The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Balls and Miliband respond

Shadow chancellor rejects claims that he "plotted" to oust Blair.

By George Eaton Published 10 June 2011 14:10

Keynes's rottweiler has come out fighting. In response to today's Telegraph splash, Ed Balls has rejected claims that the documents unearthed by the paper prove that he was "plotting" to oust Tony Blair.

He said:

The idea that these documents show there was a plot or an attempt to remove Tony Blair is just not true. It's not justified either by the documents themselves or by what was actually happening at the time. The fact is, after 2004, and then on, there was a discussion between Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and others, including myself, about how we managed that stable and orderly transition ... There is nothing here to justify the claim of a plot and, therefore, for me, that's obviously a bit frustrating today.

But there's a wider point here, I think Labour Party members and people in the country will look at this and say: why was it the case that there were these formal talks, why were there these discussions? The reality was Gordon Brown and Tony Blair had achieved great things together but by this period it was hard, the relationship was under stress, there was a lot of pressure, there were difficulties, there were arguments. I think people will look back and say that it could have been done better. I agree with that and there's a lesson here for us a party because we've got to make sure that at a time when jobs are under pressure, when the coalition is making mistakes, we as a Labour Party are united. That's what I'm determined to show.

Ed Miliband has also responded. The Labour leader tweeted: "Did round of i'views in my constituency. On Telegraph story, I told them- Blair/Brown era is over. Labour & country looking to future."

So far, the absence of a killer revelation means that the story has failed to excite the public. One wonders if, as in the case of expenses scandal, the Telegraph is saving the best till last.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Ed Miliband Ed Balls

More from George Eaton

View the discussion thread.

22 comments

Fri, 2011-06-10 14:28 — J Hill (not verified)

It's very tempting to call this a Westminster Village story, but the media is obsessed by it and therefore it will get in the faces of the public big time and is this kind of thing which, over time, reinforces the idea that Ed Miliband (and Balls) are not really fit for their jobs, let alone High Office again. Perception equals reality no question. Bear in mind most Labour MPs dislike them both anyway and that (I think) Ed Miliband's treatment of his brother David is a much, much bigger issue than a lot of people realise. Character is very important to the electorate and the Left always underestimate this.

Fri, 2011-06-10 14:42 — Stu (not verified)

@J Hill,

Bang on target but lets also remember that politions have always back stabbed each other to get into power, it's not the first time but I guess this time is a little more serious as to the character of Ed.

As you've rightly said, Ed and Balls are now perceived to have plotted against Blair and Ed has fought off his bro. His character is now tainted and will the public see him as a future PM? I doubt it even more now.

Goodbye Ed, Mr Balls will now back stab you to become the leader... just a wild guess :D

Fri, 2011-06-10 15:06 — Keir

'Ed Miliband's treatment of his brother David is a much, much bigger issue than a lot of people realise.'

There is a certain amount of self-contradiction in this. If David and Ed are politically equivalent, whose damn business is it if they have a wee family spat? If they are not politically equivalent, who the hell has the right to decide which one of them goes for leadership?

It looks like right wing people again showing why they don't deserve to be in power, ever. But maybe it isn't.

Fri, 2011-06-10 15:08 — Stuart Eels (not verified)

Someone was on these pages when "it's a balls up" was made Shadow Chancellor, saying what an impact he would make well he has now!

Be careful what you wish for!

Fri, 2011-06-10 15:13 — Indu Pendent (not verified)

Labour's problem is that it has the wrong kind of Balls

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/31346/ed-balls-nazi-costume-attacked-v...

Nice guy.

Does Labour deserves Balls?

Fri, 2011-06-10 15:35 — Freeman2

J Hill writes, 'Ed Miliband's treatment of his brother David is a much, much bigger issue than a lot of people realise.'

'Treatment' as in 'defeating him in an open election' do you mean? Yes, that certainly is a big issue. Do you mean David should have been ushered in Brown-style with no contest?

Fri, 2011-06-10 15:36 — Freeman2

It's fascinating how afraid of Balls the Tories are. He's a bully, certainly, but not to the extent that the Tory front bench should be messing their pants.

Sat, 2011-06-11 14:22 — Stuart Eels (not verified)

Livers
"Who really gives a toss? Old News.

Nice try pal, your blustering bullying hero, who still holds out hope of high office has been shown in all his glory, probably by the more sane side of Labour, who well know that they unelectable with these jokers in charge!

Have just read the online article in today's Telegraph, if only 25% of it's true, it confirms my opinion of Comrades Brown and Balls.

Fri, 2011-06-10 16:27 — maxinemf

They key question here is who leaked this document and who has the most to gain. The intent is clear: to smear Ed Balls who has been doing a pretty good job against the hapless Boy George. Is it not interesting that the day after Tom Watson comes out in Parliament and further implicates NOW in phone hacking and other more serious breaches of privacy that the right wing press come out with a story of their own designed to discredit Labour. Let us not forget that prior to relinquishing power Blair was deeply unpopular within his own party. Let us not forget too that Blair took us into an illegal war with Iraq which most LP members have never forgiven him for. Forget all the hype and bluster, Blair was a deeply unpopular man within and outside the LP. Ed Miliband is right to insist that this is old news. EM needs to get on with articulating a vision for the future based upon the guarantee of basic human rights in education, housing and health for the citizens of this country. He needs to articulate a citizens charter. Are you listening EM??

Fri, 2011-06-10 16:42 — Marcus (not verified)

Ed Balls will survive this. The reason being that the Tories want him there and will be hoping that this just wounds him and doesnt remove him. He is an easy target and related to what the public perceive as a failed past.

Fri, 2011-06-10 16:45 — jie4v7i14

Labour Party were totally complacent then, and totally up their own arsoles, so yes, Balls believably was carrying on like a megalomanic then. I can believe that. He must have been a right twat then, drowing in his possibilities.

What a plonk.

Fri, 2011-06-10 16:51 — jie4v7i14

Song for Balls, from friends from Brighton, for him to try and chill out and grow some fecking wisdom.

Sit down Balls in a comfortable chair, and LISTEN!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0v_DB3Py_G8

Fri, 2011-06-10 17:03 — maxinemf

I fail to understand the nasty comments directed at EM for simply daring to stand against his brother. He won the election fair and square. Why don't the maliicous die hards just move on or move over?

Fri, 2011-06-10 17:05 — maxinemf

If character is so important to the British people how come we ended up with messrs. Cameron and Clegg?

Fri, 2011-06-10 17:20 — REPAY

This is too Westminster Village to be have any import. Most of us made up our minds about Ed Balls some time ago, based on his policies and track record, rather than his character traits.

Fri, 2011-06-10 18:45 — Indu Pendent (not verified)

@maxinemf
I think you are missing the point.

The two brothers have priavte issues going on and there is alot of ill feeling, resentment and friction. The big headed irritating one didnt hand around after the little brothers wedding due to resentment.

They are committing political suicide by letting sibling resentment leak public.

An irony is that if the head headed irritating one was a better looser he probably would have won.

It would also help if both bothers would drop the fresh-out-of-posh-school naivety.

Fri, 2011-06-10 21:08 — Jamie (not verified)

JohnP said:

"After getting the country involved in illegal wars anyone who played a role in removing Tony Blair should be applauded."

Only to replace him with the #2 in government who supported the war and found the way for it to happen, i.e. pay for it?

Stupid boy.

Sat, 2011-06-11 00:12 — Tu (not verified)

Maxinemf. For Ed to run against his brother means that Ed disagrees with David's political stances or that he is keen to be more successful. One would wonder why perhaps Ed didn't argue with his brother to change his political views?

The arguments over Ed and David are ridiculous at times. The left has a horrible problem of being erudite but incredibly narrow-minded.

The reason that Labour and the left do well in working class communities; communities that are in abundance in the North of England, is because labour addresses community and equality and the right for families to live a prosperoous life. Ed running against his brother would be seen by many people who traditionally vote Labour to be indefensible as it goes against their ideals of family and community, of a certain degree of honesty. Not everyone is lucky enough to read Marx etc and understand the nature of academic arguments. For people on the left to be so dismissive of people's opinions, even if instinctual, is not too dissimilar from the treatment of the working class by the right. Both stem from forcing another opinion over someone else and a view that one person can shout down another person without attempting to form a mutual understanding.

Sat, 2011-06-11 00:45 — elrob

J Hill and Stu
People like you annoy the feck out of me. Who the Hell do you think you are?

The way Ed treated his brother? Why has the older brother got the right to run, and the younger one not? Who the Hell are you or anyone else to decide which? And in a democracy, why can't we all have our say, and people with honest differences fight for what they believe in?

Ed And David had differing philosophies, and as far as I could distinguish, far greater divergence in philosophies than ever existed between Blair and Brown.

That is what makes democracies, you arrogant asses. After 16 years of no election for leader of the Labour party, we were to have much of the top of the Labour party, its cheerleaders in the bloody Guardian and you sycophants bleating that yet another NewLabour succession was not allowed to take place.

Democracy, not hereditary leaders with primogenites getting right of way.

Quite frankly, you lot drove hundreds of thousands out of our party. Well we got it back. Quit yer bloody whinging, 'cos it's wearing thin.