Ed Balls has lost the Labour Leadership

You may think I am being a tad presumptive with this title, but I believe I will be proved correct. I think it is generally accepted, especially judging by media coverage, that it is now a two horse race between the Milibands. Below I am going to layout three key reasons why Labour are going to drop the Ball's:

1) He has the personality of a Ballbag

Labour have only just got rid of one leader who they had to keep away from people, do they want another? No. I am not saying Ed Balls is a moody bully like Brown was, but lets face it - he is a smug Ballbag. I remember watching election night, all the MP's conducted their victories very well, except one man who really Balls'd it up...Ed Balls.


2) He was far too close to the man that balls'd it up

I know this is kind of a given, but come on lets face it he is used goods, tarnished by a disliked PM who then made a 'Balls-up' of the election. It is a fact that Blair still has a following (look at his book sales), Brown does not. Brown's following consists of Ed Balls. Labour wants to win, I think they no they need to step away from Brown and push closer to Blair. Win back that 'Middle England'.

3) He will never 'Ball over' the voters

No wonder Brown didn't win when he had this Ed Ballbag aiding him the whole time. As the Miliband's continued to show that this is a two horse race, there was opportunity for a huge statement and a last push for Ed Balls. Instead, he seemed to infact lack his pair of 'Balls'. There was no brave and bold statement, instead there was this: "We've had a daily soap opera of one Miliband brother or the other, with their supporters or non-supporters, commenting here and there"
He basically stated that all the media is covering is the Milibands, that is actually the same as saying it is a two horse race and he is not in. Nobody votes for the man that cries "It's not fair!"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1307718/Ed-Balls-slams-Miliband-family-soap-opera-stokes-Labour-leadership-war.html#ixzz0yW3zVA8N

Blair Book overshadows Hague Homosexuality

What was the quote, "a good day to bury bad news" - looks like William Hague can pick his days as well. William Hague has cleverly picked the day Tony Blair released his controversial book (A Journey) to finally answer the allegations about his sexuality, his marriage and his relationship with his advisor.

Ok so granted Hague's advisor resigned yesterday and this did demand a response. But considoring that rumours about Hague and Chris Myers have been doing the rounds online for a few weeks now and Hague has yet to respond; my question is: did Myers and Hague pick their day wisely. The Hague story has recieved a lot of coverage and will almost certainly make all the papers, but on most other days it would have been the number one story. However, Tony Blair's controversial biography (speaking 'honestly' about Gordon Brown, Iraq and Freedom of Information Act) has knocked him down to number two story of the day.

This was PR genius from Hague. Firstly, the statement was spot on. It was to the point, honest and he threw his entire reputation behind it. In recent years Hague has become liked on both sides of the political spectrum. Well, perhaps not liked, but respected. His reputation holds some weight, throwing it behind this statement makes it hard to argue against it. The sheer honesty of it as well, makes it hard to argue against. You would almost feel bad trying to disprove that Hague and his wife have not had miscarriages (though I am sure the Daily Mail and News of the World reporters will be on the case).

Secondly, I am in no doubt that Myers and Hague would have spoken about his resignation before it took place. Whatever you say about either of them, they both are good at politics. It is not too much of a stretch to think they would have chosen their best time to make the announcement that Myers is leaving. Surely the best time for that is when their story would be overshadowed by an even more controversial story. I have no doubt that they new Blair's book was out today - I did! And I expect they new some pretty big revelations would be in it. Hague is Foriegn Secretary...he needs to know certain things, such as Iraq revelations.

I have no doubt that Hague is telling the truth, he has nothing to hide according to his statement - which I believe wholeheartedly. But with clever timing he has snuck his announcement in, almost under the radar, but in enough view so it is known. And when any issues about this come up in future he can point towards a tell all statement and bounce past them. He has preserved his reputation, buried future stories and not been the biggest story of the year...PR brilliance!

Stop punishing the banks - they ain't all bad!

wow the budget is over...and we were all thrilled! Thrilled to find out we are not paying 3% more for everything...that will seriously affect the purchasing of large goods. Can't see many cars being bought from now on. It is quite dull though isn't it, the budget. Its economics, and we don't want to know about that...we want to see political squabbling. Which is exactly what Harriet Harman gave us, a quality session from her!

My one problem with the bloody thing is that no-one in politics is talking about free market. Shouldn't that discussion take place? It is all about blaming the banks at the moment! Blame the banks, blame the bankers! Blame yourselves! The thing is, we saved Northern Rock and others when obviously they had failed in the market, and then we tax them loads in order to punish them for this. But banks like Barclays who always remained strong get tarred with that brush too. They didn't hurt us in any way. If we had of let Northern Rock go bust and allowed the market leave us with only the top notch banks, such as Barclays, then we would not have to punish the banks but instead allow them to drag us back into prosperity.

I dare you to tell me why I am wrong...

The Rise of The Burnhamator/The Fall of a PM

As Lib Dem's are seemingly making it clear that the Con-Dem Nation isn't necessarily built in stone, Andy Burnham is attempting to kick start his charge at the leadership of Labour. Today, a version of the Queen Speech was leaked and voting reform seems to be at the forefront. Nick Clegg has also implied today that he wanted reform changes to be made imminently. He stated that if he could not get support in it from the coalition then he would look to the Labour Party to help get the reforms through.

This is essentially the Deputy Prime Minister challenging the position of the Prime Minister, David Cameron. He is basically saying that if his superior won't let him do what he wants then he will form an alliance with the competitor. This is not usual business practice and goes to show what a different form of politics this coalition has given us. Essentially, the third party have the power of a first party. The reform is seemingly Lib Dems biggest issue, they are desperately pushing this through - yet it divides Labour and Conservatives. Lib Dems came third in the election - clearly we did not prioritise issues the same way they did, or we disagreed with their stance on it. Should they be pushing this through so forcefully when the two parties a majority of us voted for can't decide on it. Only when Labour or Tories make a full decision on this is it democratic to pass it, and Labour won't be doing that until they have a leader.

Talking of which, the leadership debate intensified today as Burnham suggested the Labour Party had attempted to 'stifle debates on immigration' during the election. Andy Burnham suggests that immigration was the biggest issue in the election - perhaps due to Browns infamous response when asked about the topic. Andy Burnham now has the backing of David Blunkett and certainly looks like he is willing to use his unblemished character to attack the last Government. Although, Andy Burnham is right in that immigration is a hot topic at the moment, is it one that Labour can go into? The response that Diane Abbott gave (It's very dangerous to scapegoat immigrants in a recession ("It's very dangerous to scapegoat immigrants in a recession") is unlikely to be popular with the electorate. Labour need to address the problem that BNP will be looking for disaffected Labourites, but they also need to decide are they willing to fight that idealistic battle and lose some of the centre ground. This could be one of the main decisions the Labour Party Members must make during the election campaign.

Labour need to get Barack in the game!

So we have a coalition Government, Lib Dem's have cabinet seats. Who would have thought they would be saying those words five months ago. But it is five years until the next election and the excitment in Politics is quickly dying down again. We enjoyed the TV debates, well we at least tuned in to them, we enjoyed the excitement of a coalition being born (especially a certain condeming headling). But that excitement is flowing out of us quicker than a poorly cooked friday night curry. However, is there hope at the end of the grey tunnel that is political media? Perhaps, the Labour leadership election?

Now I am in know way going to suggest that the Miliband's are anywhere near as exciting as Barack Obama, and Ed Balls certainly isn't - frankly I know nothing of John McDonnell but I am quite sure he isn't either - but I might go as far as to suggest they could whip us up into a political frenzy as Obama did. This leadership debate has some serious potential:

1) Brother versus brother as both Miliband's put themselves up for leadership.

2) A man clutching at straws as 'Brownite' Ed Balls tries to fight his way to leadership

3) The man that came from know where as backbencher John McDonnell looks to be the dark horse of the campaign

4) A demographic winner as the first black women MP Diane Abbott enters the fray

5) And Andy Burnham

They are five plots that could explode us into excitement, they could grab our attention and rejuvenate the Labour Party. They probably won't as I am sure none of them will live up to their promise, but opportunity is there. The one we all surely look to when we want to replicate the Obama factor is McDonnell. Before the Primaries in America Obama was little known, much the same for McDonnell. Although he is a very popular backbencher in the party, outside the House of Commons he is not exactly challenging David Beckham for front page of magazines. If he can simulate Obama's rise in popularity it could be a great plot to watch, as you may know from previous blogs I am a big fan of Obama's rhetoric and feel this is the only way such a rise in popularity can be achieved; McDonnell has strong left wing convictions and at a time like this, idealistic rhetoric to that aim could be popular in the same way.

The Miliband's have potential though. David Miliband has been long waiting for the opportunity to go for leadership in clean fight, I say clean as many waanted him to usurp Gordon's thrown whilst Brown was still in power. Has he missed his chance though, he is a popular figure and having been foriegn secretary is a man that can deal with high profile positions. But his own brother is not willing to stand behind him. Ed Miliband has seen opportunity and gone for it. He is also a popular figure within the Labour Party and became highly prominent during the election. He could ride that popularity to the top. Sadly they seem hell bent on not bad mouthing each other which makes it a hell of a lot less fun for all of us; though I am sure that won't last, it never does.

Mr Balls. Balls by name, Balls-up by nature. One of Gordon Browns most loyal followers, which will surely work against him. Gordon Brown has an unpopular reign in Government and Ed Balls was always alongside him. He lacks the vigour of the Miliband's and the clean slate of McDonnell. He has his high profile in Politics going for him, but I am not sure anyone thought he made a good education secretary - and does that count as high profile? In a cabinet where he had the ear of the Prime Minister he was still in a less high profile position than David Miliband (who at the time was the PM's biggest threat). Clearly, he is no challenge and I cannot see him winning the race.

Diane Abbott has a strong chance of pulling an Obama on us. She has been an MP for a long time but never found political stardom; in her campaign she may reason that upon certain demographics that she is in. She was the UK's first ever black women MP and in that sense she ticks some boxes. I am not suggesting that either women or black people would vote just because of that, but the excitement around Obama grew quite significantly because he was the first legitimate black Presidential candidate. This could be the UK's first legitimate black candidate, this could be Labour's first legitimate female candidate. She certainly has the ability to get a buzz around her, she just needs to talk the talk to prove she is legitimate. If she wins it could be a fantastic glass ceiling shattering moment - people cried out for a 'new politics' in the election, they cried out for a breakdown of the political elite - a black women PM could signify just that.

And finally Andy Burnham. A man who rose into the limelight during a stint as Health Secretary. A rather successful stint, though not brilliant...but in no way terrible. He is actually a very popular MP, he walks away from Labours reign with an untarnished record. He is likeable, with northern roots (which is always a winner in the Labour Party, he is strong in his ideals and can work the media. He is a real competitor and one David Miliband might have hoped to have on side. He was late to throw his hat in the race, but it could lead to a successful campaign.

These Lib Dems are smarter than we thought...

A five year fixed term...that was a smart move by the ol' Liberal Democrats. As I stupidly predicted in my last blog, I was expecting them to be shafted out of Government within a couple of years. They may now even be able to take some of the credit for the recovery and jump into second party position. Ol' Vince Cable may become the hero of the economy! In five years times the famous names of politics we see everyday will be those of Liberal Democrats and not those of Labour. Should Labour be worried...

1) No, they are about to go through a fantastic leadership battle which will pit the big names in the party against each other. David Miliband versus Ed Milibad, brother versus brother...that is going to be a good show. They may still the limelight from the coalition if they do it correctly and they may even win back some voters along the way.

2) yes, Labour are in the position where a strong leadership battle is possible because they have 'political heavyweights'. Political heavyweights come from having cabinet posts and getting tv time. In five years time Lib Dems will have political heavyweights, and not just from going to bed with Cheeky Girls (though a heavyweight he proved not to be). This will mean that when the next election comes around the Lib Dem campaign trail will not rely so heavily on leadership, they will be able to throw big names into the debates with recent cabinet experience...they may be able to knock Labour down a peg or to.

A New Prime Minister...but how long will he have the job?

So Brown has gone, described by Peter Mandelson as “not faultless, but fearless”. I think we all saw this resignation coming since he announced the election. He was never going to win and he seemingly couldn’t stay on if he lost. Following the Hung Parliament we have been left on tender hooks waiting for a leader to emerge. As was the case throughout the entire campaign, no leader has. Cameron is now certainly going to be Prime Minister; we could have made this assumption since he first took power of the Tories in 2005. The fact that he failed to take power via an overall majority just goes to show the weakness in his leadership skills. He failed to lead the people to the polls, let’s hope he will be able to lead them after the polls. He is seemingly going to become Prime Minister via a coalition Government (although at time of writing this is not certain). He has again failed to assert himself as a strong leader and gain Parliament’s support to start a minority Government – on the assumption he won’t be. I can hardly imagine Thatcher, Churchill or Blair ever being a part of a coalition, they would have beat down the opposition throughout these negotiations. They would have made deals, they would have span stories and would have done everything it takes to rise above the rest and assert themselves as the only leader for this country.

Cameron has not done this. In fact, he has had only a small part to play in the negotiations; neither has Clegg. I know if it was me, and I think this probably goes for the three people I named above, I would not be kept out of that room. Now is his someone’s time to stand up and take control. Brown has stepped aside with a goodbye; the next worry for Cameron will have to be who will fill that void. If it is David Miliband, who has seemingly, been Leader in waiting throughout Browns years, than Cameron may have to worry what will happen in the next election. Milliband is a popular, ideological and charismatic MP who, if he takes control, could quite easily bring a flood of support back to Labour. (Although it has to be said Harriet Harman is obviously acting leader and may look to keep the role and a few others will be looking to seize power of the Party). The other problem on Cameron’s mind will have to be Clegg. A coalition Government could mean the announcement of Nick Clegg as Deputy Prime Minister. This is a man who underwent a huge surge in popularity during the campaign; this role could give him political legitimacy. It could paint him as the natural successor to Cameron. If Cameron does become Prime Minister via a coalition Government than he will surely try to call an election as quickly as possible in order to earn a full majority. However, today’s events could lead to an even harder election for Cameron next time around.

As suggested above, Cameron will most likely be looking to call another election as soon as he thinks he can win a full majority. I am going to make a personal prediction on this, it may turn out to be wrong, but it makes sense to the pragmatic nature of Mr. Cameron. I believe that the large spending cuts in which we were promised by Cameron throughout campaign will not happen to the extent we were told. Tax rises will not happen at all. The economy is seemingly on the way up; Cameron will ride this wave to popularity, he will not make big changes until he can claim he saved this country from recession. As soon as he starts claiming this, and his popularity in turn goes through the roof, he will call the next election and take a full majority. It is then that we will see the major spending cuts; it is then that we will see the major tax rises; and he will do it with five years left to earn back our support – A New Prime Minister, A New Master of Spin.

Early bird catches the ballot paper

Ok so I am writing this at the point where three constituencies have counted and announced all three from Sunderland, all three Labour wins and with differing swings. The exit polls show Conservatives not to have an overall majority and point towards a hung Parliament. It’s time for me to be stupid and make a prediction – I stick to what I have always said, Conservative win with overall majority, Labour to have second highest amount of seats; however, I will go out on a limb and say that I believe Labour will also secure the second highest amount of votes.

That was my quick update and prediction there, but I just wanted to quickly put together a blog about the other hot topic coming through – the shambles of the voting system. Polling stations closed before people could vote, others stayed open after exit polls were announced and some polling stations didn’t even have enough ballet papers. Well I personally think it is shocking to not have enough ballot papers, that is administration at its worse and someone needs to get blamed for that – almost certainly has to be an inquiry. I also believe that allowing people to vote after the exit polls have been released is poor show, if you haven’t voted before the designated time than that is tough luck. And I am afraid that my opinion remains as that over the people queuing outside polling stations that haven’t been able to vote. I was up at 7am this morning to make my vote before I went to work; if you left it so late that it closed before you could get in than that is your fault. The times were clearly 7am to 10pm – plenty of time! Don’t complain, live and learn and in five years time get up early and get down to that polling station.

It is decision time...this is whats on offer...

So tomorrow is the big day! I have spent this evening trying to catch up on the huge amounts of election shows that have been pushed out via TV this week. To be honest, they are all rather dull. All the parties have repeatedly spoken about the same boring issues and put the same points over without ever really giving any passionate; ideological please about why they are correct. So I have decided that the best way to decide who to vote for is to choose your ideology, and then vote for the party that fits this best. Below you will find (with the help of the BBC website) a detailed version of what the parties are now, and then a comparison of what they have traditionally stood for. I will take the Tories as standing for ‘one-nation’ Conservatism, which is essentially paternalistic, whilst maintaining hierarchy and authority. I will take Labour to be a socialist party, essentially standing for left-wing ideals of equality and distribution of resources. The Lib Dem party are a bit more difficult to pin down due to their ‘new’ status, but I will take them from their oldest roots as I have with the others, they are basically a Liberal party believing in freedom and equality of opportunity. Essentially, if you traditionally vote Labour, Conservative or Lib Dem – look at the below and question whether you should this time.

Labour

Key priorities:

1. "Targeted" increase in public spending over the next year to "sustain the recovery", before cutting the deficit by more than 50% by 2014 and reducing the structural deficit by at least two-thirds over the next parliament

2. Protect "frontline investment" in childcare, schools, the NHS and policing

3. Ensure all people who suspect they have cancer get test results within one week

4. Restore the link between the state pension and earnings from 2012

5. Guarantee a place in education or training for all 16 and 17 year olds

Analysis:

This seems to stay fairly true to Labour beliefs, it is watered-down and saturated in fluff; but to be fair when you fight your way through the extras there is still a base of ideology in this. I am surprised by this as I felt Brown had been swept up in Blairism and failed to bring the party back to his original ideals; but clearly I was wrong and he has.

1. A “targeted” increase in public spending is essentially the redistribution of wealth, a primary socialist value. Labour has always been known as a ‘tax and spend’ party – this is evidence that they still are. My problem with this stance by Labour is that they have not stated which groups they will be “targeting”, this could be the decided whether this policy works or fails.

2. Protecting “frontline investment” is another key socialist value that the Labour Party has clearly kept at the front of their policies. It is the idea of re-distributing resources to ensure basic services are available to all, a basic standard of living safety net. The Labour Party established the NHS and Tony Blair coined the phrase ‘Education, Education, Education’ – their love for social institutions is clearly built into their party and remain still.

3. The promise that all patients who suspect they have cancer will get results in one week is a very odd promise. Both Tories and Labour have jumped on pro-cancer policies during this election. Obviously it is a huge disease that affects many people; probably the most prominent in our society so should be recognised by government policy. However, this is neither a step away or towards ideology. It is simple pragmatism; it could be argued that this is a step away from ideology as it is prioritising pragmatism over socialist values and therefore stopping the ‘revolution’. However, I would simply say this is social awareness; but I will question why cancer is being picked out from all the diseases, I would be upset if I suffered from another, less popular, terminal illness.

4. Restoring the link between state pensions and earnings is another sign of redistributing the wealth through tax to those that are less well off. This is again about a certain standard of living, a step towards equality. Clearly another case of Brown sticking to values.

5. The guarantee that all people between 16-17 year olds will have a place in education or training is a slight side step away from socialism. The Labour Party would argue they are enabling the movement of working class into middle class and therefore ensuring equality of opportunity. However, equality of opportunity is essentially a liberal view, socialists primarily believe in equality of outcome. This is a step away from socialist values, a step first made by Blair and his ‘third way’; however it is only a slight one so I suppose we can forgive Mr. Brown on this one.

Conservative

Key Priorities:

1. Aim to eliminate "the bulk" of the UK's structural deficit within five years beginning in 2010 with £6bn in cuts

2. Spending cuts in all areas apart from health and foreign aid

3. Allow charities, trusts, voluntary groups and co-operatives to set up new Academy schools, independent of local authority control, and to run other public services

4. Scrap identity card scheme

5. Recognise marriage in the tax system by allowing adults who are married or in a civil partnership to transfer up to £750 of their tax-free personal allowance to their spouse, as long as the higher-income member of the couple is a basic-rate taxpayer.

Analysis:

This is not the most ideologically based set of key priorities. When compared to the Labour priorities which are clearly based on their core values, there is a clear lack of core values in these. The Tories have traditionally been pragmatic and they may be able to argue that these policies are pragmatism rather than ideological, but I am not sure what trends they are jumping on here. This has rendered me correct in my opinions on Cameron, there is no substance behind his charm...whether he is a good leader or not may be what you decide to vote on, but looking at this I would suggest that is all he has.

1. To be fair the aim to cut “the bulk” of the deficit with £6bn in cuts is a traditional Tory policy. Whereas Labour are a ‘tax and spend’ party, Tories have always been the party of less is more. They believe in cuts in public services and therefore a cut in taxes. They believe they can stop a rise in taxes by cutting public services – my problem with this policy is that they have not made clear which services will be cut.

2. This priority seems very similar to the last one. Perhaps another sign that they are hiding a lack of substance through charm and word play. However, what does come through is the want to save health and foreign aid. This answers part of my question over the first priority, we now know these two institutions won’t be affected but still don’t know how the other areas will be. It is also sheer pragmatism that these two have been chosen. Foreign aid is clearly chosen because of the media saturation surround instances like Haiti and the campaigns of Oxfam. Health is another odd choice, could be personal to Cameron or could be because he has felt a census since Obama’s healthcare policies that the British are proud of the NHS. I say healthcare is an odd choice because it was not long ago that the Tories were threatening voucher systems and privatisation. However, I think the Conservatives could argue that their want to keep foreign aid is their core value of paternalism, but on a global scale. Instead of the rich looking after the poor within our country, they are doing it on a global scale – and thereby ensuring England stays on top of the hierarchy.

3. The allowing of charities and trusts to take over from public spending in paying for our schools is essentially more cuts in public spending. This is clearly a sign that they want education to take a bulk of their cuts. This again shows the Tory value of being a party that cuts, not a party that taxes...but is this really all they offer. I understand that Cameron is not a Thatcherite, he is a one-nation Tory, but he shows nothing of the passion and ideals that she led this country with.

4. This is a policy I do not understand at all. How is this priority? I understand it was expensive to set up and we are now in deficit, but really...a priority? There is no ideology behind this at all...just pure partisan pragmatism.

5. The recognition of marriage in a tax system is my favourite Tory policy, yet completely misguided. It should not be the ‘recognition of marriage’ but an incentive for one parent to stay home and be more involved in their children’s lives. However, at least there is ideology behind this; it is a clear that Cameron is still a firm believer of the Conservative value of tradition, in this case traditional family values.

Liberal Democrats

Key Priorities:

1. Identify and cut £15bn of lower priority spending per year to protect front-line services while reducing structural deficit at least as fast as Labour plans, beginning in 2011

2. Raise the threshold at which people start paying income tax from £6,475 to £10,000

3. Impose "mansion tax" on the value of properties over £2m and increase capital gains tax to bring it into line with income tax

4. Introduce a banking levy until such time as banks' retail and investment arms can be separated

5. Scrap identity card scheme

Analysis:

This is the least in line with the traditional values of all the parties. They show no real sense of libertarianism that defined the Liberal Party for so many years and instead have basically turned into a socialist party. There merger with the SDP is probably the root of this, but in the 80s Thatcher basically took the reins of negative freedom and since her departure no party has picked it back up.

1. This is just the pragmatic cut of spending that we have seen from all the parties. Again, there is no sign of suggesting which front line services might be saved and which will be cut.

2. Raising the threshold of income tax is essentially a socialist policy which I am sure, if the economics adds up, Labour will steal. It is however not a traditional liberal policy. Liberals believe in freedom from large government, the more tax intervention the more government re-distribution.

3. The imposing of “mansion tax” is again a tax intervention that goes against liberal core beliefs. Traditionally liberals would believe in supporting enterprise and entrepreneurship by not taxing the wealthy, they see it as taking away from their incentives.

4. The banking levy is purely pragmatic. Again, this is going against their traditional beliefs of supporting enterprise. They have jumped on the ‘hate the bankers’ bandwagon and not taken into account that they are have been a highly successful industry at the centre of our economy that the market needed to regulate. That would have been the traditional libertarian viewpoint.

5. This is as poor show as the Tory priority to scrap it. To be fair it is freedom of civil liberties which has been strongly supported by the likes of Locke. But still...a priority?

3) Policy, Policy, Policy

Ok so in the aftermath of a far better tv debate performance by all three leaders(which I thought Brown won, but polls go for Cameron or Clegg)it is safe to say that this is a close run election. It really could go anyway, but it is looking like heading towards a hung parliament. Which would be thoroughly interesting. In fact, you think this whole thing would be interesting, the closest an election has been in years - we can actually legitimately say we have a three party system, who would have thought that 6 months ago. And yet I still find myself under-whelmed. It is not due to the race, it is due to the substance within it. The title of this blog is Disenchanged Voter, and I still remain disenchanted. This is because the policies in no way grab my interest. When I am choosing my countries leader, when I am watching televised debates, when I am reading manifestos I want to see some proper ideological arguments. This is not what I have seen so far...I have seen Brown become more centre...I have seen Cameron avoid Thatcher at all costs and basically being the most ashamed Tory I have ever seen...and Clegg, Trident...really? Do we care? I want to see some proper Keynes vs Hayek...some Smith vs Marx...some Locke vs Hobbes!

So the best way to stop the rise of Nick Clegg is via 'Policy, Policy, Policy'. He clearly is weak on this, the man is pushing Trident for God's sake. Vince Cable was his go to guy on such matters, the substance behind the show - but even his economic ideas have been called into question recently. A strong idea on policy that is passionately put across to the electorate will frisk them into a frenzy. To be honest, it doesn't even have to be specific policy; a calling to unite the masses and change the system would do it for Brown (though this would be hard to pull off as he has been the system for a long time now). Cameron could call for economic change, re-envigorate our economy into the capitalist power house it once was. These are callings that people love. Admit that you are either 'left' or 'right' and take those people with you.

Tonight I saw Cameron put on a strong show against Jeremy Paxman in his interview. I was actually geniunely impressed. He seems to be throwing in 'Big Society' at every opportunity - clearly his catchphrase, not sure it is one the people will follow along with but at least it is there. The problem is, the Big Society doesn't say anything. Essentially this is the traditional argument that we need less government intervention, a smaller state. However, Cameron being so fantastically ashamed of his own actual beliefs (either that or doesn't believe he can convince the British public he is right, always good in a leader) has decided that he will hide what he means behind this Big Society tag. The idea is that a rolling back of the state will allow private sector to come in and hopefully make us more efficient. A smaller state, however, suggests job cuts to civil servants - which is never a winner in such a poor economy. So he is trying to phrase it in a way that makes us think it is a job creation policy - which I am sure he hopes it will be, but in the long term not the short term. Whether you agree or disagree with this is not the point. The point is that Cameron is being himself, a PR man, he is trying to manipulate his own ideas to fit what we want. It is good campaigning...but it is bad politics. Democracy is about the person we want representing us, not us being tricked into someone saying something they are not. It is time that Cameron came out and forcefully, passionately said what he feels (much like Boris does) and try to convince us he is correct. I am sorry I have focussed on blaming Cameron here, but lets see if Brown can take my words into account when he faces Paxman next week.

2) Electrify the electorate!

And the second debate is over. I made myself clear in my last blog last time so won’t go in too much depth. What I will say is this: It was great to see them actually debating, it was great to see Brown more calm and collected, it was great to see Cameron try to be the strong leader he can be (accept over free eye tests, he blew it then!), and it was great to see Clegg rub against them on a level playing field. I say level playing field, because of though Clegg was in the last debate, he was the man outside the pack (whether this worked for him or against him is a different matter). His last performance put him in the running and he entered this debate with a chance. I personally believe Brown won, it was a great effort by him. In my last blog I suggested he could never win, but he broke out the policies and right or wrong the substance shone through when the other two were trying to be ‘TV Leaders’. Overall though, a similar performance from Clegg and huge improvements from the other two – it is hard to decide the winner.

In my last blog I did the first of a three point plan to beat Mr. Clegg. Last time I focussed on the debate, now the second one has gone and a week till the next, it’s time to focus on campaigning. Brown, Cameron and Clegg have been doing the usual darting around; trying to get to hospitals, barracks and schools to get amongst ‘the people’. This is always a good idea, but relating to the people has to be done right:

2) Campaigning on Catchphrases

Whisking a storm around you is particularly important for David Cameron; he is the one that will benefit the most from high turnout. So far it is Clegg being likened to Obama and the people’s response to him is becoming known as Clegg-mania. Clegg, like Obama, does have the advantage of being the underdog, where as Cameron has been leading the pack the whole way. Britain loves an underdog; this is bad news for Cameron. He will need to whisk the hysteria away from Clegg and on to him, and he will have to do it from the top. Who likes the top? Just look at how much we all seemingly hate the bankers! Well the only way around this is too drive a message home that the people can like. Now I personally think that politicians should say strong policy messages based on the party values, but this probably won’t win the election will it? Cameron has always been pragmatic; he knows how to do it, now is the time he does it. He needs to take into account what his audience wants to hear, he needs to take into account Tory history, find a balance and then find policies to drill in. The manifesto is out, let’s hope they did this before then; it’s time to drill home the manifesto. How do you do that? It is time for great rhetoric.

We love Churchill, we loved Blair and we loved Thatcher! Well don’t know about loving Blair or Thatcher but we elected them enough times. We used to mock Blair’s catchphrases all the time but let’s face it, “education, education, education” is a winner. And Thatcher – “This lady is not for turning” – ok not during an election but still, very quotable; how about “get on your bike!” (ok, again not right, this was Tebbit, but come on it rhetoric we love!) Cameron and Brown can both get out there, with these bold statements on the things that matter and win us over. Obama had “Yes we can!” Obama had “Change we can believe in!” What do we have, “Vote for Change” is the Tory attempt – what PM out of office hasn’t said that. It doesn’t make us believe like Obama made so many. Rhetoric can excite us like no other...it is time to see it. Both Brown and Cameron can get out and do that. Yes, Brown is a man about statistics, but if he can somehow ‘sex’ them up, then he can have a catchphrase we can all follow. The politicians who win us over are those with concise, bold statements we can repeat time and time again, those with phrases we can shove on a bumper stick and those with statements we can’t stop talking about – even if we are mocking. Cameron tried, he failed – get a better one. Brown hasn’t got one at all. Nor has Clegg – this is how you beat him at the polls and stop Clegg-mania.

Three-point-plan to end Cleggs' rise

So looks like I could be eating my words from my last two blogs...in fact if Clegg does win I will, I will print off those blogs and eat the whole thing. I just can’t believe how it has happened. It is generally accepted that campaigning doesn’t change votes, sadly bad campaigning does. Lib Dem has risen in popularity so rapidly since the first leaders debate that there are actually people saying they might win (most aren’t). How has this happened?

I am not actually anti-Lib Dem, I just thought they were a nothing party with no chance; now they have a huge chance, but only if Labour and Conservatives keep handing it to them. I personally think an Obama-esque story of them coming from so far behind to steal the show would be great for British politics. There is a huge difference though; Obama did it on the back of a campaign trail that whisked not just the nation but the world alongside him. Nick Clegg has so far done it on the back of an ok TV debate, which he didn’t exactly steal the show in, but he did win. Before and since then he hasn’t exactly been the most exciting politician in the world. The fact he has had this huge rise, is not due to his campaigning, but due to the poor campaigning of the other two parties...over the next three blogs I will layout a three point plan to reverse this, they go in ascending order of importance.

1) Learn from mistakes and improve – a.k.a beat Clegg at his own game

Clegg’s popularity grew after winning the first leaders debate; stop his momentum by winning the next two. You might say this is easier said than done, not like they weren’t trying to win last time, but Clegg’s performance wasn’t stand out...he won, just. Ok, so Brown is never going to be the most exciting man in the world on camera. Even though Brown is still quite young for a Prime Minster (Harold Macmillan was 63 when he took office), up against Clegg and Cameron he might as well actually be dead, and he certainly looks it.

However, Cameron is a PR man; he should have some media charisma about him – time to show it off! If he learns from his mistakes he can easily make up for his less than average performance last time, which resulted in Clegg’s average performance seeming like a great performance, The public having seemingly responded well to, what I saw as, a very superficial attempt to be the electorates best friend. The highlight of this was Clegg quite clearly reading the names of all the people who had asked questions. It is important that Cameron takes this on board, but does not go over the top. Cameron seemingly had the same idea with his constant anecdotes of ‘people he had met’, which has become the biggest point of mockery of the whole debate. He will need to cut his anecdotes down, but not get rid completely – otherwise it will be too obvious – and not too blatantly incorporate Cleggs’ ‘best friend’ charm. I suggest taking on Clegg’s way of speaking directly to the person who asked the question, use their name and look at them when speaking; talk into the camera, not the audience, during the introductory and summary speeches; there are more people and more votes watching on the television.

Brown is not completely without hope. Although yes he does look like a zombie who has been clearly weathered by his brief time as PM, he is the only experienced candidate. He is also the person most likely to suffer from Cleggs’ rise – a second left-wing party being popular can’t be good for Labour. Although, let’s not dismiss that Clegg is stealing disenchanted Labour votes from the Tories. Brown needs to put up good performances in the next leaders debates. He is never going to be electrifying, but he can play the game. The debates will have to be less important for Brown, in fact their existence has almost destined him to lose the debate – there is no way he will win them, but can he come second? Perhaps, and he could do it at the expense of Clegg. It is time Brown made this a debate. His problem last time was immediately responding to Cameron, “David Cameron just said this, it is wrong because of that...” He would immediately get cut off so we could see Cameron’s response and could not get his point across. This time he should say “Labour’s idea is this, Cameron just said this, and this is wrong because of that...” Convincing people Labour policies are correct is the easiest thing in the world, everyone likes fairness, show them how you are (if you are) the party for fairness. The most important thing Brown must remember is not to rise to the Clegg challenge. Don’t go on the attack to show Labour is the only legitimate ‘left’ party. Ignore Clegg, freeze him out – show it that way. Only argue with Cameron, every point should be about how Labour are not Conservatives – how they are stopping this country being Conservative. Focus on the unpopular right wing policies of the Tories, which Cameron has amazingly allowed us to forget. What happened to Europe? What happened to immigration? What happened to heritage? What happened to benefits? I know these are hard to argue for during the recession, but if Labour values are argued well they are hard to debate against. Especially for someone like David Cameron who is such a self-loathing Tory, afraid to stand up for the traditions of his party. House of Lords reform, a slightly different cancer policy to the Tories and anti-expenses; are these really the policies we want to choose our Government on? Cameron will have to respond, he may do this badly or well, but it essentially shows Clegg is just the other person with not much to say on any policies that matter.

Essentially the leaders’ debates have changed the way our politics works, sadly how campaigning works as well (explored further in my next blog). With the next one coming up, both Cameron and Brown need to up their game; show that Clegg is no Obama and show the nation what their true values are and what our choices are – a socialist Labour Party or a one-nation Conservative party.

Elections make me cynical...

I am sorry but having witnessed the release of the three main parties (and the Green Party's) election manifesto's and watched the leaders debate on ITV all I can say is, they will never listen to us.

The debate between the leaders, to be fair, did involve a certain amount of back and forth, most of which was between Brown and Cameron. Clegg will be reported to have won the debate but frankly, he just looked like the geeky kid who hadn't been asked to dance. He gave valid, good responses and did well to attack Cameron without chumming up to Brown, but Cameron just shrugged him off time and time again which perfectly showed how little he mattered. He is not going to Prime Minister and was only on the stage to appease people - they gave the baby their bottle, it just had no milk in it.

My main problem with the debate was not the debate itself, but everything that has and will surround it. For instance, the results of the debate are just ridiculously misleading...ITV instant results said that Nick Clegg got 46%, David Cameron got 26% and Gordon Brown got 20%. Now I am wondering what happened to the other 8% but that’s beside the point. The point is, as I said above, Nick Clegg is not going to be the next Prime Minister. Who ever took those polls will be horribly wrong.

Even in this ‘digital election’ era we cannot see the correct answer appear in any polls. The amazingly fun and addictive website Slapometer (which allows you to vote by slapping the three party leaders in the face during the debates) has even failed provide the correct answer. The final results on Slapometer for Debate One were Clegg 12%, Brown 38% and Cameron 50% (a number he almost certainly will not reach in the actual election). In this perfect and pure form of direct democracy Clegg is down as winner again! I am sorry but this just goes to show us the flaw in democracy. Just like these results were wrong, so were the many people commenting on #leadersdebate; the twitter link created so people could bitch about what was being said in the debates. They were not wrong in their opinions; they were just wrong that people cared.

One of the main things that have made me most cynical about this election is the increasing idea that social media will give voice to the people, it won't. The Labour manifesto even claimed that they would put bills online for public scrutiny. People shall scrutinise, they shall not listen. The perfect example was the much debated (everywhere except the House of Commons) Digital Economy Bill. Twitter ran rampant with debate about this, did they listen...nope, the Bill passed! And this evening Twitter saw much of the same activity...thousands of people rushing to comment on the debates...most of whom hated either Brown or Cameron and could not say a bad word about Lib Dems’ Mr. Clegg...sadly the world won't listen...he won't win.

Apparently They're Off....

So after the huge news frenzy today it is safe to say that we all know the election officially kicked off. A couple of news broadcasters, including the BBC officially started the race with the exhilarating headline, “And they're off!” Sadly I am not so sure that this will be the most exciting election of all time. The news reporters are desperately trying to Jazz it up with ideas that it is impossible to tell who will win at this stage. Fair play to them for this, forgetting that it is obviously great for their ratings if we do all think the election is exciting, at least it might get people to turn up. The fact is that we don’t know the outcome; it is yet to be decided whether the Tories will have a majority, or a slightly less majority. Of course, the slightly less will mean ‘hung parliament’ which we are all very excited about – especially Gordon Brown. To be honest the difference between a Tory Government and a slightly less Tory Government doesn’t infuse me with too much excitement, though I am sure the days after a hung election will be quite good TV.

The boredom that this election can potentially saturate us with is furthered when we look over the fighting ground. This election will not be run on ideology or values (if those silly ideas exist within either party), instead this election will be run on numbers. How much the deficit can be cut by? How much spending can be dropped? And how much will taxes be raised? Not only is this rather dull unless you happen to be an economist or statistician, but its not exactly an exhilarating battleground. Both parties will promise deficit cuts, both will promise to drop spending and both will raise taxes. The exhilarating battlegrounds we have to look forward to is by how much they will do these things…again, not infused.

The idea that a discussion over the restoration of faith in politics may take place is almost enough to gain my interest, but that is quickly taken away when I realize we are debating expenses. I understand that it needs to be solved and yes it needs to be solved openly so we can ‘trust’ them again. Who ever heard of trusting politicians anyway! What I don’t understand is what is left to debate? Yes, Cameron will clean up politics, yes so will Brown, I am sure Clegg will soon…hell even BNP will…not much of a debate there.

When it comes down to it “It’s the economy stupid…” is very true in this election, sadly we are not going to see the Keynes vs Smith debate we might hope for. Instead, we have Brown vs Cameron…debating deficits...I can hardly wait!