Yeah, a large part of me feels the same way and would view the two Eds as a dream team… but I do worry that Balls plays into the Tories’ hands in some ways. Obviously they’re wanting to paint themselves as the ‘responsible’ party who want the UK to start living within its means, and Labour as reckless spending addicts who refuse to acknowledge that the deficit is a problem – and Balls fits that caricature better than any other prominent Labour figure.

That’s not to say Balls isn’t right in what he’s saying; maybe he is. But his position is so different from the consensus view (that we can and should use a combination of tax rises and spending cuts to bring the structural deficit down below 3% of GDP in this parliament) that I worry it’ll be all to easy for the Tories to paint him and his party as crackpots. What we need is someone who can make it clear that it’s the *Tories* who are crackpots for thinking that it’s desirable or possible wholly to eliminate the structural deficit (and indeed to replace it with a 0.8% surplus!) in this parliament.

I’m surprised he has come across so well and he must be in line as the next shadow chancellor.

I have some reservations about his financial abilities but who else would do it?

While I prefer EdM, I believe EdB has turned into a real asset during this campaign; he is the only one putting a coherent argument for the alternatives to economic masochism, while he probably won’t win the leadership he must be first on the list as shadow chancellor. The open nature of this election, with no late night deals in trendy restaurants means the Blair-Brown wars won’t be repeated. According to the guardian even the Blairites are impressed with Balls and I’d love to watch him ripping into that clueless, braying twat Osborne.

Ash, maybe Ed Balls should have spelt it out, but investment of this type can reduce the deficit. The government can borrow currently at below 3% interest rates for 10 years. So any housing created by the government, let’s call it council housing, with a yield of, say, 4%, would reduce the deficit over the long-term. 1% of £6bn is £60mn per annum. Over 20 years that’s a saving 0f £1.2bn.

The rent on the housing would be just £4,000 per annum, in that scenario, or £77 per week, while the current avge. rental for a 3 bedroom house is £263 per week. http://www.rentright.co.uk/00_00_00_3_00_rrpi.aspx

As for the capital outlay, based on the employment multipliers specified by the NHF, that makes a positive return almost immediately (as the 750,000 new workers pay taxes on their incomes and consumption). Finally, there is too the saving made by government from reduced welfare payments as some of those 300,000 building workers are taken off the dole.

I think he’s wrong in his analysis of the economy but at least he’s making the case, correctly or incorrectly, which is more than the others are.

Since 1997 Labour has lost 5 million voters – catastrophic in electoral terms but I really only know his opinions and perhaps Burnham’s to a degree.

These candidates should have put their cases forward more vocally, in the way Balls has and they may have had more interest from the general public.

The only statesman is David Miliband but that offers no alternative to other centre parties. At least with Ed Balls or Ed Miliband a left leaning alternative is offered since the Lib Dem’s are sidelined for 5 years…

It’s going to be David Miliband.

What is the definition of an affordable house? Is it a very small house, one badly built or a subsidised house? If it is subsidised can the owner then sell it at a profit? It is also obvious that if you and your family live in social housing and feel overcrowded you should have more children and then the council will give you a bigger house. No need to fit the size of your family to your earnings.