Could Balls have just lost Labour the election?
March 13th, 2008
Will his “So what” to higher taxes heckle come to haunt him?
The most electorally significant moment of the 2008 budget might come to be seen as a heckle by the School Secretary and the man who is said to be Brown’s chosen successor, Ed Balls, when the leader of the opposition was making his formal response.
It came after Cameron had told the house that Britain had the highest tax burden in its history when Balls blurted out in words what sounded like “So What”. Apparently there was a damage repair effort after the speech and Hansard was persuaded to report it like this:-
Mr. David Cameron (Witney) (Con): ..As this country enters troubled times, it could hardly be worse prepared. We have the highest tax burden in our history.
The Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (Ed Balls): So weak!
Mr. Cameron: “So what?” says the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. I know he wants to be Chancellor so badly it hurts. I have to tell him that another Budget like the one we have just heard and he will not have to wait very long.”
I am grateful to Chris A on the previous thread for digging this up because those two words could prove to be highly significant. The Tories want a narrative on tax that does not leave them open to the “billions of pounds of cuts” attacks that Labour has deployed so successfully at previous elections.
What the Balls “So What” could do is provide Cameron with the ammunition to present the “tax and spend” argument not in terms of numbers but in terms of the differing philosophies of the parties.
The ambitious school and children’s secretary’s heckle might just have let Cameron and Osborne off the hook.
Whatever this one will be played time and time again.
It might be recalled that Balls was one of the primary architects of the abortive November 2007 election plan. He was the most aggressive briefer and the Labour figure who created the coverage that Brown was going to do it.
Latest general election betting is here. If you are making bets of any kind please help to support the site by using our links.
MessageSpace Advertising
Sounds like another classic “Balls-up”.
Meanwhile, is there anywhere we can bet on who’ll be the next Tory MP to leave the party / be deprived of the whip?
After Bob Spink’s departure yesterday Cameron has now lost 3 of his MPs and a pattern is starting to emerge - who’ll be next?
Smart money has to be on Ann Winterton (or perhaps both Wintertons as a job lot). But will John Bercow defect first?
Has to be the single most stupid heckle I have ever heard. It is going to star in Tory attack adverts at the next election. The only question is whether it will be official ones or not.
Yes, I’m sure Labour has lost the next general election as a result of something Ed Balls didn’t actually say.
Inspired thread.
A classic moment, the only interesting exchange through the whole debate. Its interesting to think what compelled Balls to make the comment. At a guess it was because Dave was making an infuriating speech, laced with personal attacks, and aggressive rhetoric as usual.. i though his advisers had warned him to cut down on the public-school bullying style.
Balls provided the perfect summation of the contempt for the fiscal realities that has underpinned this Budget.
But personal inflation is running much higher than 2%. “So what?”
But your forecasts for growth are widely considered at the most optimistic end of possible outcomes - the economy may grow far more slowly this year, if at all. “So what?”
But we have no reserves to fall back on. “So what?”
But the removal of the 10% tax band means many of the poorest wager-earners in society will sharply penalised in April. “So what?”
But there was no reference at all to the potential impact of Northern Rock’s £100 billion of liabilites on the nation’s finances. “So what?”
“So what?” Implicit in that is “we can do what we want - people will still vote for us!” We shall see, Mr Balls, we shall see…
3 - I don’t think it matters whether he actually said it or not collectively everyone has heard it as “so what”. It will be retold as such from now until the next election. What it does is allows candidates up and down the country to paint Labour as arrogant and out of touch. It gives Conservatives another stick to beat Labour with and feeds into the general feel of a government coming to the end of its shelf life.
Labour Trolls are out early. What’s the matter - having nightmares?
Actually, I wouldn’t flatter Ball’s ego with the notion that he is important enough to lose Labour an election. He is just the pus in the festering sore that is Labour. What he has done, though, is give the Tories a slogan which may yet rival “Labour isn’t working” in its effectiveness. He has not lost the election for Labour; but he may have helped a significant number of Labour MP’s lose their seats.
Haven’t seen it yet. Is there any footage available to make a informed judgement to what he actually did say?
I thought Darling played a difficult hand pretty well and yes, it’s a shame that Ed ballsed it up. Mrs Balls was calm and effective in media interviews yesterday. Maybe she can have a word with him??
To answer the question posed by the thread,Yes
Cameron slapped Ed Balls down rather beautifully during his response to Darling’s speech. .
“Later, as Mr Balls continued to shout excitably, the Tory leader added: “I know he is the minister for children, but he doesn’t have to behave like one.”"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti…in_page_id=1770
Must dash off to Cheltenham and get legless while it is still cheap
Guido fawkes has put the video on youtube( I cannot link as Youtube is filtered out by work.) You can also see it at the Adam Boulton Blog.
Like we were discussing the other day, what was said and what was perceived to be said can often be two different things. The “So What” speaks to the venal arrogance that is so prevelent in this government.
Rentoul has him down as saying ’so what’.
Tax gone up on Booze? So what.
Paying more council tax? So what.
Are you mired in red tape running a small business? So what.
Want a referendum on the Lisbon treaty? So what.
Balls is becoming the biggest electoral asset the Tories have.
Just re-watched the video. After Cameron says “So What?” it cuts to Balls who is clearly mouthing “so weak” repeatedly at him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM6plAeFwUs
Whatever. The fact is that all sides of the house regularly monsterize themselves by shouting, jeering and laughing through important issues. It’s called the House of Commons. Don’t you just love it.
It’s more than a ‘little word’ Ed needs from Yvette, he clearly has too much testosterone coursing through his veins at the moment.
I am grateful to Chris A on the previous thread for digging this up…
It was indeed good work by Chris A to post this
87…by Chris A March 12th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
…only two and a half hours after I had on the thread before!
265…by Adam Smith March 12th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
15,
Does matter how many times he claims he said “So weak.” Camerons incredulous “So What” is the piece that sticks. It made headline news in a downmarket tabloid.
If your going to heckle, at least be funny.
Thanks for the link. Just seen it on Sky as well. Have to be honest and can’t say its possible to hear what Balls said. Is there anyway they can pick it up on a different mic? If he did say I think it will haunt Labour for some time to come.
Not only don’t I think it’ll lose Labour the election I expect Labour’s poll position to improve as a result of yesterday. They are starting to reassert themselves after several shaky months and yesterday they showed they are once again the only game in town.
As for Balls being either quoted or misquoted in the Express-it wont matter a jot. Junior Cabinet Ministers don’t affect elections. Most people with an IQ over 5 understand what taxes are and why they are raised. Those Express readers with an IQ less than 5 (most of them) vote Tory anyway.
Classic from Roger. Time to buy Tory seats again.
20.10 out of 10 for optimism! The next polls (when are they?) could be very interesting.
So we’re agreed. He didn’t say it, but it does matter.
I fear Master Ball’s “so what” may end up like The Lady’s “no such thing as society” - either inaccurate or out of context, but fixed for ever in the political mythology.
You cannot what he said original, when the camera is pointing at Cameron. Cameron’s instant response as “So what” so must have been what he heard.
Balls will have realised how bad “So what” would be an changed it to “So weak”. Which is what you seeing mouthing later. By then the damage is done.
I’d love to think this would “lose the election” for Labour but… please… speaking from outside the M25 - OK, outside Europe - OK , just outside Suzie Wong’s Day Night Happy Spa - this just doesn’t seem like an election clincher.
Sorry Mike. I think your personal antipathy to Balls is colouring your attitude. It was a fatuous heckle and a good Cameron put down but let’s get some perspective.
Indeed what is this Get Balls thing all about? He seems relatively innocuous to me: just another unprincipled, boring, aggressive, devious, careerist New Labour hack. It’s not like there’s a shortage of them: the Labour party now consists almost entirely of these people.
Why is Balls regarded as especially loathsome? Amongst that crowd? It’s like looking in a bucket of worms and saying - “look, here’s a slimy one!”
Weird.
25,
Must type slower…
Most people with an IQ over 5 understand what taxes are and why they are raised.
Money with menaces for the purpose of buying Labour votes?
If you really think that the average person is completely happy with paying the highest taxes ever, I fear you are misled.
What a muppet. He should have let Cameron get on with his carefully crafted speech. In fact, the Labour Party should have known full well what he was going to say but they failed to defuse the bomb in Darling’s Budget. As such, they deserve no sympathy for this fall-out.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
as for misquoting….it’s a trick Cameron learned from Blair. Didn’t he used to pretend he’s picked up an odd heckle at PMQ’s and ridicule it when it hadn’t been said or he deliberately heard it wrongly?
“So what” would have made no sense. “So weak” though a feeble heckle at least makes sense.
Whatever Balls may or may not have said, Cameron’s contribution to developments, by repeating the comment or distorting it so quickly, should certainly be recognised.
The “So What?” will certainly prove damaging to Labour. But I think the benficiary will be the party that is seen as the main challenger to Labour in each local area. So not necessarily good just for the Tories.
Yesterday somebody very kindly suggested that I might like to go and cover the next Tory Conference. Having looked at my diary, I find that I have no previous engagements at that time, so I should be happy to do so.
All that remains is for us to agree the terms and conditions, which will presumably be similar to those enjoyed by Mr D. Conway and his like.
“So what” would have made no sense. “So weak” though a feeble heckle at least makes sense. - I think you need to have attended an elite public school to decode this. I can’t.
“So what” makes perfect sense. It’s arrogant and displays poor empathy with the public and you wouldn’t expect an experienced politician to shout it. But this is Balls not Brown or Darling.
“So what” is believable as it fits with the publics perception of this government.
Obviously Nick P would be able us for certain it was “So weak”!!
I don’t know if it he said so what or so weak, however neither heckles are very good (well, this is ed balls). I didnt think it would get mentioned in the papers, but the express proved me wrong. The rest of the papers have also bashed the budget, the sun is very negative for once.
Roger, would you care to comment on Darling’s closing down of the “sideways relief” - which it is being said in Screen International will take £2 billion from the media?
26. Ed Balls has the quite stunning ability to provoke utter contempt in nearly everyone he comes across.
See this row with IDS: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FHHGDHkUsUY
‘Sideways relief’ Is that the sort of thing SeanT is getting at Suzie Wongs? If they’re cancelling it I’m all for it!
Balls is politically very clumsy. But he tries to answer questions as they are, rather than as he wished they were. He gets in a muddle when they are unanswerable. He says what he thinks.
In these respects, Balls is similar to Boris, but without the charm.
Is there any way of challenging the Hansard report? So basically, an MP lobbies Hansard to report what he claims he said which may be at odds with what everyone else in the House heard him say, and they just go along with it? Will there be any unshown footage from other cameras, microphones etc that could be checked to settle the matter? (Or will all other footage have been quickly destroyed?)
And despite what ‘Comical Ali’ says above, “so weak” makes no sense whatsoever, it was self-evidently a “so what?”.
As for his suggestion that this will lead to a Labour recovery in the polls, everyone I took soundings from last night was incredulous at the hikes on alcohol, not just those immediately, but coming over the next few years.
A real kick in the balls. Or should that be Balls?
It’s funny that Mike attacked the BBC for trivalising politics yesterday and yet today starts a debate about whether Balls said ’so what’ or ’so weak’.
The budget reminded me of the Japanese print called The Wave, showing a wave at full height just before it crashes down.
In this case, it will drown Alistair “plastic bags” Darling, Gordon “my brothers, drink is the greatest evil” Brown and Ed “let them eat cake” Balls in a sea of public expenditure cuts and tax rises.
If anyone is looking for a sou’wester, I’m sure the M&S everything-must-go sale has them for £1-75 each.
33. Yes - that’s the important thing. Whether he said it or not, and I suspect he did given Cameron’s response, which can’t have have had that bit prepared, even if the other two putdowns were, it’s whether the public believes he said it, or even whether the public believes he believes it.
Other examples beyond the ‘no such thing as Society’ are Callaghan who never said ‘Crisis, what crisis’, Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ and Marie-Antoinette’s ‘let them eat cake’. What they all have in common are a hostile press and a public that thinks that their actions chime with the attribution. This one does too.
Where it might be different to the ones above is in the reporting. Balls, cabinet minister and close friend of the PM though he might be, is not yet well known to the public. That might be important in whether this develops legs or not.
Watched the Guido vid. Impossible to see Balls’ face or hear what he says at the time.
SeanT, Balls power of loathsomeness is strange but undeniable. He’s arrogant, patronising, fails to empathise with anybody and on a personal level is totally lacking any charisma whatsoever. My uncle is currently his constituent, and due to boundary changes and Colin Challen MP being palmed off with a quango, I shall unfortunately be his constituent post the next election.
I wonder if there’s a petition to have him fire into space using a giant artillery gun…
Anyway, nobody will believe his ’so weak’ defence other than those who want to. It will have a negative effect, which I reckon will be longterm but may not be too serious. Depends how the Opposition and Government play it.
Sideways relief….if it’s what I think it is I have mixed feelings about it.
A friend of mine has recently made three films with a combined budget of $30 million. None of them have made a penny and two of them haven’t even seen the light of day. So obviously there’s a scam there that I can’t pretend to understand. On the other hand it’s great for British crews to be busy and it would be a shame if this ended. I know a lot of talented young film makers who’d love to get in on it but it seems to be something of a closed shop.
Jees - you lot need to get out more! Who CARES what the Express thinks? It has sacrificed any “authority” it had long ago at the altar of Maddy McCann and Princess Di!
A reasonable budget in difficult times. Glad about the winter fuel allowance and the child poverty measures. But the press won’t like it either way. Just KBO Gordon and Alistair - I’m still predicting a Labour victory next year, despite the short term nonsense.
“Mr Balls, I understand that you and your wife Ms Yvette Cooper, The Chief Secretary of the Treasury, both claim the maximum (tax free) allowance for your home in London….”
“So what….
41. ‘The Great Wave’ now that is interesting! I did a commercial for Sanyo using that painting. You don’t do it justice by bringing it into a debate about Balls. It’s a painting with mythical status which even I can’t claim for Darling’s budget!
How does ’so weak’ make any sense? Really Roger, this is your ‘there are no American troops in Baghdad’ moment.
It is interesting how Balls inspires much distaste. I think I dislike his wife more for overseeing the disaster and white elephant that is hips, and then getting a promotion.
It is difficult to hear, Cameron clearly heard ’so what’ and despite Pompus Lefty’s own “balls” at 20. above, this is being reported very badly across the MSM and cannot be good for an aleardy very unpopular government.
In fairness to Darling I agree he played a difficult hand quite well on the breakfast shows.
I can’t believe he convinced anyone outside the core but considering the mess he has been left in by McBroon’s unproductive profligacy he did OK.
“Glad about the winter fuel allowance…”
A one off payment.
“…and the child poverty measures.”
Which will be useless.
It’s a big deal for Daily Express and Daily Mail readers; but they probably weren’t going to vote Labour anyway.
Politics, as Alan Watkins never tires of saying, is a rough old trade.
Whatever Balls actually said, he’ll be known as Ed “So What” Balls from now on. (Callaghan never said “crisis, what crisis?” either.)
This may however not be quite as daft as it looks. The devil in the Budget is in the detail, and Balls may think it worth the flak if it covers up the Government’s decision to abolish Incapacity Benefit - which all the Blue Harpies here should be cheering, surely?
re 40. You simply don’t get it do you. Whether Balls said this or not is irrelevant just as whether or not Jim Callaghan during the winter of discontent said “Crisis - what crisis”. The political battle is about perceptions and, in my judgement, this one will stick to Balls and goes right to the heart of what the battle-ground at the election will be.
Balls lives in the Brown bubble. The fact that someone as obnoxious as him managed to pull someone as pretty as Yvette is quite beyond me.
On a positive note the very endearing and likable Darling did a good job out of a poor hand. Roll on Alistair
I see Pascoe-Watson has swallowed the Labour line on this.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/money/article910753.ece
48- at least his better half (never so true an expression in this case) is pretty and has a lovely, unpretentious accent
41 “The Great Wave” by Hokusai - who late in his life wrote these words - especially for you, Roger:
“When I was fifty I had published a universe of designs. But all I have done before the the age of seventy is not worth bothering with. At seventy five I’ll have learned something of the pattern of nature, of animals, of plants, of trees, birds, fish and insects. When I am eighty you will see real progress. At ninety I shall have cut my way deeply into the mystery of life itself. At a hundred I shall be a marvelous artist. At a hundred and ten everything I create; a dot, a line, will jump to life as never before.”
Troll,
Its not trivial if the tories start using it in poster etc. And I don’t doubt they will.
re 51 You don’t get it either. Whether true or not this is something that will be remembered and used.
I think Roger might have a point earlier that Cameron was using the old Blair trick of responding to a heckle that wasn’t made. That might be the case and from the playback it is hard to judge. But the Balls comment will no enter the political vocabulary and will harm Labour and help the Lib Dems as well as the Tories.
Balls saying, ‘So What’ (If he did) in an attack ad, possibly, it’ll be interesting to see which has the most resonance, that, or Cameron scuttling behind Lamont back on ‘Black Wednesday’ I’m sure Labour will be digging that one out.
Eventually economic conditions always turn against the government in office, by this time next year we’ll know whether we have ridden the storm or not.
If things aren’t looking too bad, (I suspect they won’t) then it’ll be the doom mongers who’ll look a bit silly.
Quoting the Express really! it’ll be the National Enquirer next.
p.s.
As a non-smoker(Smokers! hangings too good for the bastards, thats what I say) very modest drinker, (weekly total, beer about six pints, red wine 6 glasses ‘cos its good for u) living in the sticks, we have 2 cars, Fiesta/Polo they are good on fuel usage,( I walk to most places anyway) doesn’t affect me that much.
56. She still has a supreme arrogence and talks over people. God knows what a dinner party in that household must be like. Struggle to get a word in.
53. Don’t worry Mike, Labour supporters are just in denial over what happened yesterday.
OT. Haven’t we got something like 10 council by elections today? Should be an interesting night.
If ’so what’ does start getting chuntered about it could be used against labour, I didnt think it would get a mention this morning but it has so far.
60. Are you serious saying that being a 25 year old speech writer for a Chancellor 17 years ago will have the same effect as the education minister saying ’so what to the highest tax burden in history that people are currently paying?
55. Except that the article is mainly a reproduction of the main parts of Cameron’s speech, with a big picture of a not very pretty Balls pointing a picture, which goes more than far enough to redress the balance.
62 TEN by elections? Oh, frabjous day!
As I have said before Mrs balls is brighter than he is and buy far the better Constituiency MP. She shows disturbing signs of being a Labour Woman who joined Labour to help working class people.
However she has a funny voice and thin chin and looks gaunt and drawn on TV. With a Thatcher style make over she’d make a good Chancellor though if shes any sence she’ll wait till the next labour government.
Its irrelavent if he actually said it but I notice only the express had it on its front page today. I suspect a desperate behind the scenes spin operation has partially worked.
60. Brown and his team have tried the Lamont thing a whole load of times so far and it hasnt worked, trying it at an election wouldnt work. ’so what’ may, all depends on what happens from now on.
quick question, what is the matter with everyone’s spelling today? Sometimes what is typed is the opposide of what is intended.
Very defusing.
A bit like the English Gendarme on ‘Allo ‘Alla..
69. Good moaning Patrick
Two options, here:
(1.) Balls *did* say “so what”, and Cameron made sure he repeated that line to make sure it got captured by the microphone/Hansard; or
(2.) Balls said “so weak”, and Cameron was swift-witted enough to twist his words into a nail studded club to beat Labour with in the next elections.
Either way, it’s a demonstration of considerable presence of mind, particularly as Cameron often seems better delivering prepared lines and sound-bites. I’m not sure I’m comfortable with the slick PR aspect of him, but he’s shaping up to become a formidable Commons performer.
Darling dire on Today - an unconvincing, blustering performance. Even Evan Davies, whose Labour sympathies have always been clear, wasa exasperated with his ducking of the questions and repetition of tired spin lines.
Did he say ‘So what’? It doesn’t matter. It becomes a quote like ‘Crisis! What crisis?’ which everyone things is true because it seems to match the contemporary mood and the attitude of the speaker.
Also anyone notice the similarity between the Cameron/Ball exchange and the Blair/Hague exchange back in the late 1990s. Blair was making a comment about the EU and Hague shouted something to contradict him. Blair immediately shot back that Norway was not even in the EU and the Commons laughed at the faux pas by the ‘school clever-clogs’. Now, Hague avers that he never said Norway. But Blair, by ascribing the remark to him, made everyone think he had. Cameron did the same with Balls. It shows the danger of shouting out in a debate. A skilled communicator like Blair or Cameron can put all sorts of words into your mouth.
64
Haaa its burnt into the memory of some of us, believe me! Whats happening today is small fry compared to Lamont’s ‘93 budget, and as for Howe’s budget when he doubled VAT and put 2% on interest rates, that was an experience.
As I’ve said, the next year will be critical. As for taxes, is Cameron going to announce large and wholesale reductions, or is he going to just,’shift ‘em round-a-bit’
When any party wins a third election, they’re on borrowed time. I’m still not convinced the voters are that enamoured with the Tories, so its not impossible Labour could win a fourth. Whether thats desirable is another question, but its certainly not impossible.
A poster campaign featuring the schools minister….?
Get real!!!
71 - The third option is that Cameron misheard him.
It is a bad headline for Labour in a newspaper not known for good headlines for Labour but in answer to the question, “Could Balls have just lost Labour the election?” the answer has to be no, almost certainly not.
71 - Yes, Cameron is becoming master of the HoC and his put down of Balls later on was so patronising it was delicious and also reminiscent of his sabering of Hillary Armstrong.
It really doesn’t matter whether Balls said ’so what’ or not. His picture is enough. His sneering arrogant piggy face is a perfect encapsulation of what New Labour is all about. Enough to get the voters trotting off to consign this hideous administration to oblivion.
71 - Of course if your second option is correct then that’s straightforward dishonesty by Cameron. I prefer to think my third option is right.
I think that Balls may have buried his polical ambitions and seriously damaged any chance Labour may have had of reelection with yesterday’s pathetic, childish outburst. Make no mistake this story is in all today’s papers and is still being discussed on TV and radio.
Despite the attempts of Labour and their shills to spin it away it is just the sort of thing that strikes a chord with millions of voters and provides great ammunition for the Tories at the next election.
Well done Ed!!
75 - Guido is showing the sort of thing that could be put about.
re 73. Good point about Blair and Hague. Tony was brilliant and why Labour got rid of him beats me. He eventually mastered Hague and Howard and by the time he stepped down Blair was doing pretty well against Cameron.
Why the PLP thought it was in their interests to replace him with Brown is crazy?
54. OMG - you have to be kidding - she looks like a 12yr old boy - for some reason she’s a favourite of Gordo tho…
The Sun doesnt seem to have swallowed the Budget message whole:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/sun_says/article244723.ece
Question : how many other Labour MPs are defending Balls, saying he didn’t say “so what”?
Normally, a couple would in this situation
This won’t necessarily be the turning point for an election, but is another little nibble, which can be just as damaging.
The FTSE is soaring this morning after Mr Darling’s budget - he surely is “the only game in town”.
On a different note, Bob Spink MP has he resigned the whip, joined UKIP or what?
The Labour spin machine has been so relentless over the past 11 years that criticism or bad news is not an option.
I remember in previous budgets when personal allowance levels would be announced,balance of payment predictions and other statistics whethere they were good for the Govt or not.
One poster had it correct yesterday when he surmised that Labour had decreed 1997 “Year Zero”
It would have taken longer to read out the bad bits in the Red Book
than the actual speech he did make.
How much did the VAT threshold go up by?
Where were the mention oh SMEs or business incentives?
As for Balls,well he is the best weapon the Tories have got.
For someone who went to a public school that cost as much as Camerons he has got a real chip on his shoulder.
Perhaps he had to warn the toilet seats up in the mornings…
I do wonder if it is to deflect attention away from Balls screw up over illegal payments pay parents to schools for admission. Balls claimed it was a significant majority on Monday.
On Tuesday it turned out to be 1 school in Barnet. More spin from this government that just does not add up.
69,
Stocking up on Beer (proper beer to not fizzy larger crap) before the tax raises. Drank some, effecting performance through haze of hangover this morning.
86
FTSE down 132.00 points…
Do we know what Balls said (or might have said…
) that prompted the “he doesn’t have to behave like one” retort?
Spink,
One less seat blocker.
The Labour spin machine virtually denying what Ed Balls originally said, claiming it was ’so weak, not so what?’- is akin to Cherie Blair’s denial of ‘That’s a lie’, concerning Brown’s so called privileged working relationship with Blair, to the journalist hacks: ‘Sorry to spoil your fun .. I never said it!’
92. he was just shouting again, trying to make up for earlier probably
94 ..only of course, Ed Balls’ words were on camera, while Cherie Blair’s were not!
Whether or not Balls said ’so what’ its still bad for Labour in prominising Cameron saying we have the highest tax burden in history.
Nice to get a mention, but I fear that Adam Smith (2 threads back) deserves the credit.
94 - I think the analogy is probably more with Lamont’s ‘Je ne regrette rien’ in highlighting a callous attitude etc
99. Presumably Balls et femme are paying the lowest taxes in their history, on an effective basis, at present - courtesy of their lavish housing allowances. So no wonder he sneered about the tax burden others face…
the entire ’so what’ thng has helped to bring to prominance Cameron’s budget reply more, in fact in most cases its being used more then the budget speech, which was so dull its been bullet pointed rather than copied.
100.
What matters not is that he did or did not say it. What matters is that he could have.
His smug, condescending attitude to the country has condemned him to be the new face of Labour’s inexorable declince into arrogance and incompetence. I can’t imagine he’ll ever be able to announce anything ever again without the entire house screeching “so what?!” back at him in Unison.
He’ll grow to really hate yesterday. Couldn’t have happened to a more odious blinky twat.
94: And Blair didn’t get booed at a school they were saying ‘boo erns’ or something like that.
All denying he said ’so what’ will do is get the clip replayed over and over again so people can make their own minds up.
#4. You are correct that Balls who went to public school and Oxford is a bully, why mention Dave?
99 - so can we say that yesterday was Labour’s Lamont moment? All we need now is for Balls to come out of a Thresher.
As for Spink, don’t think he’ll be a massive loss to the Tories - in fact, all those who have jumped ship haven’t exactly done themselves much good.
Agree with the first poster that the Wintertons (hopefully Ann) will be the next ones pushed out
86.”The FTSE is soaring this morning after Mr Darling’s budget - he surely is “the only game in town”.”
Didn’t the money markets get a large infusion of cash this week which could have rather more bearing on any movements this week than the Darlings budget?
89.Rather cynical ploy which was intended to redirect the heat off the Department of Education and onto the individual schools which had to implement these measures which have left many parents angry.
Oi Tory Troll-lite, get your own name. Whatever next? Sean Slightly Scared?
Blair was good on phantom heckles, but I think it was Newt Gringich (early in his House career) who benefitted from a rule that C-SPAN could only film the speaker by chalenging any Democrat to denounce Fidel Castro, or deny they supported him, or something. Had the cameras been able to pan, they would have shown that there were no Democrats in the House at the time!
“So What?” is a hugely damaging line. It can be added as a refrain (as above) to any manner of legitimate concerns, and paints Labour as pro-tax hikes, whilst also encapsultaing a dangerous arrogance that governments should not make known when going for a fourth term, even if they are still popular. If I were the Tories, I’d have it on posters, I’d have it on billboards, and I’d release a TV advert with the Miles Davis classic (Kind of Blue, track 1)playing in the background. That would make the message stick…
(Can’t take the Express seriously, since one of their reporters came out with the response to criticism that they only ran Diana and Madelaine McCann stories “Dead blondes sell papers”. Cue stunned silence.)
New NBC/Wall St Journal Presidential and Primary Poll :
McCain 45% .. Clinton 47%
McCain 44% .. Obama 47%
………………
Clinton 47% .. Obama 43%
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23596304/
106. Yes but my namesake was being ironic - the FTSE is down about 2%.
For those interested in the performance of PB.com’s hottest share tip - Barclays are down more than 30% since Roger called them as a buy.
106 - The Dax and CAC are down even more sharply following major falls on the Hang Seng and Nikkei overnight. No doubt our Tory friends on this site believe that it is all down to Ali Darling’s moves on the price of cider sending shockwaves through Berlin, Paris, Hong Kong and Tokyo…
69 - A bit like the English Gendarme on ‘Allo ‘Alla..
I didn’t know they’d done an Iraqi remake…..
Where are our Labour brethren this morning. Credit to Roger for been here, but lack any serious defence of Balls and the budget is a bit dull, as we are all in danger of just agreeing with each other.
After yesterday’s budget of public spending cuts by Labour (1.4% of cuts over the next 3 years) plus £ 43 billion next year in unfunded spending,do the Tories really need to be concerned about a narrative of ‘billions of pounds of cuts’ ?
113. They are becoming as invisible as ‘out’ Tories were in 1993-1996.
The video shows Balls all red and sweaty having realised what an eponymous mess he had made and tried to mouth ‘No, I said how weak’ at Cameron.
But that does not fit the narrative. The Hansard report says aad as Mike s reports Ball heckled when Cameron was saying:
As this country enters troubled times, it could hardly be worse prepared. We have the highest tax burden in our history.
How can ‘How weak’ be related to that?
113. There isn’t much to comment on the budget. Slight changes here, some delayed changes there. The fact that the main topic of conversation is a heckle that someone may or may not have said says it all.
Besides, I suspect most Labour voters are indifferent towards, unaware of, or even dislike Balls and can’t understand all the Tory fuss about him. The thread we had earlier in the week speculating about him as a successor to Brown was bizarre. But there you go. I guess he is an easy target.
@133:
Maybe we can pretend.
This budget is the best budget that Alistair Darling has ever produced!
Ed balls is lovely, and was actually saying “some water?” to Dave because he was concerned that his mouth by be getting dry!
Cor. Self-deceit is fun and easy. Everybody else should have a go.
“So weak” as a substitute for “so what?” was a fairly poor attempt in any case (although I appreciate that Balls had only an instant to come up with it)
From every reporter who mentioned it at the time, we have that the interjection started with a sibilant, there was “w” sound, and it finished with a phoneme that sounded like “-ot”
So “s - w - ot” were the sounds heard.
“So what?” was the interpretation (except by one reported, who claimed it was “swot!”
Balls’ claim requires altering the final phoneme twice - the vowel sound from “o” to “ee” and the consonant from “t” to “k” Unfortunately, those requires fairly significant phonetic shifts. You could probably get away with one (eg, “So wheat” or “So wok”); both is pushing it a bit too far, unless you decrease the phonetic shift. You’d really have to substitute “d” for the “t” and “e” for the vowel, and it would probably be plausible.
“So wed” wouldn’t really work much better than “So wheat” or “so wok”, although being closer.
Come to think of it “So wet!” would have been ideal. And realistically the only close alternative that makes sense.
If Balls had claimed “So wet!”, he’d have had a lot better chance of being believed.
116 apologies, I am way behind everyone earlier who have covered this point.
116 - I have no idea whether he said “so what” or “how weak” but I do appreciate that it is perfectly possible he said “how weak”. Balls would argue that Cameron’s line of attack was weak because, in his view, we are well prepared for turbulant times. It is certainly no more or less likely than “so what”.
116
‘I know he’s minister for children but he doesn’t have to behave like one’
114,
Good point, unfunded spending paid for by running up the biggest overdraft in Europe. And Balls says “So what”
The Olbermann ‘Special Comment’ on the Clinton campaign - “awash in filth”
Full transcript :
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23601041/
Video - Click ‘Clinton response ..’ :
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/
121 - James, please, stop. You’re embarrassing yourself.
117 I think its more the confusion as to why Balls is so highly regarded by Brown and co.
In the words of the great American philosopher, Bob Dylan, “Some things are true, even though they never happened.”
The “so what?” tag is going to haunt Ed Balls for years to come. Cameron obviously thought that he said it, and responded accordingly. The fact that Hansard has a corrected version (which may or may not be more accurate) is irrelevant. The Tories are going to make hay with this.
Incidentally, suppose Ming Campbell had heard Balls say it - the story would then be about how old Ming was, and how his hearing wasn’t any good. Equally untrue, but that’s politics for you.
re 124. I’ll be putting up a special thread on the Olbermann ‘Special Comment’ on the Clinton campaign in about an hour.
It’s very powerful.
119: It’s Balls’ attempts to claim that he said something different that is giving this story legs, and thus getting cameron’s buget response a lot more airtime than it would usually have got.
How much effect will it have on Clinton and her increasingly desperate campaign?
128. Can’t wait for that. UK politics is in a bit of a lull this week.
123
Earlier in the week Balls & co were making a fuss about aledged unfunded spending plans by the Tories of £ 10 billion and a couple of days later they annouce £ 43 billion of unfunded public spending for 2009.
129. true, the comment probably would have been mentioned a few times, but it’s subsequent vehement denial has helped to propel it on and helped Cameron’s budget reply come to even more prominence.
Difference between what Balls said and Lamont is simple, there was no doubt that Lamont said it, he was proud of it! There is still a doubt over what Balls said. I don’t think in two years time it’ll matter a great deal.
If the Tories could recover from something as horrendous as the Westlands affair, (Heseltine’s walk out and resignation, and go on to win a GE only a few months later) what Balls said is small fry compared to that.
I think this is a storm in a teacup, its being blown out of all proportion.
@124:
Bloody hell. Olbermann is *furious*.
I’ve never seen him so cross. Hillary’s has some serious questions to answer.
The great thing for the Cons is that the quote will bring Balls to greater prominance. He is the most charmless, arrogant of men - and as a protegé of Brown people will say “know them by their friends”.
During the exchange, I love Alan Johnson’s face - he seems to be enjoying Cammo duffing Balls up.
New thread on the The Keith Olbermann “special statement”
132 - In context that 43bn is more than half the education budget and more than twice the agriculture budget. It is bigger than the defence budget for the same period. That is a whacking great hole in the public finances, and that is assuming that Darlings growth assumptions and revenue assumptions are correct. That borrowing requirement could well end up being 50bn or more.
128 Mike S. I’ve tried twice to post a coment and link to Clinton’s response to Ferrarogate, but I think its got spammed for some reason.
Well whatever Balls said or didn’t say what odds can i get on him being next Labour leader
The media obviously cant abide him, the picture of him with grotesque combover and pointy finger was all over the metro this morning with the “so what” comment so i I reckon commuters will pick up on it. His relationship with Brown is a little odd in my opinion.
And yet OB’s price goes up and up on Betfair - from 1.32 to 1.37 !
Is it really just people laying off ?
And don’t forget the effect on the Tory benches. Cameron looks like he came on top. The back benchers will be happy (hattip to the Nick P play book).
How much airplay has Spink had today 10 seconds? Under IDS this would have been a 40 storey crisis with a 100 foot pink neon signing flashing the words “This is a crisis” on top.
I would thought that “so what” is pretty much the standard implicit response of any politician to any member of the public who raises a concern that the politician does not want to address.
Then again, if this discourages the yelling at each that characterises the Commons it may be no bad thing. As for the result of the next election, Labour or Tory: “so what”, “so weak”, …
140. 5/1 was quoted on here yesterday - however the odds may have moved since then
134: It doesn’t matter what he said (though it does sound like ’so what’) the denials have changed a bit of Commons knock around into a news story which will feature Cameron saying ‘We have the highest tax burden in our history’ over and over again.
If Brown had any sense he would sack Balls (or have done it after the non election).
140. What can you mean?
:)
Talk about Mr Smithson over hyping.
Two years out one alledged comment losing the election.
My god then attacking the BBC over political coverage.
Think this site is having delusions of grandeur.
He is getting more brass neck than Max Clifford.
80: Well done Voxpop - think you exactly predicted the Daily Mail front page in yesterday afternoon’s thread. Coincidence, or are you Paul Dacre in disguise?
148. yes, that was uncanny…except that it was the Express, not the Mail. Which means Voxpop must be….
One for those who like a bit of doom’n'gloom !
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/03/13/ccambrose113.xml
Even if Balls did say ’so weak’ as he’s claiming, he shows himself to be arrogant and out of touch. Why is it ’so weak’ to criticise the government for giving us the highest tax burden in British history? Seems like a very strong line of attack to me, on an issue that must concern a great number of people.
51. No, I’ve found lots of Labour-Liberal voters read the centre right papers, and BNP voters read the Guardian. Why? I don’t know.
From the last thread….[rowing back quickly]…. I don’t actually BUY the Daily Mail, but I do have a look on the web when my patience will allow.
As for Brogan, I think Tory Homers go through to him specifically via their link [she says revealling more - now up to the thigh].
I understand the Daily Express has an increasing circulation whilst the Mail’s is declining!
As for ‘Ball Baiting’…Sean T’s prespective is something we can all admire, even if we don’t all share it.
Sean…. he looks and sounds better from the other side of the world…after a drink…with less vat on it.
Listening to Talksport this morning and Darlings budget was not going down well. They had Ken Gibson the Sun motoring editor on and he was basically saying that motorists could not take any more kicking and it was time to revolt (in the ballot box).
You don’t even have to “mis-hear” these days
How many people in the street know that Cameron never urged anybody to “hug a hoodie”?
oh come on -who the hell says ’so weak’ like that . Of course he said ’so what’ .
If he had of said ’so weak’ he would have been indignant the moment cameron quoted him instead of grinning like a smug arrogant so and so
Any thoughts on Mr and Mrs Ball’s housing allowances?
Dave never said “hug a hoodie” but that never stopped Labour dropping it into every Cameron reference they could. Funny how they suddenly get all pious about ‘accuracy’ when it’s one of their own. And for the record I think Balls is lying - just like Cherie tried to cover up her famous “well that’s a lie” - everyone knows it’s standard behaviour to pretend you didn’t say something fatally embarrassing when caught out. And frankly “so weak” has to be the worst excuse for a heckle ever. Come on - nobody shouts out ’so weak’. Not even Ed Balls-up.
Balls has got a bit of a crush on Cameron and will do just about anything to attract his hero’s attention. He blushed like a schoolgirl when Dave addressed him directly.
I have no idea if he said ’so what’ or not as I didnt see the incident, but it matters not, it’s in the domain that he did and it is not going to go away.
As for the budget, it was the budget a Labour chacellor in this position was always going to produce. It could be argued either way as to if it is a good budget or not, what is interesting is the publicity is generally very negative about it, which suggests there is a consensus amongst the majority of the media now to keep the negative momentum against the Governemnt going. As a result it almost does not matter what the Governemnt does now, good or bad, things are going to be spun against them come what may from now on, that is what could lose Labour the next election.
The owners of casinos and betting shops have been doubly blessed this week. Not only did Darling protect them from tax rises, but Gordon promised to flog them the Tote - no doubt for a knock down price.
Just to add to my Cherie analogy - the reason it was damaging was because everyone believed it was what she really thought. The same goes for Thatcher and society and Cameron and hoodies. And it’s just the same with Balls. Everyone believes this is really what he thinks about taxation. If it didn’t fit it wouldn’t work. But it fits. That has to be damaging.
HE SAID W