Ed balls

There has been a criticism of how the Coalition is trying to push through its Academies bill before Parliament rises for the summer. Ed Balls, in his typical understated fashion, has compared it to how anti-terrorism legislation is rammed through and the Tory Chairman of the Education Select Committee, Graham Stuart has said that the Bill should have more time. But there’s a simple reason why the Bill has to get through before parliament goes down for the summer, the school year starts in September. If the legislation was not to pass before the summer recess, many of its effects would be effectively delayed by a year. The Tories have

There have been many interviews with Peter Mandelson this week, but I don’t think any of them have got as much out of him as Patrick Wintour has in today’s Guardian: ‘For he is quite clear in the interview that Labour would be probably be in power now if it had been possible for Brown to be replaced by a consensual alternative. “If you really force me, I think probably it would make a 20 to 30 seat difference to the result. They would have gone to 280 and we would have gone up to 270. They probably would have been the largest party, but not by a decisive margin.”

Pat McFadden, the sullen-looking Shadow Business Secretary, has given an important speech to the Fabian Society. He said: ‘Fight the cuts is a tempting slogan in opposition, and there are indeed some that must be fought. But if that is all we are saying the conclusion will be drawn that we are wishing the problem away.’ He is the first shadow minister to recognise that Labour’s current approach is counter-productive, and Ed Balls’ philosophy is suicidal. He notes: ‘In fact, that is the position the Tories and the Lib Dems would prefer us to adopt. They want Labour to retreat to its comfort zone and allow them to say that

This afternoon’s education question felt like a pressure valve being released. For a week now, the story has been all about the heat building-up under Michael Gove. But, today, the Education Secretary looked far more comfortable, and managed to swing the blowtorch back in Ed Balls’ direction. The message that the coalition had been struggling to make previously came out clear and loud: the Building Schools for the Future cuts are a result of waste and bureaucratic mismanagement by the previous government. And Gove even came armed with examples, such as the £1.3 million paid to an individual consultant from the BSF fund. His point: this would be better directed

Let’s dwell on the Labour leadership contest a second longer, to point its participants in the direction of John Rentoul’s column today.  Its central point – that Labour should “leave a door ajar” for Nick Clegg – should be self-evident to a party which has been forced out of power by a coalition.  But, in reality, Labour seems eager to ignore it.  At best, there’s a lazy assumption that the Lib Dems will one day divorce the Tories and quite naturally shack up with the lady in red.  At worst, there’s outright hostility to Clegg and his fellow, ahem, “collaborators”.  Neither approach will do much to break the ties that

Ed Balls has been on the phone to Mehdi Hasan of the New Statesman. ‘Nothing to do with me Guv,’ is his response to the Independent’s story about briefings against Andy Burnham. Balls has gone to great lengths to re-invent himself. Ever since the Damian McBride scandal, the former Education Secretary has tried to banish the bully-boy reputation he built as Gordon Brown’s protégé. Masks barely obscure the face; but, to be fair to Balls, his opponents benefit from recalling his unpalatable past. During the New Statesman’s leadership debate, Ed Miliband said: “It’s just like being back in the Treasury, Ed!” So it’s plausible that the anti-Burnham briefings may have

John Redwood has written a typically thoughtful piece, questioning the government’s arch cuts rhetoric. He writes: ‘Ministers would be wise to tone down the rhetoric of massive cuts. They need to mobilise, energise and reform the public services. Labour made clear in their marathon moan in the Commons yesterday into the early hours of this morning that they are out to talk the economy down, highlight alleged huge cuts in jobs and services and campaign with the Unions against sensible change. The government needs to be smart and careful in its choice of words to bring about the improvements in quality and performance needed.’ Ministers sound terse and defensive at

Ok, so the general public doesn’t much care for this AV referendum – and understandably so.  But at least it has added a good slug of uncertainty into the brew at Westminster.  Already, curious alliances are emerging because of it – Exhibit A being Jack Straw and the 1922 Committee.  And no-one’s really sure about what the result of the vote will be, or whether it will deliver a killing blow to the coalition itself. But regardless of what happens on 5 May 2011, it’s clear that one group is already benefitting from the prospect of a referendum: the Labour leadership contenders.  Until now, they’ve been distinguished by their indistinguishability

I was expecting drama when the Labour leadership circus called at Newsnight yesterday. Alas, the show whimpered and wheezed to a halt. A contest to determine the party’s future continues to gaze into the past. Assessing failure is essential to renewal, but the candidates are yet to offer anything substantively new.   Ed Balls and David Miliband shared one telling exchange. Balls has presented himself as the traditional candidate, and he would have you believe he speaks the language of Mrs Duffy. Gordon Brown’s hideous solecism in Rochdale revealed that he and his government were out of touch on issues such as housing and immigration. David Miliband is the centrist

As Fraser observed at the weekend, Alistair Darling has a point: it is not as bad as was feared. The new Office for Budget Responsibility agrees, reducing estimated public borrowing to £155bn 2010/11. Still, it’s hardly a picnic is it? And I wonder what response Darling will get if he presses Cameron and Osborne for an apology. His growth forecasts have been downgraded to 2.6 percent and the structural deficit is greater than he admitted to – Paul Mason reckons it’s about £5bn more than was forecast. Osborne’s hands are tied by these figures; his calculations will be based on them. There is, of course, the possibility that the OBR’s

I thought that Ed Balls would be a natural for opposition politics. But I’ve been struck by the naivety of some of his recent interventions – notably the Duffy-wooing immigration proposal. As James has argued, Balls’ plan to limit freedom of movement within the EU ia classic opposition politics. They are eye-catching, populist and but completely unworkable in practice. But Balls isn’t really in opposition yet: the Labour party is caught in a kind of limbo whilst it determines its future, a future that Balls wants to control. Advocating the unimplementable looks conniving rather than statesmanlike, naïve rather than astute. It provided an opportunity for his opponents, and Peter Hain,