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.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.