Labour party

Here we go again. Ed Miliband gave another speech about immigration this morning proving yet again that this is a subject about which no-one is ever permitted to talk. Any time a Labour politicians talks about immigration and the party's record in government I am reminded of Evelyn Waugh's acid observation on hearing the news that Randolph Churchill had successfully endured an operation to remove a benign tumour. This, Waugh wrote in his diary, represented  "A typical triumph of modern science to find the only part of Randolph that was not malignant and remove it." Comparably, it seems a typical triumph of modern politics that Labour should disown one of the more reputable parts of its record in office.

Labour has only ever won a general election from the autumn of 1974 onwards when its leader has been called &"Tony Blair”. Four other leaders tried, but they were not called &"Tony Blair,” and Labour paid the price. I find it hard to credit the left’s failure myself sometimes, and, equally, find it easy to understand how Labour supporters became riddled with self-hatred and self-doubt as they saw ‘their’ Blairite government in action. But it is going a bit far for Paul Kenny of the GMB to deal with the compromises of the past by calling on Labour to declare the Blairte think tank Progress an anti-party organisation and ban it     I won’t detain you for long with the obvious objections.

The attack on Progress by the GMB union at its annual conference is odd and reflects the uncertainty of trade unions as they try and work out their role and status in a 21st century which is proving very unfriendly to trade unions across the world. In the United States, only 7 per cent of the private sector workforce is unionized. The figures in France are similarly low. In Britain, TUC membership has shrunk for the fourth year in succession.   Union bashers may rejoice, and certainly there are Tory MPs who think the last great bit of Thatcherite unfinished business is the extirpation of organized labour.

Ed Miliband's speech last week, in which he grappled with questions of Britishness, identity and Unionism, was a worthy effort. By which you will grasp that it was also, in the end, not quite good enough. The Labour leader spoke as though he had only recently appreciated — or had brought to his attention — that national identity on these islands is often a matter of choice and that — insert obligatory Whitman reference here, please — many people have multiple, layered identities that may, at times, even seem to contradict one another. Gosh, you think?   And, alas, he foundered in the Q&A when he told one inquisitor: ‘People can be Scottish and British, it's OK. And if they feel primarily Scottish that's fine too.

The Labour Party has a problem with education. On the one hand, it recognises that the academies programme which it inaugurated is very popular with parents. But on the other hand, it knows that the unions, upon which it depends financially, are opposed to reform. This creates tension where policy is concerned: how can the party satisfy voters and the unions? This tension is embodied by the reform-minded shadow education secretary Stephen Twigg (a driving force behind the original adoption of academies), who appeared on Andrew Neil’s Sunday Politics earlier this morning. His words (and there were a lot of them) speak volumes about the party’s difficulty with the word ‘academy’.

I hope that CoffeeHousers, regardless of political affiliation, will welcome a speech by a Labour leader that is explicitly patriotic, about England as well as the United Kingdom. As Ed Miliband said today, Labour has too often seemed either uninterested in Englishness or embarrassed by it, when there is nothing in its history and values that justifies this. Miliband was also right to emphasise the legitimacy and strength of ‘multiple identities’ — whether English and British, Scottish and British, Indian and British, or British and Muslim. And he was right to urge the English to ‘embrace a positive, outward looking version’ of national identity.

What is Baroness Warsi accused of? The main allegation in yesterday's Sunday Times is that, in early 2008, Warsi was 'claiming parliamentary expenses for overnight accommodation when she was staying rent-free in a friend’s house' in Acton. The house in question is owned by Dr Wafik Moustafa but Warsi stayed there as a guest of Naweed Khan — who was himself staying in the house rent-free. There was also a second allegation that the Baroness failed to declare on the Register of Lords' Interests income from a flat she owned and was renting out — although it did appear on the Register of Ministers' Interests. Warsi has admitted to this one, saying it was 'an oversight for which I take full responsibility'. So how much money are we talking about?

What do Ed Balls and Mitt Romney have in common? They both want you to think that Barack Obama is spending government money like never before. For Mitt Romney, it’s an attack: he wants to make Obama a Big Government bogeyman who’s failing to tackle America’s deficit. ‘I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno,’ the Republican nominee promises. For Ed Balls, it’s an example for Britain to follow: ‘I will lead us into this debt and spending inferno’, the shadow chancellor promises. Well, essentially. But the Obama camp is pushing back hard against such claims, highlighting a Wall Street Journal article yesterday titled ‘Obama spending binge never happened’.

Have you noticed the weird hold that François Hollande has over our politics? If you haven’t, then let me tell you: his name has been almost inescapable in Westminster over the past couple of weeks. Even in PMQs this week, David Cameron and Ed Miliband couldn’t resist of spot of Hollandery. Behind-the-scenes, too, there is much consideration being given to how the new French President should be treated. Political strategists recognise, as I’ve suggested before, that his election could be a significant moment in the life of the Eurozone and the European Union.