Andy burnham

One question swirling through the sea of British politics is this: how will Ed Miliband act towards the Lib Dems? The Labour leader certainly didn't flinch from attacking the yellow brigade during the leadership contest, at one point calling them a "disgrace to the traditions of liberalism." But surely he'll have to soften that rhetoric in case the next election delivers another bout of frenzied coalition negotiations. Which is why Andy Burnham's article in the Guardian today is worth noting down. In making his point – that the Lib Dems haven't won the pupil premium they sought – he does all he can to force a wedge between Nick Clegg and his party. It's "Clegg's failure". It's "Clegg's ideological journey". It's a "problem for Clegg," and so on.

In the end, it was all quite exciting. After four months of soporific campaigning, after a speech by Gordon Brown, after tribute video upon tribute video, it all came down to an astonishingly tense round of results. And Ed Miliband edged out his brother by just over 1 percentage point overall, 50.6 to 49.4. It may have been the outcome that most punters expected coming into today – but it is not one that many would have predicted, with any confidence, back in May. Looking at the full voting split, a less flattering picture emerges. David Miliband actually won two of the three voting blocks: the MPs turned out 53-47 in his favour, the members 54-46 likewise. But it was the unions wot won it for Ed: the brothers gave him their votes in a 60-40 ratio.

No doubt attempting to affect affability and languid charm, one of the Milibands has goaded his team into mastering a hybrid of semaphore and tic-tac to bring him early news of the leadership election result. It’s unclear which of the brothers has descended into total monomania, but it’s sobering to think he may have his finger on the button one day. The ballot closed yesterday, but idle speculation about the shadow cabinet has opened. The Miliband that loses is expected to be encouraged to run for shadow chancellor, though from what I hear Yvette Cooper or Ed Balls are the favourites for that prize.

"Quietly confident." That's how Diane Abbott felt as the Labour leadership ballot entered its final hours today. I can only assume that she meant "…of victory," but the bookies, and all sensible observers, are telling a different story. With the polls now closed, Ladbrokes has David Miliband as the 4/7 favourite, Ed Miliband is on 5/4, Ed Balls and Andy Burnham are both 100/1 shots – and Abbott? Well, Abbott is wheezing along at 150/1. Whoever wins, one thing is for certain: we are about to enter a new cycle in British politics, and one which should clear up a few itchingly persistent questions. How will the coalition fare against an opposition which actually has a proper leader in place? Who will be shadow chancellor? What will become of the losing Miliband?

This weekend’s YouGov poll showing Ed Miliband ahead in the Labour leadership contest is the talk of Westminster today. One David Miliband backer told me that he thought it was flawed as it assumed that MPs' second preferences would split evenly between the two brothers when David had the advantage. I was told that nearly all Andy Burnham’s parliamentary backers would put David second, that most of Balls’ would do the same and that Ed Miliband could only rely on Diane Abbott’s parliamentary backers' second preferences. But Ed Miliband’s supporters dispute this. They believe that they are making progress everywhere.

David Miliband’s performance in Sky News’ Labour leadership hustings will have calmed the nerved of his supporters. In the run-off between him and his brother, David came out on top. His answers were generally sharper and he managed to parry away Ed’s criticisms on tuition fees and foreign policy. (In a pointed remark, Ed said that the Labour government’s foreign policy had been based on ‘old ideas’.) Indeed, Ed Miliband only seemed to get going in his closing statement which was pitch-perfect David’s best moment came when the contenders were asked to pick between Blair and Brown. Ed Balls opted for Brown, Diane Abbott said that Brown ‘was the better man’ and then it was the elder Miliband’s turn.

As Tim Montgomerie notes, cuts are becoming more real. Yesterday, the government axed NHS Direct, the telephone health service. Actually it hasn’t been axed but replaced by the more cost effective ‘111’ service. Removing the sacrosanct letters ‘NHS’ from the title of any body is anathema to the opposition, who have mobilised a frantic defence over the past 24 hours, so predictable and I can barely contain my indifference. Twitter has exploded in a fit of righteous indignation; Ed Balls, without a hint of irony, is using words like ‘callous’ and ‘ill-thought policies’; and Andy Burnham’s talking about Andrew Lansley’s ‘vindictive mission to break up the NHS’.

Whilst Ed Balls descends into bellicose self-caricature, Andy Burnham, the quiet man of this campaign, has written an incendiary article for the Guardian. It is subtly constructed: behind the veneer of his folksy idiom, Burnham proclaims a self-conscious radicalism. He has sharpened some of the ideas expressed so loosely in his pamphlet Aspirational Socialism. He advocates the adoption of land value tax, the abolition of inheritance tax and a very tough Blairite stance on crime and the causes of crime. He angrily dismisses the Milibands as thoughtless ‘comfort zone’ politicians, both stuck dumb in a trance to the mantra of ‘tax and spend’. Burnham’s aides must be as aghast as me because they are incapable of answering the phone.

Andy Burnham’s leadership campaign is going the way of all flesh. According to Left Foot Forward’s model, Burnham is set to come fourth behind Ed Balls. A You Gov poll predicted a similarly poor showing for Burnham. I’m surprised by this. Burnham is presentable against a field of gawky rivals. Also, after a faltering start, he has tuned a clear anti-establishment message, crafted to politicise the north south divide and New Labour's soulless metropolitanism. He reiterates it for today’s Independent, arguing that the party has been run for too long in ‘an elitist, London-centric and controlling way’ and that New Labour was ‘born of a distrust of its members.

I can't work out what's stranger: that anyone, let along the author Ken Follett, should donate £100,000 to Ed Balls' leadership campaign, or that the Liverpool footballer Jamie Carragher ("Mr Liverpool") should give £10,000 to the devoted Evertonian Andy Bunrham. Either way, they're probably the two stand-out entries in the latest list of Labour leadership donations. But the real story is the same as the last time the donations were published: David Miliband's monetary advantage. Even with Ed Balls raising £103,000 in July, the elder Miliband brother still comes out on top with £138,835 – adding to an overall war chest which dwarfs those of all the other contenders.

Humble hat-tips to Iain Dale and Jim Pickard for spotting this fun exchange in Labour Uncut's interview with Andy Burnham: Q. (from Jackie): If you had the choice between playing for Everton in an FA cup final, or become the next Labour Prime Minister which would you chose? A. (after exactly two seconds) Everton, FA Cup final. press secretary: (howls) No! Q. That is a bold statement! press secretary: I’m going to kill him. Q. She is going to strangle you when I leave. press secretary: I am. Campaign manager Kevin: Can you re-answer that one please Andy. A. Well it’s a different choice isn’t it!

How could I have forgotten to mention this in my last post? In that YouGov poll on the Labour leadership race, Ed Balls finished in a resounding last place. Yep, the former Schools Secretary is stuck on 11 percent of first preference votes – behind both Diane Abbott and Andy Burnham, who are tied on 12 percent, as well as both Miliband brothers of course. And the news has got Jim Pickard and Mehdi Hasan wondering: just what will Balls do next? Has he given up on winning? Will he drop out of the race and concentrate on becoming shadow chancellor? I know plenty of Tories who wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry if that turned out to be the case. But the leading article in this week's edition of the magazine sets out just why Tories should still be worried about Balls.

Ed Balls has been on the phone to Mehdi Hasan of the New Statesman. ‘Nothing to do with me Guv,’ is his response to the Independent’s story about briefings against Andy Burnham. Balls has gone to great lengths to re-invent himself. Ever since the Damian McBride scandal, the former Education Secretary has tried to banish the bully-boy reputation he built as Gordon Brown’s protégé. Masks barely obscure the face; but, to be fair to Balls, his opponents benefit from recalling his unpalatable past. During the New Statesman’s leadership debate, Ed Miliband said: “It’s just like being back in the Treasury, Ed!” So it’s plausible that the anti-Burnham briefings may have been aimed at two targets. Balls thinks so.

Ok, so the general public doesn't much care for this AV referendum – and understandably so.  But at least it has added a good slug of uncertainty into the brew at Westminster.  Already, curious alliances are emerging because of it – Exhibit A being Jack Straw and the 1922 Committee.  And no-one's really sure about what the result of the vote will be, or whether it will deliver a killing blow to the coalition itself. But regardless of what happens on 5 May 2011, it's clear that one group is already benefitting from the prospect of a referendum: the Labour leadership contenders.  Until now, they've been distinguished by their indistinguishability on policy grounds.

It's days like this when you realise just how stuck Labour are in a Brownite groove.  Everywhere you turn, there's some leadership candidate or other attacking the government for choosing to cut public spending this year.  Ed Miliband claims that the Lib Dems have been "completely macho … completely cavalier" about cuts.  Andy Burnham says that this year could "damage us in the long run".  And even those who aren't chasing the leadership are getting in on the act: Alistair Darling writes that the coalition has "a fiscal policy that undermines fragile growth". So we already know what Labour's broad response to this week's Budget will look like.  But it got me a-wondering: what will their response to next year's Budget be?