Personal vendetta above party loyalty
Peter Watt's new book gives further evidence of disunity in Brown's government -- but why now?
By Samira Shackle Published 10 January 2010 13:27
Another day, another former Labour insider confessing their true feelings about Gordon Brown . . . and in the process potentially damaging what election hopes there are left for the party.
The Mail on Sunday today dedicates six pages to its first extract from Inside Out: My Story of Betrayal and Cowardice at the Heart of New Labour, a book by the former general secretary of the Labour Party Peter Watt.
Watt discusses the election that never was, claiming that limousines were circling parliament to take MPs on the campaign trail when Brown made a U-turn live on TV.
At this point, stories of disunity at the heart of the Brown administration are nothing new. But, in a fresh spin, Watt draws the International Development Secretary, Douglas Alexander -- who had been mentored and backed by Brown -- into the intrigue. Apparently Alexander said of the election:
The truth is, Peter, we have spent ten years working with this guy, and we don't actually like him. We have always thought that the longer the British public had to get to know him, the less they would like him as well.
Watt quotes him at another point saying:
You'd imagine that after ten years of waiting for this, and ten years complaining about Tony, we would have some idea of what we are going to do, but we don't seem to have any policies. For God's sake, Harriet's helping write the manifesto!
Clearly, there are fundamental and increasingly bitter divisions within New Labour, as last week's failed coup attempt illustrated with painful clarity. I can understand that people might feel desperate to speak out -- or I would understand, had they done so a year ago, or even six months ago. Acting on the cusp of a general election strikes me as showing all the concern for the potential fallout of a toddler smashing its toys in a tantrum. That said, it's worth noting that a poll for the Sunday Telegraph published yesterday showed that Labour, weirdly, had gained a point despite the failed coup.
It makes more sense for Watt to act now than it did for Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt last week: he says he was treated unfairly when he was forced to take the blame for the "Donorgate" scandal and resign, so he obviously wants to inflict maximum damage.
And yet, call me idealistic, but isn't this a little petty? Hoon, Hewitt and Watt are all members of the Labour Party, and were once at the very centre of it. With a general election in the offing, is a personal vendetta against Gordon Brown really more important than salvaging that election?
Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists




















11 comments
If you're throwing integrity questions about, one might view this piece as saying "keep the public in the dark for a little big longer until the election is in the bag then it's too late for them to find out just what kind of people they've put back in to power."
Not what I call high integrity.
i don't think the article is about intergrity as much as about the notion of collective responsibility and party loyalty that is meant to be tantamount in politics - she says that it would have been totally justifiable if they'd spoken out 6 months or a year ago. but NOW what are they hoping to achieve? it's a bit of a phyrric victory
pyrrhic? did i spell that right?! you know what imean anyway
Guido says paul watt tweeted: “Loyalty is a two way street.”
Hell hath no fury like a general secretary spurned!
If it's not about integrity but loyalty then, as the quote says, loyalty is a two-way street. Trying to get a loyal party worker charged with a criminal offence is not demonstrating loyalty.
The poll gap went down up a point not down. The DT compared the poll with the last one it carried out from sometime ago.
The gap closed a bit over December but this poll from ICM and the YouGov showed the lead widening again -one by 1 point and the other by 2 - so not much. But you are still wrong.
Have a look at UKPolling for accurate reporting, not the DT.
I'd like to encourage you to read the book when it comes out and then judge whether it's petty. The serialisation only gives a flavour. I decided to ghost write it because it is such a compelling tale of loyalty and betrayal, and is above all an extraordinary human interest story. The book was in fact my initiative, not Peter Watt's, and we had differing reasons for doing it. Once you've read it, I challenge you not to understand and respect Watt's decision to tell his story. Given what he endured at the hands of Labour's high command, it must have taken superhuman self control on his part to keep quiet for so long.
Sally C, the headline and standfirt of the Telegraph article says:
"Week of bungled plots boosts Labour in poll
Support for Labour among voters has increased despite a week of party in-fighting and a failed plot against Gordon Brown, according to a Sunday Telegraph opinion poll."
I'm pretty sure that doesn't mean that the gap widened!
I've just read the comment from Isabel Oakeshott. Thanks for coming on to comment, it's interesting to hear your perspective. I suppose any pettiness would have been on the part of the newspaper (cherry picking the most damaging bits now) rather than from the man himself and obviously they just want to sell papers
One might as well ask Gordon Brown whether a personal vendetta against Tony Blair was really more important than running the country.
Brown spent over a decade conspiring against his elected leader - he is now reaping the whirlwind.
I think the reason to publish the book now came about due to several factors:
1) He was cleared of any criminal activity. After being branded as a criminal by Brown. Nice.
2) It takes time to get two people together to write a book.
3) I recall a shop that was having a closing down sale. A sign said: "Buy now, whilst shop lasts!" It is the same with this book. "Sell now, whilst Brown lasts!"
Who would want to buy a book about a has-been well after the event?