The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Syndicate contentRSS

Don't underestimate Ed Balls

The shadow chancellor is repeating the trick that played so well before the 1997 election.

It's seldom a good idea to underestimate your opponent, so when I'd stopped hugging myself at what Twitter was telling me Ed Balls was saying over the weekend, I reasoned he isn't a fool and so there must be method to his apparent madness. Which of course, there is.

And so picture if you will the shadow chancellor luxuriating in a large armchair and stroking a white cat as I take you through his dastardly scheme...

There has of course been some misrepresentation of the facts. Ed Ball's speech actually positions him as the irritating local, replying to a request for directions with a lopsided grin and a sarcastic "I wouldn't have started from here'. This promise to map out a course from wherever he finds himself in 2015 conveniently saves him coming up with any solutions of his own for a while and at the same time allowing him all the wriggle room he needs over coming months.

And it's a trick he's seen pulled off before. It's from the Gordon Brown school of 'how to demonstrate economic competence if you're Labour' that played so well pre the 1997 election. Accept Osborne's sums, say you'll spend the money they leave you more wisely - spending is an area the electorate believes Labour does know something about -and you win. It's worked once before...

And it needs to work again. Because for all the distinctiveness of the shadow chancellor's Keynesian approach, the country seems more inclined to support the notion of belt tightening and austerity to dig us out of the economic mess we find ourselves mired in

There are also tactical advantages to all this. It's been Balls over the last few months who's been leading the doe-eyed flirting with us Lib Dems. What better way to lay the groundwork for a future potential pact, than to accept that all that has gone before cannot be undone? It's like the shadow chancellor is gearing himself up to come over, give us a big hug and say 'what's past is past'.

Of course, some people within the Labour movement are going to be upset by all this - especially the unions when they read about accepting the need for public sector pay freezes. But the unions weren't exactly supportive of Ed Balls during the leadership campaign were they? So not much to lose there. The only one who's going to suffer in that camp is poor Ed Miliband. As some idiot pointed out on Friday, Miliband is safe enough in the leadership while he's seen as playing the game by the rules of the party - but as soon as he starts going anywhere near the centre, the gloves are off, and he's in trouble. And that opens all sorts of doors.

Of course, I hear you cry, the man wielding the knife never gets to lead - Balls wouldn't be so obvious. Except of course, in the Balls household, it's not Ed's turn to go for the leadership - and Yvette is untouched by all this. Isn't it better when you sort out these potential family disputes about whose turn it is to be leader in a mature fashion behind closed doors? If only everyone took the same approach.

So all in all, the latest front in the battle for the economic high ground opens up all sorts of interesting possibilities for the Balls camp.

He's not stupid, is he....

Richard Morris blogs at A View From Ham Common which was named Best New Blog at the 2011 Lib Dem Conference

13 comments

Benjamin Rae's picture

Balls is alot of things but stupid isn't on of them. Having a little look at the backrounds of the Labour front bench and coalition front bench and it's clear that Labour has the higher calibre people.
A good example is the comparison of Balls and Osborne. After his 1st in PPE Balls was a Kennedy scholar at Harvard and gained extensive experience in a variety of roles as an economic advisor and commentator. Osborne has a 2:1 in Modorn History and gained his work experience through the Tory party.
With the help of the media Osborne is good at right wing populist spin. Before becoming chancellor, Osborne's credentialls were thin to say the least. His performance in the position is pretty consistent with what might have been expected

MattNW5's picture

Didn't Cameron get a First and Ed M a 2:1? Hardly overwhelming evidence!

Tristan's picture

A bit of trivia - Cameron and Ed Balls studied PPE at Oxford at the same time (Balls achieved slightly higher). As for Ed M, not sure what grade he got, but I know he dropped Philosophy so, in effect, has a degree in.. erm.. PE.

Chris's picture

The idea that the public would go for the idea of Ed Balls as PM is laughable. I have nothing against him as a person but do Labour columinists not have any clue how the public think??!

Chris's picture

'the trick that played so well before the 1997 election'. Was that the trickthat was about a Labour government being elected and not a neo-liberal clique of right wing careerists and hangers on who outsourced more than even Thatcher managed?

representingthemambo's picture

An interesting take but I still think it's wrong. Balls has made a big mistake here. It may have worked electorally in the short term pre 1997, but in terms of transforming the narrative of British politics n favour of a strong an vibrant public sector, I'm afraid it did little. More here:
http://representingthemambo.wordpress.com/2012/01/15/so-what-did-ed-ball...

Fergus Pickering's picture

It is quite possible to get a first class degree and be a complete bloody fool. balls proves it. You really cannot go grubbing about finding out what exams grown men passed 30 years ago when they were boys.

MattNW5's picture

"Strong and vibrant public sector". Now there's an oxymoron if ever I heard it

kenny jenkins's picture

The trick of 97 was played on Labour's supporters, who believed they were voting a Tory government out. So Balls reckons he can repeat it, and he's probably right. And the point of the exercise would be what exactly?

8910steven's picture

Balls may not be stupid but his ``We`re all pre-Keynesian economic illiterates now `` speech was full of bloody stupid remarks , with justifying a public sector pay freeze on the grounds that `` when you`re faced with a choice between higher pay and protecting jobs you should prioritise employment `` especially being the equivalent of fingers screeching down a blackboard .As though the level of employment had nothing to do with the level of effective demand which in turn had nothing to do with available purchasing power ! Of course increasing the pay of low paid public sector workers through taxation of the wealthy would help employment by transferring purchasing power from those with a lower to those with a higher marginal propensity to consume thus increasing aggregate demand . The fact that precisely the opposite process has been in operation for the last thirty years being one of the main causes of the current realisation (of profits ) crisis .

Benjamin Rae's picture

Highly amusing the hatred Balls seems to provoke amongst the right. He must be doing something right to engender such animosity. I don't agree with him on a number pf things but he's good value for upsetting Tories.

Eddy S's picture

i think it worked the first time round because blair was the most inspirational leader in british politics period. he could walk on water.

balls is the complete opposite no one will believe it from mr let me run a parallel treasury operation with my mole mrs balls in the actual treasury.

Latest tweets