Ed balls

Amazingly, given his penchant to procrastinate, David Miliband’s leadership bid is flying. High profile endorsements fly-in – former defence secretary and arch-Blairite John Hutton is the latest. Miliband is out on the stump, canvassing the opinions of former voters. Ed Balls, by contrast, looks tentative and there is no doubt he’s losing ground.   Iain Martin has an excellent post on the Labour leadership contenders and concludes that Miliband is not yet the complete package. I agree. Bananas aside, Miliband’s chief problem is that he expresses himself in meaningless abstractions. Think Tanks and cosmopolitans adore the terminology, voters don’t – The Big Society was A Big Flop.

Now's the time, dear CoffeeHouser. After nearly three years in Number Ten, Gordon Brown is finally subjecting himself to the wishes of the British public. And, signs are, he won't like what they've got to say. Putting the strong possibility of a hung parliament aside, last night's opinion polls had Labour on or around Michael Foot levels of support. A few folk, like Marbury, have observed that it's almost like the campaign didn't happen. And they're right: there is a peculiar symmetry to the electoral calculus. After all the mood shifts of the past four weeks, we're back broadly where we started: with the Tories looking to gain either a small majority, or be the largest party in a hung parliament. But it's worth remarking on some of the changes which have stuck.

The election is six days away, Labour civil war is seven days away. And Alistair Darling has today delivered a rather nice put-down to Ed Balls for BBC Campaign Straight Talk. Here is his conversation earlier today with Andrew Neil: Andrew Neil: Has Mr Brown given you any indication that you’d stay as Chancellor if he wins? Alistair Darling: Yes he has, and I would. AN: You would? AD: Yes. AN: And you’d be happy to do so? AD: Very happy. AN: So Ed Balls should not be packing his bags to move into Number 11? AD: I don’t think Ed has got any intention of doing that. AN: Well he did it once, but he had to unpack them again. AD: There’s nothing wrong with having ambition. Wonderful.

The sole current political certainty is that Nick Clegg will not prop-up Gordon Brown. Clegg holds Brown personally responsible for 13 years of failure and not even political marriages can be built on enmity.  Labour’s choice is clear: remove Brown to accommodate Clegg. The Sunday Times reports plots are afoot to kill Gordon ‘with dignity’. But euthanasia is messy. Two options are being discussed. First, Brown would be given a year to make a final indelible mark on Britain before shipping himself off to Westminster’s version of Dignitas. I think we can all see the problem with that cunning scheme, and Nick Clegg certainly will.

The Charlie Whelan problem is intensifying for Labour, with more revelations in the Mail on Sunday today taking on from our cover story in this week’s magazine. Whelan’s behaviour may be no worse than that of Ed Balls and Gordon Brown – but he is more careless. Like McBride, he was actually caught: and his tactics documented in a formal seven-page report. Not the sort of document you want surfacing during a campaign. So it's little wonder why Whelan used Carter-Ruck to try and deter The Spectator from any further investigation in the bullying case: it threatens to expose Gordon Brown’s entire modus operandi and the methods which he uses to control the party. And, for that matter, run the country.

Last summer, The Spectator received a letter from Charlie Whelan's solicitors complaining about this post - where we mention their client's spot of bother with his colleagues at Unite. Carter-Ruck were instructed on one of the no-win-no-fee deals: it cost Whelan nothing to sue, but could cost us £thousands to defend. So the lawyer's letter is, by itself, an effective form of intimidation. A magazine with a small budget obviously faces huge pressure to do what he wanted: apologise, pay up and (suspiciously) undertake not to pursue the story any further. Under the circumstances, The Spectator could do only one thing. Our full investigation into Charlie Whelan is the cover story of tomorrow's magazine (see image, left).

You know it's the day you've all been waiting for, CoffeeHousers – the day of Labour's manifesto launch.  Last Thursday, Douglas Alexander described the document as a "progressive programme worthy of these testing times".  So, well, it must be good, mustn't it? Problem is, this manifesto risks going the same way as the Budget.  So much of it has been so heavily trailed, that there's a danger we've already heard it all – and that it will be met with weary indifference by the media and the public alike.

This morning, we've already seen the two primary attacks which will be used against the marriage tax break outlined by George Osborne in the Times today.  The first came courtesy of Vince Cable, who said it represents a "derisory" sum of £3 a week for those who benefit from it.  And the second was from Ed Balls – who else? – who labelled the policy as "discriminatory," because it doesn't cover every married person, and nor does it account for couples who split.  Or as he rather suggestively put it: "if your husband beats you up and leaves you you get no support." One thing worth noting is how the Tories' opponents aren't majoring on a fiscal irresponsibility angle, as they've been trying to with the national insurance cut.

When Alistair Daring admitted last week that there would indeed be job losses arising from the proposed National Insurance hike, it would have struck Gordon Brown and Ed Balls like root canal surgery. This blows wide open the main part of Brown's election deceit: asking the public to look at the advantages of the borrowing, and not contemplate the flip side to the debt coin. Not to ask where the repayments will come from, or the impact of those repayments on the jobs of the future. No wonder Darling is today being made to claim the opposite. The grim truth is that every job "protected" now, due to debt, will be more than balanced out by money taken away from the economy in the form of the interest needed to serve that debt.

Oh dear.  Today's frontpages form the most eclectic set of damaging headlines for Labour for quite some time.  On the front of the Mail and the Times: allegations that the government – specifically, Ed Balls – "interfered" with a report on the Baby P tragedy.  On the Independent: a claim that Brown "misled" the public over waiving VAT on a charity single for Haiti.  And on the Telegraph: news that more business leaders have backed the Tories' national insurance policy.  Even the Guardian wades in with the headline: "Labour and business fall out". Of these, the first story is potentially the biggest scandal.  But it's the latter two which more immediately threaten to alter the political mood music.

After reading Brown's claims in the Guardian today, this Kill A Minister mechanism in his speech today rather jumped out at me: "I will set out a clear and public annual contract for each new Cabinet Minister, detailing what I expect them and their department to deliver to the British people, and that their continued appointment is dependent on their delivery just as it would be in a business or any other organisation." I mean, you can just imagine what Alistair Darling's first "contract" would look like: You, the Chancellor, will undertake to deliver the following to the British people: i) Economic growth of 5 percent in 2010-11 ii) A sufficient level of investment in our schools, hospitals and families, to be determined by Number 10.

Darling has now exposed as false the Brown/Balls dividing line of "investment vs cuts". If Labour were to win, he said, the cuts would be worse than anything seen under Thatcher in the 1980s. This is Darling's problem: he's a dreadful liar. The IFS today laid out the scale of the cuts that would happen whoever wins the election, and the below graph is worth reprinting. Overall spending falls 12 percent (once dole and debt interest are taken into account). So when Darling says this is worse than anything in the 1980s, he is simply stating a fact. You'd never catch Balls or Brown doing that, by the way, and I hope that, when either pop up for interview, they will be asked if they agree with their Chancellor's assessment.