Three blows to Balls
James Forsyth 4:17pm
Ed Balls faces his own trio of troubles this Sunday. First, there’s Charles Clarke’s not so coded call for him to resign. Then, there is the overwhelming decision by the National Association of Head Teachers to boycott Sats for 11 year-olds despite a personal appeal from Balls not to just before the vote at their conference. Finally, and most worryingly for him, there’s the ongoing row about whether he and his junior minister Jim Knight have been straight with the Commons about last summer’s Sats disaster. As the Sunday Times reports:
“On at least three occasions, including on the floor of the Commons, Balls and Jim Knight, his junior minister, accused Ken Boston, head of the former exams watchdog, of downplaying the scale of the problem in a meeting last June.
Only after the release of Lord Sutherland’s official report into the debacle, which disrupted the education of tens of thousands of children, did Knight quietly admit that Boston had not even been present at the meeting.”
...
“Both Balls and Knight claimed to have pressed Boston and other officials repeatedly, but to have been fobbed off with blithe reassurances that any problems were well under control.
It has now emerged, however, that what Balls called his sustained pressure on Boston consisted of only one face-to-face meeting, at which Sats were mentioned only briefly.”
If the Speaker wanted to demonstrate that he truly is independent, he would summon Balls and Knight to the House to explain whether or not they misled the Commons. This is the most serious charge that can be made against a Minister and when it is, it is imperative that it is cleared up one way or the other.
Previous
Stronghold Barricades
May 3rd, 2009 4:31pm Report this commentI hear that there is a vacancy as driver for his wife
Grunt
May 3rd, 2009 4:47pm Report this commentThree balls and you're out?
TrevorsDen
May 3rd, 2009 4:53pm Report this commentThe Speaker is not independent though.
he is a new Labour stooge. Recent smear events show how ruthless Labour are - getting Maritin the Speakers chair is jus another earlier shameful episode.
Boudicca
May 3rd, 2009 5:02pm Report this commentThere's no chance of Gorbals Mick calling Balls or Knight to the House to explain themselves. He is the most partisan Speaker the House has known ... he cannot demonstrate impartiality because he isn't impartial. Gorbals Mick has just two priorities:
1) fleecing the taxpayer of as much money he can by way of expenses
2) ensuring that his colleagues in the Labour Party are given an easy time and the Opposition parties are not treated fairly
Chris M
May 3rd, 2009 5:10pm Report this commentSo nothing will happen then...
Chuck Unsworth
May 3rd, 2009 5:25pm Report this commentWhat on earth makes you think that the Speaker wants, or even cares, to be seen as impartial? Martin couldn't care less. He's absolutely asbestos in his current position. No one can challenge him - and he knows it.
His weakness, of course, is that he cannot abide being shown up for his outright complicity. So his vanity may be his undoing yet. Let us hope so. We have spent more than enough of our money on him, his lady wife, her housekeeper, and their various kith and kin.
strapworld
May 3rd, 2009 6:11pm Report this commentIt is apparant that Balls and Knight lied to the House of Commons.
I am sure the Speaker will want them to explain themselves immediately!
You bet!
TGF UKIP
May 3rd, 2009 6:12pm Report this commentHell might freeze over before Martin even cares whether or not he appears independent.
It would seem there is every chance of him resigning in the Autumn so Gordon's heavy mob can whip through another Labour patsy before a change of government. Isn't that supposed to be the deal with Martin Junr getting his Glasgow seat in best Scottish Labour tradition?
Why aren't the Tories making more fuss over Balls lying. Or is this just another of so many examples of just what a limp, lame useless "opposition" they are. Just imagine the boot on the other foot pre 97!
Thomas Cussans
May 3rd, 2009 6:25pm Report this commentGiven that 'Balls' is exactly made in his master's mould (though even nuttier, nastier and more obviously un-electable, which is saying a lot), it is very hard not to take enormous pleasure in the fact that, confronted with a department of state, he has not only consistently screwed it up but has no less consistently lied about it.
If anyone is in any doubt about the hideous disintegration of New Labour and the state of prostration to which they have reduced Britain – while simultaneously congratulating themselves on their enduring supremacy – they need look no further than the Great McNutter's protege.
He is odious beyond belief. Verminous, repulsive and repellent.
Is their a nastier man in British politics? Has there ever been a nastier man?
Athesius the Facilitator
May 3rd, 2009 6:45pm Report this commentTGF- They are keeping it dangling. Why kill it by getting a resignation. Dear me! How naive can one be.
Ken
May 3rd, 2009 7:04pm Report this comment@6.25: No. Thomas you have summed up the McLiebour clan in a word - Balls
Alan Douglas
May 3rd, 2009 7:09pm Report this comment"Is their a nastier man in British politics? Has there ever been a nastier man?"
YES - his WIFE !
I heard her the other day claiming that by reducing taxes we would be "taking money out of the economy", and that it was the wrong thing to do.
How is leaving money in the earner's hands, rather than confiscating it "taking money out of the economy" ?
What balls. The BBC interviewer failed to challenge her nonsense.
Alan Douglas
Ranger1640
May 3rd, 2009 7:43pm Report this commentNo chance of Gorbills Mick asking Balls to come clean on the SATs. There’s more chance of Gorbills Mick supporting Rangers at next week’s old firm game than forcing him to get Balls to cum clean!
David Ossitt
May 3rd, 2009 7:51pm Report this commentThomas Cussans
"Is their a nastier man in British politics? Has there ever been a nastier man?"
Peter Benjamin Mandelson would be at the top of almost everyone's list; Baron Mandelson does nasty, morning noon and night.
Man in a Shed
May 3rd, 2009 8:10pm Report this commentGordon has on got one Balls,
the other is in Albert Hall,
etc etc
Thomas Cussans
May 3rd, 2009 9:10pm Report this commentGolly. Sorry. I do know the difference between 'their' and 'there'. Embarrassing mistake.
TGF UKIP
May 3rd, 2009 10:27pm Report this commentAthesius, that's the Tory problem in a nutshell - too much sophistication and not enough passion and bloodshed.
It remains a village story unless there is a scalp.
David Lindsay
May 3rd, 2009 11:56pm Report this commentBalls may have been very expensively educated, but if David Cameron wins, then Gordon Brown will be the last ever state-educated Prime Minister, and the last ever (he is in any case only the second) to hold a degree but not an Oxbridge one.
That is what Charles Clarke wants.
As for drafting Alan Johnson, Johnson launched a ferocious assault on Catholic schools while he was Education Secretary, even if he was successfully seen off. Yet look at the company, so to speak, that he was keeping at the time. Why are Catholic state schools at public expense bad, but creationist private schools at public expense good, or at least acceptable? Johnson, though not without his good points, is most certainly unacceptable.
Donna
May 4th, 2009 9:22am Report this commentTGF UKIP - couldn't agree more. Where's the fire? Where's the passion? Where's the out and out anger that the rest of the country is feeling right now? How can the Tories possibly claim to represent Britain whilst sitting in an ivory tower tinkering around with the lofty politics of it all?
john miller
May 4th, 2009 9:45am Report this commentRanald Iain Sutherland - another old Edinburgh lawyer.
When told after the inquiry by Jim Knight that somehow some confusion had arisen over the number of meetings and the number of emails (err, one and err, one respectively) between Balls, Knight and Boston, His Lordship graciously conceded to Knight that it wouldn't have made any difference. Lord Sutherland would still have given Boston the same kicking.
This fact only became known to anyone outside that unholy triumvirate at the time when Knight gve evidence to the Commons Committee.
So, translating that little lot into real-life, you and me terms, it won't matter if you perjure yourself in Court to get someone convicted as long as you go to the judge after the trial and tell him what you did.
But unless you are a Labour minister or a peer of the realm, don't rely a jot on my legal advice, will you?
Hugh
May 4th, 2009 10:19am Report this commentWould it be possible for a future house to vote to cut Speaker Martin's pension on the ground that he has brought the house into disrepute
Back to top