House of Comments - Episode 85 - Leaving the Lib Dems

Episode 85 of the House of Comments podcast "Leaving the Lib Dems" is out. Myself and Emma are joined by co-editor of Lib Dem Voice Caron Lindsay to discuss how politics works with respect to my decision to leave the Lib Dems, Tory web history deletion shenanigans and the Ed Balls "Nightmare" e-mail.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes here.

Other podcasting software e.g. for Android can be pointed here to subscribe.

You can download the mp3 for the latest episode directly from here.

Or you can listen to the embedded episode below here:

listen to ‘Episode 85 - Leaving the Lib Dems’ on Audioboo

Any feedback welcomed in the comments below.


PS: A big thanks to Audioboo for hosting the podcast for us. We would also like to thank Kevin MacLeod from Incompetech.com for our theme music.

Power Trip by Damian McBride - Review

When Iain Dale first made public the fact that Damian McBride was going to publish a book about his experiences as Gordon Brown's spin doctor I instantly suspected it was going to be one of the most important political books of the decade.

Despite largely being out of favour since he was fired in April 2009 as a result of the leak of the "Red Rag" emails, in recent times he had begun something of a political rehabilitation due to his brilliantly written blog where he would occasionally comment on former and current political events. In this format he wrote with sincerity, self-criticism and with deep insight regarding the issues he was covering. In particular I recall his blog post* following the omnishambles budget last year where he revealed the secrets of the "score card" system that had been used during his time at the Treasury and how the fact that some of the measures that Osborne had tried to introduce would never had (and indeed didn't) made it through in his time thus demonstrating weaknesses in the current setup.

So it was clear that McBride is an excellent writer of long-form blog posts (my favourite kind) and he clearly had lots of experience at the heart of the Labour government. I was therefore greatly looking forward to the release of Power Trip: A Decade of Policy, Plots and Spin. I am happy to say that I have not been disappointed.

The first thing to say is that I think the book is structured very well. It is essentially in the form of 52 long-form blog posts. As this was clearly a format that worked well for him the decision to structure it in bite-sized chunks certainly seemed to work. I suspect there was more than a little of Dale's influence at work here, himself an experienced and successful political blogger. One result of this decision is that although the book does follow a sort of chronology there is a fair bit of jumping about in order to link things that had happened previously and that also happened in the future that were relevant in some way or that presaged later events. But I think it works as a device as it helps set the context and also shows like a flashing beacon as the book progresses the car crash that is inevitably coming.

When I saw McBride interviewed by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight just before the book's publication Paxman rather sneeringly (as is his wont) asked him how we could believe anything in the book given that in various places in it he admits to having previously lied when a spin-doctor. I can't be 100% sure that everything in the book is 100% true but all I can say is it reads as if written from the perspective of someone who is deeply sorry about the worst of his actions and is still trying to come to terms with the person he became as he was sucked further and further into the mire of dirty politics.

I'm not going to single out any of the revelations in the book as they have been done to death in the mainstream media. I knew a few of them but there are plenty that were new to me. It is really however more interesting for the general picture it paints of life as close adviser to Gordon Brown.

Brown comes across as a kindly but irascible figure, prone to outbursts of temper whilst also capable of extraordinary acts of kindness such as his words to McBride on the death of his father about how proud he must have been of him and his brothers whilst he sat there in a pub with tears rolling down his face. Brown is also painted as an intellectual titan and voracious reader who never, ever stopped thinking about politics and what the next job was.

A laugh out loud moment is when he has to deliver bad news early on to Brown who predictably reacts badly, shouting with his fists balled moving towards him (although McBride makes clear Brown was never physically violent towards anyone in his experience) and he figures the best response is to get angry himself so he starts shouting, swearing and kicks over a chair. At which point Brown instantly stops and tells him to calm down! An interesting tactic I might have to remember myself one day.

The two Eds, Miliband and Balls regularly pop up and are treated sympathetically. They come across as highly intelligent both with economics and also politics and are key figures throughout the book. There are also some interesting insights from McBride as to what drives each man based upon his up close observations. The section where Ed Miliband eventually decides he can't trust our protagonist any more is chilling with respect to the sang-froid with which the final call where he repeatedly tells him he thinks he is a "liar" is delivered. Food for thought for anyone who thinks Miliband does not have the steel to be Prime Minister one day. He clearly does if this is anything to go by.

On the subject of dirty tricks which are covered extensively McBride goes into lots of detail as to how stories were leaked, political editors and reporters effectively bribed with "better" stories to head them away from things he and his boss would not have wanted splashed on the front pages and generally would seem to serve as a guide to spin-doctoring. I suspect many current and aspiring spinners will be scouring this book for tips and tricks from one of the best in the business. McBride even seems to implicitly point to his not being there as one of the main reasons for various media cock-ups such as the Gillian Duffy episode from the 2010 election where Brown was inadvertently recorded describing her as a "bigoted woman".

One criticism I would level at the book is that some of his behaviour towards the Blair camp is brushed off with a rather insouciant "they were as bad as we were" mentality. I have to say that from what I know of what happened on the Blair side of the camp, yes they were not great but any objective analysis would surely show that the Brown spin camp spearheaded by McBride were worse. Indeed McBride spells it out in painstaking detail throughout the book rather undermining his complacency in this area. A little bit more humility about this would have helped I feel.

Overall though it is an excellent read and for a political geek like me there was enough behind the scenes colour and filling in the gaps for episodes that I recall seeing unfold from the outside to keep me glued to it for the 2 days (on and off) it took me to read it. It does however lend itself to dipping in and out of due to the blog like nature of it as described earlier.

I would certainly recommend this book to anyone interested in politics and/or the processes that go on behind the scenes. I suspect that all the main movers and shakers of all parties will have it on their reading lists, and that's if they haven't already read it. In the world of Westminster there is almost no bigger compliment for political memoirs. It shows you once mattered and Damian McBride certainly did.


PS: We covered the fallout from Damian McBride's book in this week's House of Comments podcast recorded in Brighton at the Labour conference.

*Incidentally his entire blog now appears to have been taken off the internet, perhaps because of the publication of this book but his budget post can still be seen in this cross-posting on Liberal Conspiracy.

House of Comments - Episode 65 - The Spending Review Review

Episode 65 of the House of Comments podcast "The Spending Review Review" is out. This week myself and Emma Burnell are joined by Conservative liberal campaigning organisation Bright Blue's Kate Maltby to discuss the spending review and the related fortunes of the parties in its wake, the double dip that never was, royal spending, ministerial no shows and violent porn.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes here.

Other podcasting software e.g. for Android can be pointed here to subscribe.

You can download the mp3 for the latest episode directly from here.

Or you can listen to the embedded episode below here:

listen to ‘Episode 65 - The Spending Review Review’ on Audioboo

If you are a political blogger and wish to be considered as a future guest please drop me an e-mail at markreckons@live.co.uk.

Any feedback welcomed in the comments below.


PS: A big thanks to Audioboo for hosting the podcast for us and especially to Audioboo's James O'Malley who has helped us out getting relaunched. James is also editor of The Pod Delusion podcast which is about "interesting things" and is well worth a listen too! We would also like to thank Kevin MacLeod from Incompetech.com for our theme music.

House of Comments - Episode 62 - Taking an Interest

Episode 62 of the House of Comments podcast "Taking an Interest" was recorded yesterday and is out today. This week in a slightly shorter episode than normal myself and Emma Burnell are joined by author Carl Packman to discuss payday lenders and what can be done to provide loans from alternative sources, the US PRISM scandal and how it relates to privacy questions in the UK and Labour's repositioning on pensions policy.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes here.

Other podcasting software e.g. for Android can be pointed here to subscribe.

You can download the mp3 for the latest episode directly from here.

Or you can listen to the embedded episode below here:

listen to ‘Episode 62 - Taking an Interest’ on Audioboo

If you are a political blogger and wish to be considered as a future guest please drop me an e-mail at markreckons@live.co.uk.

Any feedback welcomed in the comments below.


PS: A big thanks to Audioboo for hosting the podcast for us and especially to Audioboo's James O'Malley who has helped us out getting relaunched. James is also editor of The Pod Delusion podcast which is about "interesting things" and is well worth a listen too! We would also like to thank Kevin MacLeod from Incompetech.com for our theme music.

House of Comments - Episode 61 - Total Recall

Episode 61 of the House of Comments podcast "Total Recall" was recorded yesterday and is out today. This week in a slightly shorter episode than normal myself and Emma Burnell discuss the latest parliamentary scandal and ask whether we need a clampdown on lobbying and also the ability for MPs to be recalled as well as Labour's latest announcement on means testing pensioner benefits.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes here (note - this is a new feed so if you used to subscribe to the old feed a couple of years ago you'll need to do so again).

Other podcasting software e.g. for Android can be pointed here to subscribe.

You can download the mp3 for the latest episode directly from here.

Or you can listen to the embedded episode below here:

listen to ‘Episode 61 - Total Recall’ on Audioboo

If you are a political blogger and wish to be considered as a future guest please drop me an e-mail at markreckons@live.co.uk.

Any feedback welcomed in the comments below.


PS: A big thanks to Audioboo for hosting the podcast for us and especially to Audioboo's James O'Malley who has helped us out getting relaunched. James is also editor of The Pod Delusion podcast which is about "interesting things" and is well worth a listen too! We would also like to thank Kevin MacLeod from Incompetech.com for our theme music.

Ed Balls is a proven liar

I'll be honest, I have never liked Ed Balls. I used to struggle to put it into words but he has always come across as slimy and disingenuous. For me, previous claims he has made about his innocence regarding any role he might have had in trying to oust Tony Blair did not ring true.

And he has kept up the denials through thick and thin. When Andrew Rawnsley published his book last year "The End of the Party" which went into great detail about Brown's various alleged plots and Balls' role in them I remember categorical denunciations from Balls on the media. Not only that but Rawnsley himself and his reputation was traduced by various Labour figures and especially a lot of the more partisan activists on Twitter.

But isn't it funny how the more the concrete evidence comes to light, the more the sort of picture that Rawnsley was painting becomes ever more clearly true?

The Telegraph has today published details of letters that apparently are from a box that was supposed to go to Balls but has ended up in their hands. They include correspondence between Gordon Brown and Tony Blair from 2005 and 2006 with content and handwritten annotations that make it completely clear that not only was Brown actively plotting to overthrow Blair from at least 2005, but that Balls was up to his neck in the scheming too.

That makes his previous on the record claims that he was "never ever" involved in attempting to undermine colleagues now provably untrue.

The Labour Party should reflect on this and consider whether they really want someone who is happy to go onto the media and say things that are blatantly untrue in such an important position as the Treasury brief. Not to mention how someone who has been so disloyal in the past will now struggle to inspire loyalty in other colleagues.

The Labour Westminster Village may have known what he had been up to and have been largely willing to overlook it but there is now a smoking gun so the rest of us can see the truth of the matter too.

For that reason I now suspect that any residual future leadership ambitions for Mr Balls have bitten the dust. He is far too compromised by his past.

Here is a 6 minute clip from This Week during the Labour leadership campaign last year where Balls repeatedly denies what there is now written evidence to demonstrate:

Three reasons why Ed Balls will not make as much difference as some think

With the resignation of Alan Johnson and the promotion of Ed Balls to the shadow chancellor brief Labour now have someone with an economic background in the most important role outside of the Leader of the Opposition's office. In fact given the current economic situation it could be argued that the shadow chancellor is even more important than the LOTO right now.

He is being heralded to great cheers by most within Labour and is lauded as an economic big hitter by much of the media. However there are three reasons why I think Ed Balls may not make as much of a difference as many people think. And in fact he could become a millstone around Labour's neck.

1) The obvious first point is that he is very closely associated with Gordon Brown. He was his chief economic and political confidante right through from opposition in 1994 to when Brown became PM in 2007. Even then he was still one of his closest political allies. Given how much influence he had over Brown it is going to be quite easy to paint him as culpable in various ways for the economic problems the country now finds itself in. The only way to extricate himself from this is to denounce important parts of what Gordon Brown did and I cannot see that happening. So he is damaged goods before he even starts.*

2) The economy is in a bad state. There is a huge deficit and a growing public debt. The coalition government has embarked upon a strategy that focuses primarily on cutting the deficit with the aim of bringing the public finances to order. There are risks involved with this approach and it might all go horribly wrong in the next few years. Labour in its first 8 months in opposition have made it clear that they would not have enacted many of the cuts announced by the government and whoever is shadow chancellor it is clear that Labour's message in one way or another is going to be less cuts and more "investment" with growth being the driver to reduce the deficit. If the economy does go south and it can be demonstrated that the government's plan has failed then the governing parties' strategy will be shot to ribbons. If however it does work then Labour will find it very difficult to win the next election, after all they will be seen as not only having presided over the problems in the first place but also to have been on the wrong side of the argument as to what to do about it. And frankly it does not really matter too much who is in the role of shadow chancellor for how this will play out. It is largely dictated by economic events over the next few years.

3) The hype is too great. I have lost count of the number of times I have read phrases like "economic big hitter" and "he will land punch after punch on Osborne" in the last 48 hours. Yes he is an economic expert (although point 1 does diminish his claims on this somewhat) and he did well at attacking the government during the Labour leadership campaign but the expectation management has gone seriously awry. If he does not come out of his corner and continually land knock-out blows on Osborne and the government in the next few weeks then the narrative could very quickly start to turn. Stories about him having been a damp squib and perhaps not such a great candidate for the role will start to filter up. The press love to knock people down off pedestals and the way he has been built up so far leaves him very exposed to this possibility. If I was Ed Balls I would be furiously trying to play down my likely initial impact. The truth is that there are not so many opportunities for opposition economic spokespeople at this stage of the electoral cycle anyway. Even when the budget comes around, lest we forget it is the Leader of the Opposition who will stand up initially in the House of Commons to respond to the Chancellor. Balls will not actually get the chance to even try and land punches directly after the showcase economic event of the year. We are more than 4 years from a general election. Balls' value to the opposition is likely to be in building a strong and coherent economic policy basis to move forward on but if the hype continues he may not even get the chance to do this before he is already deemed a failure.

Don't get me wrong, I think Balls is a smart appointment to the role (although I actually think appointing Yvette Cooper would have been smarter for various reasons which I may blog about in future) but he is unlikely to live up to expectations and he comes with probably the heaviest political baggage of anyone else on the Labour front-bench.

*I am aware that a similar charge could have been levelled against David Cameron as he was an adviser to Norman Lamont in the early 1990s and was even pictured hovering behind Lamont when he made his now fateful Black Monday announcement. Indeed Gordon Brown relished making this connection over and over again and it never seemed to do Cameron much harm. The big difference is that Cameron was a very junior adviser to Lamont for a relatively short time after which he went off to do other things in the private sector before coming back as an MP in 2001. The link was pretty weak and hence the attacks were quite ineffectual too. Balls' situation is very, very different and attacks on him for his links to Brown are much more likely to stick.

Why would either Miliband want Balls on their coattails?

There have been all sorts of rumours flying around in the last few days that Ed Balls was about to pull out of the Labour leadership contest and throw his weight behind one of the two front runners (one of the Miliband brothers). He has denied this and insisted that he is fighting on.

He has the support of fewer unions and CLPs than his two main rivals and it certainly looks like he cannot now win. There have even been suggestions that when it comes to the vote in September that he could end up being eliminated first. This would be an utter humiliation for Balls. So you can understand why the stories about him planning to drop out and swing behind one of the front runners had a ring of plausibility. It would be real damage limitation for Balls and would likely secure him a senior shadow cabinet role if the one he chose was to win. Perhaps even his long coveted chancellorship portfolio (albeit in opposition).

But what would be in it for whichever Miliband he swung behind? OK, so it would give them a few more first preferences although of course not all those who would have voted for Balls will slavishly vote for whoever he decides to grease up to. And because this election is AV, and given that Balls is likely to be eliminated then many of these votes will ultimately transfer that way anyway.

I do concede than in an extremely tightly fought race between the top two, Balls' support could, in extremis make the difference. However look at the price the winner would be paying. They would have Balls in a very senior position and essentially unsackable. Gordon Brown's protege, the man above all others he was politically closest to would probably end up with the treasury role with the leader beholden to them and also perhaps with a simmering resentment from Balls that he did not win himself. Does any of this sound familiar?

Some of the more sensible comments from the candidates during the campaign so far have been to acknowledge that the psychodramas of the past and the nonsense that went with the TB-GBs (that is now being confirmed by very senior members of the former administration such as Peter Mandelson) was very damaging for the party and that they need to move on from that way of operating. The last thing the winning candidate needs to do is set the party up for another decade of dysfunctional internecine fighting at the very top. Far better for whoever does win to do so on their own with their own mandate for leading the party away from its discredited past.

So it would be very wise for both Milibands to resist any overtures from Balls. It would take real courage to reject what could seem on the surface like a way of boosting their chances but they should resist nonetheless.

In fact were they to do this, I would expect Balls to deny that he had ever entertained the notion and to claim that he was going to fight on.

Perhaps the Milibands are made of sterner stuff than it may initially appear....

Everyone is a liar apart from Ed Balls apparently

Ed Balls was the Labour leadership contender guest last night on BBC's This Week programme (viewable here for the next week or so - see 24:45 onwards for 5 minutes).

Andrew Neil gave him a grilling about his behaviour as referenced in various memoirs and political books including those by Alastair Campbell, Andrew Rawnsley and Anthony Seldon. In each case it tended to be related to how badly behaved Balls had been and also how rude and disrespectful he was alleged to have been to Tony Blair. It was also about how he was supposed to have been involved in the plot to oust Blair in 2006.

Balls' response was to flatly deny every one of the several allegations put to him by Neil and alleged by the various authors. When pressed as to whether those writing these books were lying he even said yes a few times. So effectively what Ed Balls is saying that within a number of recent memoirs/books from a number of different (in some cases very widely respected) authors allegations about him are complete lies.

When things are denied by active politicians from memoirs, I always find it funny how many of them turn out to eventually be true when the record is written by their contemporaries and even their friends. The dysfunctional relationship between Blair and Brown was always poo-poohed by the protagonists themselves and spinners like Campbell and Mandelson and yet, lo and behold when their books come out they are jam packed with examples of how the rumours were largely true. We have even seen recently that some of the allegations in Rawnsley's book "The End of the Party" that only a few months ago Mandelson was being deployed to silkily deny are now confirmed by his own tome.

I am afraid that I find Ed Balls' contention that he is telling the truth and everyone else is a liar difficult to swallow. And the more books that come out claiming these things, the less and less credible his position will be.

No wonder so many of Labour's opponents want Balls to win the contest to succeed Brown.

Watch Ed Balls wriggle

I've just watched Ed Balls' being interviewed by Andrew Neil on The Daily Politics yesterday and my goodness does he wriggle?

Here are a few highlights:

When cross-examined about things that people have said about him and his tendencies he keeps demanding that Neil "name them". He offers both Jackie Ashley and Alastair Campbell as examples both of whom he then tries to dismiss out of hand.

He tries breathtakingly to claim that he does not need to talk about what cuts he would make as he is not in government! I never noticed his mentor Gordon Brown holding back on demanding the opposition answer his questions all throughout his tenure.

He claims at 1:47 that "There are no anonymous briefings from me". I think he is being very careful with the tense here making sure he is talking about the present. There are far too many people who in the past could testify to his tendency to rely very much on this form of briefing. Has the leopard really changed its spots?

He claims he is "good mates" with Ed and David Miliband. I can't wait for the memoirs in a few years time!

He claims he didn't want Tony Blair out early in the 2005 parliament.

I think I will leave it there.

For anyone who follows politics many of his answers beggar belief frankly and just underline why he would be such a disastrous leader for Labour.

Did Alastair Campbell pay towards Ed Balls ousting attempt?

I was talking to Antony Calvert today, the Conservative candidate who narrowly missed out on toppling Ed Balls from his Morley and Outwood seat in the general election last month and he revealed something potentially interesting.

We were discussing how successful his fund-raising campaign had been and he told me that one of the contributors to his fund had been Alastair Campbell.

Now I am not certain that this is the same person as Tony Blair's former chief spin-doctor. It is not after all an uncommon name and Antony may have been yanking my chain. Perhaps for example it was Ali Campbell the former lead singer of UB40 instead...

However if it was the Campbell politicos know and love then perhaps he was demonstrating that he is well aware of something that most outside Labour circles know, Balls would be a disaster as Labour leader. As Antony acknowledged during my discussion with him today, he may well have done the nation a favour by reducing Balls' majority to just over 1,000 making him a risky bet for Labour to elect him for other reasons. Although he would actually have liked to see Balls as Labour leader like a lot of Labour's opponents for obvious reasons!

UPDATE: I think I may have got this one wrong. I have not yet been able to contact Antony again to make certain of this but from what someone else has mentioned to me apparently Campbell cracked a supportive joke to Antony regarding the Ed Balls fight at an awards ceremony. I think the confusion has arisen because we were discussing fund-raising and then Antony mentioned something about Campbell being a supporter and I misunderstood what this meant.

Apologies both to Antony Calvert and Alastair Campbell if I have got it wrong.

So sadly it looks like the answer to the question I pose in the title is no!

Why Ed Balls would be a disaster for Labour

The Labour Party suffered a big defeat at the polls last month.

It may not seem like it due to quirks in our electoral system giving them far more seats than any other party would have got on 29% of the vote but that vote share is the second worst for them since before the second world war.

The voters have rejected the party. The fact that Gordon Brown stood down so quickly is an acknowledgement of this fact. He recognised that the party needed to draw a line under what had gone before and move on.

It can be very hard for governing parties to properly accept this though.

From 1979, it took Labour a very long time to recognise that things had changed and that it needed to change with them. They initially chose Michael Foot who was a disaster for them and led them to an even lower vote share than in 2010 (although to be fair he was also contending with the SDP). Neil Kinnock instituted some reforms in the 1980s but did not go far enough. It was only with Tony Blair in the 1990s that Labour fully recognised how much it had to change to win electability. That was 15 years after initial defeat. To all intents and purposes, the party that Blair led was a different one to that of Callaghan and Foot.

From 1997 it took the Conservatives over 8 years to recognise what had gone wrong and what it needed to do to become electable again. They started with William Hague who initially seemed to be trying to make his party more centrist but as the 2001 election got closer he bizarrely moved his party more to the right with some policies that just reminded people of what they had rejected in 1997. His replacement Iain Duncan Smith was such an electoral liability that the party did not even allow him to try and fight one but instead he was toppled in favour of "safe pair of hands" Michael Howard. Unfortunately although he might have been a safe choice in term of experience, again he just reminded people of what they had got rid of so comprehensively 8 years earlier. It was only under David Cameron that the "detoxification" job really began in earnest and led to the changes that eventually allowed his party to be electable once again.

So looking at recent history, the Labour Party would be mad to elect Ed Balls as its leader in 2010. He was the former PM's closest political ally. In the absence of the man himself it is the closest to continuing with Brown himself that the party could get. Nothing would communicate a message to the country that the party was not willing to change more than electing Balls.

He was interviewed by Eddie Mair a couple of weeks ago and asked which of Gordon Brown's policies he disagreed with. He was unable to give any sort of coherent answer. Unsurprising given how close the two of them were but this is precisely why Balls cannot be the change that is needed.

Labour need to ask themselves if they want at least a decade in opposition or if they want to be vying for office again in a few years time. If it is the latter then they should not touch the MP for Morley and Outwood with a barge pole.

Ed Balls all over the place

I was just listening to a clip of Eddie Mair's interview with Ed Balls from Wednesday's PM on John Pienaar podcast this week.

Eddie asked Balls a simple enough question, which of Gordon Brown's policies did he disagree with. After much pausing, dithering and hesitating he finally tried to offer some nuance about the Iraq war but Mair pressed him on specific policy issues. Balls could not come up with any.

This underlines the problem with candidates such as Ed Balls and David Miliband who are so closely associated with the government that was recently turfed out of office and is essentially discredited by the electorate now. How can they set out a distinctive vision that responds to the fact that the electorate has rejected their recent government programme but that does not sound like they are repudiating policies that just two weeks ago they were campaigning for? So far all we seem to have heard is wishy washy stuff about "listening" to the voters. Were they not listening before then?

The candidates in this position need to find a better way of responding to these sorts of questions and quickly. Otherwise their proximity to the heart of the previous government will fast be exposed as a reason not to vote for them.

Will you be up for Balls?

There are rumours circulating that Ed Balls might lose his seat at the General Election. Apparently the bookies now have his Tory opponent as the narrow favourite.

I don't normally like these "decapitation strategy" campaigns. I think they are often misguided and more to the point they rarely work.

However in the case of the odious Mr Balls I could make an exception. One of the things that will keep me going on Thursday night/Friday morning (along with the Red Bull) is that in the same way as I was "up for Portillo" in 1997, the hope of being "up for Balls" in 2010.

What if Labour won?

A few months ago this might have seemed like a ridiculous idea but with the polls having narrowed quite significantly in the last few months with one recent poll putting the Tories just 2 points ahead it is possible that Labour may emerge after the election as the largest party. If things went very well for them it is even possible that they could just scrape a majority.

I just wanted to briefly consider how things might pan out if that was to happen.

I think firstly we would be stuck with Brown as PM for a while. Although many within his own party and outside it would want him to go, if he had just "won" an election then he would have a fresh mandate. I expect it would be a couple of years at least before there was any serious move to oust him (and we all know how well those attempt have gone in the last couple of years!). Having said that, the Lib Dems could play a crucial role here. If Labour were short of a majority then the Lib Dems could insist that Brown went before any sort of support could be offered. I can forsee problems with this approach but I think it would be the only way we see the back of Brown in the first couple of years of a new parliament under these circumstances.

Secondly, it would be a nightmare for Brown and his party to govern like this. They have known only either huge or pretty big majorities since 1997. To have to switch to governing either in minority or with a very small majority will be very difficult. Brown is not a consensual politician. He is a very tribal and divisive figure. The idea that he might have to reach out across party lines is anathema to him. He would also always be teetering on the brink of losing votes in the Commons, any one of which could precipitate a vote of no confidence. If you think Brown is paranoid and has a bunker mentality now, wait until he finds himself in this situation!

Thirdly Labour will find it very, very hard to make the eventual adjustments in public spending that are required in order to get the deficit under control. Indeed they have legislated to halve it within a few years and have hence effectively tied their own hands. If they don't do it they will be ridiculed. If they do it will likely entail some very painful measures. I do not think they will try right away but if we are to avoid a fiscal crisis they will have to get a grip on public spending within the first year or two. I fear that they just won't be able to do it. Especially if Brown is at the helm which brings me to my fourth point:

Ed Balls would replace Alistair Darling the day after the election as Chancellor of Exchequer. It is Westminster's worst kept secret that Brown wanted Balls in No 11 during his reshuffle last June but was blocked from doing so. Well after an election "victory" he would have the chance to follow through on this. This ties in with the third point because Balls is made in his master's image and it would effectively mean Brown was back in direct control of the Treasury again. With no robust control independent of No 10, the temptation to use the Treasury in the way Brown really wanted to in the last year, i.e. to promote dividing lines with the Tories will be a temptation too great to resist for Brown I fear which is why I think they will fail to control the deficit.

Another consequence would be that David Cameron would resign as Conservative leader. A bit like with Brown, there is actually no obvious successor to Cameron at the moment so I could not predict how a subsequent leadership election would go. There is a real risk though that the detoxification and centre ground positioning that Cameron spent so long pursuing gets thrown out of the window as the party concludes that its salvation lies in moving to the right again as it did in 2001 and 2005. Perhaps I am being unfair in thinking that could happen but with the recriminations flying around for the election just lost (Tories hate losing elections more than anyone else) it will be a febrile atmosphere and who knows what lessons they will draw. There is historical evidence to think they will be very tempted to move right.

I think Nick Clegg would stick with the idea of not forming a coalition even if there is a hung parliament. Instead I think my party would help the government pass legislation on a case-by-case basis but in this way they would wield significant influence as if we were very unhappy with a particular piece of legislation then we could elect not to vote for it or vote against it and this would have to be borne in mind when it was being drafted.

I think Labour being the largest party is still pretty unlikely but not as unlikely as it seemed when the Tories were 20 points ahead.

I am interested to hear what other people think the consequences of a Labour victory would be.

Ed Balls' trap for Andrew Rawnsley

Ed Balls said something that I thought was worth highlighting when he was on Andrew Marr's show this morning. He was discussing the bullying allegations against Brown and as part of his attempt to discredit Andrew Rawnsley (the author of the book containing the revelations) he pointed out that for two weeks running now, Rawnsley has published pieces defending his work. According to Balls, that is evidence that his book is full of holes.

It is indeed true that Rawnsley has published two op-ed pieces on consecutive weeks in The Observer that have sought to defend his work and reputation. the first one, last week was pre-emptive and the second one was responding to some of the criticisms this week.

But hang on minute. His pre-emptive piece was in order to try and neutralise some of the attacks that he knew would be coming his way from the formidable Labour spin machine (as indeed proved the case during the week) and the second piece was again responding to the smears from the same machine.

What was Rawnsley to do instead? Leave the field entirely open to Labour allowing them to besmirch and smear him and his reputation as much as they liked? He had every right to defend himself and his work. The fact that Balls is trying to use this as a way to smear him further is just silly.

It is an example though of the sort of Catch-22 traps that New Labour are very adept at laying. Just because they sound superficially reasonable though does not mean that they are.

It is time spin like this was fully exposed for the hollow nonsense it really is.

Some MPs are more equal than others

One of the main arguments that opponents of electoral reform to a proportional system use is that some forms of PR create two classes of MP. Now firstly, this is not true for Single Transferable Vote with multi-member constituencies, the system that the Lib Dems and most electoral reformers favour. However it is true for systems like Alternative Vote Plus or Additional Member System. Those systems have a "top-up element" to allow proportionality but that does generally mean that some MPs have constituencies and others don't. In other words some MPs have constituents to answer to and others from the list only have their party to answer to.

Just to reiterate, I (and many like me) do not support these top-up systems but the fact that they exist and in the case of AMS have been used in the past gives supporters of the status quo an opportunity to blur the issue and making this claim of two classes of MP against all variants of PR.

But it is worth just taking a few steps back here and looking at our existing electoral system, First Past the Post. I was struck by the following passage in Chris Mullin's excellent Westminster diaries "A View from the Foothills" when I read it recently:

Friday 11th May (2001)

Much speculation about which members of the New Labour elite will be parachuted into the safe seats vacated by MPs retiring at the last moment. Ed Balls and David Miliband are among the names being mentioned. Not for them the cutting of teeth in hopeless seats or the long, wearying slog around the selection circuit. A few high-level phone calls, a quiet word in the right ears and ... Bob's your uncle ... a safe seat for life. And who knows, within two or three years a foot on the ministerial ladder, first steps on the inevitable rise to the Cabinet.

As we now know, both Balls and Miliband were indeed selected for very safe seats. Miliband in 2001 (he was in the government by 2005 and the cabinet by 2006), Balls in 2005 (he was in the government by 2006 and the cabinet in 2007 as soon as Brown became leader). There are plenty of examples over the years of favoured candidates who are parachuted into safe seats like this and hence their political career is put on the fast track. Because they are gifted a seat where there is virtually no chance of them losing it they don't have to worry too much about what their constituents think. They will not have to have spent years slogging away at getting to know the constituency and their constituents before election and they will have to pay little attention to them after election too. Whereas MPs in less safe or marginal seats will have to pay much more attention to their electors and indeed spend much more time on them.

So we already have MPs who on a sliding scale have to take less and less notice of their constituents as we go up the list of safe seats. That sounds to me very much like a two (or even more than two) classes of MP that we have already.

Under Single Transferable Vote this would not happen. The seat of every single MP would be at risk in every election and they would have to earn re-election. There would be no safe seats. But of course if we had this, how would Blair have been able to secure an easy passage for Miliband and Brown likewise for Balls into the Commons and ultimately the cabinet?

Also, the seats of even the most senior politicians would need to be tended to properly and the electors engaged with.

This is why the decision on how they are elected cannot be left up to the MPs themselves. They have already proved that they cannot be trusted with their own remuneration. Why should they be any different when it comes to the terms of their own employment?

Fraser Nelson accuses Ed Balls of lying - Balls explodes!

It looks like this article by the always excellent Fraser Nelson on the Spectator blog this morning which accused Ed Balls of lying about the government planning to reduce national debt over the next few years has provoked a strong reaction from Mr Balls. He rang Fraser and "demanded" that he should take the article down!

There is a good summary by Fraser himself in this subsequent blog post.

I just wanted to briefly focus on one aspect of this spat that Fraser sums up here directed at Mr Balls:

Five years ago, you could lie like this on the radio and get away with it. Space is tight in newspapers, no one would devote hundreds of words and graphs - as we did - to expose a lie for what is. But the world has changed now. Blogging has brought new, hyper scrutiny. Blogs have infinite space, and people with endless energy, to expose political lying - no matter how small. Your claims can be instantly counter-checked, by anyone. If you stretch the truth, you can be exposed - by anyone. And if you plan to base a whole election campaign on a lie, as you apparently intend to do, then you're in for a rude awakening.

Fraser is bang on here. I don't think that team Brown have yet twigged how this new media world works despite having been burnt by Smeargate. They can't just swagger around bullying a few political journalists and get the line they wish out there. There are countless thousands of us now, bloggers, citizen journalists, call us what you want and we WILL hold them to account for what they say and do. We are not reliant on the lobby system for favours and we will tell it as we see it.

Even if Fraser had have been forced to take his post down you can bet that there would have been mirrored copies of it up straight away along with lots of blog posts referring to it. Trying to get the article taken down like this is politically cack-handed.

And finally, if Mr Balls does not like being called a liar, he and his colleagues should stop lying. It is as simple as that.

Is this an off the record briefing from David Miliband?

Paul Waugh has highlighted something interesting. Apparently there has been an off the record briefing by "allies of the Foreign Secretary" in The Independent which rubbish Ed Balls in relation to his comments about the Iraq inquiry.

Now I am not saying that Ed Balls does not deserve this, he is a big boy and can doubtless take it as he so often dishes it out, but the comments contrast sharply with David Miliband's calls last week for the media to:

abandon unattributable briefings, saying all politicians’ spokesmen should be named, or not quoted by media outlets. "The gotcha culture of politics is not in anyone’s interests"

So presumably Mr Miliband is not happy with this latest development and will insist that the person involved be named. And if the Indy will not name them, Mr Miliband should name them himself in order to strike a blow against the spin and counter spin culture he clearly wants to change.

Oh, and if it turns out to have been Mr Miliband himself then surely his commitment to what he said last week is shot to ribbons?

Another Gordon Brown wager!

During the BBC Question Time Live Chat on here on Thursday, I had a £10 bet with fellow blogger Constantly Furious (who always seems to be quite irked about something) that Gordon Brown will not be PM by the end of the year. I feel that the only reason he survived this time round is because of the fear that a General Election would have to be called in short order. However come the Autumn I reckon that a new PM could credibly announce upon accession that the General Election would be held in early spring which is almost when it would have to be held anyway, i.e. Labour would have nothing to lose and perhaps much to gain by plunging in the knife at that point.

Peter Hoskin seems to agree that Brown's position is now exceptionally fragile and with the 2 upcoming by-elections and various other things in the pipeline the fatal blow could come at any point. Apparently Ed Balls might even play the part of Brutus which would have been unthinkable until recently and does illustrate how far we have come.

Anyway, I just wanted to record here the fact of this latest bet. Although it looks like I have almost certainly lost my other wager, I look forward to taking the money off my perpetually irascible friend...