Miliband staffer refers to Balls' argument as "nightmare"
The Daily Mail caused a certain amount of upset by publishing a leaked email from a member of Ed Miliband's team referring to an Ed Balls argument as a "Nightmare." You can read the Mail article online here.
Labour's allies in the media such as George Eaton in the New Statesman (one of the exceptionally small group of people, not including Ed Miliband, who believe that "there is no one better qualified" than Ed Balls "to perform the job of Chancellor.") have been frantically spinning this as a small story of a limited disagreement blown up by papers hostile to Labour and making a big point that the email was apparently leaked accidentally (by being sent to Tory MP James Morris by mistake for the pollster of the same name) rather than deliberately leaked as part of a Labour civil war.
I'm not convinced that this is a non-story.
We can all remember what harm has been done to the country in the past when Number ten and Number 11 did not have a reasonably close working relationship.
It can cause anything from embarrassment to minor harmful effects for the economy if the media think they can spot a gap wide enough to accomodate a cigarette paper between the PM and the Chancellor of the day.
When the Prime Minister and Chancellor cordially detest one another and fail to co-operate, as was sometimes the case between Blair and Brown, it can paralyse the government.
So although any Miliband staffer who uses the term "nightmare" when discussing Ed Balls demonstrates that in this respect if in no other he has some connection to reality, it is entirely legitimate for opponents of the Labour party to watch out for evidence of disagreement between the Labour leader and shadow chancellor.
These guys have form: such a split at the top of their party was one of the contributing factors to the mess Labour left behind in 2010 and the problems Britain is still having.
Labour does not deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Labour's allies in the media such as George Eaton in the New Statesman (one of the exceptionally small group of people, not including Ed Miliband, who believe that "there is no one better qualified" than Ed Balls "to perform the job of Chancellor.") have been frantically spinning this as a small story of a limited disagreement blown up by papers hostile to Labour and making a big point that the email was apparently leaked accidentally (by being sent to Tory MP James Morris by mistake for the pollster of the same name) rather than deliberately leaked as part of a Labour civil war.
I'm not convinced that this is a non-story.
We can all remember what harm has been done to the country in the past when Number ten and Number 11 did not have a reasonably close working relationship.
It can cause anything from embarrassment to minor harmful effects for the economy if the media think they can spot a gap wide enough to accomodate a cigarette paper between the PM and the Chancellor of the day.
When the Prime Minister and Chancellor cordially detest one another and fail to co-operate, as was sometimes the case between Blair and Brown, it can paralyse the government.
So although any Miliband staffer who uses the term "nightmare" when discussing Ed Balls demonstrates that in this respect if in no other he has some connection to reality, it is entirely legitimate for opponents of the Labour party to watch out for evidence of disagreement between the Labour leader and shadow chancellor.
These guys have form: such a split at the top of their party was one of the contributing factors to the mess Labour left behind in 2010 and the problems Britain is still having.
Labour does not deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Comments