Labour's 'iron discipline" should be put to the test Who is the great villain in modern British history? Who is the single person most to blame for our economic travails? Ed Balls would like to persuade the public, as he almost seems to have persuaded himself, that the answer is "George Osborne." In a keynote speech yesterday, the shadow chancellor argued (again) that Labour left a golden economic legacy, despite the momentary hiccup of the financial crisis. Then came Mr Osborne and his cuts, which caused weeds to sprout in place of green shoots. In terms of the debate within Labour, this is clever politics. It provides cover for Mr Balls to admit to his party (as his colleague Liam Byrne admitted to the nation quite some time ago) that there is no money left - but to blame it entirely on the Tories. He accepts that not every pound was spent wisely by Labour: a few million may have gone astray, as happens under any government. But as he told a questioner: "Do I think the last Labour government spent too much, was profligate, had too high a level of national debt? And here is Mr Balls's essential problem. Some of his proposals are entirely reasonable. Does it make sense that there are four separate agencies delivering services to drivers? Should every pensioner, regardless of need, get the winter fuel payment introduced by Gordon Brown? In both cases, probably not. Should there be a "zero-based review of public spending," to ensure that every pound is spent properly? Yes indeed. But there is a rather bigger question. Can the public possibly trust Labour - which oversaw the largest public spending splurge in the developed world - to manage the public finances with "iron discipline"? Most certainly not. Spending more, as we learnt after similar promises of restraint were made in 1997, is what Labour does. Especially this version of Labour, led by two men - Mr Balls and Ed Miliband - who were Gordon Brown's most prominent acolytes. The Conservatives will doubtless seize upon the shadow chancellor's speech as evidence that he has been driven on to their ground. But his change of tack should prompt them to go further. Despite his professed willingness to live within the means set out by George Osborne in the next spending review, Mr Balls identified only £100 million in explicit cuts - those winter fuel payments - and is committed to higher spending in many areas. Even in a speech that was trailed as being about savings, he seemed much more comfortable setting out his plans for tax rises on the better-off. When it comes to the need to save further, the Tories now have scope to make their case - for to match them, Mr Balls will have to repudiate not just his party orthodoxy, but his life's work.