From a LabourList article speculating on who was behind the latest leaks to hit the beleaguered Miliband Minor leadership:

So we could well presume it was the Tories. It may not rid them of Balls, their bogeyman, but it has got the spotlight off them temporarily and has got everyone focussed on Labour’s big split.

Errr, no, that doesn't make sense. I'm not a Tory, but I'm pretty sure that if I was then one of the main people who I would want to keep at the very heart and at the very head of the Labour party would be Ed Balls. Yes, he manages to land some blows on the Tories. But he does so in such a way that makes him utterly repellent - like a school bully with no self-awareness whatsoever. He comes across as a repugnant individual; a nasty little thug who finds arguing with and smearing his opponents almost arousing. He is about as popular as foot and mouth disease at a country fair.

So the Tories will want to keep Balls as Shadow Chancellor for as long as possible. Having that vile puff adder as close to the top of the Labour party is great for them - it will remind the people of so much of what they hated about the Brown years. And if the Labour party wants to figure out who has stitched up Balls so nicely over the past week then they should bear in mind that if you climb to the top of the greasy pole by shafting other people, you leave in your wake a lot of enemies. And if you also leave a paper trail, then at some point you can be sure that someone you fucked over will delight in returning the favour...

BREAKING NEWS: Blair and Brown didn't get along that well

I'm amazed that this constitutes news:

The Labour Party's two most senior figures have denied a "brutal" plot to destroy Tony Blair after the 2005 election, as a probe was launched into leaked documents.

The Daily Telegraph claims Ed Balls , as well as Labour leader Ed Miliband , began scheming to divide their party within weeks of the general election.

Really? How amazing. I mean, the Labour party civil war wasn't mentioned at all in the period after 2005 (or, indeed, before it). Everyone always thought that the relationship between Blair and Brown was hunky-dory, didn't they?

Of course, Miliband Minor (sort of) and Balls are on hand to deny the story:

Mr Miliband told Sky News: "I think what you are seeing is an overhyped version of ancient history.

"Frankly, the era of Blair and Brown is over. This generation of politicians is not going to repeat the mistakes of Blair and Brown."

Mr Balls told Sky News: "The fact that the first time I knew that they'd been taken was last night when they appeared in the Daily Telegraph I think shows that I didn't think this file, these documents were of great significance.

"The last time I saw them was when they were on my desk in the department before the general election.

"I don't know how they've been taken. I'm glad that's now being investigated.

"But the idea that these documents show that there was a plot or an attempt to remove Tony Blair is just not true.

"It's not justified either by the documents themselves, or by what was actually happening at the time."

The phrase "but they would say that, wouldn't they?" has seldom been more pertinent. Although I do like the fact that Miliband Minor stops short of fully denying the allegations. A brush-off is not the same as a denial...

Conservative Party chairman Michael Fallon MP said the leak showed Mr Balls could "not be trusted".

"First he denied this at the time, [but] now we know it's true," he said.

"It shows he's completely unsuited to be a serious figure in government. He simply couldn't be trusted, for example to plot against his current leader Ed Miliband."

Fuck-a-duck we've got an intellectual giant here. Ed Balls unfit to be a serious figure in government - who'd have thought it? And the fact that he can't be trusted is an absolute revelation.

Miliband Minor is right (a phrase I seldom, if ever, use) when he says that this is "ancient history". Honest to God, the Blair/Brown feud got boring while those fuckers were still running the country. It is beyond boring now. And anyone who needs evidence beyond that of their own eyes and ears that both of the Eds are wankers utterly unfit for high office is hopelessly naive.

Dan Hodges, Ed Miliband and a Chronic Lack of Choice

I do enjoy some of the articles written by Dan Hodges over at The New Statesman - the ones slating Ed Miliband, obviously. Miliband Minor has few critics as persistent as Hodges. His articles on the failing and flailing Labour leader are filled with gems such as this one:

Liam Byrne has presented Ed Miliband with a chance to begin to define his leadership. If he takes it, it could be a turning point. If he doesn't, it may represent one final, missed opportunity.

I think Hodges is often spot on in his analysis of the flaws of the lesser Miliband. However there is a problem in that Hodges clearly has an agenda of his own - since he was a key supporter of Miliband Major's bid for the Labour leadership. And this is what, in a sense, makes his articles even more fun - because the comments descend to the level of internecine-Labour party conflict, with some defending the indefensible (i.e. Ed Miliband) at the same time as (quite rightly, on some levels) accusing Hodges of being motivated mainly by sour grapes.

But the point is that Hodges' scribblings accurately represent the big problem that faced Labour when they replaced Brown and, arguably, still faces them today should they choose to do what is necessary and bin the Ed. That problem is the complete lack of choice when it coems to potential leadership candidates. Had Miliband Major been elected then there would be someone who supported his brother's campaign belly-aching on a weekly basis in The New Statesman about the failings of David as Leader of the Opposition. Neither of the Miliband leaders are inspirational in any way, shape or form - including the lost Miliband, Andy Burnham. Ed Balls is just plain vile, while Diane Abbott remains a joke. No matter who won the Labour leadership election last year, all would be struggling now as Labour leader. Furthermore, if there were to be a new contest right now, it is difficult to imagine a more inspirational line-up. The party hasn't reinvigorated itself in opposition; rather, it still doesn't seem to understand that it needs to reinvigorate itself at all.

So keep on sniping away at Ed Miliband, Dan. But at some point you're going to have to face up to the fact that your chosen candidate wasn't any better, and that the problems with the party you support run deeper than the fool who happens to be running that party at the moment.

Nick Clegg: Still Less Odious Than Ed Miliband

Here's an interesting interview with Nick Clegg. Well, when I say it is interesting, what I mean is it tries to do more than make him out to be the greatest traitor since Judas. While at times clearly just trying to find fault, the interviewer does seem to understand that, at least on some levels, that politics - particularly at the top, rather than sniping from the sidelines - requires compromise.

And - before we go on - let's just pause for a moment and reflect on Nick Clegg's year. This time last year, he looked like yet another failed Lib Dem leader. Quite frankly, he didn't have a voice. Then came the debates, and Cleggmania. Suddenly he was, in the eyes of some, a British version of JFK (despite the fact that all he did was not be shit at debating with a vacuous ex-marketing man and an arrogant, dour drip of a man). Then his party did poorly at the General Election - all Cleggmania meant was they were, more or less, able to maintain their 2001 level of popularity (in vote percentage terms, even if not in terms of Commons seats maintained). Despite this, less than a week after that result, Nick Clegg was the Deputy Prime Minister, and enjoying a level of power that no member of the Liberal Democrats has ever enjoyed before. Of course, that must be of little comfort on occasion when faced with the rage of the Shy Labour Lib Dems, who really wanted the Labour government to continue but who couldn't quite bring themselves to put their shaky "X" in the box of their local Labour candidate on their ballot papers. In short, quite a year for Nick Clegg - from non-entity to Second Coming to real political power and then to hatred. The whole of the Tony Blair experience in about 12 months.

But anyway, let's get to the point. I can, if I really force myself, understand why some people feel frustrated with Nick Clegg. And there is something faintly pathetic about Nick Clegg. He looks and sounds compromised most of the time. But I genuinely think he was placed in an impossible situation, and he is making the best of it. So when I read an interview with Clegg, I might feel a bit of pity for him. Whereas when I read an interview with Ed Miliband, I can't help but feel a certain level of anger and, well, hate.

The reason is this - there is a certain level of humility to Nick Clegg. He's not a stupid man; he must have understood what his deal with the Tories must have meant for his career in the long-term, but he still went for the deal with the Tories. A deal that was, given his limited choices, the best option on offer. Whereas with Ed Miliband, you get the same feeling of the pathetic that you do with Clegg (particularly given Ed's inability to say no to one Ed Balls), but Miliband Minor has a certain arrogance to him that makes him pretty repellant. Clegg seems to be incredulous that he is in a position of real power, while Miliband Minor seems incredulous that he isn't. Miliband Minor has all the arrogance of the utterly undeserved.

So, while I don't have a great deal of respect for Nick Clegg, I have nothing but contempt for Ed Miliband.

Ed Miliband and the Problem with Policy Wonks

Johann Hari has an interesting post up talking about Ed Miliband’s communication problems. I’d agree that Ed Miliband certainly has a communication problem: when I hear him speak, I feel like I am being lectured by an indignant potato. But Hari’s point is a little more sophisticated than that. He argues that Miliband’s language is the problem. Put simply, the language Miliband uses is that of a policy wonk.

Which is true. Miliband doesn’t seem to get that a big part of being a leader is being able to capture people’s imagination. You need to communicate in such a way as to make your point in a simply, clear and coherent way. And you also need to make people believe that you are on their side. Sounding like a pedantic politico is not going to do that.

See, for all of his evil, that was Blair’s genius. Particularly as Leader of the Opposition, he was able to sketch Nu Labour’s largely empty vision using simple, catchy phrases. “Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” resonates in a way that nothing Miliband has said thus far resonates. It may have been utter bollocks, but people remembered it. Whereas I honestly cannot remember a single thing Miliband has said. Sure, there is the danger of drifting into spin, but a little bit of spin is essential to modern politics. It is only if it becomes the dominant component of your politics that you have a problem.

But will Miliband accept that he has a communication problem? And if he does, will he be able change? I doubt it. And this is a big problem Labour has got. Its current leadership class are all former policy wonks parachuted into safe seats (even if, in the case of Ed Balls, they’ve done a great deal to change that) and promoted beyond their abilities and level of experience. They are leaders; they don’t even appear to be effective managers. Sure, there’s a place for the likes of Miliband and, I suppose, Balls. But it isn’t at the head of the party, and it certainly isn’t spelling out the vision of that party. They need a new Nye Bevan; unfortunately, their current leadership class has the charisma of Clement Attlee without the humility.

And this is Labour’s tragedy, really. At a time when there is a need to spell out a socialist alternative to the Coalition’s policies, they’ve got Ed Miliband – a nervy policy wonk who sounds like he is constantly constipated. And that may yet prove to be the very thing that gives Cameron a second term in office.

More please, David:

"I wish the shadow chancellor would occasionally shut up and listen to the answer," said Mr Cameron.

He told a grinning Mr Balls: "I may be alone in thinking him the most annoying person in modern politics."

And I very much doubt you are alone in the opinion.

The Toxic Labour Party

Here’s an interesting article about how Labour needs to detoxify its brand if it is to seriously stand any chance of winning at the next election. It is interesting because it accepts that Labour cannot simply coast to power, but I think its understanding of just how toxic Labour has become is limited.

Now, I don’t like any of the main parties, but Labour are the top of the pile when it comes to that dislike. When I think of the Tories, I feel a complete lack of enthusiasm combined with mild suspicion about their social conservatism. When I think of the Lib Dems, I get mildly amused by their ineptitude and amateur nature. But when I think of Labour, I feel rage and hate. I despise them for their continual raids on my wallet and the decimation of civil liberties during their long years in power. And I am enraged by their complacent arrogance, by their assumption that they should be in power, and that anyone who stands in the way of their project is in some way hindering progress. To my mind, none of the main parties have shown that they are capable of governing, but Labour have categorically shown themselves to be utterly incapable of treating the people of this country with any other than contempt. They have proven themselves to be utterly unsuitable for the task of governing.

And the fact that their party is now headed up by Miliband Minor and Balls – two of the most egregious minions of the worst Prime Minister we’ve had since Anthony Eden – show nothing more than absolute continuity with the Labour project of the last decade and a half. If they were in power, there’d be more of the same. Which would lead to a bankrupt country and far less freedom for its inhabitants.

So yeah, Labour needs to detoxify its brand. And it needs to start at the top, but finding a Leader of the Opposition and a Shadow Chancellor who are not synonymous with Nu Labour.

Why Ed Balls Should Be Labour Leader

In a sense, the last Labour government ended too soon. Not for the country - there is no way we could have afforded any more "leadership" from Gordon Brown. But for the Labour party itself, the fact that their last government ended before they were utterly discredited by having to make the same sort of cuts that they lambast the Tories for - and the fact that our warped electoral system meant that their disastrous showing at the last election didn't completely consign them to electoral oblivion - means that many think that their project was not wrong; it was just curtailed before the benefits could truly be seen. Consequently, the party is not ready to accept the implications of its defeat, and as a result undertake the sort of ideological change needed to make them once again capable of winning, and performing less than abysmally in, government.

Ed Miliband isn't the right man to show them this. A slightly chippy little prig, he has all the charisma of a depressed garden gnome. When the party loses the next election, its members will assume it is because Miliband Minor was leader, and actually they needed someone with just an iota of charisma and a little bit of fight in them to actually take on Cameron. As such, it will miss the point that its policies are just as atrocious as its leader. The Labour party has come to represent in political form the old truism that the very definition of madness is to keep doing the same thing while hoping for a different result.

Thus, the Labour party needs a more capable leader - or at least one able to do the opposing bit inherent in being leader of the opposition. Miliband can't do it; he's a black hole into which anything of any interest is sucked and lost forever. There is one man up for the challenge, though. One man ruthless enough to have forced himself to the very top of Labour party politics, despite having the personality of a smug, rabid skunk. Yes, this is the time for Ed Balls. He needs to be Labour leader.

Of course, he wouldn't change the party's course - he's as bought into Brown's plans as anyone, not least because he was Brown's henchman for so many years and helped to create those plans in the first place. And the people aren't going to warm to Ed Balls either, in the same way as no-one really warms to the angry man in the bar who is just looking to kick someone's head in for fun. But what Balls would be able to do - rather like Howard did for the Tories when he became their leader - is oppose. Balls would fight Cameron. He would fight the coalition. He would marshall his not inconsiderable talents at being a massive arsehole towards his opponents, and make life tough for the Con-Dems in a way that Miliband Minor seems utterly incapable of achieving. And when he lost the next election the Labour party would have no choice but to accept that their defeat wasn't just down to the failure to oppose; they would have to see that the policies they use to oppose the coalition were as much to blame as their choice of leader.

So this is Ed's time to shine - in as much as such a person is ever capable of actually shining. But I doubt whether Ed will ever become Labour leader. I rather think he is the Michael Hesletine of his generation and party; a high-profile, clear contender for the leadership of his party with only one fatal flaw - that the people in his party don't really like him, so aren't going to make him leader. Yet the Labour party could do far worse than Balls. Hell, they have done far worse through their choice of their current leader.

Photo of the Day

Via Awkward Ed Miliband Moments, this gem of a photo from Miliband Minor's earlier years:

Ignore Ed Balls looking like a thug in a bad wig for a moment, and instead focus on Miliband Minor. He looks like an extra from Revenge of the Nerds. Or maybe he's auditioning to play Adrian Mole. Still, we can't claim that age has improved his looks; nowadays, he's lost the nerdy quality and instead come to resemble an angry looking potato...

***EXCLUSIVE*** The Next Labour Leader is...

…*drum roll please*… apathy! Yes, the absolute winner of this leadership contest – the one who fought the best campaign, and really won people over – is apathy. Because despite this contest having gone on for ages, nothing really happened. In fact – despite the contest for the future of this party – the biggest Labour news story of the summer was around the sniping in Blair’s memoirs. It was about those who represent Labour’s past.

Seriously, the candidates could not have been more lacklustre in their campaigns. Ed Balls seemed to miss the point of what he’s meant to have been doing for the past five months. He’s been carping at the Tories but not really explaining to an understandably sceptical party (given his repugnant behaviour in the last parliament) why they should choose him as the new leader. The Milibands have sniped at each other like testy children in the back of a car on a long journey, while Burnham and Abbott may as well not have bothered. So much for having a big debate. All of the candidates have appeared to have nothing to say. Not so much making their cases to be leader, but rather being too afraid of saying something stupid that might cost them in their campaign. How cowardly. How Nu Labour.

The result of such a dull campaign is that people don’t care. Seriously, no-one out of the self-regarding and incestuous circle of Labour insiders cares about who’s going to be announced as the leader. They’ve failed to engage with the voters despite months of supposed debate about their future. In fact, they still seem to be struggling to understand that they lost the last election, and still think that they need to communicate their message better, rather than changing that message. 5 months of campaigning and debate about the future and they still haven’t reconciled themselves with the immediate past.

The next Labour leader should be worried – very worried. Because this contest has shown that they have a mountain to climb. The public doesn’t care about Labour – they’re just not interested. Meaning the next Labour leader has to get the attention of the people again before they can even consider making that public want to vote them again.

Labour, Opinion Polls, and their New Leader

Since the election, it has been quite common to read that the Labour party is doing reasonably well in the opinion polls despite not having a leader. This is, of course, wrong; what is actually happening is that Labour have been doing ok in recent opinion polls because they don't have a leader. And come Saturday, that will change.

Leaders and figureheads act as shit magnets. As soon as a group has a leader or a figurehead, others can start making the muck stick. It is happening right now in the US with the Tea Party and the really rather dreadful Christine O'Donnell since her primary win. And it will happen with the Labour party once it has got itself a Nu Leader. Don't believe me? Try it. David Miliband - complicity in torture. Ed Miliband - wrote the electoral bromide that was the 2010 Labour manifesto. Ed Balls - Gordon Brown's mini-me. Andy Burnham - pro-ID cards. Diane Abbot - opinions on Finnish nurses. A leader taints his or her party with every ill-judged comment and/or policy they have ever made - regardless of whether those comments/policies are indicative of the organisation they represent.

There is a way around this, of course - you elect a charismatic leader, who can convince people to follow them despite their flaws. But since the Labour party is poised to elect a Miliband, that isn't going to happen. Instead, they will elect a charisma-less geek to go up against a still popular coalition. And then, slowly, their opinion poll ratings will start to suffer again as it becomes clear that the cosmetic change in leader is not the sort of far-reaching change the Labour party desperately needs in order to become electorally credible again.

The Labour Leadership Contest Summarised.

Good God will this infernal Labour leadership contest never end? The candidates are not saying or doing anything new, and if you're a Labour party member who hasn't figured out which one of these non-entities you want as leader despite the months of campaigning, then you're thick as pig shit. Then again, if you've got a vote, you're a Labour party member so you're probably not blessed with intellect anyway.

If you want my advice (and I'd imagine that the paragraph above would alienate most Labour party members), then you should vote for Ed Miliband or Andy Burnham. Both of those are anodyne, bland and immensely tedious, but they would at least represent some sort of a change. David Miliband - a charisma vacuum and total geek - would be destroyed by the media and would be demolished each and every week in Prime Minister's Questions. Plus he's the continuity candidate, and there's no point in continuing with the type of politics comprehensively rejected by the voters at the last election. Ed Balls and Diane Abbott are both electoral bromide. You may as well dig up Michael Foot's carcass and make that Leader of the Opposition; he'd be more popular than Abbott or Balls. Yes, I know, a choice between Ed Miliband and Andy Burnham is a bit like choosing between different types of mild soft cheeses, but effectively, that's the choice you've got. Enjoy.

A Re-Cap of the Labour Leadership Contest So Far

Amazingly, the Labour leadership contest is still going; farting along like a bout of food poisoning - it is unpleasant, it is pretty boring, and you just want it to be over with. But for those of who haven't been paying attention or for those of you who have been paying too much attention, I though I'd give you the summary of how each of the candidates is doing from the perspective of a cynical armchair analyst:

Andy Burnham: It is a complete mystery to me why Andy Burnham bothered with his run for the leadership. He's got precisely nowhere, and despite his claim to be the working class candidate (yes, you're from Liverpool, Andy, but you're hardly Nye fucking Bevan, are you?). In fact he's rendered himself largely indistinguishable from the already beyond bland Miliband sprogs. Well done, Andy, you've become the least charismatic Miliband despite not actually being part of that family.

Diane Abbott: Now, forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Diane Abbott meant to be in the Labour leadership contest in order to make the left-wing case? Because if she was, then I really do wonder what has gone wrong. Because after the brief glare of publicity after Miliband Major patronisingly gave her a way into the contest, we've hear nothing from Abbott. Nada. Zip. Silence has fallen. Which leads me to believe that the left-wing of the Labour party have nothing to say. Which may well be the case, but I don't think John McDonnell would agree with that one. And he must be fucking fuming, since he stood aside to let Abbott into the race.

Ed Balls: Listening to the rhetoric of the Balls camp is wonderful; they all talk about how he's the one that the Tories are afraid of. Whereas the exact opposite is actually true. Balls is the one the Tories want. He's an utterly repugnant individual who would be the one most likely to lead Labour to electoral oblivion - no mean feat, given he is running against Diane "racist hypocrite" Abbott. Balls may have been the one who has been taking the fight to the Tories, but that has achieved remarkably little and revealed only that Balls is a nasty little attack dog; incapable of espousing a positive view of the future and only capable of throwing poisonous barbs at the other parties. Whatever Balls may be, he most certainly isn't an electable leader. And it looks like he'll prove this by not being elected leader.

The Miliband Brothers: I lump them together because they're hard to tell apart. But I think I've found a way. David, with his faintly pained expression and little tuft of white hair, resembles a baby badger with constipation. Ed Miliband appears to have a head that looks like an overcooked baked potato with hair crudely stuck on it. This is the best way to tell them apart, IMHO, since there's been nothing in the campaign so far to aid with it - despite the fact that Badger Boy and Potato (now, there's a pitch for a TV show for kids, right there) have been running against each other. This week, there seems to have been greater attempt to put clear divides between them, and it appears the Badger Boy is the continuity candidate who doesn't mind change while Potato is all about change but won't do away with continuity with the past. Clear? Thought not. Personally, I just wish they'd get the hell on with it and decide which Spawn of the Miliband they want as leader.

Of course, with a long campaign to choose a leader, you're bound to get some fatigue - each primary season in the US drags on, for example, even if it is actually quite exciting. However, this contest has not only never caught on fire, it has been almost completely devoid of incident, event and anything that might provoke something resembling interest for the casual observer. The most memorable thing about this contest is the McDonnell jibe about Thatcher - and that came from someone who didn't become a candidate before the contest even started. Despite having five candidates in this election, there's no-one with personality and no-one with ideas. It speaks volumes about the moral and intellectual redundancy within the Labour party that a Miliband will almost certainly be elected their leader - neither Badger Boy or Potato are leaders, but then again, Labour doesn't appear to have any leaders - or ideas - left in it now.

Let's actually have ideology in politics

Chuntering noisemonkey Ed Balls on the "regressive" Coalition:

“The government’s ideological assault on our welfare state and public services is not simply economic vandalism, I fear it will damage the very fabric of our society too."

I have little interest in what Balls has to say - I'm tired of listening to his vapid and deeply predictable assaults on the Tories and/or the Lib Dems. You could replace Balls with a basic programme designed to spew out attacks on the Con-Dems every few days without damaging political discourse in this country. In fact, such a programme would positively improve British politics, if only because Balls would be excised from it. Binning Balls would be lancing a festering wart on the face of British politics.

No, what does bother me is the increasing use of the word "ideological" in relation to the government's spending cuts. Put simply, there is nothing ideological about these cuts; they are basic economics. The Labour government spent too much, the new government has to spend less - therefore it has to cut spending.

That's not to say that there is anything wrong with ideological attacks on the size of the state and state spending. In fact, I'd love it if the government was being ideological. It would make a welcome change from the bland technocratic government that we have had to endure in this country since 1997. To actually have a government doing something because they believe in it rather than to get good headlines or because they have no choice would be a welcome fucking change, quite frankly.

Using the term "ideological" in the way the quote above does is to run the risk of turning it into an insult - which would be beyond stupid, even for a witless toad like Balls. Surely the reason why people get into politics and join a political party is because of ideology? Politics should be ideological, and if the main parties actually remembered the ideologies they are meant to believe in then politics in this country would be one hell of a lot more interesting than the beyond bland bullshit and empty posturing that had now been substituted for political debate.

Ed Balls Talks...

...good Christ help us. If you want to find out what he has to endlessly gibber on about say you can head here. It is chock full of borderline insanity and clearly delusional statments. One striking example is the spin about the close call he went through at the last election - apparently he knows how to fight the Tories based on that election. Bollocks, young Ed - the only reason why your re-election battle was so close is because you are such an absolute wanker that you have managed to alienate so many people in your constituency.

But the pièce de résistance in Balls' crapitude comes when he says this:

"...we've got to believe in government..."

It is pretty clear that I'm not going to agree with that - as a Libertarian, I believe that government is not something to believe in. Quite the opposite; if you want something to believe in, then go with the idea that the government is incompetent and more often than not malign, intentionally or otherwise. But my opinions aren't that relevant here - we're talking about Balls, and he is clearly someone who believes in government.

Except he isn't. If he did believe in government, then he would believe in the government we have in this country at the moment - but if there is one thing that is clear, it is that he doesn't believe in that government. No, what he believes in is government run by his cronies or, even better, by him.

Which is simultaneously the reason why Ed Balls is so dangerous and why statists are so flawed in their arguments - those seeking to become the government are those least suited to being in government. Balls is arrogant - in fact, he is more than arrogant. Not only does he think that he knows best, but he wants to force what he knows on everyone else in this country. Of course Ed Balls wants us to believe in government (under the right circumstances) - he wants us to believe in him. The arrogant, almost delusional, fucker.

Backing Balls

As the Labour leadership contest rolls on with all the speed of a melting asthmatic glacier with a limp, people are making up their minds on who to support. And I've finally decided who would get my vote (if I had one). Yep, as you might have guessed from the title of this post, I'm backing Ed Balls.

It's not just because he's the person who is most likely to sink the Labour party - although this is both true and also a factor. However, there is another reason. See, out of all the Labour leadership candidates, I truly understand what Ed Balls stands for.

The Milibands have failed to distinguish themselves from each other. I cannot make out one from the other, and often seem to be running to establish not who could be Labour leader but who is the blandest of the pair. The same applies to Andy Burnham - he is indistinguishable from the Milibands, which is no mean feat given he isn't actually a Miliband. And as for Abbott - her entire campaign is based on her ethnicity and her gender. She hasn't given any other reason why she should be Labour leader. She doesn't appear to stand for anything other than the broad parameters of her own identity.

Whereas Balls... well, Ed stands for something. In fact, he stands for two things. He stands for naked self-interest based on a completely undeserved and arrogant sense of entitlement. And he stands for a pig-headed inability to understand that the game is up and he should give up. There is something honest about Ed Balls - what he stands for is written all over his porcine face and in every stuttering statement. For Ed, it is all about the Balls, and that's why I'd urge all Labour supporters to back him. Besides, naked self-serving transparency would probably be something that a lot of those who can vote in this leadership election can emphathise with...

Abbott and Obama

Apparently, Diane Abbott isn't comparing herself to Barack Obama:

"I'm not comparing myself to Barack Obama because he's a once in a life-time figure but two years ago no-one could have imagined a black man as US President. If that was possible in the US, I think people can change their ideas in Britain as well."

Finally, I can agree with Diane Abbott. She's not like Barack Obama. In reality, all they share is the fact that they come from ethnic minorities in their respective countries. Aside from that, they share nothing. Obama is an intelligent, politically savvy with a certain quiet charisma and, for the most part, a very measured approach to political action. He is also, for a politician, relatively good looking. Unlike Ms Abbott, who is fat, earnest, hypocritical cliche and a charisma vacuum to boot. Seriously, watch her on stage with the other four candidates for the Labour leadership. She is the only person - bar Gordon Brown - who seems able to make Ed Balls look quite personable by comparison. The differences between her and the incumbent US President could not be more pronounced: somehow, Obama made himself synonymous with hope. Abbott is synonymous with nothing that even approaches hope.

So no, Diane Abbot is not like Obama. The very fact that she would compare herself with Obama highlights just how much of her political identity she equates with her ethnicity. And for the record, I think people in Britain probably would change their ideas and elect someone from an ethnic minority as a party leader, and potentially even Prime Minister. However, it isn't ideas around ethnicity that would have to change in order to put Abbott in Number 10. It is also our ideas around why it isn't a great idea to elect an inarticulate, hypocritical, socialist idiot as Prime Minister.

Beware the Populist Politician

Much has been made in the past few days of Obama's comments about BP in the aftermath of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. While it is wrong to paint BP as a complete innocent in the story, there can be little doubt that Obama's comments have had implications that were easy to predict - it has damaged BP as a company, it has put strain on the special relationship with the UK and it has left the US wide open to charges of hypocrisy when you consider incidents like the Bhopal disaster. Plus, y'know, this BP bashing doesn't actually help to resolve the issue - it is in everyone's, including BP's, best interest that this disaster is dealt with as quickly as possible. Now, I'm pretty sure Obama is intelligent enough to have anticipated at least some of these consequences, which does rather beg the question of why he went ahead and made his comments anyway. The answer is obvious - a little bit of short-term populism; a chance to identify an enemy of the American people (in this case BP) and then a chance to look tough by bullying that enemy.

You can see another example of the same phenomena here in the UK with Ed Ball's sudden conversion to the need to restrict immigration or, to put it another way, Ball's recent conversion to immigrant bashing. Now I don't think that Balls - who for all the world comes across as an economic policy wonk (as well as nasty little wanker, but that's not the main point here for once) - really has a problem with immigration. However, he saw his boss taking a (deserved) kicking for ducking a debate with a voter about immigration, and has decided that he doesn't want the same thing to happen to him. Plus, he's in the contest to be Labour leader and needs something to differentiate himself from the other candidates other than most people who know of him seem to think that he is a bit of a prick. Therefore, jump on the bash the immigrant bandwagon, and maybe even score some nice headlines from The Sun and The Daily Hate Mail while you're at it.

Of course, this approach from Balls misses the point in a number of ways. Part of the reason why Labour lost the last election was because of immigration. However, there were a number of other factors that were also crucial in creating that staggering defeat. Like the fact that they shafted the economy, the education system, civil liberties and the armed forces over a 13 year period. Balls is also missing the point that the reason why so many people in the UK feel uncomfortable about immigration is because Nu Labour studiously refused to engage with anyone on any sort of a debate over immigration - meaning that it has almost become a bit of a political taboo. What Nu Labour should have done is have made the case for immigration - to have pointed out during their years in power that the economy is dependent on immigrant labour and on immigrant spending. Instead, by saying nothing, they allowed the BNP to grow and for immigration to become something sightly sinister in the eyes of some voters. Of course, Balls could try to make this case now rather than bashing immigration. But he isn't, because that's a debate that needs to be had over a long period of time, whereas he may be able to benefit from immigrant bashing right here, right now.

Both Obama and Balls (surely this is one of the first times that the two have been directly compared and found to be similar) are playing tactical, rather than strategic, political games. They are chasing headlines, and trying to make themselves look tough in the eyes of the media. The problem with this is that politicians chasing headlines are never politicians at their best. In fact, they tend to be at their self-serving and cowardly worst when they're doing things like this. And there is a real danger to politicians in that they might get caught up in responding to events rather than trying to think strategically about what they want to achieve overall. There is a fundamental difference between a politician with a determination to implement a vision and a politician determined to chase headlines/respond to events. It is the difference between a Thatcher and a Major, and an Attlee and a Blair.

So beware of politicians flirting with populism. Beware of those politicians chasing headlines. Beware of politicians trying to look tough for the media. Because this is where we tend to see politicians at their most untrustworthy, self-serving and shallow.

The Working Class Andy Burnham

"Working Class" "Hero" Andy Burnham gives his proletarian credentials:

"People keep saying everyone's background's the same, but mine is different."

He added: "There wasn't much privilege about going to a Merseyside comprehensive in the 1980s, I can assure you of that."

Now, where did people get the idea that Burnham might be privileged? I guess it might be his background as a Cambridge graduate, then his time as a political advisor before coming into Parliament. Oh, and his time in Parliament has also seen him placing his hands in the till using the expenses system.

Your early years may be a little bit different to some of the other candidates, Andy, but everything you have done since makes you into the perfect anodyne Nu Labour drone. You are largely indistinguishable from Miliband, Miliband Minor and Balls. And like the others, you are largely pointless - a throwback to Blairism at a time when that man and his rancid turd of a government have been exposed as utterly incompetent and comprehensively rejected by the British public.

Share the Wealth, Share the Nominations

There is something really rather pathetic about contenders in an election begging their rivals for help, but that's exactly what is happening in the Labour leadership contest. Here is a video containing the risible Diane Abbott complaining about Miliband Senior getting lots of nominations (which is the point, surely, at this stage of the election), and here you can see the begging e-mail from McDonnell to the other candidates - clearly, he's realised that the best way for him to get on the ballot papers is if someone else does it for him.

Maybe they're right; maybe the Labour party does need to have a broad selection of candidates to choose from. But I can't help but think that if McDonnell and Abbott (and possibly Burnham and Balls) can't get the support from their fellow MPs to get on the ballot paper, then that sends out a message about their credibility. And I also reckon that relying on the goodwill of your rivals to get you on the ballot paper maybe placing too much faith in their philanthropy. The Milibands are in this to win it - they're even prepared to run against their siblings. I can't see either one of them helping out a floundering rival.

And even if they did, what would be the point in that? If Abbott/McDonnell can't even get the support from their peers, how the hell are they going to get the support of the party members? And in the highly unlikely event that either one of them gets on the ballot paper and wins, what sort of a leader are they likely to be? After all, they can't turn to Cameron and Clegg at the next election and say "look, you're both going to get more votes than us, so how about we share those votes in order to make things fairer, eh?"

It is typical of the complete lack of reality of the Labour left that they are seriously proposing this. More than anything now, the Labour party needs someone who can win an election. Not someone who needs fucking charity just to get them on the ballot paper.