Labour party

The most important political consequence of the leak of the Project Volvo documents is that it reminds everyone in the Labour party of what a divisive figure Ed Balls is. Ever since the leadership contest, where his reputation as a plotter crippled his candidacy, Balls has been trying to soften his image. He has sought to present himself as a more collegiate figure. But this leak is a reminder of how Balls used to operate and why some people in the Labour party will do everything they can to prevent him from becoming leader. We now wait to see what emerges about how these documents made their way into the public domain and whether retaliation follows. For the other Ed the challenge is to find a way to move Labour beyond the factionalism of the past.

Having u-turned on two more policies in the last two days, one would have expected David Cameron to have a hard time today at PMQs. But he didn’t. Ed Miliband never got going, turning in one of his worst PMQs’ performances. Cameron pithily summed up Miliband’s performance when he joked that ‘the best thing that can be said about his performance is he wasn’t thinking about politics on his honeymoon.’ Miliband’s performance today will add to the low-level grumbling about him among some Labour MPs and members of the shadow Cabinet. Miliband has a big speech coming up on Monday and he needs it to deliver a rationale for his leadership, to give it a purpose.

Ed Balls walked into two traps on Newsnight yesterday evening. First, he seemed stumped when Jeremy Paxman asked him if he was praying that George Osborne was right. Paxman’s ‘gotcha point’ was that if Osborne isn’t right the country is in deep trouble and Balls wouldn’t want that. But Balls’ more serious slip was to say, “My view, though, is that the central outcome isn’t that we see a resumption of growth.” This, as coalition sources have been pointing out today, allows them to present any growth as a vindication of their strategy. For all the talk about the NHS today, the economy still remains the central battleground in politics. So far, the economic data has not been decisive one way or the other.

This is an age of ideas, not of ideology. That is the thesis of Amol Rajan’s enthralling overview of the intellectual trends in contemporary British politics, published in today’s Independent. As part of the piece, Rajan has interviewed Maurice Glasman, who gives a far clearer account of 'Blue Labour' than he did during his recent comments to the Italian press. Communities must be organised to resist the caprices of capital and the dead-hand of the state. Resist is probably the wrong word because the aim appears to be, in Philip Blond’s celebrated phrase, the ‘recapitalisation of the poor’, which implies some form of empowerment. Rajan notes that Glasman holds a lot in common with Philip Blond’s Red Toryism and the Big Society.

Oh dear, we're back to letter-writing again. 52 academic sorts — including the Labour advisor Richard Grayson and Blue Labour proponent Stuart White — have a letter in today's Observer urging George Osborne towards a 'Plan B' for the economy. They even sketch out, in less than 150 words, what that Plan B might look like. And, strangely enough, it has more than a tinge of Ed Miliband about it, including — and I quote — a green new deal; a focus on targeted industrial policy; the empowerment of workers; "unsqueezing" the incomes of the majority, and so on. I say we're back to letter-writing again, because it's all so reminiscent of one of the most unedifying episodes in the fiscal debate so far, from before last year's election.

A couple of days ago, I wrote about the deleterious effects of political consensus on energy policy. A good example of this has emerged today. According to Politics Home, Luciana Berger and Caroline Lucas are seeking an amendment to the Green Deal to impose a target for domestic carbon reduction. A number of salient points emerge from this. First, it’s a fine instance of the obsession with targets; itself an indication that this area of policy is largely a top down initiative – driven by targets, taxes and penalties. The Green Deal, as it currently stands, is one of the few areas that put incentive before directive. The idea was to ‘nudge’ consumers into improving domestic energy efficiency.

The old adage that it's hard to make an impact in Opposition is ringing true. Dan Hodges has denigrated Labour's opposition thus far in the New Statesman's political column today. He charts the party's competing interests to create the sense that Miliband's lack of direction, which is marketed as consensual politics, is the prime cause for Labour's passivity. A listening exercise and numerous policy reviews are under way, but Labour is still stuck at Robert Frost's fork in the road. Sooner or later, Miliband will have to act. Without firm leadership, shadow ministers are being left to their own devices; which perhaps allows the coalition to escape misfortune because often inexperienced shadow ministers don't do much opposing. The left-wing press is becoming frustrated.

The Europhilic ghost of Ted Heath is stalking the House of Lords, upsetting the passage of the European Union Bill, the bill containing the coalition’s EU referendum lock. Lord Armstrong of Illminster, who was PPS to Edward Heath between 1970 and 1975, is trying to introduce a ‘sunset clause’ to ensure that the bill lapses at the end of this parliament. (He is working with Labour whip Lord Liddle, although Labour insists that this is not party policy.) Another amendment has been tabled to guarantee that referenda are binding only if turnout exceeds 40 per cent. This could mean that Britain succumbs to legislative creep from Brussels because only major issues (such as joining the Euro) are likely to attract sufficient turnout.