Monday, June 14, 2010

VAT Pledge Would Not Have Saved Labour

The wide eyed delusions of Ed Balls grow wierder by the day. In this morning's Daily Telegraph he seriously suggests that the reason Labour lost the election was because they didn't specifically rule out a rise in VAT.

No, Ed. You lost the election because of the way you mismanaged the economy and lied and spun you way through the last thirteen years. And you lost because you could no longer connect with the big tent coalition built by Tony Blair. You should ask yourself why that was rather than indulge in fantasies about how banning a rise in VAT could have won the election.

However, credit where credit is due. This is the first time any of the leadership candidates has made any attempt to analyse why Labour lost the election. Just a pity it is a flawed one.

UPDATE: Dizzy agrees with Blinky! Sort of.

14 comments:

Cynic said...

Not flawed....just barking mad and desperate.

M said...

Alastair Darling is also in total denial as evidenced in the Independent article on 12 June "Alistair Darling said he will demand a "very big apology" from David Cameron if Monday's borrowing figures are better than he predicted in his last Budget." see http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Economy-Alistair-Darling-Expects-Apology-From-David-Cameron-If-Borrowing-Better-Than-Expected/Article/201006215648132

Windsor Tripehound said...

...This is the first time any of the leadership candidates has made any attempt to analyse why Labour lost the election...

I have been struck by the absence of any indications of reflection or self-analysis from senior labour figures. In particular parasites like Campbell and Piers Morgan are still carrying on in their usual cocky, hubristic fashion.

What's that aphorism about the unexamined life?

Sean Haffey said...

This article is genuinely bizarre in its lack of grip on reality.

Early on he talks about the need to reduce national debt - in 1997!

He then piously mentions how VAT is the one tax that "everyone has to pay, even is they are unemployed or pensioners...". And if he really believed this mattered, why didn't Labour bring in policies to reduce VAT? Or was 17.5% just the perfect rate of VAT, which magically doesn't hurt these communities.

Given his background in Treasury, this article displays truly staggering ignorance or cynicism, and demonstrates EB is the wrong person to lead a major political party.

Chris said...

I saw him being interviewed by Brillo who asked him how he could expect any loyalty as leader after spending years undermining Tony Blair. He said that was not true (lol!) and the only people saying it were Tories who were scared he might win the leadership! What planet is he on?

JB said...

and the Condems have not told any lies yet since coming to power....

Houdini said...

And you lost because you could no longer connect with the big tent coalition built by Tony Blair

I think you must be as deluded as Balls if you believe this. Blair brought a disparate bunch of people, from Prescott to himself and everything in between, together with a common goal, of winning power. These people were neither talented or worthy.

He dumped them and the UK when that goal seemed set to collapse, inevitably, due to the massive confidence trick being found out. The whole edifice Blair built was based on smoke and mirrors, lies and deceit, and clever PR and media manipulation. Even Blair was not the talented and clever person portrayed. Some of us were not in awe and saw it for what he is from the start.

Balls is just the latest incarnation of the confidence trick.

golden_balls said...

Its a silly remark to make but its done with the Labour leadership in mind. The ConDem government will raise VAT during this parliment so why not state his case now well ahead of this.

Labour does need to analyse why it lost but its five years * very doubtful* till the next one.

If Labour did "mismanage the economy and lied and spun through the last thirteen years" why didn't you win a thumping majority like Blair did ??

Thats one question i'd like answered!

wild said...

I agree with "JB" everything is the coalitions fault.

Peter said...

Any analysis of why Labour lost the election would have to include the negative effect Balls himself had on the election.

Nonny Mouse said...

I've started collecting some economics lessons from Ed Balls. I got two of them just from that acticle.

Ed Balls Economics 101 states that a tax that everybody pays is unfair but a tax that only some pay is fair. This from the party of equality and fairness.

Ed Balls Economics 102 states that a VAT increase can be absorbed by the retail sector. Funny, I thought the state took the VAT.

Nonny Mouse said...

>>Given his background in Treasury, this article displays truly staggering ignorance or cynicism, and demonstrates EB is the wrong person to lead a major political party.

I've always said that the scary thing is not Balls as leader, it is Balls as Chancellor. That is why I support his candidacy.

norman said...

@golden balls. I can answer your question. Because Blair and Brown created a large immigrant stock and large benefits brigade as voting fodder. This country is as crowded as India/China thanks to these two imbeciles. As for Blair's majorities voters were deluded by his snake oil salesmanship, now they b treat him like a used car salesman

neil craig said...

No pledge would have done them any good un less it was believable.

Labour have already broken their manifesto pledge on the Constitreaty, which would not have cost them the billions any financial pledge does. Therefore by definition no other pledge they make to the electors is worth the electron phospher dots it is published on.

Nor are they alone in this.