David Blackburn

I suspect that union leaders have always believed that they ought to drive the Labour party’s agenda. But now, after a year of economic misery and electoral disasters for the centre-left party leadership, the old left’s confidence is back and ought implies can. In a blatant assault on Blairism, rabble-rouser-in-chief Derek Simpson branded Peter Mandelson, David Miliband and James Purnell as “thick” and “Tories”. I can’t imagine Arthur Scargill, even when completely carried away, denouncing Roy Jenkins or David Owen in such terms, and it speaks volumes about the unions’ expectations of an imminent lurch to the left. Alistair Campbell has attempted to pooh-pooh Simpson’s provocation.

Communities Secretary John Denham has compared the English Defence League (EDL), the group that has organised protests against what it describes as the ‘Islamification of Britain’, to Oswald Mosley’s Union of British Fascists. Whilst announcing that the government plans to re-engage predominantly white working class voters who are being seduced by the BNP, Denham said: “You could go back to the 1930s if you wanted to - Cable Street and all of those types of things. The tactic of trying to provoke a response in the hope of causing wider violence and mayhem is long established on the far-right and among extremist groups.

One question that arises from the publication the Lockerbie documents is why Jack Straw suddenly decided against excluding al-Megrahi from the PTA? Straw justified his change of heart on the grounds of "overwhelming national interests", though trade and commercial interests were not a contributing factor in that calculation, a point he reiterated last weekend. But, in an interview with the Telegraph today, Straw contradicts himself: '"Yes, it (trade deals with Libya) was a very big part of that (including al-Megrahi in the PTA). I'm unapologetic about that. Libya was a rogue state. We wanted to bring it back into the fold and trade is an essential part of it - and subsequently there was the BP deal.

Brown’s delivery may have been beyond sepulchral, but the content was encouraging. He laid out how Afghan stability is being bolstered by the increased activity and competence of Afghan security forces, the replacement of the heroin crop with wheat, an intensification of government in rural hinterlands and by arresting urban corruption. At least there now seems to be a degree of co-ordination between coalition and Afghan security operations, civic reconstruction and the administration of government. These are welcome changes but there is still no overarching sense of what the ‘Afghan mission’ hopes to achieve, beyond the dubious contention that it will make the West safer. As a result, a number of the initiatives Brown articulated are ill-focussed or counter-productive.

The Telegraph’s Andrew Porter reports that UKIP leader Nigel Farage will stand against Speaker Bercow in Buckingham at the next election. Farage explained his decisision: “This man represents all that is wrong with British politics today. He was embroiled in the expenses saga and he presides over a Parliament that virtually does nothing.” Farage has more than an outside chance of winning this very safe Tory seat. It’s fair to say that Bercow’s expense claims and his election as Speaker, facilitated almost exclusively by Mr Brown’s MPs, have not endeared him to the party faithful – even Tim Montgomerie confides he’d be tempted to vote UKIP if he were registered in Buckingham.

I’ve just re-read Cameron’s article in the Times and it contains one section that might come back to haunt him, should he become Prime Minister. He writes: ‘Many will be disgusted by the suggestion that ministers in Whitehall encouraged al-Megrahi’s release — and did so for commercial reasons. Diplomacy often involves hard-nosed backroom deals. It would be naive to think otherwise. But there need to be lines you are not prepared to cross; values you will not compromise, whatever deal you broker. I believe even to hint that a convicted terrorist could be used as makeweight for trade is a betrayal of everything that Britain stands for.’  I agree with Cameron.

Mike Smithson has an interesting post with how the fallout from the al-Megrahi affair is damaging Labour. He writes: ‘Where I think that Labour is going wrong here is in trying to cover up what has happened and by hiding behind the Scottish dimension. Why not come out and say that the paramount objective was energy and the need to open up new areas? A reference to Russia’s aggressive energy strategy would underline the point. What’s becoming clear is that the truth will out - why not get in with their explanation first?’ He’s right that Labour have made an enormous tactical blunder by not coming clean over this piece of realpolitik.