ED Balls insisted Labour had not decided to fight the 2015 General Election on a commitment to outspend the Conservatives.
However, the Shadow Chancellor stopped short of ruling out such a pledge in the future, stressing it would be irresponsible to set out plans so far in advance.
He was responding to reports that the Opposition at Westminster was ready to "bet the house" in two years' time by promising higher public spending and that it would reject the more cautious approach of matching the Coaliton's plans; in 1997, Tony Blair's New Labour government adhered to the previous Tory administration's spending plans.
It was suggested that while some senior party figures felt emulating Mr Blair's landmark move would help convince voters of Labour's economic credibility, a majority of the Shadow Cabinet believed taking longer to reduce the budget deficit would enable a Miliband government to finance investment such as housebuilding.
Noting the suggestion of outspending the Tories was contained in a Fabian Society report out next week, Mr Balls said: "Is it the policy of Ed Miliband and me, Ed Balls, that we will decide now to bet the house with a pledge to outspend the Tories? No, that is not our position. It would be totally irresponsible."
He pointed out how George Osborne in June would be setting out the Lib-Con Government's spending plan for 2015/16, the first year of the next government, when £11.5 billion in more cuts will have to be found.
"We do not know how bad the economy is going to be then. We don't know where we will be in two years' time," he added.
Despite Mr Balls's denials, Grant Shapps, the Conservative chairman, insisted they "confirmed they will spend more" and showed Labour would "take Britain back to the brink of bankruptcy".
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article