Balls may be unpleasant but I imagine he’d be an effective attack dog.

Not sure this entirely works you know:

“I think the ability to control the machine of government is really crucial.”

The point being that Balls isn’t going to be controlling the machinery of government. The ability to get the civil service to do what you want is very different from teh ability to rally the troops to your flag. The former might make a good minister (although it also requires that you want the civil service to do sensible things) but it’s the latter which makes a good opposition leader.

I agree with Sunny.

Vote Balls!

I see some of your points, Sunny, but still I don’t know…

None of the three (the two MIlibands plus Ed Balls) represents a break with 13 years at the inner core of government. David Miliband the most of course, but the other two as well would be immediately associated with Blair and Brown at the inner core of power.

I really don’t think Ed Balls goes down well in terms of public image. Yes, he is more of an “attack dog” than the Milibands (though a strawberry muffin would be too), but he still comes across as that kind of weird breed of professional politician who never held an ordinary job that became associated with NL. Plus he’s been Gordon Brown’s economic adviser since 1994. And we all know how Gordon Brown is viewed at the moment.

Which is why I’m gutted that Jon Cruddas pulled out. It really is a massive blow.

Unlike Balls and the MIlibands (and Clegg and Cameron), he doesn’t come from a posh background, he was untainted by government and he was prepared to acknowledge that Iraq was wrong (even though he’d voted in favour, but readiness to own up to a mistake is rare stuff in politics). He’d built up support and prestige without sitting on the front bench.

What now?

Nobody should appease the right wing tabloids, but they are dying to see Balls as leader of the party, for their own bloodthirst. They will wreak havoc big time.

But also isn’t Balls being a ditherer now – he is asked on every interview whether he is standing, and he says he’s in talks with the party. It still seems like Balls’ candidacy is on the ‘better than DMiliband’ platform, which though is true, does not do enough.

If Ken Livingstone endorses him, then we all know where we stand.

But what about the character issue? Labour made a big mistake with Gordon. Everyone was on notice about his psychological flaws, but naively believed they wouldn’t matter. It would be perverse to make the same error again.

It is no invention of the Murdoch tabloids that Balls has for years been part of a pretty unsavoury clique featuring the likes of Charlie Whelan and Damian McBride among others. I think the next leader is going to need a clean pair of hands.

Isn’t this a reason why Ed Balls would be a good Shadow Chancellor? We might need a discussion about key skills needed for being Labour leader.

#6
“If Ken Livingstone endorses him, then we all know where we stand.”

And that would be…

None of the three (the two MIlibands plus Ed Balls) represents a break with 13 years at the inner core of government.

Erm, did you read Ed Miliband’s speech? He went as far as he could without junking everything they stood for.

#10 “He went as far as he could without junking everything they stood for.”

But he went along with it and took the money for five years, this is the kind of principled person we need.

But he went along with it and took the money for five years, this is the kind of principled person we need.

Sure, I’m not happy about it, but it’s called being a minister. Sometimes you make the decision to work within and try and get change or you don’t.

Besides, he wasn’t around during Iraq war etc

Reasons why Ed Balls is not a good Labour candidate: education, education, education.

Ed Balls has the look of a cross between Brown and Foot.
A good intellect and appeals well to die hard labour voters.
But is hated by the media.
For some reason Tory tossers like my moniker and cjcjc hate him. So that goes for him.
But he has no whole country appeal.
A good deputy perhaps
What is needed is a politician that will appeal to core labour voters and that 100,000 in marginal seats that will win you an election.
I like Cruddas but he is a tabloid dream. They would have field day.
Alan J would be my choice but would he appeal to middle class voters.
David Milliband is about the best to win those votes.
Althouigh do you know who is popular
You won’t like It

THE DARK LORD
da da daa da da daaaaaaa

I think the perceived problem with Ed Balls may be one that Ken Livingstone’s quote suggests the former Mayor of London does not see as a problem. This is the ability to drive things through using the machinery of government, that is to be ruthless and push decisions through regardless. Now, speaking (writing? I’m not saying this alound) as a non-socialist, I worry about this argument as a plus point for a potential leader – we have a parlimentary democracy, not an elected dictatorship, and to suggest that someone should be selected because they can ignore this tradition is hardly reassuring. Furthermore, even if this is a good characteristic for a leader of government, is it useful in opposition when there are no mechanisms to use? I know Mr Livingstone sometimes seems to take a while to notice that elections have been lost, but Mr Balls will not have government to hand.

I also am slightly confused as to why over-strong leadership is a good thing? Were not Mrs Thatcher and Mr Blair over-strong leaders? And look where that got us…

Nick Cohen is a Tory,

If you elect a leader just to attract certain voters, how are you going to hold on to those who are put off by them but normally vote for you? Perhaps elect someone because they have a sensible (in your opinion) programme for the party and the country?

Oh Nick Cohen IAT – you’re wrong.
I love Balls.
The shit-stirring disloyal little f*cker is exactly the leader Labour needs!

@ 14 He’s hated because he’s an odious little tosser and a hypocrite (private school educated “socialist” son of a marxist who er sent him to private school and oxbridge). He has the charisma of a damp rag and a face that you want to slap. And those are his good points. No one with that surname should go into politics, or teaching.
Please elect him leader.

matt and cjcjc
You love him really.
Surely though it you wanted him elected , to the “enemy”, you should sing his praises.
I use to tell Tories I loved IDS and he was a breathe of fresh air.
I always used to slag off ken Clarke, the best of all the tories
He was the only person who could have beaten Blair
Perhaps you fear Ed.

you elect a leader just to attract certain voters, how are you going to hold on to those who are put off by them but normally vote for you? Perhaps elect someone because they have a sensible (in your opinion) programme for the party and the country?

Look at the figures
Tory vote doesn’t go below 30%
Whoever Labour picks, they will never get those tribal votes.
Labour has about 26 % tribal votes
To win an election you fight for floating voters especially the 100, 000 in those marginal seats . Hence the money your man ashcroft pumped into those specific seats
Lets be honest watchman, all parties do the same.
You picked a guy who looked good and was a media PR man.
There is no much substance in him and his party
David Willets has twice his intellect but would never win an election

As for policies, they probably will be the same for all the candidates.

As for strong leaders, I agree
Also I agree with your point about Balls and the machinery of a party.
Trouble is that most professional politicians, from all parties are entrenched in this philosophy.
PJ O Rourke wanted Dan Quayle to be president because as a libertarian he would be a less of danger to society because he would not be a “strong ” leader

Ah, cynicism. I have to admit to being optomistic, despite experience, that party leaders may change. After all, David Cameron has in fact taken the Conservatives in the (classically) liberal direction he has always promissed – it seems to be often missed he has actually had a clear programme, despite the excellent promotion he does of that programme. There was a clear difference between David Cameron (caring, liberal conservatism) and David Davis (radical, individualistic conservatism), which meant the Conservatives had chosen their direction with that election. I can only hope that Labour can do the same (at least the Millibands have distinct brands in my head; hopefully they will put these across).

Matt Munro@19

There’s nothing hypocritical in a Marxist sending their children to a public school – it’s merely a means to an end. Funnily enough, I was politically agnostic until I attended (via the assisted place system in the early ’90s) an independent school. By your standards (and probably quite a few others), I’m a hypocrite for coming out of it with an intense dislike for an education system where money talks, especially taking advantage of a Tory policy that allowed me to do so (not that I was aware of this at the time). What soured me on the whole experience was a combination of the sense of entitlement displayed by the more well-off pupils, but also the expectation that I should have a desire to pull the ladder up after me once I’d joined their ranks.

The twist of irony is that the (brilliant) head of history at that school was something of a lefty himself, and while he pulled no punches when it came to teaching everything that was wrong with Soviet Communism (as well as Fascism in all its forms), he considered a fair chance for all as a worthwhile pursuit.

To use an American idiom, Balls Sr. was simply making lemonade with the lemons he had to hand.

Bluepillnation @ 23

…the expectation that I should have a desire to pull the ladder up after me …

….seems to me that you are fulfilling that expectation in spades by not supporting the reintroduction of the APS, grammar schools, Gove schools or any other escape routes.

J has it spot on. His record at the DCSF is why he should never be leader.

I wrote about it here:

http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/2010/05/15/bye-bye-mr-balls/

In the three days since then, 100 people, I think mostly teachers, have joined the Facebook group I set up for opponents of his leadership bid:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=122032747824585&v=info

By contrast, the most popular group supporting his leadership has 36 members.

He is a good labour party leadership candidate because if there is to be a worthwhile contest there has to be several candidates to offer various options and visions if the Labour party is going to heal and provide a genuine alternative at the next election.

A leadership contest will give all in the race an opportunity to reinvent themselves as the new progressive leader needed for the 21st century.

Ed Balls is a genuine contender and for the good of the party he should enter the race immediately to let the party decide what direction it wants to go in. Balls should not just enter the race if he feels he can beat both the Millibands he should enter the race for the good of his party.

Watchman
Ah, cynicism. I have to admit to being optomistic, despite experience, that party leaders may change. After all, David Cameron has in fact taken the Conservatives in the (classically) liberal direction he has always promissed – it seems to be often missed he has actually had a clear programme, despite the excellent promotion he does of that programme. There was a clear difference between David Cameron (caring, liberal conservatism) and David Davis (radical, individualistic conservatism), which meant the Conservatives had chosen their direction with that election. I can only hope that Labour can do the same (at least the Millibands have distinct brands in my head; hopefully they will put these across).

Dave in his youth was a pro apartheid Thatcherite. As the maxim goes “You get more right wing as you get older” I doubt he has become liberal.
His mentors are Daniel Hannan (Thatcher didn’t go far enough) and Daniel Johnson, the editor of standpoint (more neo con than Bush).
As for Davis, in some ways I think he was more liberal than Cameron, take his ethical stand on the 42 day detention.
Dave’s great skill , and the reason you picked him is that he can lie better than others.
We are a nice caring party.
as Jim Royle said “My arse”

@25 – I don’t think you’ll get a single teacher supporting his bid for leadership, unless you count Tories out to destroy the Labour party…

Balls is bad news.

@26: “He is a good labour party leadership candidate because if there is to be a worthwhile contest there has to be several candidates to offer various options and visions…”

What, so you’re obliged to include total fucking wankers?

Ed Balls may have his good points, he doesn’t seem to accept the neo-liberal consensus that an axe has to be taken to public spending eg http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/5543135/Ed-Balls-and-Alistair-Darling-clash-over-public-spending.html

“Lastly, this may be hard for the Westminster village to believe, but Ed Balls is largely an unknown figure across the country. He just wasn’t that visible daily.”

This is very true. I found it hilarious before the election when some Tories (including Michael Portillo) were saying that Ed Balls would be a Portillo moment. Er, no.

It would really annoy me if you picked Ed Balls to be your leader.

31 – I’d be distraught too. Please, please don’t elect Ed Balls as leader! /reversepsychology

What a pity that Ed Balls, when he was economic adviser in the Treasury, wasn’t a bit more ruthless in abolishing boon ‘n’ bust and preventing the house-price bubble from inflating to the point where houses became more unaffordable than 50 years ago.

It may come as a surprise to those who don’t follow the entrails of economic news closely but Ed Balls would be a permanent electoral liability as Labour leader because of his baggage. The circumstances in which he replaced the widely respected Alan Budd as economic adviser in the Treasury would doubtless be raked over many times in the Conservative press.

Bob
Spot on.
Why it is important for John to run is the prospect of an open debate on ideas.
PS I am surprised Johnson or Cruddas are not running.
Cruddas’s article doesn’t really explain his motives, just the problems.
cjcjc
Is right , political parties, including his own, just look like stepping stones for professional politicos.

The thing I dislike most about Balls is his vile wife Yvette Cooper, one of whose final actions was to further restrict the ability of the sick and disabled to claim benefits (inability to speak no longer counts as a disability and the seriousness of conditions which prevent sitting or standing for long periods has been downgraded). Don’t forget this couple claimed over £300000 in expenses in 2007 and triple flipped their houses.

@35:

A gentle reminder, Yvette Cooper was the minister responsible for housing 2005-8, in the department where John Prescott was the secretary of state.

“American house prices rose 124% between 1997 and 2006, while the Standard & Poor’s 500 index fell by 8%; half of US growth in 2005 was house-related. In the UK, house prices increased by 97% in the same period, while the FTSE 100 fell by 10%.” Source: Robert Skidelsky: Keynes – The Return of the Master (Allen Lane 2009) p.5.

“Houses are less affordable than 50 years ago although the quality of homes has improved, according to the Halifax. The lender, now owned by Lloyds Banking Group, said that over the last five decades UK house prices have risen by 2.7% a year, allowing for inflation.

“This was above the 2% annual increase in real earnings over the same period. Prices increased the most in the last decade, and separately lenders warned that lending to first-time buyers would be constrained for ‘some time to come’.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8468605.stm

Compare: “CHARLES GOODHART, a former member of the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee, warned yesterday that the Bank is failing to take sufficient account of the house price boom in setting interest rates.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/2758979/Goodhart-warns-on-house-price-boom.html

Yvette Cooper is an economist, educated at Oxford, Harvard and the LSE, all first tier universities.

Don’t you think

a) his deplorable expenses record
b) his clear connection to Labour financial regulation policy (or lack thereof) (as advisor to Brown until 2005 and then City Minister 2006-2007)
c) his close connection to and participation in some of the worst New Labour spin (close colleague of Damian McBride),
d) his history of intra-party sabotage and briefings (often conducted at the behest of Brown, sometimes independent),
e) his having done more than anyone to derail the Lib-Lab coalition talks by insisting no ground be given on policy

…means he’s quite possibly the worst candidate for leader you could find if you wish to draw a line under the New Labour era and start again. I mean… Ed Balls is new Labour squared; everything the negative the public associated with Labour Ed Balls represents.

Think of it in terms of future coalition deals if nothing else. How plausible do you think it would be that the LibDems could work with someone like Ed Balls, and concede Downing Street to him? Ed Miliband, sure. David Miliband, possibly though he has his own ‘record’ problems. John McDonnell, sure. Andy Burnam also helped to sabotage the Lib-Lab talks this time but at least he could claim to have done it on principled grounds. Seems like a decent enough guy even if the breast cancer thing was a bit tasteless.

But ED BALLS? His own party can’t trust him; how could he be trusted to front a coalition? He’s got the intellect, sure but he has (a) a tarnished record, (b) dubious integrity, (c) very little charisma, (d) questionable self-control. He’d make a halfways decent Shadow Chancellor – but you can’t have him as leader, that’s a role for which he’s eminently and transparently not suited.

“I found it hilarious before the election when some Tories (including Michael Portillo) were saying that Ed Balls would be a Portillo moment. Er, no.” – To most people who followed the Blair/Brown soap opera he’s as familiar a figure as Charlie Whelan and he only came a thousand or so votes away from losing what was, notionally, a fairly safe seat (he suffered a 15% drop compared to the notional 2005 result).

Flowerpower @ 24

Nope – I want to see a streamed comprehensive system that teaches to the same standards as I received for *all*, not just those who are lucky enough to afford it or passed an arbitrary exam at 11 years old.