What does Ed do in the morning?

Are there two Ed Balls (Ballses)? Because there have been major set-piece interviews with the man this week, and they seem to rather contradict each other.

First up, there's the Ed Balls whom Rachel Sylvester met, the supercharged wheeler-dealer at the heart of every government initiative:

According to exasperated officials and ministers in his department, he can be called away to Downing Street three or four times a day. There are often many more phone calls, text messages and emails to handle from an anxious PM. Every morning at seven, he has to participate in a conference call with key Number 10 aides to discuss the strategy for the day.
He is sent polling results, focus group research and media briefs for every subject under the sun. It is a miracle he has a moment left to save Britain's failing schools.

Mr Balls is phenomenally bright - he talks quickly, absorbing ideas as rapidly as he pours them out. A 20-minute coffee with him is more rewarding than a two-hour lunch with most ministers.

and then there's the one who spoke to the New Statesman, the dedicated secretary of state who barely even thinks about any other department:

Does Balls talk to Brown every day, for example - as some reports suggest? "No. Of course I don't," he retorts. "Do I do morning calls every day? No. Do I go and have a meeting with Gordon every day? No. Am I trying to run the government or run Downing Street? Of course I'm not. Is it bad enough trying to run a department of this scale and scope? Yes. Is it a time-consuming job doing that? Yes. If Gordon rings me do I talk to him? Of course. I'm not part of the strategic directive of Downing Street. But what's the point of me attempting to jump up and down every time a diary story or a sketch says that must be true? You just roll your eyes and carry on."

So which is it? The super-flexible and all-powerful genius at the centre of the Number 10 web? Or the diligent secretary of state? Or are there two Balls (as it were)?

What's particularly interesting about this confusion is that right-wing bloggers were exasperated by the Rachel Sylvester interview in the Telegraph, arguing that she'd been nobbled by Balls (as it were). It was seen as a hagiography. So if Balls was happy with that piece, is he talking Balls in the New Statesman? Or vice versa?

Westmonster is very confused. Time for the weekend.

Written by Lloyd Shepherd on 14 Dec 2007 5:05 PM. Permalink