Bernard Ingham: Dubious double act of Miliband and Balls leads Labour towards disaster

I have seen nothing so far that is likely to convince even the sympathetic voter that a certain “iron discipline” has entered its soul.

Both Ed Miliband and Ed Balls are in a state of acute denial. 
After Balls said there was no evidence that Labour had been profligate with taxpayers’ money, Miliband could not agree that Labour had spent too much and had left the nation ill prepared for recession. He claimed that our problems were caused by the financial crash where he admitted Labour had not regulated the banks properly.

This simply will not do. Labour spending was by no means the sole or even main cause of a recession that has so far robbed the people of six years of growth. But its largesse – primarily with the aim of creating a client state through bribery – left a horrendous £156bn budget deficit that will still take years to eliminate and rob the people of the billions needed to fund borrowing.

For the foreseeable future it severely limits the options of any government that might be returned to Westminster.

We are where we are because of the monumental incompetence of that choleric class warrior called Gordon Brown, surely the worst Prime Minister this country has ever known.

This is where Labour’s problems start. Both Miliband and Balls are identified not merely with the disastrous management of the nation’s affairs but also with Brown himself as members of his inner team. Their refusal to face
the reality of his spending suggests he still has a hold over them.

They have now had three years to deny him – to lay the foundation for a return of 
public confidence in Labour’s economic responsibility – and 
they have failed miserably, 
even if they suggest the welfare state cannot continue unreformed.

This is not merely bad for Labour; it is bad for British politics. At a time when every party, including Ukip, has difficulty in commanding respect as an instrument of government, we need a vigorous, confident Opposition.

Labour is usually much better at it that the Tories. But it wasn’t in 1983-87 any more than it is today.

I can personally testify from Margaret Thatcher’s second administration that weak opposition impairs the performance of the government. Ministers get careless. They slip on too many banana skins.

Given the coalition’s unique ability to tread on every banana skin strewn in its path, a purposeful opposition should by now have reduced it to a bleeding mess of broken bones.

Instead, David Cameron is the only one of five political leaders with positive ratings for being “good in a crisis” and “up to government”.

In the charisma stakes, Miliband is 89 points behind Boris Johnson. It is true that Cameron is 60 points adrift of the blonde bombshell. But Miliband’s rating at minus 38 is only one point better than Nick Clegg’s. Worse still, Balls as Shadow Chancellor is clearly considered a serious liability within his own party.

I am convinced Labour cannot win the next election with Balls as Shadow Chancellor. On present form, it has a mountain to climb with Miliband.

But his chances of getting into No 10 are higher than Balls entering No 11 Downing Street provided he grasps the nettle, takes the bull by the horns and time by the forelock – this just just emphasises the scale of the task challenge facing Miliband.

Whether he can do so with the unreconstructed Left of the unions as his paymasters is another matter. But he has to ask himself what best will restore the nation and serve the decent, responsible citizen.

The simple truth is that no government is going anywhere fast until it balances the books. It will be handicapped until it breaks out of the EU straightjacket. Without such new,and hard-won independence, it cannot effectively control either immigration or fight crime because there will always be an alien court of appeal.

And it will achieve nothing so long as it thinks money is the key to ending three scandals: the tragedy of educational under-achievement; NHS failure; and welfare dependency. Each presents a problem because of entrenched systems and prevailing attitudes. More money may well be required in the end but it will be wasted without drastic reform.

This is why I ask whether Labour has had it. Are we seeing a great party on its way out?

Its condition is serious.