ED BALLS’S biggest problem over speculating about the scale of spending cuts that the Tories would impose if re-elected is that he directs attention to Labour’s own cuts agenda.

He has already mimicked Gordon Brown in the run-up to the 1997 general election in pledging to carry through Tory budgetary plans for two years.

Brown was politically lucky in that the economy was in relatively good shape and, as chancellor, he was able to invest heavily in health and education.

Balls is not in that position. The country is groaning under the burden of the austerity agenda.

There is little point in forecasting that a David Cameron-led Tory government would impose spending cuts that would reduce public spending to 1930s levels if you follow that up by saying that the first two-fifths of a Labour government would follow the same guidelines.

Limp suggestions that Labour cuts are preferable to their Tory equivalents are disingenuous and strengthen the cynical view that all politicians are the same.

It doesn’t help that the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which he cites in support of his case, should be less than totally convinced by Balls’s insistence that George Osborne’s plans would amount to a £70 billion reduction in public spending.

Once doubt is introduced over his figures, people will struggle to take on board his assertion that the Tories will slash NHS spending and/or charge for services.

Instead of speculating about the dire effects that Tory cuts will have on the armed forces, police, social care for pensioners and other areas of public spending, Balls ought to be offering an anti-austerity programme.

He has failed to do so because he shares with Osborne the same undying loyalty to the City of London, the robber bankers and neoliberalism.

Labour has a similar problem with the economy as with education, where shadow education secretary Tristram Hunt criticises Tory free schools while lauding new Labour’s academies, claiming to discern a principled difference between them.

Miliband has shown some understanding of the reality that his chances of being installed in Downing Street depend very much on persuading working-class voters that his election would bring them some material benefit.

Balls responds by performing his shadow iron chancellor routine, talking still of “tough choices” — a phrase that always has an ominous ring for poor people on state benefits.

Why do Labour politicians puff themselves up like cockerels to display their “toughness” in dealing with claimants before reverting to capon status when it comes to dealing with the capitalist class?

Labour still fights shy of committing itself to taking our railways back into public ownership, to say nothing of Royal Mail, gas, water and electricity, all of which would be vote-winners.

A tougher line — up to and including public ownership — on the private banking sector, where the top dogs continue to pay themselves millions for not very much at all, would also elicit support.

And who, outside a select, pampered, rich minority, would shed tears if Labour were to pledge to shut down all tax avoidance havens under British jurisdiction across the world?

Targeting tax rises, both for income and accumulated wealth, on those who have grown richest during the new Labour and coalition government years would provide a real alternative to the bankers-approved austerity agenda.

It would also suggest to voters that justice and solidarity could be about to take priority over greed and corruption.