Labour party

Cleggologists will mark down the Deputy PM's speech today as a typical effort. There was basically nothing in it that was new – but Clegg still put it across with more punch, and more persuasively, than most of his colleagues could manage. All of the slogans and pre-announced policies added up to something that sounded, fleetingly, like a plan for growth. Although we'll still have to wait for Vince Cable's review to see the outlines of that plan shaded in. Clegg's main point was straightforward enough: that the government has to, and will, go beyond deficit reduction to stoke the embers of the British economy. He then ranged across everything from the national infrastructure to – a theme of this week – endowing the British workforce with skills.

The last few days have given us enough evidence for a new economic rule: the better the news about the economy, the less we'll see of Ed Balls. As Tim Montgomerie notes over at ConservativeHome, the shadow chancellor was plastered right across the airwaves when last week's growth figures were announced. This week – when the economic omens have been more encouraging – not so much. On Tuesday, as Fraser blogged, we had a record rise in manufacturing activity. Yesterday, there were heartening figures for the construction sector. And, today, the services sector has followed suit, with its strongest showing for eight months. Here's the graph for all three: Sterling has soared on today's news.

Yesterday's polls may seem like yesterday's news – but it's actually worth returning to YouGov's effort from, erm, yesterday. It contained some distinctive questions, and results, all set around the left-right spectrum. How left wing is the Labour party? How right wing is David Cameron? That sort of thing. Of course, as Anthony Wells has already pointed out, the old labels of "left" and "right" are of decreasing relevance nowadays. But they do still tell us something about popular perceptions of the parties and their leaders.

If the AV referendum is to take place on the 5th of May, the legislation paving the way for it needs to have passed by the 16th of February. But this bill is currently being held up in the Lords where Labour peers are objecting to the ‘Tory part’ of the bill which reduces the number of MPs and equalises constituency sizes. The coalition does not have a majority in the Lords, so all the talk of simply ramming the bill through was always slightly unrealistic. But the coalition’s concession that there can be public inquiries into the boundary review has created an expectation that Labour might now drop its opposition. The cross benches, the swing group in the Lords, have been impressed by this concession.

So Ed Balls has made his decision. In articles and a TV interview today, he has decided that, instead of apologising for his part in bringing Britain to the state it's in today, he will deny what he did. It was the consensus that Britain had the biggest deficit in the G7 going into the crisis, because that's what the facts show. Contrary to Balls' assertions, Britain ran a structural deficit for the seven years running up to the crisis – the figures are right there in Labour's own Budget red books. And it's the consensus that Labour left the biggest deficit since the war, since it's a fact. Given Balls' role in creating these two disasters, he should try owning up, not covering up.

Ed Balls gets personal in his interview with the Times (£) today, but not in the way you might expect. For most of the piece he dwells on what the paper calls his "hidden vulnerability" – the effort to contain his stammer. And from there on, the politics seems a touch softer than usual. There are surprisingly few overt attacks on his opponents, and those that make the cut are considerably less violent that we're used too. Which isn't to say that the interview lacks politics. No sirree. Here's a ten-point selection of some of the political highlights (so to speak), with my added comments:      1) Doubling back on a double dip.

Other sites have already covered this week's opinion poll results, among them Labour's largest lead since September 2007 and the public's confusion over the Big Society. But there are a couple of findings that are worth dwelling on as we drift into the weekend: 1) Labour gaining ground in the blame game. Ok, so PoliticalBetting's Mike Smithson mentioned this a few days ago. But, here at Coffee House, we've translated the numbers into the graph below. It shows that, over recent YouGov polls, Labour have been slowly receiving less and less blame for the spending cuts, while the coalition are receiving more: Expected, perhaps – but still noteworthy, not least because of the obvious political implications. 2) Deficit deniers?

There are contrasting images of Nimrod the Hunter: the mighty king of the Old Testament, and the less fearsome figure of Elmer Fudd. Through no fault of its own, the Nimrod spy plane, the most advanced and versatile aircraft of its type, seems destined to belong in the Fuddian category. Several senior officers have written to the Telegraph, urging the government to reconsider its decision to scrap the aircraft. They argue, not for the first time, that Britain’s defence capabilities are being pulverised by political calculations. (Con Coghlin adds his strategic concerns in the same paper.) The top brass have found an ally in Unite, some of whose members build and maintain the aircraft for a living.

What a joy it is to watch Ed Miliband contort and twist so that he can offer a hand of friendship to the Lib Dems. It has been a three-act show, so far. First, during the Labour leadership contest, he described the Lib Dems as a "disgrace to the traditions of liberalism," adding that, "I can see the death of the Liberal party to be honest". Then, he said that he would actually work with those dying Liberals, but only if they ditched Nick Clegg first. And then today, in an interview with the Independent, he suggests that Clegg might be able to stay on, after all. As turnarounds go, this one is predictable and sensible - but it's no less amusing for that. The Lib Dem response has once again come from Tim Farron; almost certainly for the same reasons as before.