Ed Balls may have other matters on his mind this morning that are more important than answering my question!

Maybe I misjudged Ed Balls when I thought he was avoiding answering my question about his seeming to mislead the British public during his Newsnight appearance earlier this week; see here for the details and my challenge, a challenge that Ed Balls has ignored although he has replied to a previous challenge so I know he can respond.

Anyway the documents published overnight in The Telegraph that Ed Balls was a prime mover in the Gordon Brown campaign to replace Tony Blair as Labour leader and Prime Minister are quite shocking. Shocking but not surprising as I think we all knew where Ed Balls' loyalties lay and what he and his fellow conspirators were up to. However there was never any solid proof and so Ed Balls could use 'plausible deniability' tactics; no longer!

The plot, codenamed Project Volvo, was launched as London was under attack from Islamic terrorists in the 7/7 attacks; great timing?

It is also beng reported that Mr Brown ordered Mr Balls to take a 'brutal' approach to cleanse the Labour Party of Mr Blair's influence.

If this subject interests you and it should, then The Telegraph is a must read to today as it lays out for us what Ed Balls was up to and what his priorities were during some difficult days during the last Labour government.

This is the document index

Do read through the documents they are fascinating, here's some of what The Telegraph discovered:
Here The Telegraph report on who Ed Balls' co-conspirators were and there are some familiar names (my emphasis):

'Around him, Mr Brown formed his “small group” of six that would win him the job of prime minister. Other members included Ed Miliband, now Labour leader, and Douglas Alexander, the current shadow foreign secretary. The team was completed by Sue Nye, another long-term aide; Spencer Livermore, who became Mr Brown’s director of political strategy in No 10; and Ian Austin, a former spin doctor who became an MP in 2005.

In July 2005, each of the members of the “small group” was given responsibility for different parts of the campaign.

Ms Nye, who became Baroness Nye last year, was in charge of recruiting business leaders and managing the relationship with the Parliamentary Labour Party, alongside Mr Brown. Tom Watson, Dawn Primarolo and Ann Keen were seen as key supporters in the Commons, as was Nick Brown, who was later Chief Whip.

Mrs Keen, who lost her seat last year, was Mr Brown’s ministerial aide, while Miss Primarolo was a long-serving Treasury minister. Mr Watson was one of several junior ministers who were to resign in 2006, forcing Mr Blair to tell the country he would be gone within a year.

Several figures were considered for managing the business aspects of the coup. Shriti Vadera, a former UBS banker who became a minister in 2007, was a key Treasury aide with excellent City links.

Alan Parker, the founder and chairman of the Brunswick Group PR company, was named as an adviser on image issues.

An unexpected name is that of Louis Susman, whom Barack Obama appointed as US Ambassador to Britain in 2009. He is mentioned in relation to fund-raising, though it is not clear what role he ever played, if any, in the plot.

Mr Miliband was in charge of developing policy, with the MP Michael Wills, later justice minister, and the Brown adviser Neal Lawson. Wilf Stevenson, who also became a peer last year, led the Smith Institute, the think tank where Brownite theories and concepts were developed.

Stewart Wood, a senior adviser to Mr Brown and a fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, was also handed policy matters. He has also been ennobled. Eric Salama is another key figure. Mr Salama is the chief executive of Kantar, part of the global communications company WPP, and was considered for a senior policy role.
Mr Livermore handled Mr Brown’s image, to make him a plausible prime ministerial figure. MT Rainey, an advertising specialist, and the film director Anthony Minghella were also suggested.

American consultants Bob Shrum and Stan Greenberg were involved in polling on Mr Brown and Mr Blair’s strengths and weaknesses . Mr Austin was in charge of media strategy, dominated by the spin doctor Damian McBride.'

Here The Telegraph show the document showing Gordon Brown's demands for the transfer of power from Tony Blair to himself; nowhere is a democratic vote mentioned.

Here  The Telegraph show a presentation that includes this does list Gordon Brown’s 'weaknesses':

'Humourless, dour, moody, aggressive, unapproachable'

And that's from one of his supporters. It would be interesting why his supporters thought that someone 'moody, aggressive, unapproachable' would make a good Prime Minister. Maybe Ed Balls saw something of himself in the 'moody' and 'aggressive' descriptions?


Of course the release of this documents raises some very interesting questions for the Labour Party and for the wider British public. More of those questions in a moment, but it would be interesting to know how The Telegraph obtained these documents? I suppose one should ask whose interests are served by the release of these documents? It would be tempting to say the Conservatives but I think that their long-term interests are served by keeping the vile Ed Balls near the top of the Labour party. Ed Balls turns so many people off with his smirking, aggressive and repellent personality as showcased almost every time he is interviewed, even by a friendly BBC interviewer. Maybe the leak came from a disgruntled Blairite, maybe someone (or a supporter of someone) who has recently lost out to Ed Balls and/or another of Gordon Brown's inner circle (such as Ed Miliband). Now who might fit that description? 

Leaving that aside, the release of these documents leaves the Labour party having to face the facts that the people who plotted to depose their party leader (the man who won them three general elections) and the people who denied so plotting, are now at the very top of their party. What sort of loyalty can the likes of Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and Douglas Alexander expect now that their past actions have been so exposed? Also I wonder how other figures in the Labour party feel now that they know for certain that Ed Balls is a plotter, who might he plot against next?


Meanwhile one Telegraph commentator seems to have rowed back from describing Ed Miliband in rather derogatory terms. Toby Young's piece is entitled 'The Telegraph's scoop will cut short Ed Miliband's time as Labour leader' but its URL indicates that another earlier title may have been dropped - 'http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100091597/telegraphs-extraordinary-scoop-is-proof-that-ed-miliband-is-gordon-browns-bch' I presume that last word was 'bitch'...


The BBC could not really ignore this story but they are downplaying it. There is just one article that I can find on it and that is already just the number 5 story on the front page. The coverage is sparse and ignores some of the more explosive revelations.The story does not even feature in the BBC's top stories on the Radio 4 08:30 news bulletin, anyone would think they were trying to downplay the story; I wonder why?

I also like the whining comment at the end of The Guardian's piece about the leak investigation:

'The investigation will raise questions about whether the new government was involved in the leaking of the papers.'

Yes that's the real story!


One fact that seems to be garnering too little interest is that Ed Balls has now been proved to be a liar. Ed Balls has denied several times that there was a plot to overthrow Tony Blair, he has indeed previously insisted he had "never ever" been involved in attempts to undermine colleagues. take a read of this Guardian piece from July 2010 about Ed Balls' BBC interview:

'Ed Balls, a Labour leadership contender and a close ally of Gordon Brown, today rejected suggestions that he took part in an "insurgency" against Tony Blair and insisted the differences between the two men amounted only to "creative tensions".

In a fractious interview on the BBC, he dismissed as "total, absolute nonsense" any idea that he had been party to a coup against Blair in 2006, which led to him announcing his intention to quit the following year.

...

He said: "I was the chief economic adviser to the Treasury. I was never involved in an insurgency, I was very close to Gordon Brown but I also saw Tony Blair very regularly, but we had our disagreements."'

In the light of the recently released documents why should anyone trust a word Ed Balls says again?