Miliband and Balls, in tandem

So, CoffeeHousers, are Eds Balls and Miliband a gruesome twosome or the most sparkling partnership since Torvill and Dean? I ask only because they’re really pushing the double-act shtick today. There’s their first-ever joint interview in the Evening Standard, for instance, in which they reminisce about the Shadow Chancellor’s 30th Birthday party, among other things. And then there was their joint appearance to officially launch Labour’s ‘plan for growth’ campaign this afternoon. They were talking policy, but there was also a strong emphasis on their personal relationship: eye contact, anecdotes, that sort of thing. Blair and Brown we are not, they seemed to be saying.

As for the policy, if you heard Ed Balls’ speech to the Labour party conference, then you’ve heard it before. It was the five-point agenda that he set out that day, and that you can remind yourselves of here. It includes ideas such as reversing the VAT rise and a bonus tax. And, yes, it remains dubious as to whether some of these policies could be enacted, or where the money to pay for them would come from. (More borrowing, said Balls, perturbingly.)

Despite that, though — and despite the unhappy parallels with Neil Kinnock — this is potentially fertile ground for Ed ‘n’ Ed. There has always been something in the “squeezed middle” thesis, however poorly it has been phrased. And if you look at polling on the policies they’re suggesting, then most of them go down well with the public. Support for cutting VAT is at 77-15. More capital spending is at 60-22. Reducing VAT on home improvements is at 59-23. And so on.

But we all know it’s not that simple. People may back individual, hypothetical policies that fill out their pockets, but they also have a appreciation of the wider context. So long as Cameron and Osborne remain more trusted with the economy, so long as Labour are blamed more heavily for our current woes, then this five-point plan won’t really cut it, electorally speaking. A sharp downturn in growth might help Labour’s case, as would a persuasive leader and shadow chancellor. Which brings us back to my opening question: gruesome twosome or sparkling partnership?