Balls and Miliband respond

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

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.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

New Statesman
Show Hide image

Quiz: Can you identify fake news?

The furore around "fake" news shows no sign of abating. Can you spot what's real and what's not?

Hillary Clinton has spoken out today to warn about the fake news epidemic sweeping the world. Clinton went as far as to say that "lives are at risk" from fake news, the day after Pope Francis compared reading fake news to eating poop. (Side note: with real news like that, who needs the fake stuff?)

The sweeping distrust in fake news has caused some confusion, however, as many are unsure about how to actually tell the reals and the fakes apart. Short from seeing whether the logo will scratch off and asking the man from the market where he got it from, how can you really identify fake news? Take our test to see whether you have all the answers.

 

 

In all seriousness, many claim that identifying fake news is a simple matter of checking the source and disbelieving anything "too good to be true". Unfortunately, however, fake news outlets post real stories too, and real news outlets often slip up and publish the fakes. Use fact-checking websites like Snopes to really get to the bottom of a story, and always do a quick Google before you share anything. 

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.