Clear as Mud
As I said earlier today the Labour party is in deep trouble over the need for cuts - or otherwise - in public spending.
The problem goes back to the days when Gordon Brown was still Prime Minister - and the issue is laid bare in the memoirs of both Alistair Darling and Peter Mandelson.
Against advice of the Labour chancellor and the de-facto deputy Prime Minister - Gordon Brown insisted that Labour would go into the 2010 general election - on a platform of spending its way out of the looming recession.
Gordon Brown - and his chief advisers - insisted that the country was not living beyond its means - that public spending had not spiralled out of control and that Labour would just 'keep calm and carry on'.
But the problem was that the rest of the Labour cabinet disagreed - and finally forced the Prime Minister to change tack - though too late to convince the voters that Labour knew what it was doing any longer.
Even though official Labour policy was changed to one of cutting the spiralling deficit by half in the next (current) parliament - the great British public had had enough and voted Labour out of office in the May general election.
But Labour's credibility problem remains - because two of Gordon Brown's closest political allies at the time were Ed Miliband and Ed Balls - now current Labour leader and shadow chancellor respectively.
Not surprisingly, the initial message from this new leadership team was crystal clear - Labour would fight spending cuts tooth and nail - and it accused the coalition government of going 'too far too fast'.
Yet Ed Miliband refused to spell out exactly 'how far and how fast' Labour would go - and he became trapped with an unconvincing argument that there would be much nicer cuts - maybe even pain free cuts - under Labour'.
Just the other day both Ed Balls and Ed Milband said that Labour now accepted the need for cuts and pay restraint - and a general pay freeze in the public sector.
But yesterday - with my own eyes and ears - I watched Harriet Harman on TV tell the nation that Labour was 'fighting' the spending cuts - and didn't accept the need for cuts in the first place.
So which is it - because I'm confused - is Labour trying to face both ways at the same time?
Labour's defence secretary - Jim Murphy - argued the other day that Labour needed to become credible on public spending - before the voters would trust the party again.
In doing so Jim Murphy accepted the need for £5 billion in the UK defence budget - but he made no fuss about the enormous amount of money being spent on replacing Trident nuclear missiles - or on two aircraft carriers commissioned by the last Labour government.
What Labour needs is to spell out a sensible - maybe even radical - alternative if it has one, but instead we get the same basic line as the coalition government.
To my mind a radical alternative would mean saving billions by scrapping Trident - and facing up to the fact that the last Labour government made other foolish and expensive choices.
Because building two brand new aircraft carriers is a nonsense in this day and age - it represents a colossal waste of public money - and massive cuts elsewhere in the UK defence budget.
