Popular Balls?

Apparently not, if the comments at the end of Michael White's piece on Ed Balls at The Guardian's Comment is Free area. The comments include:

"So What!?" to coin the phrase...

And your piece assumes that there are lesser mortals than politicians. I think you will find most people rank Labour politicians such as Balls and his mates at about the same level as something smelly they once stood in..."


"Pander this? Prejudice that ? Brown ? Balls ? Scum of the earth the lot of 'em."


"There won't be much Labour left to lead, post-Brown.

Brown is going to be the scapegoat for leading an indebted populace into the beginning of a never-ending recession.

And Ball will be seen as having been his bag-carrier.

People don't vote for politicians who they are angry with."


"Michael does live in the New Labour bubble. Never mind Ed, the reason his wife is hidden in the treasury is the mess she made of introducing HIP's to the housing market.

Her incompetence was staggering, but outweighed by her arrogance."


"The problem with Ed Balls is that he is both odious and incompetent.

Neither has he any experience or track record of achievement outside his tribal brand of politics - and this is hugely obvious.

To say that he is an "indifferent speaker" is surely a huge understatement. Anyone who has heard his speeches on education (especially the one to the Labour Party Conference) will know that he is an appalling speaker, not helped by total lack of content.

As for the statement that "Inequality, injustice and unfairness are what rocks Ed's boat". This is surely nonsense and very hard to square with the huge allowances and self enrichment (from the public purse) that he and his wife indulge in."

For more bile, take a read of the rest of the comments. If even Guardian readers think this highly of Ed Balls, he must be ever so popular in the rest of the UK.