Talk:Ed Balls/Archive 1

Archive 1

Stuff

Are you sure that Normanton is the longest running Labour constituency, isn't that Rhondda?

--Ebz 23:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that is beacause Rhondda didn't exsist as a unified constituency between 1918 and 1974. youngamerican (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

RfC: Is comment on Nazi uniform relevant

Is reference to the fact that Balls once dressed up as a Nazi at a university party relevant to the article? Spotty Lizard 17:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

imo, unless there's some sort of scandal or news-worthy event surrounding this (and if so, that should be mentioned), then not really —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.11.155 (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

RFC comment: Is it notable? What are the sources for it?-- — Kbob • Talk • 15:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Not relevant Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Not relevant at all. Off2riorob (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Relevant The next time he slips up, if this is in the article, the media will almost certainly pick up on it. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 16:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A930913 (talk • contribs)

Relvant in context This is a fact that has been topic of public discussion and has been repeatedly used by his political opponents to attack him. If it is to be included then it is probably notable in the context of those attacks against him? e.g Daily Mail Telegraph discussion in the jewish chronicle Jewish Chronicle Ajbpearce (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Expenses scandal

Given him and Cooper's previous bad press over their expenses claims, it's worth keeping an eye on whether there's hard fact behind the current suggestion they've sought an injunction blocking further publication of their details. MPs' expenses is currently a big news story in the UK and one would expect more details of their claims to have come to light. http://www.order-order.com/2009/05/that-balls-injunction-rumour/ -- Ralph Corderoy (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Using mobile phone in car

Is this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEcxQBtOX6o) note worthy?

"Sin Bin" proposal

The DCSF have formally denied that this is true. http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/news/content.cfm?landing=family_intervention_projects&type=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by James Pain (talk • contribs) 20:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Co op

This comment in the lede...Ed Balls is a British Labour Co-operative politician, is it supported by a citation, perhaps he did stand once but is this detail now outdated, I see he is candidate at Morley and Outwood since 2007 is this as a co op candidate? Off2riorob (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

From Parliament UK bio

Normanton general election 2005 Balls, Ed Lab/Co-op 19,161 Lab/Co-op Hold (1.21% from Lab/Co-op to Con) Lame Name (talk) 14:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but he doesn't appear to be standing as co op any more.? Off2riorob (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I also don't really see that his standing as that co op at the last election confirms the statement in the lede...Balls is clearly a British Labour party poitician. Off2riorob (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

In March 2007 he was selected to be the Labour Party candidate....this seems not to be anything to do with the co op side of things. imo it appears he was a co op candidate for selection and won and that situation is in the article but he is actually as far as the lede goes a Labour party politician and co op should be removed from there the fact that he stood in this way is a detail and doesn't change the larger picture as regards the lede. Off2riorob (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Same difference? From Co-operative Party:

The party does not put up separate candidates for any UK election itself. Instead, Co-operative candidates stand jointly with the Labour Party as "Labour and Co-operative Party" candidates. As long-standing allies of the larger and more prominent Labour Party, it is regarded by some as a faction within Labour, although the Co-operative Party is legally a separate political organisation.

Lame Name (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not the "same difference" and I think it should be stated in the opening paragraph that he is a "Labour & Cooperative MP", as it is in the infobox. 91.188.57.174 (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

He's not standing in Morley as a Co-op. Wereon (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

He is a co-op MP as stated on the labour party bio page [1]

Chaosdruid (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems mostly ok considering the supporting citation. The issue is weight, I mean the co op guys support him and give him financial backing but he is not a co op MP he is a labour party MP. correct me if I am wrong but he is the the labour and co op MP for wherever, he is the labour party mp for such and such, also supported by the co op guys, I will wait your comment and consider the weight. Off2riorob (talk) 12:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The matter for me rests on what the LP and CP Co-op party consider him to be and what the CP Co-op party actually is in relation to the LP.

The Labour party calls him Labour and Co-op MP[2]

The Co-op party lists him as a Labour and Co-op MP (14 May 2010)[3]

As regards the relationship between the two it is important to understand the Co-op party to determine whether it is in fact a separate entity, sister entity or just an arm of the Labour Party. In all the CP Co-op party documents the state they are a sister organisation and have been since inception in 1907. At present there do not seem to be CP candidates that stand as just CP Co-op party members.

I will have to find more on the relationship

Chaosdruid (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Conservative membership of the Co-op party (CP membership of the CP - lol i just realised I cannot use CP so had to go back and change them all...) was put into play but fell on its head as demonstrated here [4]

I am unsure as how that affects the matter as it would imply that having members in the Labour party and the Conservatives would mean they were a coalition party across party borders and more akin to the LibDems.

It seems to me that this is wrong as rather than look at it from normal political points of view the Co-op party is more of a single issue party that tries to promote co-operative ideas and businesses, as shown by their press release and general info from their manifesto etc, both nationally (English Local, Parliamentary and UK) and internationally.

[5] , [6] , [7] , [8] and [9]

Chaosdruid (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will have a look at some of your links over the next days. A clarification on the weight of both names would be great, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I had been puzzled by this as on the Morley and Outwood (UK Parliament constituency) he was listed as "Labour Co-op" without any supporting evidence, in contradiction to the listing on the "Statement of persons nominated" and the two other sources given on that page for the election (where he's just listed as "Labour"). I've just now found the Co-operative party's listing of him, to support that status, so I've added that source to the constituency page. His web page makes very little mention of "co-operative" except in his Letter to party members of Feb 07 where he says "I am proud to be a Labour & Co-operative MP ". PamD (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Damian_McBride

There seems to be given excessive weight to this section, Balls is not even mentioned on Mc Brides article and yet here it reads as though Balls was in control of the whole thing, this imo is undue weight to what is clearly only opinion of political commentators. Off2riorob (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking to trim it for weight but looking at it again I don't see anything of substance at all and suggest it isn't worth keeping at all. Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Nazi uniform

What is notable about the fact that he went to a fancy dress costume as a German officer? Off2riorob (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

copied from Spotty Lizard's talk page

Ed Balls, Nazi uniform. Please explain on the talk page. Leaky Caldron 13:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Ed Balls is a major figure in the present Labour government. On his web-page (www.edballs.co.uk), he makes various assertions about his values, and in 2007 he backed the Morley Together anti-racism campaign. It is therefore of relevance that, whilst at university, he saw fit to dress himself as a soldier of a regime that was the antithesis of the values for which he claims to stand.

Given that his Morley & Outwood seat is the subject of a closely-fought election battle in the 2010 election, Mr Balls's university life and commitment to values are the legitimate subject of scrutiny to the electorate. It is therefore appropriate that public information sources such as Wikipedia provide readers with all the information that they might need in order to allow them to make a candid and full assessment of the man, his stated values and his historical comportment.

Please sign your posts. That is rubbish, so you think that him going to a fancy dress party in a german officers uniform is revealing anything about his personal opinions, or that he is a nazi supporter? IMO it is undue weight and needs removing.Off2riorob (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It is revealing of his judgement. That makes it relevant to his fitness to be an MP. I have added his explanation of why he wore the uniform, so you can have no cause for complaint about the inclusion of this in his page. ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spotty Lizard (talk • contribs) 13:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It was 24 years ago. It is not of sufficent notability to include it prominently now. His judgement has clearly changed and what it was then is not evidenced by a single indiscretion. Leaky Caldron 13:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Ed Balls himself has on several occasions made a number of references to the fact that, for instance, Boris Johnson and David Cameron were members of the Bullingdon Club whilst at university. The behaviour of MPs before they were in the public spotlight is clearly of relevance to their political role and therefore to their biographies. This photograph has been made an election issue and may ultimately cost Mr Balls his parliamentary seat. It therefore is right for it to be commented on on Wikipedia, especially as Mr Balls's explanation of why he was wearing the uniform is now also included. Spotty Lizard 13:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spotty Lizard (talk • contribs)

I have added a request for comment to the top of the page. You have attempted to delete the information subject to this discussion without engaging further in the discussion. Please do not do so again until third-party feedback has been received. Spotty Lizard 17:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spotty Lizard (talk • contribs)

There are 2 editors here who disagree with that material being included and a 3rd editor has reverted it without commenting here. I'm not sure what "third party" feedback you envisage and I would be really grateful if you did not tell me what I have or haven't done and imagine that my timescales in anyway coincide with yours. From what I can see your contribution defies a number of policies and rest assured, someone with a bit more time and energy will be along soon to set you straight. In the meantime I will leave you some general guidelines on your talk page. Leaky Caldron 17:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I notice that both you and Off2riorob edit a large number of New Labour-related sites, often in consultation with each other. I therefore question your political impartiality. Clearly we have a difference of opinion and third-party input would therefore be welcome. I suggest you read the guidelines yourself; the information I have added is relevant, sourced from bona fide materials and is set out in an impartial manner. You appear to be awarding yourself an importance that you don't necessarily deserve. Spotty Lizard 17:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spotty Lizard (talk • contribs)

There is a behavioural guideline called assume good faith which you might want to add to your reading list. I know no more about that editor's politics than he knows about mine. The only thing we agree on is removing poorly sourced, non-neutral material in a wide range of topics.Leaky Caldron 18:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

" If you wish to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians, please substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence, so that people can understand the basis for your concerns." Which I did. Spotty Lizard 15:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spotty Lizard (talk • contribs)

I'm assuming that now the election is over the matter is no longer an issue ?

I think the pic should be left out. It is clearly not relevant to the article as it adds nothing other than "here's a picture of him in fancy dress". If it was a pic of him at a Nazi/BNP/KKK rally then I would say that may actually be relevant

Chaosdruid (talk) 07:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Telegraph

Why does it say Ed Balls worked for the Daily Telegraph? Surely he worked for the Financial Times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.149.222 (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the error; it appears to have been introduced by an anonymous vandal on 18 May 2010. I have now corrected the article. Road Wizard (talk) 23:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Father

How and where do we want to describe Ed's father, Michael Balls? The article mentions him in the sections on both early life and personal life. This being the case, I would suggest that in the "early life" section we only need to mention the fact that Michael is a zoologist, as his exact role will have changed as Ed grew up. It is in the personal life section that we can give more details, including the fact that he is now emeritus professor at Nottingham.

I hope you are OK with this, PamD.

Yaris678 (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)