Balls would "retire to the back benches" if Miliband tried to move him

Allies of the shadow chancellor tell Kevin Maguire that he won't accept another job in the shadow cabinet.

Commentators have recently taken to suggesting that Ed Balls could be replaced as shadow chancellor before the next election, with David Miliband and Alistair Darling touted as possible replacements. The latest round of speculation began after Balls revealed that Miliband hadn't guaranteed his position. He told the Times (£): "I’ve never asked him. It’s a bit arrogant thinking about what sort of job you do."

In tomorrow's issue of the NS, Kevin Maguire offers a spirited defence of the shadow chancellor and reveals that Balls would "retire to the back benches rather than swallow demotion to another portfolio". He also reports that Miliband would "face a revolt by MPs if he offered the post a third time to his big brother, David". Here's the story in full.

The political “advice” to Ed Miliband to reshuffle the bruiser Ed Balls out of the shadow chancellorship is naked special pleading by the Tory camp and Labour’s Blairite rump. Balls repeatedly hurts the Conservatives. He predicted that austerity would create a double-dip recession and is smart at opposition guerrilla tactics, proposing that money saved on the Olympics should be siphoned off to cancel a petrol-tax rise. His biggest rave reviews are from David Cameron, who has abused Balls as a “muttering idiot” and “the most annoying person in modern politics”: backhanded compliments from Flashman.

Both Eds insist that there’s no deal to keep Balls in the Treasury brief, yet Miliband would face a revolt by MPs if he offered the post a third time to his big brother, David. Allies of the shadow chancellor whisper that he’d take his bat and balls away and retire to the back benches rather than swallow demotion to another portfolio.

Shadow chancellor Ed Balls speaks at the Labour conference in Manchester last year. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.