I thought that Ed Balls would be a natural for opposition politics. But I’ve been struck by the naivety of some of his recent interventions – notably the Duffy-wooing immigration proposal.
As James has argued, Balls’ plan to limit freedom of movement within the EU ia classic
opposition politics. They are eye-catching, populist and but completely unworkable in practice. But Balls isn’t really in opposition yet: the Labour party is caught in a kind of limbo whilst
it determines its future, a future that Balls wants to control. Advocating the unimplementable looks conniving rather than statesmanlike, naïve rather than astute. It provided an opportunity
for his opponents, and Peter Hain, a major backer of Ed Miliband’s, took it on BBC Straight Talk:
‘Freedom of movement is a basic article of faith of the European Union. So the chances of changing that are about the same as the chances of going on holiday to Mars.’
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in