'Ed Balls is a perfectly decent man (shock horror)' blog discussion

Optimist

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Ed Balls didn't go to public school.

Public school is a archaic term really.

Ed Balls went to a very good fee paying school. Nottingham High School to be precise not quite as high fees as Eton but still private and indeed still public providing you can afford the fees..

Reggie_Rebel

I'm not sure anyone guilty of defrauding the public for their own financial gain can be classed as a decent human being.

kar999

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Yu have just demonstrated, perfectly I might add, exactly the theme of this thread. The totally unnecessary hyperbole expressed in your post, is exactly the point Martin is making. How on Earth can you compare Hitler with Ed Balls, or any British politician for that matter (apart from the obvious fringe right-wing extreme parties), is completely beyond reason.

I wasnt trying to directly compare Hitler to Ed Balls. It was obviously an extreme example but not beyond the reasoning for the purpose of the discussion imho.

“I SUPPOSE it is rather odd looking back,” the Duchess says with a smile as she recalls having tea with Adolf Hitler in Munich in 1937.
“At the time it seemed perfectly ordinary. He was staying in a flat when we visited him and I do remember thinking his set-up was very regular and somewhat haphazard for a head of state.”
The Duchess, aged 17 at the time, was in Munich visiting her sister Unity – a Nazi sympathiser and close friend of Hitler – when Hitler heard of the visit and invited them to join him for tea.
“I couldn’t speak German and neither could my mother so it was a slow job as Unity had to translate everything that was said,” the Duchess recalled.
“I remember thinking he was very nice and friendly. Twice he rang the bell for the housekeeper and no one came which I found amazing for a man of his position.”
This is just one of many fascinating stories The Dowager Duchess of Devonshire.

Hitler was an despicable evil man politically but as you point out, Martin was trying to make a distinction between personality and politicians being demonised because of position and policy.

I'm sure there are many who think Thatcher, Bush and Blair are demons (even without bringing religious hatred for western imperialism into the discussion, which is probably best avoided here). Bush and Blair have even been accused of being war criminals. All, I am sure, are charming socially and have done admirable charitable work.

I still stand by my original statement whoever you consider ....

Politics overides personality as personality only affects a few. Politics affects us all.

organic_choc

Orrin wrote: »

That's a bit thin really. They might as well have said that because he's a multi-millionaire he could have bought the house outright and saved the taxpayer even more money.

If you claim expenses as part of your job they aren't usually means tested.

And you can apply the same reasoning to Ball's case.

organic_choc

PhylPho wrote: »

Oh dear, Martin. This blog of yours really would be better if it stayed clear of pronouncing on the decency and probity of others without, it seems, having any clue to the individual's provenance.

Yet in Balls's case, that provenance is on public record. And it's so well known as to be the answer to the very question you ask about 'why demonise politicians?'

Mr Balls became an MP at the May 2005 election. His then constituency was Normanton. Due to subsequent boundary changes, he is today MP for Morley & Outwood, which has subsumed a part of Normanton.

Mrs Balls -- Yvette Cooper -- became an MP at the May, 1997 election. Her then constituency was Pontefract and Castleford. Due to subsequent boundary changes, she is today MP for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford.

Ms Cooper married Mr Balls in 1998. As luck would have it, they eventually became MPs for neighbouring constituencies.

Also, as luck would have it, they later became the first married couple ever to be Cabinet Ministers at the same time: Mr Balls was Secretary of State for Children, Schools & Families, whilst Mrs Balls was Chief Secretary to The Treasury.

Mr Balls's salary was £141,866. Mrs Balls's salary was £141,866. And such was their combined knowledge of education and finance that they designated the £655,000 family residence in which they lived in north London -- and from which their children went to school every day -- as their, er, "second home."

And enabled this £280,000-per-annum couple to claim £1,031 per month each by way of Parliamentary expenses' second home allowance.

Although Mr Balls has consistently defended his ability to be a Government Minister compelled to live far from his main home, and an educationalist who sends his children to schools from his second home, most people find that defence just a little hard to swallow.

This is because if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is a duck.

Mr Balls would have us believe otherwise. The £655,000 family home was not, er, the family home, but, um, a second one the couple were compelled to buy, a sort of temporary roof over their heads (from which the children went to and fro to school five days a week) as a result of which the public purse was obligated to help 'em out with their mortgage.

And you, Martin, then wonder why some politicians are. . . demonised.

Balls and Yvette flipped their houses in he same manner any private company employees would have had done, provided similar expenses claim system is in place at their companies. Only difference is that whether it was out of taxpayers' pockets or shareholders' pockets. If one adopts the point of view of an employee benefits, there is really nothing wrong with what Ball and Yvette has done.

The main issue associated to their case is that it may be unjust, becoz it was tax money, there may be better uses for it elsewhere, etc. So the questions I think one may want to ask are... (1) has the extra money made the two of them better MPs? If so by how much? (2) If the money didn't go into their pockets would it have had been made better use elsewhere? (3) How certain that if the money weren't claim, it will get directed to where taxpayers wanted it spent most?

My answers are: (1) I donno. (2) Possible. (3) Near impossible.

The expected value of better use elsewhere is (2) x (3). This is the costs. (1) is the benefits.

For a cost benefit analysis to show that the Ball-Yvette flipping is definitely costly to the taxpayers would require that:

(2) x (3) > (1)

As (3) is extremely extremely small, my hunch is that the case for the Ball-Yvette being ultra evil for being good flippers in my view is not really substantiable.

Flyboy152

Reggie_Rebel wrote: »

I'm not sure anyone guilty of defrauding the public for their own financial gain can be classed as a decent human being.

Sorry, did I miss a court case somewhere?

Flyboy152

PhylPho wrote: »

Oh dear, Martin. This blog of yours really would be better if it stayed clear of pronouncing on the decency and probity of others without, it seems, having any clue to the individual's provenance.

Yet in Balls's case, that provenance is on public record. And it's so well known as to be the answer to the very question you ask about 'why demonise politicians?'

Mr Balls became an MP at the May 2005 election. His then constituency was Normanton. Due to subsequent boundary changes, he is today MP for Morley & Outwood, which has subsumed a part of Normanton.

Mrs Balls -- Yvette Cooper -- became an MP at the May, 1997 election. Her then constituency was Pontefract and Castleford. Due to subsequent boundary changes, she is today MP for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford.

Ms Cooper married Mr Balls in 1998. As luck would have it, they eventually became MPs for neighbouring constituencies.

Also, as luck would have it, they later became the first married couple ever to be Cabinet Ministers at the same time: Mr Balls was Secretary of State for Children, Schools & Families, whilst Mrs Balls was Chief Secretary to The Treasury.

Mr Balls's salary was £141,866. Mrs Balls's salary was £141,866. And such was their combined knowledge of education and finance that they designated the £655,000 family residence in which they lived in north London -- and from which their children went to school every day -- as their, er, "second home."

And enabled this £280,000-per-annum couple to claim £1,031 per month each by way of Parliamentary expenses' second home allowance.

Although Mr Balls has consistently defended his ability to be a Government Minister compelled to live far from his main home, and an educationalist who sends his children to schools from his second home, most people find that defence just a little hard to swallow.

This is because if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is a duck.

Mr Balls would have us believe otherwise. The £655,000 family home was not, er, the family home, but, um, a second one the couple were compelled to buy, a sort of temporary roof over their heads (from which the children went to and fro to school five days a week) as a result of which the public purse was obligated to help 'em out with their mortgage.

And you, Martin, then wonder why some politicians are. . . demonised.

If they were to have spent the majority of their WORKING days in London, which is normally expected of an MP, why would their children not live with them and therefore, why would they not go to a local school?

How is this any worse than what "Boy George" or "Dave" did? "Dave" flipped his home. He even has us buying him a country mansion and got us to pay off the mortgage on his other house. "Boy George" flipped his home as well, running an almost identical scam as his fellow Bullingdon Club member.

Orrin

organic_choc wrote: »

And you can apply the same reasoning to Ball's case.

I am sure that you can. I was responding to the quoted newspaper article which seemed to me to be a very poor attempt at creating an expenses controversy out of not very much at all.

kar999

Flyboy152 wrote: »

If they were to have spent the How is this any worse than what "Boy George" or "Dave" did? "Dave" flipped his home. He even has us buying him a country mansion and got us to pay off the mortgage on his other house. "Boy George" flipped his home as well, running an almost identical scam as his fellow Bullingdon Club member.

We could rename this thread... "Is elite political class stereotyping hypocritical? "

From TV programme, Posh and Posher – Why Public Schoolboys Run Britain,

What has really emerged is an intellectual political class, irrespective of party: Ed Miliband (Haverstock Comprehensive, Oxford and a Masters degree at the London School of Economics); David Miliband (also Haverstock Comprehensive, followed by a First at Oxford and a Kennedy Scholarship at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology); Nick Clegg (Cambridge and two Masters degrees, at Minnesota University and the College of Europe in Bruges); and now Ed Balls (a First at Oxford, followed by a Kennedy Scholarship at Harvard).
So, yes, it's largely true that public school boys run the country; but that's a secondary reflection of the fact that politics is now a game for the academic elite – and, because of the collapse of grammar schools, that elite is drawn increasingly from public schools.

Flyboy152

kar999 wrote: »

We could rename this thread... "Is elite political class stereotyping hypocritical? "

From TV programme, Posh and Posher – Why Public Schoolboys Run Britain,

What has really emerged is an intellectual political class, irrespective of party: Ed Miliband (Haverstock Comprehensive, Oxford and a Masters degree at the London School of Economics); David Miliband (also Haverstock Comprehensive, followed by a First at Oxford and a Kennedy Scholarship at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology); Nick Clegg (Cambridge and two Masters degrees, at Minnesota University and the College of Europe in Bruges); and now Ed Balls (a First at Oxford, followed by a Kennedy Scholarship at Harvard).
So, yes, it's largely true that public school boys run the country; but that's a secondary reflection of the fact that politics is now a game for the academic elite – and, because of the collapse of grammar schools, that elite is drawn increasingly from public schools.

At least we have some of them at the top who have some inkling about how ordinary people live.