Ed miliband

Balls lays into Brown — but why?

Normally, pre-Budget interviews with shadow chancellors are dry and methodical. But the Times’s interview with Ed Balls (£) today is the opposite: frenetic, relatively non-fiscal and utterly, utterly strange. Given that CoffeeHousers are probably waking up to brunch, I thought it might be a bit much for you to wade through his thoughts on food and on crying (‘OK. Crying. What do you want to know about crying?’). So I’ve pulled out some of the main political points from the interview here: 1) Laying into Brown. The quotation that gives the interview its headline is an eye-opener, coming as it does from Ed Balls. ‘Nobody is going to look back

Labour miss out the details

Labour’s launch of its new youth jobs policy has been rather overshadowed by Harriet Harman’s inability to explain the costing behind the policy on the Daily Politics earlier: not a good look for a party trying to show that it is fiscally credible. But more interesting than the number behind the policy is how it marks an attempt by Labour to toughen up its position on welfare. Those young workers who have been out of work for a year will have to take one of these minimum wage jobs or have their benefits docked.



 On the Labour front, the interview with Ed Miliband in the Times today is also worthy

Ed Miliband turns back to Brown (again)

At the end of last year, Ed Balls suggested that Labour would be ‘taking a tougher approach to conditionality [for benefit claimants]. If people can work, they should work.’ Now the party are starting to outline what that means. As the Independent puts it today, summarising a speech that Liam Byrne has given in Birmingham, ‘The unemployed would be guaranteed the offer of a job but could lose their benefits for six months if they turned it down, under a tough new policy on welfare planned by Labour.’ The paper characterises this as an attempt to ‘outflank the Tories on welfare,’ which is surely true. But the whole thing also

Labour’s PMQs strategy: the Super-Vulnerable Voter ploy

A sombre and muted PMQs this week. Dame Joan Ruddock raised the issue of benefits and asked David Cameron if he was proud of his new reforms. Tory backbenchers cheered on the PM’s behalf. ‘Then would he look me in the eye,’ Dame Joan went on, ‘and tell me he’s proud to have removed all disability payments from a 10-year-old with cerebral palsy.’ This tactic — the Super-Vulnerable Voter ploy — is highly manipulative and highly reliable. But Dame Joan had forgotten something which Mr Cameron is unlikely to forget. Explaining his reform of the Disability Living Allowance he glared angrily at her. ‘As someone who has had a child

Afghanistan tragedy overshadows PMQs

I have rarely heard the House of Commons as quiet as it was at the start of PMQs today. The sad news from Afghanistan was, rightly, weighing on MPs’ minds. The initial Cameron Miliband exchanges were on the conflict there with the two leaders agreeing with each other. In some ways, though, I wonder whether the country would not benefit more from some forensic debate about the strategic aims of the mission. However the volume level in the House increased when Joan Ruddock asked the PM if he was ‘truly proud’ of taking benefits away from disabled children. Cameron, with a real flash of anger, shot back that ‘as someone

Ed Miliband just doesn’t get globalisation

If you think things couldn’t get worse than Ed Miliband’s Five Live interview, read his speech on patriotism. It seeks to build on his ‘predators’ speech, which suggested a Manichean divide between bad companies and good companies. Labour MPs of Mr Miliband’s political heritage always place manufacturers in the latter camp. He hails the success of many of them. ‘You know better than I that this success has been achieved against the odds.’ I suspect they know better than he the effect that a 25 per cent devaluation has on exports. ‘Economic protectionism is what governments reach for when they don’t believe firms can compete. And we will never return to

The child benefit cut risks alienating striving families

Why should someone on the minimum wage subsidise the childcare arrangements of someone on £100,000? So runs the argument for abolishing child benefit for higher-rate taxpayers. You can see why George Osborne went for this: in theory, we are talking about the best-paid 14 per cent. If he was going to cap benefits, he had to be seen to hurt the rich too. The 50 per cent tax was not enough; axing child benefit would be just the tool he needed to say ‘we’re all in this together’. The problem is that the 40p tax band is set far too low in Britain, and now takes in policemen and teachers.

Ed gets another kicking

Who let Ed Miliband out again? You’d have thought that Labour HQ would have learnt from the #AskEdM debacle but apparently not. Ed popped up on Radio 5 Live today following his Made in Britain speech to answer questions from voters. It’s hard to work out whether the callers were CCHQ staffers in disguise or ordinary members of the public, thanks to the extreme vitriol thrown at Ed. He had little of interest to say on the EU (he wouldn’t have signed the treaty), child benefit (he can’t promise to reverse the cuts) and Labour’s attitude towards business (he’s pro-, apparently). Instead, the callers took the opportunity to attack him

Devo disunity

The trouble with the Unionist cause is that it’s so disunited. Douglas Alexander’s speech in Scotland today may appear to bring Labour in line with the Tories and Lib Dems by hinting at greater powers for Scotland in future, but the truth is that it’s just another piece of string in an increasingly tangled mess. And so we have Alexander saying that ‘we must be open minded on how we can improve devolution’s powers, including fiscal powers,’ while, we’re told, he’s also ‘cautious… about fiscal measures that undermine the stability of the block grant system used to fund the three devolved governments in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast.’ We have the

These NHS bouts are becoming more insipid by the week

Health reforms again dominated PMQs today. That’s four weeks in a row. And the great debate, like a great sauce, has now been reduced to infinitesimal differences of flavouring. David Cameron repeated his claim that 8200 GP practices are implementing his policies. But, corrected Ed Miliband, that’s not because they love the reforms. It’s because they love their patients. He quoted a Tower Hamlets health commissioner who berated the PM for confusing reluctant acquiescence with whole-hearted endorsement. Fair enough. But this nicety won’t resonate beyond the tips of either men’s brogues. The rest of the bout was a repeat of last week’s effortful stalemate. Mr Miliband had a list of

Miliband can count on the NHS in PMQs, but not much else

Today’s main PMQs drama came after the session itself had ended. Julie Hilling, a Labour MP who Cameron had said was ‘sponsored’ by the union whose leader threatened to disrupt the Olympics last night, said in a point of order that she was not ‘sponsored’ by Unite. The Labour benches were in full flow, jeering at Cameron as he was leaving the chamber. Cameron then returned to the despatch box and pointed out that she had declared a donation from Unite to her constituency Labour party in the register of members’ interests. I suspect that this row about the meaning of the word sponsorship will rumble on. Labour hate the

The coalition for a Boris victory

When David Cameron addressed Tory MPs on Friday, he told them that the London Mayoral elections were ‘the binary moment of 2012’. He argued that if Labour lost in London, one of their traditional strongholds, it would be a disaster for Ed Miliband. In the Cameron narrative, a Boris victory in May would mean that the Labour leader would remain under pressure and continue to be the subject of regular attacks in the press. Interestingly, there are Liberal Democrats close to Nick Clegg who share this analysis. Their worry is that a Livingstone victory combined with bad local election results for Lib Dem could turn the deputy Prime Minister back

Miliband snipes, Cameron deflects, Bercow bobs

Let’s be honest. I shouldn’t say this but I can’t help it. I’m fed up. The NHS reform process has been dragging on for months, and still there’s no end in sight. Ed Miliband brought it up at PMQs for the third week running. The position remains the same. Miliband loves it. Cameron lives with it. The PM claimed that 8,200 GP practices are now practising his reforms and the Labour leader replied with a list of professional bodies — nurses, doctors, midwives, radiologists — who oppose them. And that’s exactly the trouble, for me, at least. If the issue were a race-horse some crazy campaigner would plunge beneath its

Miliband revels in his NHS attack

Today’s PMQs was a reminder that whenever Ed Miliband goes on the NHS he is guaranteed a result. Indeed, I don’t think I’ve ever seen Miliband enjoying himself as much in the chamber as he was today. When Andrew Lansley leaned over to try and tell Cameron the answer to a question, Miliband mockingly remarked ‘Let me say to the Health Secretary, I don’t think the PM wants advice from you’. As Cameron’s assaults became more direct, Miliband did not — as he often does — go into his shell. As he sat down at the end of it all, the Labour leader had to push down on his knee to

Miliband guarantees a return to Brown’s Big Idea for the NHS

It would be so much easier for Ed Miliband to attract headlines if he could shout in Andrew Lansley’s face. As it is, the Labour leader has had to make do with giving a speech today attacking the NHS reforms. Within the parameters of what he might say, it’s an okay effort. The predictable lines about ‘creeping privatisation’ are leavened by the admission that ‘the question is not reform or no reform. It is what type of reform.’ And he adds, by way of a cross-party sweetener, that he would ‘get round the table’ with David Cameron to discuss ‘the future of the NHS’. But the substance of the speech,

If Cameron doesn’t talk about greater powers for England, Labour will

Action over Scotland is certainly producing a reaction in England. It’s not what you’d call an ‘equal and opposite reaction’ yet, but it’s there — and it’s crystallised by Tim Montgomerie’s article for the Guardian this morning. I’d recommend that you read it in full, but Tim’s basic point is that David Cameron could score a ‘triple crown of political victories’ by moving towards a more federal UK: ‘By offering to extend Scottish devolution he can be the Conservative leader who saves the union. By promising to balance Scottish devolution with a commitment to new arrangements for the government of England, he can radically improve his own party’s electoral prospects.

Miliband’s NHS pledge

Ah, there he is! With the coalition — and David Cameron — dominating the political news on every day of this half-term week, Ed Miliband has finally caused a ripple in the national consciousness. He’s appearing before nurses in Bolton today to make a pledge: ‘Before he became Prime Minister, David Cameron concealed his plans for creeping privatisation of our National Health Service. So people didn’t get a vote on these plans at the last election. But I give you my word that if he goes ahead, they will be a defining issue at the next.’ Put aside the rhetoric about ‘creeping privatisation’ (which would surely make Tony Blair shudder),