next door. Until last week the shop was abandoned, with only a mysterious planning application from the Council, stating an intended use of the space for the disabled, joining a couple of leftover newspapers and some junk mail as decoration.

I say 'until last week' because seemingly overnight it has had a fresh coat of paint, new carpet, a security blind fitted, and is now seemingly to be known as 'The Hub'. The Hub, opening 13th September, is "a drop-in First Stop Shop for information, advice, advocacy and other services, which will be run by disabled people for disabled people and carers."

The service has been developed by local voluntary groups, local charities, and the Borough/County Council. It will be staffed by volunteers, both disabled and non-disabled, and will "help improve access to local sources; and to promote the rights of disabled people to equal opportunities and independent living."

Two things make me very happy about The Hub. Firstly, the concept of Local Government and charities/community groups coming together to provide useful services at a reduced cost is exactly what the Conservative Party had in mind when they were trying to put across what their Big Society message meant. The message may not have been defined to everyone's satisfaction, but it is great to see projects like this up and running.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it shows that there is at least some impetus to improve disabled services in Epsom. Coming in the face of the parking charges recently levied by the Borough Council, it is good to see action behind their talk of also improving provision for those with disabilities. Good stuff.

Publicity costs in Epsom

When Epsom and Ewell Borough Council posted their annual accounts for public consumption last month, there were some curious omissions. Not least the fact that, for some reason, officers were not keen to detail any publicity costs for the Council over the past year. A few well-placed questions from our local paper later, and the reason becomes more clear. At the same time as cutting services for its residents, our Council is spending £54,000 a year to outsource its newsletter to an external agency…which is then charging them to advertise in their own publication.

A month ago, the Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles announced a toughening up of rules regarding council newsletters. His goal is to ensure that local newspapers are not put out of business by tax payer-funded publications. Indicating that Council-authored papers increase junk mail, and undermine the free press, Pickles said:

"Councils should spend less time and money on weekly town hall Pravdas that end up in the bin, and focus more on frontline services like providing regular rubbish collections.”

I couldn’t agree more. The situation is even more exasperating in Epsom, however, as the company which won the tender to produce our local ‘Borough Insight’ (EM Communications) claims the Council specifically asked them to price advertising separately from the production and distribution costs of the paper. As the Epsom Guardian reports, the Council voted against allowing commercial organisations to advertise in the Insight to drive down costs. Instead, EM Communications only accepts Council-sponsored adverts, charging the Town Hall £150 for each one.

At an approximate cost of £10,000 per issue, the Epsom and Ewell ‘Pravda’ is a luxury this Council can no longer afford. If Eric isn’t looking hard at Epsom and Ewell Borough Council now, I’m guessing he soon will be. I think the Council’s Liberal Democrat Leader Julie Morris put it best:

“Spending £54,000 each year on a publication which, for the most part, is very dull and merely props up the policies of those in control of the council, is no longer appropriate…£54,000 would offset quite a lot of the spending cuts this year, wouldn't it?”

(N.B. - links to Epsom Guardian story to follow once it is posted online)

Council Houses - It's good to talk...

Seems I picked a good time to upgrade my Twitter to Journotwit! Being able to organize searches more effectively by subject has allowed me to enjoy a veritable torrent of ‘nasty’, ‘Thatcherite’, and ‘back to the 80s’ tweets today. It seems that David Cameron’s comments on council housing at a Cameron Direct meeting yesterday have whipped up a particularly virulent storm with the left-wing Tweeters. Reading some of the comments, you’d be mistaken for thinking that the Cabinet are spending their recess running up and down the country, busting in the doors and kicking out the disadvantaged. Oh please…

I fully understand that the concept of a ‘home’ can be a very emotive one, and Government comment on it raises the same hackles as, say, over the BBC or NHS. However, when we find ourselves in a situation where there is not enough affordable housing in this country, but where the economy does not allow us to build more, surely it is a bit much to greet the mention of a potential policy with quite such a howl of horror?

The idea that someone can be granted a Council house ‘for life’ is problematic. Surely it is better to take a look at how an individual’s personal circumstances change over time, and then assess whether they still require the same level of assistance? This is, after all, what happens in terms of employment, incapacity and other housing benefits. Why should council housing be treated any differently?

The Guardian has a story which takes Cameron’s comments in the context of plans for a national house-swap scheme outlined by Housing Minister Grant Shapps today. There are currently 250,000 people in this country living in houses that are too small for their families, and 400,000 living in houses that are too big. This is not good enough, and the Government is failing the quarter of a million people who do not have sufficient room to live.

According to Paul Waugh, sources say that Cameron’s answer was merely an answer to an ‘emotive’ question at the Cameron Direct event; a comment on the benefits of such an idea rather than ‘a set-in-stone policy’. Personally, I hope that this mean that we can finally have a reasoned debate about the state of Council housing in this country and, even better, find a sensible way to move forward with managing it better.

Epsom - Disabled must pay

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council met on Tuesday, and as per there was the usual raft of egregious decisions pushed through by the controlling Residents’ Association group. Examples of their scorn for those they allege to represent are almost becoming too legion to mention in full, but one really stood out this week.

On Tuesday, the RA pushed through plans to charge Blue Badge holders to park in Council car parks, ensuring that additional strain will be placed on the most vulnerable members of the Borough to help pay for the Council’s imagined deficit.* These plans were confirmed in the face of overwhelming opposition from local Residents, a petition of just under 1,000 signatures submitted to the Council, a campaign in the local newspaper, and strong feelings expressed by the disabled residents the Council saw fit to poll during their ‘consultation process’ (more on the failure of consultation here).

One Residents’ Association Councillor had previously resigned from the Group over the plans and duly voted against them along with every opposition Councillor. Even with these votes, and two abstentions, the motion was still carried due to the numerical advantage the RA has on the Council.

The main point raised by the RA in support of their plans was that there are other disadvantaged members of society that have to pay to use the car parks. This completely fails to recognise the differences between ‘disabled’ and ‘disadvantaged’, not least the fact that the disabled often have to use car parks where others don’t due to the difficulties of using public transport. In addition, it can often take a disabled individual much longer to pay for their parking as under both current and future plans they have to go to the parking office in person to pay/get any discount.

The new rules, which will come into effect, makes Epsom and Ewell one of the only 21 Councils in the country to charge the disabled to park. An incredibly regressive move.

I leave you with some rather unpalatable number crunching. During the meeting, one Councillor mentioned that the projected income from Blue Badge charging in 2010/2011 - £45,000 – is less than the Council spends on its newsletter - £54,000. Our Council obviously thinks it is more important to screw money out of the disabled than to stop telling us about it…

* One ex-RA Councillor made the excellent point that, despite a couple of years of declining revenue, the Council is still running a surplus, and has a significant emergency reserve in place to deal with any funding shortfall.

Balls to Keynes

One of the fascinating elements of the current Labour Leadership campaign has been watching the various candidates make their pitches for what the Coalition Government is doing wrong, and what they would do differently. Much has been made of the spending cuts that Cameron, Clegg et al. have instigated this year, and the risks it could cause in terms of a double-dip recession. None of the candidates, however, have gone quite as far as Ed Balls. In an article for the Guardian today, Balls continued to press forward with the notion that 'any' cuts are wrong. According to Ed, even Labour's plans to halve the deficit in 4 years were foolish.

Balls' article is founded solidly in the Keynesian economic mould with its (effective) critique of past recessionary spending constraints in the 1930s and 1980s. I would argue, though, that the whole-sale deployment of a Keynesian model which he seems to call for in his the final paragraphs of his article brings a risk equally as significant as the return to recession he sees as the danger with the Coalition's plans.

For a start, it is unclear as to whether Keynes ever envisaged his concepts being applied to public finances in quite such a parlous state as the UK currently faces. Pulling interest rates down and increasing government investment on infrastructure might bring about eventual economic recovery through Keynes' multiplier effect, but at what short and mid-term cost in the current climate? Previous fiscal stimuli deployed by the Brown Government created an anaemic recovery at best and the danger with advocating further spending, or markedly restrained cuts, is that the interest rates on leveraging current debt become unmanageable. It is all very well for Ed Balls to dismiss the UK falling prey to the same issues which affected Greece, but how can he know for sure? How can anyone in fact?

Indeed, the Keynesian spending multiplier only works when the additional liquidity placed in the market is spent on consumption goods. i.e. When individuals spend the money they have saved/gained, this drives demand and increases employment. Perhaps one of the reasons the recovery engendered by the recent fiscal stimulus was so weak is that in the current climate this simply isn’t something close to tax-payers’ hearts in the UK, particularly when the current financial crisis came out of individual debt caused by people living beyond their means. As President Bartlett had it in the West Wing, upon hearing that his own aide had spent an advance tax rebate on paying down debt:

"Would a trip to Banana Republic have killed you?"

It is also interesting to note that Labour's use of the Keynesian model has been imbalanced. Increased government investment in a down-turn is one half of the model. The other, however, is putting up taxes and cutting government outlay during a boom to suppress inflation. Tax rises there certainly were, but rather than constricting the rate of spending Gordon Brown as Chancellor seemed happy to continually increase it. Part of this can be explained by the political necessity of redressing years of Conservative prudence/underspend (call it what you will) on the NHS and Education, but it seems to have gone much further than that with the result that both the RPI and CPI rates of inflation have been on the up since 2001.

At the end of the day, it is clear that political ideology is at the heart of any economic argument, whether Keynesian or Classical/neo-classical. Labour prefer to advocate the Keynesian view of higher taxes during a boom and high government spending during a bust as it fits best with an economy largely controlled by the government itself. The Conservatives argue for a more Classical economic view, as this works best under the much smaller government they strive for. In his article, Balls side-steps the fact that Government spending is still set to rise during this Parliament. He merely points out that there are constraints being placed in areas that he finds unpalatable. Rooting his economic arguments in politics makes good sense where he has to differentiate himself from other senior Labour figures in the Leadership elections. It does, however, blunt the intellectual thrust of his argument and increases the likelihood that it can be dismissed as political points scoring.