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.