Ed balls

A day before the ballot papers get sent out, and the grey corpse that was the Labour leadership contest has suddenly leapt into a crazy jig. Ed Balls is slamming the "soap opera" of the Mili-rivalry, while calling for more social housing. Andy Burnham is insisting that he's still in with a chance of winning. Alan Johnson has - with a nod to Jose Mourinho, of all people - labelled David Miliband as "the special one". And as part of his rebranding exercise the former Foreign Secretary has even starting making fairly amusing gags. Welcome to the Twilight Zone. But it's not just the prospect of imminent voting that is animating the contenders.

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’.

I know, I know – there's only so much information about the Labour leadership contest that a sane person can take. But as an addendum to Ed Balls' pugnacious speech earlier, it's worth noting that Ed Miliband has since deployed exactly the same argument about deficits and the Attlee era: "We do need to reduce the deficit but politics must be bigger than that. Remember our history. After 1945, with the biggest deficit in our history, that Labour government set out the vision of a good society - for a new welfare state and a new economy." To be fair to MiliE, he's made the same point before now. But its reappearance is a reminder that he has more in common with Ed Balls on the economy than his brother does.

Here's one aspect of the Labour leadership contest that has passed without much comment: how many of the contenders want to extend the 50p tax rate from those earning over £150,000 to those earning over £100,000. Ed Miliband's one of them; so is Diane Abbott; and so too – as he reminds us in interview with Left Forward Forward today – is Ed Balls. Sure, only one of these candidates has a realistic chance of becoming leader – but another could easily end up as shadow chancellor. So it’s fairly probable that this will be official Labour policy in the not-too-distant.

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.

Ed Balls has produced a contract with the Labour party. Three things strike me about it. First, he emphasizes broader consultation and promises a greater role for activists and local representatives. These political impulses are championed by the coalition – an indication that Cameron and Clegg’s partnership is beginning to change Britain party political landscape. Second, Balls is a proud friend of the trade unions and wants to restore the link between Labour and the unions, perhaps to redress Labour’s chronic financial position. Third, like Ed Miliband, he has adopted Harriet Harman’s goal of having women as 50 percent of the shadow cabinet.

One of the few things that could briefly enliven the Labour leadership contest is if Ed Balls stood down and gave his backing to another candidate. True, it didn't happen when it probably should have – that is, when all the big unions gave their backing to Ed Miliband. But as the summer advances without any slip in the Mili-lead, then maybe – just maybe – Balls might start reconsidering his options. In which case, this insight from Philip Collins' latest article in the Times (£) is worth noting down: "In 1999 Mr Balls and David Miliband used to meet regularly in Churchill’s, a café opposite the Treasury on Whitehall, in a forlorn attempt to join up the Government.

One of the challenges facing the next Labour leader will be what to do with Ed Balls. Balls, as he demonstrated in the last few months, has the right mentality for opposition. Labour will need his appetite for the fight in the coming year. But if a new leader makes Balls’ shadow Chancellor, he’ll have a shadow Chancellor whose position on the deficit is simply not going to seem credible to the public; Balls has already said that he thinks the plan Labour went into the election with for the deficit was too ambitious. The Tories are convinced that if Balls is shadow Chancellor, they’ll have the dividing lines they want on the economy. A better department for Balls to shadow would be the Home Office.

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.

As the New Statesman's George Eaton suggests, there's quite a lot packed into Ed Balls's piece in the Times today (also on his website for those who can't venture beyond the paywall). And, what's more, some of it makes sense. Take his argument that Labour shouldn't cede the "radical centre ground" of British politics to the coalition. That's the right argument to make, even it if is rather undermined by Balls's own efforts to drag the party leftwards. As usual, it all starts to unravel as soon as Balls gets to the public finances. His position is blunt and straightforward: that "Labour needs strong leadership to make a credible argument against slashing public spending and raising VAT, which will increase unemployment and risk a double-dip recession.

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.

Springtime for Ed Miliband, curtains for Balls. Or at least it should be, following the news that Unite will back Miliband for the leadership. It is rumoured that Balls will pull out of the race and support David Miliband in an attempt to secure the shadow chancellor’s post. But only Brown does seemingly blind defiance better than Balls. This morning, Balls has assaulted the airwaves with the full complement of Brownite clichés: ‘I fight on; I fight to win. I’m in it to win it. I am the best person to fight this coalition.’ You get the impression that he means it, and he’ll fight on in hope rather than expectation. It will take a miracle for Balls to win from here.

Ed Miliband has secured a clean sweep of the major unions. That poses Miliband a problem in the future – centrist opponents can characterise him as ‘the union candidate’ with all its negative connotations. In the meantime, Miliband’s chances of becoming the next Labour leader have been greatly enhanced.   Ed Balls, however, is effectively finished. Balls will recognise this, and will be considering his next move. Now his ambition is to be shadow chancellor, and, as Paul Waugh argued yesterday, David Miliband is the candidate most likely to offer him that, or so the theory goes.  It is, if you'll excuse the expression, all eyes on Balls.

Paul Waugh sees it as his duty to pass on little drops of intrigue, and this one’s a dollop. If, as is expected, Unite back Ed Miliband tomorrow, the clapped-out Balls juggernaught will finally croak: there is no chance of him winning without Unite’s backing. There is a widespread rumour that Balls will pull out and back David Miliband. Waugh explains why: ‘The scenario painted to me is this: by dropping out and backing David M, his chances of becoming Shadow Chancellor are greatly enhanced. (The assumption here is that Ed Mili can't offer him Shadow Chancellor because the top of the ticket would just look too unbalanced...that's an assumption some will challenge).’ Only time will tell.

Ed Miliband will give his second preference vote in the Labour leadership contender to his brother, he tells the New Statesman’s Jason Cowley.   The Ed Miliband interview is part of a really rich set of profiles of the Labour leadership candidates. Diane Abbott inadvertently reveals that it is David Miliband who is taking the duties of a future Labour leader most seriously with her complaint that he is the leadership candidate who insisted on a meeting to find out what the duties of the victorious candidate would be at conference.    Both Eds offer quite left-wing prospectuses. Ed Balls argues that Labour didn’t lose because it lost touch with ‘middle England’.