Ed balls

It’s unusual for Chancellors to stand with their wives on the steps of the Treasury on budget day, and to see the Darlings together this morning gives an indication of what they have been through. Brown doubtless thought him an automaton when he appointed him to the job – but I was wrong to say that he would be “no more a Chancellor than Captain Scarlett was an actor”. He has defied Brown, bringing moderation and much-needed dullness to the worst fiscal crisis in Britain’s peacetime history. In James’s political column last week he suggested that Darling calls his autobiography “the forces of hell” – that he would defy Brown

Well, the Chancellor’s not for budging. Alistair Darling stands by not “some of” but “all of” his “forces of hell” comments. Martin Bright wrote the politics column in this week’s mag, arguing that opponents are intimidated by the political mobsters surrounding Brown, and who Brown encourages a la Henry II. Martin names Charlie Whelan and Damian McBride as the goons, and Ed Balls is rumoured to be the consigliere.   Peter Watt claimed that Douglas Alexander admitted that most senior Cabinet ministers loathed Brown and his vicarious emotional terrorism, a sense reinforced by Darling’s comments. If that’s the case, why has Brown not been removed? Cowardice is an unpleasant but

First the tragedy, then the farce: if there was something dark, perhaps shocking, about last weekend’s bullying allegations, then the latest Rawnsley revelations veer towards the hilarious.  They’re centred around Brown’s efforts to oust Tony Blair, and the Guardian covers them here.  I won’t pre-empt your enjoyment of them, except to highlight this passage from the report: “Rawnsley reveals that Brown rang Blair while he was staying with the Queen at Balmoral. He was furious that Alan Milburn, Blair’s close ally, had written a piece supporting the prime minister’s right to stay at No 10. Rawnsley writes: ‘The chancellor’s fury was titanically demented even by his standards. ‘You put fucking

Two related points, worth repeating. The first from Ben Brogan: “Mr Brown is on surer ground on a narrow point, in that in all likelihood he did not explicitly order his Eighth Circle chums to unleash hell against Mr Darling. Then again, he didn’t need to. His reaction to the Chancellor’s Guardian interview will have had the required Henry II effect. If Dave wanted some sport [in PMQs], surely, he should have asked whether Ed Balls ordered his friends to undermine Mr Darling. He wanted the job after all, and as has long been realised, there was what amounted to a Balls operation within the Brown operation designed to promote

If there was a story in the Sunday papers of a split between David Cameron and the two most senior figures in the shadow Cabinet over economic strategy it would be the talk of the town. But because it is about Brown and Balls versus Darling and Mandelson it is on the inside pages; it is as if the split over economic policy between these four men is priced into Labour’s standing. Patrick Hennessy reports that Brown and Balls would like to use the Budget as a pre-election springboard, announcing larger than scheduled increases in public spending and challenging the Tories to match them. Such a move would be economically

Bruce Anderson’s column in the Independent is a must read today and it concludes with this telling anecdote: ‘The other day, a Cabinet minister had lunch with a journalist. “What happens if you win?” enquired the hack. The minister looked astonished. It was clear that this possibility had not occurred to him. Having regained the power of speech, he replied: “There’d be an immediate leadership challenge”.’ Really? Brown was immovable when trailing by twenty points; a mandate will make him impervious to everything except death and possibly blindness. A narrow Conservative victory followed by a second election this autumn is a more likely scenario than a Labour win. Would Brown

For some time, Labour has been trying to push the line that behind the Cameron facade there’s an old-school, “nasty” party waiting, drooling, for an opportunity to engineer the country as they see fit.  Over the past couple of days, it’s become clear that they’ve struck on a new variant of that attack. Yesterday, we had Ed Balls on Today saying that the Tories’ marriage tax break was a “back to basics” policy.  And, today, as Paul Waugh reveals, Harriet Harman described the same agenda as “modern day back to basics. It is back to basics in an open-necked shirt.”  The reference, of course, is to John Major’s ill-fated, relaunch

Labour’s tax on banks that pay big bonuses was budgeted to yield £550 million. But because the tax has failed to change behaviour it is going to bring in far more than that, at least 2 billion according to recent reports. This raises the question of what will Labour do with the extra 1.5 billion? The responsible thing to do would be to use it for deficit reduction. We can expect, Darling who has said that his “number one priority is to get the borrowing down”, to take this position. But we can expect the more party politically minded members of the government to want to use this money for

So Gordon is selling himself as a champion of the middle classes.  There is, as various commentators have pointed out, more than a little bit of hyposcrisy about that.  But the thing that strikes me most about our PM’s change of tack is how similar it is to Darling’s honesty over cuts last weekend.   Like Darling’s admission, it represents some sort of progress for Labour: on paper, the politics of aspiration should play better – and have wider appeal – than the crude class war that they’ve engaged in recently.  But, also like Darling’s admission, it highlights just how inconsistent the government have been over the last few months. 

Why did it take Peter Mandelson so long to support Brown on the afternoon of the snow plot? Well, his lordship was taking luncheon. His interview with the Telegraph contains the disclosure: ‘As the scheming by Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt unfolded, the Business Secretary ate haddock with an old friend. “We had a good talk which did not focus on events back at Westminster. When I got back, I put out a statement suggesting that it was a very minor storm in an even smaller teacup. I called it right. By teatime it had become a two-hour wonder.”’ Mandelson must eat at a Gladstonean pace. The Business Secretary is

The Labour leadership drama now looks like it will take place in opposition not government. This will have an effect on the kind of leader Labour elects. If one of the coups against Brown had been successful, Labour would have almost certainly selected someone who could be presented as a credible Prime Minister from day one: a David Miliband, an Alan Johnson or – if they had gone for the caretaker option – Jack Straw. But in opposition, the Labour’s electorate is likely to feel that it can pick someone who will grow into being a credible PM in opposition. At the moment, there are two people who everyone assumes

Stop sniggering at the back.  I mean, all I asked was whether Gordon Brown can be bold and radical.  The way things are looking, he certainly needs to be – and, according to Philip Webster’s insightful account of yesterday’s three-hour Cabinet meeting, the PM has called on his colleagues to think up as many “eye-catching” proposals as possible for Labour’s manifesto.  One “senior source” says that the party “should have the most radical manifesto yet put to the electorate.” Which is, of course, much easier said than done – a fact highlighted by another passage in Webster’s report, which reveals: “Mr Brown said there must be no repeat of last

The road to Damascus has nothing on this.  Ed Balls – in interview with the FT – has condemned the class war strategy, called for an end to Labour figures briefing against each other, and suggested that the government should be more “upfront” about spending cuts.  Hallelujah!  What a difference an attempted coup makes!  And so on and so on. But wait a minute.  What does the Schools Secretary actually say?  Worth looking at, that – because Balls hasn’t so much changed his arguments as changed the way he makes them.  Take, for instance, what he says about class war: “‘I’m totally against a class war strategy,’ he says. But

Intriguing post from Iain Martin, who is well sourced in the Darling camp, about what might have been said between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor yesterday: “I’ve heard from two Labour sources now that the conversation was very difficult and that Darling raised the possibility of Brown going, but the PM resisted. It would be taking it too far, says a well-placed MP, to say that the mild-mannered Darling told his old friend turned foe to call it a day. He said it was more that Darling floated the possibility of a swift departure for the sake of the party.” Whatever was said between the two men yesterday, the