James Forsyth

With the TUC conference coming up, Derek Simpson, leader of Unite, flexes his muscles in an interview with The Independent. He tells Jane Merrick that Labour couldn’t fight a proper election campaign without Unite’s financial backing: "What are the consequences of us not giving Labour money? That will really impair, fatally damage, any chance of Labour winning a general election. We give money to allow the Labour Party to function." Considering that the unions gave Labour £11.4 million between the first quarters of 2008 and 2009, Simpson is probably right. (Worryingly for the party one of Simpson’s most likely successors is standing on a platform of ending the union’s donations to Labour).

The question of Gordon Brown’s leadership won’t go away, but there’s a feeling that nothing will happen for a while yet. Andrew Grice writes in The Independent today that the coup might come in December: “Labour's hard left and the trade unions are the dogs that have not barked. The assumption is that they stick with him for fear of something worse, and calculate that their best hope would be to exploit a backlash against New Labour after an election defeat. I am told that their mood is now changing. Some left-wing MPs and union bosses are coming round to the view that they would have an overriding duty to avoid a massacre that could keep the party out of power for a generation.

Charles Clarke has sounded off so often during the Brown premiership that it is tempting not to pay too much attention when he does. But his latest broadside is interesting in that Clarke is having a go at Brown as much from the left as from the right. He again attacks the abolition of the 10p rate and calls for Trident not to be renewed, two things that please the left. But he follows up with two new criticisms of Brown that will play well with the left. He says that Brown’s “toleration of UK tax havens has been a disgrace” and calls for "genuinely fair" corporate taxation. The plot to oust Brown failed because it did not attract enough support from the soft left of the party.

The Guardian has a story today about how field sports enthusiasts are donating heavily to Nick Herbert, the shadow DEFRA secretary. The paper links the donations to the fact that the Tories are committed to holding a vote on the repeal of the hunting ban. As the Norwich North by-election showed, Labour will have a go at turning this into an election issue—hoping that it will aid their attempt to paint Cameron and Osborne as people most interested in looking after their wealthy friends. Norwich North suggests this attack won’t have that much cut through. But once elected, the politics of repealing the hunting act will be tricky.

Jon Cruddas’s speech tonight poses a question that cuts right to the heart of Gordon Brown’s leadership, ‘what does Labour stand for any more?’ There is no clear answer to this question, which explains why Labour has no clear domestic policy message. The retreat into ‘the philosophical framework of the right’, Cruddas argues, means that Labour has lost its language, empathy and generosity. Considering Cruddas’s decision to stay on sidelines during the most recent leadership plot played a key part in saving Brown, this is a pretty devastating assessment (it also suggests that Cruddas made the wrong call in not intervening then).

Andrew Grice has an interesting column in the Independent today laying out Number 10's plans for an autumn fightback. The six-step strategy is as follows: "1. Labour will focus on the policy choice between the two main parties because the Tories are more vulnerable on policy than their current opinion poll lead suggests. The Tories are perceived by the public not to have any policies. 2. The focus on Labour's record and future plans will allow it to close the poll gap. 3. As an economic recovery begins, the Government's approach will be seen to have stopped recession turning into depression. 4.

Nick Clegg’s statement today on Afghanistan strongly suggests to me that by the time of the next election the Lib Dems will be for withdrawal from Afghanistan. Clegg told the BBC that: “I think there’s a tipping point where we have to ask ourselves whether we can do this job properly, and if we can’t do it properly we shouldn’t do it at all. I don’t think we are there yet,” he said. Clegg’s use of the word yet seems to be a definite hint that he is moving towards advocating withdrawal. In crude political terms, this would make a lot of sense for the Lib Dems. It would give them a distinctive policy and allow them to tap into public unease about the war.