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.

Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496