Labour party

Why has Tom Watson given a speech about what his party leadership should do on Brexit? The party's deputy leader has urged Labour to 'unambiguously and unequivocally back Remain' and to campaign for a referendum ahead of an election. This is contrary to the current frontbench position that a referendum should contain a 'credible Leave option'. So why, given Watson sits with Jeremy Corbyn in private shadow cabinet meetings each week, has he gone public with this? The speech is a symptom of how bad relations are between Watson and the leader's office. As I wrote in the Spectator recently, the two men at the top of the party have only had two private meetings together since 2016, and memos from the deputy leader to the leader have gone without reply.

Very important breaking news. Which is that trade unions, in their TULO meeting with Jeremy Corbyn, have tonight endorsed the Labour leader's position that in a general election Labour should campaign for a referendum that would have a "credible leave option and remain" on the ballot paper. The reason this matters is that those senior members of the shadow cabinet, such as Keir Starmer, Emily Thornberry, John McDonnell and Tom Watson, who want Labour to adopt an unambiguous remain position have been defeated. "It is important that voters who want to leave as well as those who want to remain can vote Labour. What we've rejected is the Trumpian no-deal position of Boris Johnson".

There's an assumption in Westminster that the Labour Party would have to back a snap general election if Boris Johnson called one this week. Jeremy Corbyn has said that 'an election is the democratic way forward', while his Shadow Brexit minister Jenny Chapman said Labour would vote against one that came after 31 October, adding that 'having a general election becomes one of the few ways that we are able to prevent no deal'. But that doesn't necessarily mean that Labour will provide the numbers to approve an election motion in the Commons. I have been speaking to MPs in the upper echelons of the party and on the backbenches and many of them privately say they would vote against the motion, even if whipped to do so.

We know that the Conservatives are gearing up for an election in the next few months. Their official line is that they don't want one, largely because it will appear better if they are apparently pushed into a poll, but that doesn't mean that preparations aren't well underway. One of the main benefits of proroguing parliament is that it allows the Tories to produce an election manifesto before there is an election, using the Queen's Speech. In today's Guardian, I've written about what's going to be in that manifesto/Queen's Speech: the focus will be on education and crime.

Gordon Brown has broken his silence again. The former prime minister told the Edinburgh International Book Festival that the Scottish Parliament had ‘failed to deliver a fairer and more prosperous Scotland’ and had instead become a ‘battering ram for constitutional warfare’. What’s that, Lassie? Timmy’s trapped down the well? And creating a Scottish parliament to run almost all of Scotland’s affairs separately from the rest of the UK helped rather than hurt the campaign for independence? Jeepers. The battering ram that Brown laments exists only because the party and government in which he played a somewhat senior role insisted on fashioning it.

Mr S was curious to spy a puzzling email sent out by CCHQ to their prospective parliamentary candidates today. The message asked would-be Tory runners to send in their CVs so that the party can select candidates for the next general election. Recipients were told that anyone selected as a parliamentary contender would cease to be a candidate if 'an existing MP exercises an incumbency right over it'. The email reads: The Board of the Conservative Party has decided to proceed with selections in constituencies that would be affected by Major Boundary changes under the Parliamentary Boundary Review.

Caroline Lucas's plan for an all-female emergency Cabinet to stop a no-deal Brexit is a fantasy, with no prospect of success. But if the plan is daft, it has provoked a revealing reaction from Jeremy Corbyn’s loyal outriders. Instead of laughing it off, many have taken it deadly seriously. Most have focused their attack on the ethnicity of the women Lucas chose to enlist: they were all white. Reasonably enough, they asked why shadow home secretary Diane Abbott, was overlooked. Recognising her mistake, Lucas apologised. But instead of giving Lucas – probably the most politically correct member of the Commons – the benefit of the doubt, the Corbynite response has been nasty and vituperative.

A standard version of this autumn’s events is beginning to emerge. Labour brings a no-confidence vote in the Government on 4 September. The Tories, down to a majority of one – and with several Conservative old-timers vowing to go out in style by torpedoing their own Government in a last act of defiance to stop a no-deal Brexit – loses. Rather than resign, Boris spends the 14 days he would be allowed under the Fixed Term Parliament Act trying to build a majority. He fails. And Corbyn, too, is unable to form a majority. Boris calls a general election – but crucially stretches it out just beyond 31 October, when we drop out of the EU without a deal. No further Parliamentary efforts can be made to stop no deal because the Commons will be prorogued for the election.

John McDonnell spent a large amount of his time this week attacking the career history of the newly-promoted Chancellor, Sajid Javid. While some might take heart at the way Javid, as son of a Pakistani bus driver, worked his way up to become a banker and then the second most powerful politician in the country, for McDonnell it's clearly evidence that he should be clapped in irons. In a press release on Monday, McDonnell thundered that Javid's stint at Deutsche Bank and his alleged role in selling collateralised debt obligations (CDOs) which were behind the 2008 banking crisis, meant that he was unsuitable to be Chancellor, and the prime minister should launch an investigation into his past.

This week, The Sun instructed Remain Conservative MPs to unite behind Boris Johnson or see Jeremy Corbyn’s desire to ‘turn Britain into an experiment in 21st century Marxism’ become reality. It need not have bothered: the threat of a ‘Marxist’ Corbyn government is one of the few things about which all Conservatives agree. But what kind of a threat does Corbyn really pose? Keen supporters of the Labour leader speak of their hopes for a ‘transformative’ Corbyn-led government, one that will eventually lead to socialism. This government will permanently change Britain because, they say, it will disperse power to the people.

As the Westminster rumour mill goes into overdrive over the likelihood of an early general election, talk has turned to how the main parties would fare in an Autumn trip to the polls. Crucial to that question is how the Liberal Democrats would do. Just a year ago, the Lib Dems were the subject of pity and widespread mockery. They were scarred by their time in coalition with the Tories. They failed to make much ground during the 2017 snap election, ending up with just 12 MPs, and seemed destined for extinction. In theory, they should have hoovered up Remain voters. Instead, they hoovered up derision and obloquy. Sir Vince Cable announced his resignation as party leader with the future looking bleak.

Tom Watson has had more reinventions than Kylie Minogue has had mid-performance outfit changes. His performances over the years have ranged from baronial backroom fixer loathed by Blairites to scourge of Fleet Street when he took on Rupert Murdoch. There was a brief counter-culture period when he went around wearing a beret, a foray into hunting down alleged paedophiles, and a mysterious vanishing act when he realised that Jeremy Corbyn's fans were out to get him. In the magazine this week, I look at where Watson's latest incarnation is taking him: he's the key figure in the latest attempt to save the Labour Party from Jeremy Corbyn and his hard left allies. As I say in that piece, Watson these days is a kindly man who many MPs - to their own great surprise - look to for help and support.

When Labour moderates tried to oust Jeremy Corbyn in 2016, their attempt only made him stronger, protected by swathes of loyal members. But this year, is the tide turning for Corbyn, as even supporters begin to doubt him? First, there were the abysmal European Election results, which for many Corbynites were particularly painful because they disagree with the leadership's ambiguous stance on Brexit. Then, last week's BBC Panorama brought out a dark side to the leadership - the press team's defensive response to the programme, accusing whistleblowers of being 'disaffected', disheartened many most loyal to the project. One high profile Corbynite I spoke to told me that they were disappointed at the response, and believe the party was institutionally anti-Semitic.

Ever since Jeremy Corbyn was elected as leader of the Labour party, many of his MPs have dreamed of deposing him. They’ve tried mass shadow ministerial resignations, a no-confidence motion, even a formal leadership contest — but to no avail. Some, like Chuka Umunna, left the party, hoping (in vain) that others would join their breakaway group. Other MPs gave up hope, resigned and found jobs outside of politics — concluding no plot would ever work. But that might now be changing. The Corbynites, who have stuck together for so long, are fighting with each other. Party members, once the human shield who protected their leader, are beginning to doubt him.

'The Labour Party welcomes everyone* irrespective of race, creed, age, gender identity, or sexual orientation. (except, it seems, Jews)'. So says an unprecedented advert in the Guardian today, which is signed by more than 60 Labour peers. It could hardly be more damning. Yet while the advert is shocking, it stops short of pointing out the only way that Labour can solve its anti-Semitism crisis for good: by getting rid of Jeremy Corbyn. Labour peers who backed the statement aren't the only ones to fail to state the obvious. Deputy leader Tom Watson, who says he favours the introduction of an independent complaints procedure, has also fallen short.