Labour party

One of the vulnerabilities of the Coalition is that when Labour moves position one of its flanks can be exposed. When the Coalition agreement was drawn up, it seemed sufficient that the Lib Dems would maintain the right to carry on opposing tuition fees as both Labour and the Conservatives were in a favour of them. The Lib Dems would still be able to tell students, a key constituency for them, that they were the only party committed to abolishing fees. But as soon as the Labour leadership contenders started moving rapidly towards a graduate tax, the Lib Dems had a problem.

What became of the likeable lads, that group of New Labour politicians who seemed more decent than the government in which they served? Alistair Darling was one, and he has effectively retired from the frontline of British politics. Alan Johnson was another, and today he gives a frank and wide-ranging interview to Rachel Sylvester. In it, Johnson spends much time cheerleading for David Miliband, and criticising Ed Miliband quite harshly, but there are some points which are worth recording. So here goes: 1) What a drag. As Sylvester puts it, "The [leadership] contest has, in [Johnson's] view, already gone on too long and should not have been extended until September." This is an opinion which many Labour types seem to share.

Humble hat-tips to Iain Dale and Jim Pickard for spotting this fun exchange in Labour Uncut's interview with Andy Burnham: Q. (from Jackie): If you had the choice between playing for Everton in an FA cup final, or become the next Labour Prime Minister which would you chose? A. (after exactly two seconds) Everton, FA Cup final. press secretary: (howls) No! Q. That is a bold statement! press secretary: I’m going to kill him. Q. She is going to strangle you when I leave. press secretary: I am. Campaign manager Kevin: Can you re-answer that one please Andy. A. Well it’s a different choice isn’t it!

As the New Statesman's George Eaton suggests, there's quite a lot packed into Ed Balls's piece in the Times today (also on his website for those who can't venture beyond the paywall). And, what's more, some of it makes sense. Take his argument that Labour shouldn't cede the "radical centre ground" of British politics to the coalition. That's the right argument to make, even it if is rather undermined by Balls's own efforts to drag the party leftwards. As usual, it all starts to unravel as soon as Balls gets to the public finances. His position is blunt and straightforward: that "Labour needs strong leadership to make a credible argument against slashing public spending and raising VAT, which will increase unemployment and risk a double-dip recession.

Writing for the Times, Tim Montgomerie neatly overlays Aesop onto the Labour leadership contest: "The next Labour leader is unlikely to be an Abbott, Balls or Burnham. Gordon Brown’s successor will be a Miliband. But I’m more interested in whether he will be Mr Sun or Mr Wind. Aesop captured the dilemma in a fable. If you want a man to take off his cloak, do you huff and puff and force him to give it up or do you cover him with warmth until he discards it freely? In Aesop, the sun scores a predictable victory. Politics isn’t so easy. Harriet Harman’s blasts at Nick Clegg’s alleged betrayal of left-wing voters has undoubtedly blown many Liberal Democrat voters towards Labour.

How could I have forgotten to mention this in my last post? In that YouGov poll on the Labour leadership race, Ed Balls finished in a resounding last place. Yep, the former Schools Secretary is stuck on 11 percent of first preference votes – behind both Diane Abbott and Andy Burnham, who are tied on 12 percent, as well as both Miliband brothers of course. And the news has got Jim Pickard and Mehdi Hasan wondering: just what will Balls do next? Has he given up on winning? Will he drop out of the race and concentrate on becoming shadow chancellor? I know plenty of Tories who wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry if that turned out to be the case. But the leading article in this week's edition of the magazine sets out just why Tories should still be worried about Balls.

Mervyn King’s evidence to the Treasury select committee has Westminster’s tired tongues wagging this afternoon. King re-iterated his long-held position that market confidence will imperil long-term recovery unless the deficit was confronted immediately. Nick Clegg has said that a personal conversation with King changed his mind on cutting the deficit early. Paul Waugh, Jeremy Warner and James Macintyre have varying takes on the Governor’s remarks and their bearing on the coalition's formation. I’d just observe that King may have been Cameron and Clegg’s unwitting matchmaker. But equally, no party was honest about cuts during the election.