A fraternal fix
Peter Hoskin 12:37pm
"Now he and his leader know what it’s like to be people’s second
choice," trilled George Osborne during his recent encounter with Ed Balls over the dispatch
box. But might Balls actually have been Miliband's third choice for the shadow chancellorship? That's the implication of a delicious little story in today's Sun, which claims that
Miliband first "tapped up" his brother, aka MiliD, when trying to replace Alan Johnson:
"A Labour insider revealed: 'Ed's people were desperate not to give the job to Balls.'
However, Ed stopped short of offering his brother the job when David made it clear he wanted to stay on the backbenches."
If true, then it's revealing on two counts. First, it suggests that Ed Miliband is going out of his way to cool the simmering resentment between his supporters and those of his brother. Second, that Ed Miliband was keen to stick by the Darling Plan for halving the deficit over four years – espoused by Johnson and MiliD, among others – rather than shift towards the Ballsonomics of this infamous speech.
On paper, at least, Miliband still has the Darling Plan – but, then, he also has Balls. Will the latter undermine the former in a way that MiliD wouldn't have? Answers on a postcard, please.
UPDATE: While we're on the subject of Ed Miliband, there's this from Kevin Maguire's New Statesman column:
“I hear that Ted [Ed Miliband] was granted a cosy chat with the Sun's editor, Dominic Mohan, and the Wapping dominatrix Rebekah Brooks.
My snout in Fortress Wapping suggests that, next time, Ted should remember that the Sun was launched in 1964 and avoid asking how it covered events in the 1940s and 1950s; he should also avoid asking the childless Brooks how her kids are. I'm told it could have gone better.”
Previous
Verityred
February 24th, 2011 12:45pm Report this commentMilliE is a whining, featherweight puppet, a flimsy frontman for now. Balls will be seething in his mad man's room, boiling with nastiness. Meanwhile life goes on.
Austin Barry
February 24th, 2011 1:05pm Report this commentThe pictured Milibands resemble hares sparring in a March stubble field.
What strange creatures the brothers are: intense and charmless, surely the typical products of a Marxist upbringing.
The Laughing Cavalier
February 24th, 2011 1:06pm Report this commentCan you really blame little Ed? Who would want the viper Balls in their nest?
2trueblue
February 24th, 2011 1:09pm Report this commentMillipede seems incapable of preparing for any meetings or decisions. No wonder things went pear shaped at the treasury. He also lacks the ability to think on his feet.
Victor Southern
February 24th, 2011 1:29pm Report this commentWell Saif Gaddafi delivered the Ralph Miliband Memorial Lecture at the LSE. What more does one need to know about the Miliband family?
TrevorsDen
February 24th, 2011 1:34pm Report this commentAnd since Wade's new husband went to Eton we must hope unwanTed did not make any cracks about 'toffs'.
Senor Frizby
February 24th, 2011 2:10pm Report this commentTed in one tittering existence undermines our democracy by being so ineffective as to hardly exist. I'm no lefty but I do like to see the government challenged and serious issues debated. None of that while Ted's about... as for Balls... Gad!
Graham
February 24th, 2011 3:03pm Report this commentI don't know about Ted, I think he should be called Dead! Why would DM want to join the front bench of the Opposition now...he just has to wait a year or so & he'll be rightfully installed as the party Leader! Dead just can't hack it!
Holly ......
February 24th, 2011 3:13pm Report this commentSo here we have the brother shafting,union puppet trying to 'distance' himself from the weakest link in the 'New Generation' Labour party..Ed Balls.
One bloke has said of Balls's economic strategy:
"Either he's too stupid to understand that they spent all the money that they could when in power-so there's no money left-or he's not that stupid,in which case he's deliberately pursuing flawed policies that he knows are going to cause maximum trouble and discontent".
OUCH!
A bit of Both sounds plausable...He is stupid and following flawed policies to prove it.
Trem
February 24th, 2011 3:19pm Report this commentYou're forgetting something here:
Balls can't undermine any plan when Labour aren't in power. Infact, any plans Labour have for the next four years are worthless.
Thank F for that!
Simon Stephenson
February 24th, 2011 3:31pm Report this comment"My snout in Fortress Wapping suggests that, next time, Ted should remember that the Sun was launched in 1964 and avoid asking how it covered events in the 1940s and 1950s"
Although this is strictly true, the Sun was in reality a relaunch of an existing paper, the Daily Herald, which was a Labour-supporting paper from its inception in 1912 until its relaunch in 1964. As the Sun, it remained firmly Labour-supporting until 1969, when things started to change following the acquisition of the paper by Rupert Murdoch's News International.
Simon Stephenson
February 24th, 2011 3:46pm Report this comment"On paper, at least, Miliband still has the Darling Plan – but, then, he also has Balls. Will the latter undermine the former in a way that MiliD wouldn't have? Answers on a postcard, please."
No postcard, I'm afraid, but this could be quite a shrewd move, in a stretched, Labour sort of way. As long as no one has a clue which of the Darling approach or the Balls approach is official Labour economic policy, the party spokesmen can continue to spout the mood-music of specious generalisations without having to make any firm declarations of what they actually suggest we should be doing.
This, of course, is ideal for Labour, since having to frame policy in reality rather than cloud-cuckoo-land would cause three-quarters of their notional supporters to up and off overnight.
Holly ......
February 24th, 2011 3:56pm Report this commentTrem.3.19.
Balls can & will be 'planning' as we speak..
..Against Miliband.
Miliband will of course,be trying to do the same,and probably blame Thatcher for it,when
he loses to Balls.
Tee hee.
Simon Stephenson
February 24th, 2011 4:11pm Report this commentHolly : 3.13pm
Believe me, he's not stupid. The way to understand the Balls/Brown/RedEd political strategy is to discard the presumption that they are trying to build an economically strong and prosperous nation. They're not. They're seeking at every opportunity to weaken and destabilise the structure upon which economic strength and prosperity depend. It's totally wrong to look at them as well-intentioned incompetents - they are quite happy to be seen in this way, because the reality is that they are clever, cunning and devious wreckers, who won't rest until they have destroyed the means by which we can survive as a non-centralised society.
Their blood-brothers, of course, are the Euro apologists, who drove through the single currency in the sure and certain knowledge that (a) it couldn't possibly work without political integration and (b) by the time this became apparent to the masses, we'd be too far down the road to be able to turn back and rescue the nation-states from destruction.
Simon Stephenson
February 24th, 2011 4:21pm Report this commentSenor Frizby : 2.10pm
Yes, absolutely right.
We need a serious political grouping to challenge the received wisdoms of laissez-faire capitalism - but New Labour, or even New-New Labour, doesn't even begin to fill this role. (Mind you, Old Labour didn't do too well in this, either.)
Occasional Ostrich
February 24th, 2011 4:47pm Report this comment@Simon Stephenson
Remind me again . . . Why was the Sun for sale in 1969?
Who was its previous proprietor?
Didn't he later manage another loss-making enterprise?
Holly ......
February 24th, 2011 6:27pm Report this commentSimon Stephenson.4.11.
Exactly...what I said.The man is STUPID!
You know what Balls & Co are doing,I know what they are doing,are we the only two?
You know their intent,and the flawed reasoning behind it,I know their intent and the warped reasoning behind it,are we the only two?
Balls & Co are STUPID,because they BELIEVE we don't know the flawed,warped reasoning behind their stupid economic strategy,when we clearly do.Long may it remain so.
They,of course are so 'smart'they will not discover how STUPID they are,compared to the public come 2015..IF they are still around that is.
Happy days!!!!!
Tee hee!!!!
Simon Stephenson
February 24th, 2011 10:00pm Report this commentHolly : 6.27pm
We may not be the only two, but we're in a pretty small minority. Most people who oppose Balls/Brown/RedEd do so from the presumption that they are trying to combine greater state involvement and spending with a healthy, functioning private economy to supply the funding - but that they make a balls-up of it through not being very good at finance/economics, nor at assessing human nature.
As I wrote earlier, I think this is a dangerously wrong view to take of Labour's recent and current leadership. Far from seeking to sustain a healthy private sector, I think Labour's objective is a two-pronged attempt to suffocate it - first by swamping it with unnecessary, unhelpful and uneconomic red tape in areas where controls are not required, and secondly by removing and watering down the essential checks and controls in areas where they are needed - such as the financial sector.
Regrettably, too few people have the confidence to allow themselves the thought that we may have the devil in our midst - to most, the idea that the main party of the left may be led by a bunch of fifth-columnists is too much for their minds to cope with.
Back to top