Operation Target Ed Balls

The key question is why these documents were leaked now.

If, to borrow Harold Wilson's dictum, a week is a long time in politics, it's not hard to see why some in Labour are dismissing today's Telegraph splash ("Ed Balls's 'brutal' plot to overthrow Tony Blair") as "ancient history". But the story deserves more scrutiny than that.The paper has obtained a cache of 36 leaked documents outlining how Ed Balls and Ed Miliband fought to get Gordon Brown into Number 10 within weeks of the 2005 general election. The private papers, which belong to Balls, contain no single, startling revelation and will be of interest to few other than Westminster Kremlinologists. But there is no doubt that they are damaging to the shadow chancellor. They contradict his public insistence that he never sought to undermine Blair (just a year ago he dismissed claims that he was disloyal to the former PM as "balderdash") and will hinder his attempts to detoxify his brand.

Then there's the question of why, six years on, these documents have come to light now. Balls says he last saw the papers in a file on his desk at the education department shortly before the 2010 election. The shadow chancellor is not a man short of enemies in either Labour or the Conservative Party and the documents are almost certain to have been leaked by a political opponent. Sir Gus O'Donnell, the cabinet secretary, has already sanctioned an investigation into the loss of the papers. At a time when the government's economic strategy is under increasingy scrutiny, partly thanks to Balls's efforts as shadow chancellor, the leak is highly convenient, to say the least.

In devoting so much attention to this story the Telegraph is aiming to use Balls and Miliband's past to damage their present. Whether it will succeed is another matter. The documents might fascinate the Westminster village but they will be of little concern to the public, most of whom long ago lost interest in the TB-GB psychodrama. The Damian McBride scandal inflicted considerable damage on Labour's poll rating but other revelations, such as those of Gordon Brown's "bullying", failed to do so. The Tories, however, who pointedly refer to Balls as a "man with a past" will still welcome these papers as political gold.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Home Office made Theresa May. But it could still destroy her

Even politicians who leave the Home Office a success may find themselves dogged by it. 

Good morning. When Theresa May left the Home Office for the last time, she told civil servants that there would always be a little bit of the Home Office inside her.

She meant in terms of its enduring effect on her, but today is a reminder of its enduring ability to do damage on her reputation in the present day.

The case of Jamal al-Harith, released from Guantanamo Bay under David Blunkett but handed a £1m compensation payout under Theresa May, who last week died in a suicide bomb attack on Iraqi forces in Mosul, where he was fighting on behalf of Isis. 

For all Blunkett left in the wake of a scandal, his handling of the department was seen to be effective and his reputation was enhanced, rather than diminished, by his tenure. May's reputation as a "safe pair of hands" in the country, as "one of us" on immigration as far as the Conservative right is concerned and her credibility as not just another headbanger on stop and search all come from her long tenure at the Home Office. 

The event was the cue for the Mail to engage in its preferred sport of Blair-bashing. It’s all his fault for the payout – which in addition to buying al-Harith a house may also have fattened the pockets of IS – and the release. Not so fast, replied Blair in a punchy statement: didn’t you campaign for him to be released, and wasn’t the payout approved by your old pal Theresa May? (I paraphrase slightly.)

That resulted in a difficult Q&A for Downing Street’s spokesman yesterday, which HuffPo’s Paul Waugh has posted in full here. As it was May’s old department which has the job of keeping tabs on domestic terror threats the row rebounds onto her. 

Blair is right to say that every government has to “balance proper concern for civil liberties with desire to protect our security”. And it would be an act of spectacular revisionism to declare that Blair’s government was overly concerned with civil liberty rather than internal security.

Whether al-Harith should never have been freed or, as his family believe, was picked up by mistake before being radicalised in prison is an open question. Certainly the journey from wrongly-incarcerated fellow traveller to hardened terrorist is one that we’ve seen before in Northern Ireland and may have occurred here.

Regardless, the presumption of innocence is an important one but it means that occasionally, that means that someone goes on to commit crimes again. (The case of Ian Stewart, convicted of murdering the author Helen Bailey yesterday, and who may have murdered his first wife Diane Stewart as well, is another example of this.)

Nonetheless, May won’t have got that right every time. Her tenure at the Home Office, so crucial to her reputation as a “safe pair of hands”, may yet be weaponised by a clever rival, whether from inside or outside the Conservative Party. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.