Labour party

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.

Gordon Brown's friends have launched a shameless effort to compel the government into nominating him for the IMF post. The government would be mad if they did. Mad. This is not about petty score-settling, as yesterday's Evening Standard would have it. This is about qualifications to lead, and the former Prime Minister, despite his intellect, does not have those skills. He led the country to ruin and remains in denial about it: he saved the world, don't cha know. The UK should be smarter about using talent from across the House, but there are limits. And it is a bit rich for the ex-PM's friends to argue that David Cameron should back him. This is the man who gave lukewarm support to Paddy Ashdown's candidacy to run the UN in Kabul back in 2008.

Ed Miliband owes Coffee House contributor Ed Howker a drink. In his speech today, the Labour leader borrows the central idea — and the title — of the stunningly insightful book that Ed wrote with Shiv Malik last year, Jilted Generation: How Britain Bankrupted its Youth. It is, basically speaking, the idea that the current generation of twenty-somethings is, in many respects, disadvantaged in comparison their baby-boomer forbears. From the burden of dealing with debt, both personal and national, to the fluctuations of the housing and labour markets, young people are up against it. And it may get worse. As Miliband puts it, "I am worried — and every parent should be worried — about what will happen to our children in the coming decades.

This evening, an event will occur that will make all the controversies and scandals of the last week seem somewhat irrelevant — at least according to American evangelical Harold Camping. He says that 6pm today is the time of the Rapture, as foretold in Thessalonians 4:17: all those "true believers" who accept Jesus Christ as their one true saviour will be taken up to heaven. For those of us left, we might wonder who will lead us through the "chaos and awful suffering" following both the loss of 40 per cent of the UK population and the earthquakes that will accompany it. Our Prime Minister — with his "sort of fairly classic Church of England faith" — would be gone.

Britain is going to stay in the EU for the next ten years at least. Of that I'm sure. But after that, when David Cameron's retired, William Hague has taken to writing books, George Osborne's had his chance and the 2010 intake run the party, the Tories are going to be more openly hostile to the EU. Labour will too; it has a larger reservoir of pro-EU sentiment among its ranks, but one that is shallower than it was. Focusing on the Tories, it is worth noting that nearly all of the names being bandied about as future Tory leaders have a visceral dislike of the EU. By and large they will, by then reflect popular opinion (if they don't already): as veteran EU watcher Charles Grant notes, there is a limit to how long an elite can cross the population.