Sooth-nay-saying
*
And lo, I did gaze into my Crystal Ed-Balls and there I did see… a somewhat distorted version of myself. So instead, I thought I’d just make some stuff up and see if I turn out to be right.
*
This morning, I voted. And for the Democratic Liberalites, no less. Now, with this looking like potentially the closest race in British election history, I thought I’d make some wild and preposterous predictions.
*
Me. Honest.
*
Firstly, the outcome, then the next 3 Labour leaders… and their contenders… then the next 2 Tory leaders… and their contenders… then the Chancellor, Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary… Justice Minister, Business Minister… the core spine of the coalition deal and queen’s speech… the make-up of the rest of the cabinet… and finally the gruesome fate of Ed Balls.
*
And the Winner Is…
No one. I know, going out on a limb there. Who would have predicted that? Apart from, well, everyone. Yes, it’s fairly likely we’ll end up with a hung parliament with a Conservative party in possession of the most seats. But I’ll start by predicting that the Tories won’t have enough seats to claim victory.
*
Swing like you're Hung, Jeremy.
*
Most projections have only considered the Lab/Con swing and have ignored the Tory’s innevitable losses to the LibDems through the Con/Lib swing, which is likely to be around 7% (I’ll eat my headgear if it falls below 5%).
Here’s where the real predicting begins-
*
Harriet Harman, PM
First thing on Friday morning, Harriet Harman (of the Labour Party) will visit the Queen (of England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Island, Australia, the Falkland Isles… and a few other geographical regions) and state that she has enough seats in the House of Commons to form a government.
*
Well she seems pleased...
*
It’s possible that the Labour party may set up Alan Johnson in Brown’s place rather than Harman. However, given the speed I’m predicting them to act and Harman already in place as deputy leader, few MPs will think it worthwhile to rock the boat with a leadership vote already tabled for the near future.
So, temporarily at least, Harriet Harman will become Prime Minister. How’s that for left-field (pun intended).
*
The Deal
In the early hours of the morning, Gordon Brown will have resigned, leaving Harman in charge of an interim Labour government. Immediately – or possibly even before – someone (my money would be on Peter Mandelson, but it could be Harman or Brown himself) will call Nick Clegg and offer him:
- The guaranteed introduction of a system of Proportional Representation. Perhaps not the Single-Transferable-Vote system the LibDems prefer, but something close. Lords reform will probably be added here, but both parties are in favour, so it’s really just gravy.
- Four seats in the cabinet – including one of the “big three” (Chancellor, Home Secretary or Foreign Secretary) and possibly the Deputy Prime-Minister position as well. That much may depend on just how large a share of the votes Nick has – and I doubt he’d take it either (see below).
- A guarantee to pass – if not all, then a significant portion of – the LibDem’s “Freedom Bill” – which encompasses education reform, immigration reform (though not the amnesty) and political reform, among other things.
- An agreement to scrap ID cards. This would never pass without a massive majority anyway, so many Labourites may see it as a small loss.
- The introduction of the LibDem’s banking measures (separating the risk-heavy investment banking from risk-light savings and loan). This has been the least contentious of the LibDem’s top measures and, to my knowledge, has not been criticized at all by the other two parties. Next to this, only Trident and the Amnesty have been higher on the LD agenda (excluding voting reform and the Freedom bill, which we’ve already covered) and Labour can’t give the LDs either of them having spoken stringently against them.
All of this will be announced – along with other details – in the Queen’s speech on May 25th.
*
"And so we must grasp the tits of government and reap the sweet milk of equality!"
*
It is possible that a deal like this already exists – though, of course, that would never be confirmed by either party. However, it’s possible that both sides already have a list something like this – specifically so that an alliance/coalition can be quickly agreed upon in principle to prevent months of debating which could allow the Tories in through the back door.
*
The Coalition
And that will happen of Friday morning. There will be, perhaps, two hours of haggling over the key points above – maybe more, maybe less – and an alliance or coalition will be formed, in principle, with the finer points worked out once government is sitting.
*
*
The problem here may be that, when the parties later come to iron out the final details, the talks may break down and quickly destroy the alliance/coalition. We’ll have to wait and see.
*
The Second Unelected PM (third if you count Harriet)
Following this agreement, Harman will call a leadership test to determine which member of the Labour Party will become the Prime Minister. Harman herself will probably not stand, though I won’t rule that out completely. Instead, we’ll have the options of:
- Harriet Harman. Deputy leader and natural successor to Brown. Will have much support – as she did in the campaign for deputy leader. However, the fact that she was deputy leader under Brown may count against her in a Labour party looking to try and re-invent themselves.
- Alan Johnson. Bookies’ favourite. Seemingly well-liked in the party. Probably seen as a good interim leader and peacemaker. Not the youngest man in the world, so won’t be overtly worried about the chances that his premiership could be short-lived.
*
"I'll probably be here about this long...? Maybe? If I'm lucky."
*
- Peter Hain. The shock entry that surprises everyone (except you, now) and who emerges as the only other realistic competitor to Johnson. Why Hain? Well he’s a known figure on the fringe of the party and closer to old-Labour than new-. Given Brown’s departure, some of the party may want to return to the roots and clean themselves of the sullied badge of the Brown/Blair New Labour. Most significantly, he surprisingly came out in favour of tactical voting yesterday – an odd move. Ed Balls’ similar declaration may mean (1) he is also thinking of running, but if he does, he’ll fall flat, (2) he’s backing Hain, (3) he said it to give Brown a more heavyweight figure to respond to so he could counter the call without validating Hain or (4) he actually thinks people should vote tactically.
- Not David Milliband. He’s not that stupid. It’s a known secret that Milliband-the-younger has been touted as leadership material for some time. And if Labour looked set to lose this election, he’d probably be facing a coronation to lead the Shadow Cabinet – and oust Cameron and the Tories a few years down the line. However, given the unstable nature of any coalition government (at least at first) and Mervyn King’s warning on the fate of the next government (that their cuts will have to be so severe they will be out of power for a generation) Milliband won’t want to take the top-job just yet. He’s young (relatively) he can afford to wait on the sidelines and take the leadership (a) before the next election – if the Lib/Lab coalition survives the full term or (b) after a second election, once Labour are in opposition.
It’s not impossible that people like Ed Balls and perhaps even Alistair Darling (Chancellor) might run. But I seriously doubt it – Balls is seen as something of Brown 2.0 and Darling has made it publicly clear that he doesn’t want the job.
Regardless, Johnson will win.
*
And in the Blue Corner
Oh, and while all this has been going on, David Cameron has resigned as Tory Leader – though reluctantly, claiming the moral victory, effectively being forced out by David Davis’ camp – and been replaced, probably unopposed, by Ken Clarke. Clarke will also be seen as an interim figure and will likely be replaced before the next election – he’ll know that, but the Tories will want an economically-versed front-man to level the right charges against a Lib/Lab coalition inevitably struggling to fix the economy.
*
Suits you, sir.
*
When and if Clarke steps down – depending on how long the Lib/Lab coalition survives – the battle to succeed him will be fought between Liam Fox and an outsider like Gove or perhaps Grayling. At an outside bet, George Osborne.
No matter who the contender is, Fox will win.
*
The Next Government
Anyway, that’s two pretty major predictions. They’re almost certainly not going to happen like that. So why stop there. For my next trick, I shall predict the Lib/Lab coalition cabinet (or, at least, the important positions).
- CHANCELLOR > Alistair Darling. No change. Despite the prowess of Vince Cable, it’s a no-win for the LibDems to put him as Chancellor. If the economy recovers, the credit will go to Brown and Darling for guiding us through the recession. If the economy tanks, the current chancellor will get the blame. All sides will be happy to leave Darling where he is – and there he shall stay.
- HOME SECRETARY > David Milliband. Known, respected, not-widely-considered-a-prat. Milliband will want to stay close to the action and with the focus of the next few years on the economy, Home-Sec will look relatively blameless.
*
"The recovering economy will find a new cornerstone in my patented Cloak of Invisibility - as modeled by this hooker."
*
- FOREIGN SECRETARY > Nick Clegg. I doubt he’ll take deputy PM (that will likely stay with Harman). The LibDems will want to keep their underdog-card in reserve for the next election and they’ll have it in spades if they’ve been seen as the only force propping up an ancient and decrepit Labour regime. Clegg is perfect material for Foreign-Sec – experienced in the EU, fluent in several languages. And he also gets to be the guy who brings the troops home from Afghanistan (again, assuming the coalition lasts the full term).
- JUSTICE MINSTER > Chris Huhne. Despite Clegg beating him to the LibDem leadership by only 1.2%, Huhne has been a staunch ally to Nick and is experienced as the LD equivalent of the Home-Sec. Since Justice only broke away from the Home Office when Brown took office, it’s a new yet powerful department and the ideal place outside the top three for the LibDems to place someone for maximum coverage.
- BUSINESS > Vince Cable. Where better to put a doctor of economics than in charge of the department in charge of helping instigate the recovery. Well, the Treasury, but we’ve covered that. With Cable in Business he can still put his skills to use – and the LibDems won’t mind if the media start speculating that Darling is just Cable’s puppet. Then they can take credit for success and more credit for correcting failures. Plus, he’s taking over from Mandelson, so he’ll look like an Angel next to the (now) self-styled Dark Lord.
*
And now for some Pure Speculation
As for who will take the LibDem’s fourth cabinet spot, I’m still undecided. They’ll probably go for something where they can win some influence, but they may not have much choice. I’d expect them to end up with Transport or Housing – something middle-of-the-road.
As for who, David Laws would be the top candidate, though whether the LDs have enough bargaining power remains to be seen. It’s not impossible that Ed Davey could find a home somewhere other than foreign affairs (though he may get International Development instead).
However, Clegg and co may end up having to simply promote their current incumbent from Shadow to Actual. In this case it would depend on which position they find themselves with.
*
"Un-for-getable. That's what you are..."
*
As an outside bet, it’s not impossible that a popular (at least, in Liberal circles) figure like Evan Harris (@DrEvanHarris – well worth a follow) may find himself at Energy and Climate Change or Innovations, Universities and Skills. Instead, he may get Science and Innovation – which isn’t, I was surprised to learn, part of the official cabinet, though he would still attend all cabinet meetings.
*
And While We’re on the Subject…
Expect Health, Eduction, Defense, etc… to stay with Labour. It’s also not impossible that the coalition might give the LibDems the speaker if they find themselves facing a fight for Leader of the Commons, Chief Whip or another of the top jobs.
Of Jack Straw, there will be no sign. Though pending developments, he may re-emerge somewhere down the line.
Ed Milliband will find his way into one of the higher jobs – as might Hain if he doesn’t end his career with his leadership bid. Also expect to see more of Tessa Jowel, John Denham and Hilary Benn (the man with the backwards name).
*
"The name's Ashdown. Paddy Ashdown." (He was actually a spy)
*
Paddy Ashdown will be made a Lord and will – possibly working with Peter Mandelson – spearhead a joint push for House of Lords reform (both possibly having some roll in the cabinet as well – though unlikely for Ashdown unless the LibDems break over 100 seats). Brown offered him Northern Ireland Secretary when he became PM, so it’s not impossible he could make a return.
The Digital Economy Bill will be repealed and replaced with a better version within two years. With prop-rep and given the lessons of this campaign, Labour will feel less inclined to bow to the whims of Rupert Murdoch – and the LibDems have already pledged to repeal it anyway.
*
...Balls.
*
Whoever gets Work and Pensions may well see their career go up in smoke. My money there’s on Ed Balls.
*
UPDATE: As of 5:00 on Friday, I would appear to have been mostly wrong. Still might get the cabinet right though…
*
Milliband coming from a Marxist background is a natural candidate for advocating complete State Control, totalitarian Government and globalisation. . Groomed by the Bilderberg group. Like Blair he is obviously looking for future EU position.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1617
http://www.doomdaily.com/2009/italian-mp-denounces-bilderberg-influence-during-european-parliament-meeting/
How do you trust a system (EU) that has surreptitiously re-introduced the death penalty – and to be used in some quite ‘loosely‘ defined situations.
Remember that Milliband has been a key player in some of the most autocratic legislation in recent years – a key player in the promotion of ideas such as the DE Bill, Identity Cards, and the ‘terror’ laws and social services child snatching.
Re first Milliband link should have been;
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16175
Also this link as to arrest of Guardian journalist covering the Bilderberg conference a while back;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO8BcDM7Iqg
“How do you trust a system (EU) that has surreptitiously re-introduced the death penalty – and to be used in some quite ‘loosely‘ defined situations.”
What are you referring to? Abolition of the death penalty is required for membership into the EU, it’s specifically stated in the Human Rights Charter of the organization. All I could find on the EU’s death penalty is that Belarus still practice capital punishment, but was part of the EU before the requirement was introduced. Russia and Belarus still retain the ability to execute people in wartime (article 6 of the EU Human Rights convention) – but both have signed article 13 (total abolition) but have yet to ratify it (requiring specific state action).
What information are you referring to with this accusation?
Also, the term “Marxist” is a ridiculously paranoid and reactionary remark – you might as well call Ian Duncan-Smith a Nazi at the other end of the scale. Also, the DE Bill and Social Services are not authoritarian positions.
Finally, if you want to be taken seriously, don’t link to insane denialist/conspiracy websites. If you share their views, that’s your choice – but if they’re the only articles you can find it somewhat strains credibility and believability.
http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html
Section 1 Article 2
The Lisbon Treaty relates back to the ECHR.
http://www.archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2008/04/lisbon-treaty-introduces-eu-wide-death.html
The EU may abolish national decrees regarding the death penalty – but don’t forget it then has its own laws – the death penalty in ‘certain circumstances’ being one of them. This policy was hidden in an annex to a Guideline.
You need to read the Act closely even more recent pronouncements such as the where, from its own website
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/showPage.aspx?id=1702&lang=EN
quote;
‘where the death penalty still exists, to call for its use to be progressively restricted and to insist that it be carried out according to minimum standards which are defined in an annex to the Guidelines and based on international human rights obligations.’
‘insist that it be carried out to minimum standards’ what is that ?
An implicit acceptance in certain situations.
The EU carries no sanctions for EU countries such as the UK which have recently used the death penalty – so theres a lot of Orwellian double-speak in its pronouncements.
Ask yourself if the EU spokespeople oppose the death penalty so ardently why they still support this;
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m66172&hd=&size=1&l=e
With no sanctions against member states closely involved in such acts and co-operation for mass murder in Iraq.
David Milliband comes from a strong Marxist background.
His father http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Miliband was an active Marxist.
To believe that his father did not influence his sons political upbringing is a naive position to take given Millibands subsequent record. Milliband was head of Labour Policy. He voted for the Iraq war and against an investigation into it. He voted for all of Labour’s anti-terrorism laws, and he supported student fees and foundation hospitals.
http://www.davidmiliband.com/2010/04/karl-marx-becomes-davidmilibandcoms.html
Infact many of the Labour leadership were at one time Marxist or Socialist; Straw, Prescott, etc and this coloured their totalitarian policies such as the DE Bill, child snatching by the State, the atrocities committed in the Iraq war which has left hundreds of thousands dead and the support of Israel at the time of the Gaza bombings – remember the BBC news black out which would not even help victims of Israeli bombings? Who was in Government for the past ten years?
Your comment; ‘Also the de Bill and social services are not authoritarian positions.’
Try telling that to the parents who have had their children and babies snatched and UK mothers who have had to flee the country to keep their babies.
The DE Bill is an introduction to curb the freedom of the internet. In effect it is the beginning of attempts to move in on a media which is so far unregulated.
It is based on the use of copyright infringement – this was used
actually prior to the Act when Julia Middleton (John Prescotts ex-secretary) and her Common Purpose fake charity crowd attempted to close down the Brian Gerrish website by a legal battle they eventually lost – again prior to the act. The act makes it easier for such sanctions to be implemented. Libel laws do not merely – justifiably – protect innocent slandered individuals – they make it difficult for journalists to report the wrongdoings of major corporations – which is why so many news agencies have been protesting against the use of these so-called libel laws.
I don’t know what point you are trying to make with the Ian Duncan Smith comment. I don’t buy into the left-right paradigm which you seem to – politicians are often more closely linked by business interests than you might think. You seem to think they are opposites – I’m not so sure thats really true.
Who was the ‘conspiracy/denialist’ the Guardian journalist?
Given that the Times, the Telegraph and most other papers covered the arrest of Charlie Skelton are you saying that they are also ’conspiracy theorists’ ? Millibands attendance at the Bilderberg meeting is a fact not a ’conspiracy theory’. You need to look beyond what you have might imagine to be true and investigate to see whether there is evidence, or are you just going to tune out because something challenges your pre-conceptions?
On the link I provided the Guardian photographer Charlie Skelton gives HIS OWN account of what happened to him when he was arrested after taking photographs of the Bilderberg Meeting. No more no less. What detail in his account do you have a problem with?
Heres another account of exactly the same event from another independent news source;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/14/bilderberg-charlie-skelton-dispatch
And its identical to the info wars link I provided. No difference. So the Guardian and above papers are as ‘insane; as the info wars link. Yep. Sounds logical Andrew.
Lets deal with specifics. Fact by fact. Rather than prejudice or knee jerk reactions.
If you want evidence on any of the above just say.
Please don’t attempt to misrepresent my words on my own website. The links you gave above are to, as I said, denialist and conspiracy websites which cannot be considered as reliable sources. I did *not* direct that at the Guardian – and the article you linked to makes no reference to the allegations of the original piece, it simply confirms that the Bilderberg conference exists – which I was not contesting.
I can only assume you chose to use such a disparate article as an attempt to suggest to the more passive reader that I was rejecting any evidence I didn’t like. I rejected the sources you used – not their contents – and requested a more reliable source which you have failed to provide.
My reactions were neither prejudice or knee-jerk. I examined your claims and found the sources you used to be highly unreliable. Furthermore, the language you have employed in both replies makes no attempt to hide your own prejudice.
I demand an apology for that if you want any of your future posts to appear on this blog.
You continue to suggest that anyone more than an inch left of center must be a dangerous totalitarian Marxist, which is a term you have chosen to be deliberately alarmist. My comment about IDS was that he falls roughly on the oposite side of the UK political spectrum to Miliband. If Miliband is a Marxist, then surely IDS – as his antithesis – must be a Nazi? I really don’t like IDS and his hyper-conservative standpoints, but even I would defend him against that term – and it’s not much different to try and label Miliband in the same manner.
If you want to be taken seriously, please restrict your use of such alarmist terms.
And please don’t try to lecture me on the #debill, I know the topic well and it only acts to give more control to businesses – a distinctly right-wing position – not to allow the state to control the internet. Accusations at the time of the #debill that the government could use it block, for example, wikileaks were utterly unfounded – as wikileaks (and similar sites) are already protected under Whistle-Blowing laws.
I fervently oppose the Digital Economy Bill, but it is not part of some imagined communist agenda.
With those issues dealt with, we can move on to the actual contents:
1) EU death penalty.
The information you present now is quite accurate. It’s still utterly deceiving, but manages to be so without actually getting much wrong.
Yes, the EU Charter has a section which only bans use of the death penalty outside of wartime and in other extreme and vaguely defined situations. It also has a SECOND section utterly abolishing the death penalty which is now a requirement for membership.
There are countries which have yet to put that clause into effect who were already in the EU before the requirement. However, as I stated before, these countries – Russia, Latvia and Belarus – are all moving towards complete abolition and both Russia and Latvia have already signed that section of the document and are awaiting ratification by their own parliaments.
I mentioned all this in my previous reply, you chose simply to ignore it.
You then go on to misrepresent things in even greater detail.
The quote you take from the EU website is describing the EU’s goals for the whole of Europe and the wider world – not just EU member states. The goal specified in that statement applies to countries outside the EU and details what the EU would like them to do – i.e. abolish the death penalty or at least do it humanely if you must. It does not apply to member states and it is not part of any legal directive towards such states.
The very same page states categorically that all EU member states have now abolished the death penalty.
You are correct that the EU carries no specific sanctions against EU states which execute people. However, since all EU members are now all-but committed to complete abolition, I don’t see why such sanctions would be necessary.
Frankly, the claim that the UK has executed someone “recently” is ludicrous. The last use of capital punishment in the UK occurred almost 60 years ago.
2) On Bilderberg.
All of Skelton’s posts are written with a huge helping of irony joking that Bilderberg controls the world. I took the opportunity to look up those who have attended the conference and still attend the conference and, yes, it seems to me that they do, in fact, control the world.
Because practically everyone in the western world goes to them.
To lament Bildeberg’s influence is like lamenting the influence of the EU or the UN. Yes, a lot of people are involved… practically everyone, come to that. All the top politicians from around the North Atlantic go there. In fact, it would be pretty hard to find a top politician who hadn’t attended such an important conference. It would, I’d wager, be next to impossible.
Beware this deadly secret and dangerous meeting. Access is by invitation only, so it must be evil – that’s why they invite pretty much everyone from Thatcher to the Queen of Spain. If you wanted to elect EU representatives who hadn’t been to one of these conferences you’d be left with almost no qualified candidates.
I actually couldn’t find anything confirming that Miliband had actually attended one of these things. I found lots of articles saying he had – but none saying what year. I then found various lists of attendees
So are you somehow suggesting that – despite years of the UN and EU failing to find consensus on the most basic of issues… that somehow the exact same people have achieved a glorious (but secret) consensus at this other meeting?
Where exactly do you think Bildeberg lies in the political spectrum? Since they’ve hosted everyone from Ashdown to Osborne, it’s a ridiculous suggestion that they are somehow all pulling in the same direction.
Yes, security was high. Yes, the Greek police acted against Skelton’s human rights. Yes, terror laws allowing such acts are abhorrent. No, it does not follow that David Miliband is trying to take over the world.
Oh, and just to remove some more misinformation – they don’t ban journalists or suppress reporting, the photo incident was simply a result of amoral terror laws. In fact, they’ve even invited top journalists to the conference as delegates.
I’ll close by making a few things clear. I don’t like David Miliband (or Ed for that matter, though less-so) I disagree with him on many issues – ID cards and the DE Bill included. I oppose the war, I oppose the infringement of civil liberties – do I think the government deliberately made these laws to victimise innocents? No, because that’s a ridiculously paranoid position to take – why would they? What’s in it for them? Power? – They’ve already got it, that’s how they made the law in the first place.
It is offensive to anyone who reads your posts that you choose, not to address the policy issues you dislike, but to scaremonger and deceive.
Really, what does it matter if Miliband Senior had communist leanings? He’s a different person and since we know nothing of his relationship with his son, how are we to judge? We’re not – yet you actively encourage prejudice by attempting to instill fear in your reader.
Any more instances, and I will simply reject your post. Stop insulting our readers’ intelligence and stop deliberately misrepresenting my words.
You say you want to deal with facts? I’m still waiting…