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

Flyboy152

kar999 wrote: »

....and another one who hasn't bothered to read the post properly which never mentioned the word both...... :whistle:



From the Times in 2004 ...
DAVID MILIBAND, the schools minister, and his brother Ed, the chancellor’s economic adviser, are set to avoid paying thousands of pounds in tax through an Inland Revenue loophole which the Labour party pledged to close.
The brothers, Labour’s rising stars, are poised to benefit after their family set up a scheme to share ownership of the family’s £1.3m townhouse in north London which was sold recently.

I was referring to your presumption that the Millidand brothers are Marxists.

Flyboy152

23rdian wrote: »

Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper had both of their homes covered by second home allowances as they took one house each.

So What you say?

Yet even after the commision looked into it:

Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper cleared of fiddling expenses

But in a ruling, the Commons Standards and Privileges Committee said it was reasonable for Mr Balls and Ms Cooper, who both represent constituencies in West Yorkshire, to register their house in Castleford as their official home for the purpose of their allowances.

John Lyon, the Standards Commissioner, received a complaint about the couple's arrangement from Malcolm Moss, the Conservative MP, in February.


He recommended to the Committee that a full investigation was not necessary, and that no further action should be taken.


In a statement, the Committee said: "The Commissioner has dismissed the complaint, having concluded, in the light of his investigation, that: 'Ms Cooper and Mr Balls made reasonable decisions on the basis of their own circumstances in declaring their property in Castleford to be their main home'."

Mr Balls and Ms Cooper accused Mr Moss of seeking to make political capital out of the complaint.

Really? Who'd have thought.

I think you'll find that they only took about half of what they were allowed to.

kar999

Flyboy152 wrote: »

I was referring to your presumption that the Millidand brothers are Marxists.

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. It was their father, Ralph Miliband who was the famous Marxist, as I clearly refered to in an earlier post...

"The sons of Marxist (we are all equal!!)"

Maybe I should have repeated that simple fact in my later post in order to avoid any potential pedantic misunderstandings about the Marxism in the Miliband clan. :whistle:

Flyboy152

kar999 wrote: »

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. It was their father, Ralph Miliband who was the famous Marxist, as I refered to in an earlier post...

Maybe I should have repeated that and made it more clear in my later post.

Hence my point:

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Another one who hasn't bothered to do their research. :wall:

matty_yorks

Flyboy152/Fanboy152, whatever your name is....

1. It would take a big effort from Cameron (or any politician for that matter) to be more disrespectful than Dennis Skinner.

2. The Balls declared their London home which they clearly spent more time at, to be their second home. I'm singling him and his wife out, rather than any other politician, because that is whom the blog referred to. They were ruled to have behaved not within the spirit of the rules. I for one expect more from people who put themselves forward as a paragon of virtue and leadership

3. Please, enough of the pedantry.

4. Whilst the Speccie is tory leaning, the article highlighted the style of Ed Balls. He got bullied at school so tries to use the same techniques on people trying to hold him to account. Someone (possibly you Fanboy), go and give him a cuddle.

Flyboy152

matty_yorks wrote: »

Flyboy152/Fanboy152, whatever your name is....

You know what, when you make fun of others' usernames, it really doesn't afford you any credibility at all.

1. It would take a big effort from Cameron (or any politician for that matter) to be more disrespectful than Dennis Skinner.

I take it you don't watch Prime Minister's Questions then.

2. The Balls declared their London home which they clearly spent more time at, to be their second home. I'm singling him and his wife out, rather than any other politician, because that is whom the blog referred to. They were ruled to have behaved not within the spirit of the rules. I for one expect more from people who put themselves forward as a paragon of virtue and leadership

It really helps if you actually read what was written.

In a joint statement, they said: ``We welcome the Parliamentary Commissioner's decision to dismiss this complaint after a full investigation and his conclusion that we acted fully in accordance with both the letter and the spirit of the rules of the House.
"As the Commissioner's report shows, the allegation made by Conservative MP Malcolm Moss was politically motivated.

3. Please, enough of the pedantry.

Excuse me?

4. Whilst the Speccie is tory leaning, the article highlighted the style of Ed Balls. He got bullied at school so tries to use the same techniques on people trying to hold him to account. Someone (possibly you Fanboy), go and give him a cuddle.

Now you really have destroyed any integrity you might have had.

WhiteHorse

Cheque_Book_Charlie wrote: »

... the very real danger that we spend so much time abusing politicians that we forget what they do for us.

Remind us, do.

I know that some of them are vanal and shifty ...

Already forgotten the sheer volume of the expenses discloures? They rely on short memories. That's why the can pull the same old tricks, generation after generation.

... politicians must have considerable skills of persuasion and a not a little charisma.

All conmen do, or at least the successful ones.

They also have to be motivatd, ambitious, dedicated and have stong self belief.

Go online and find the definition of sociopath. With a typical MP in mind, start ticking the boxes. It will be enlightening.

... I suggest we have a long hard think about how well, if at all, we could do their job and show a bit more respect.

Billions on computers that don't work and never could, planes that don't fly ... The Girl Guides could probably run the country better.

And how about showing a bit of respect for the public? But then maybe the reason they hold the public in such contempt is ...

They are after all running the country so we don't have to.

... because the general public are lazy, not giving a damn as long as they get their TV soaps, junk food and football.

matty_yorks

Flyboy I'm not making fun of your name, I'm only making fun of you, for toeing a party line like..... a fanboy. You seem to desperately be quoting the politician. If you want to be seen to be credible (a tough task when defending Ed Balls, I grant you), best quote people other than the home-flipping, weasely parachute artist.

No, I'm not a psychologist, and yes, it looks like I'm pointing from the sidelines and laughing like Nelson Muntz, but it would take a very impartial buffoon to think that Ed Balls is anything other than a snake in the grass bully.

Flyboy152

matty_yorks wrote: »

Flyboy I'm not making fun of your name, I'm only making fun of you, for toeing a party line like..... a fanboy. You seem to desperately be quoting the politician. If you want to be seen to be credible (a tough task when defending Ed Balls, I grant you), best quote people other than the home-flipping, weasely parachute artist.

No, I'm not a psychologist, and yes, it looks like I'm pointing from the sidelines and laughing like Nelson Muntz, but it would take a very impartial buffoon to think that Ed Balls is anything other than a snake in the grass bully.

Trying to defend what have written, is not a good way to get out the hole you have dug for yourself. Insulting me even further, is not the best exit strategy for you either.

kar999

Looks like Balls is talking balls again and changing his once defecit denial mind to suit whichever way the wind is blowing.

Credit: East Anglia Daily Times Tuesday, February 1, 2011

King is right – whether Balls likes it or not

ED BALLS, the Shadow Chancellor, has set off down a slippery slope in attempting to second guess the private views of Bank of England governor Mervyn King on the Government’s economic strategy.


As recently as Tuesday last week, Mr King declared that “the right course has been set and it is important that we maintain it” – a position fully consistent with the governor’s frequently stated view (before last year’s General Election, as well as since) that substantial cuts in government spending are now necessary for a stable recovery.
It is one thing for Mr Balls to think that he knows better, even if the Labour Party’s strategy for a much slower reduction in the deficit was rejected by a majority of voters at the election. It is his own credibility which is at stake.
But it is a much more serious matter to suggest, as Mr Balls did in an interview with the BBC at the weekend, that Mr King’s real view differs from that which he has so often stated in public.
Appearing on The Andrew Marr Show, Mr Balls said: “I don’t think that Mervyn King, in his heart of hearts, really believes that crushing the economy in this way is the right way to get the economy moving.”
The Shadow Chancellor added that if the governor had said the country “was on the wrong track it would have caused a crisis”.
There is, of course, an element of truth in this, but it is, at root, merely a variation on the logical fallacy of the “He would say that, wouldn’t he?” variety.
Given Mr King’s past statements on the need for cuts, there is no rational reason to suppose that he had changed is mind and it is unwise, to put it no more strongly, for Mr Balls to suggest otherwise.
One might also identify a second fallacy in Mr Balls statement in that the spending cuts are not being advocated, whether by Mr King, Chancellor George Osborne or anybody else, as a means of getting “the economy moving”.
There is no dispute that the cuts will be a drag on growth; the point is that they are necessary in order to restore the credibility of the UK’s public finances and avoid a far more damaging collapse in confidence which would be an even greater blight on the nation’s economy in the long run.
This was a point entirely missed by Mr Balls when, to complete a hat-track of nonsensical assertions, he claimed in last Sunday’s interview that Mr King had been “quite right” to resist calls for an increase in interest rates.