Personal vendetta above party loyalty

Peter Watt's new book gives further evidence of disunity in Brown's government -- but why now?

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

 

 

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Why Clive Lewis was furious when a Trident pledge went missing from his speech

The shadow defence secretary is carving out his own line on security. 

Clive Lewis’s first conference speech as shadow defence secretary has been overshadowed by a row over a last-minute change to his speech, when a section saying that he “would not seek to change” Labour’s policy on renewing Trident submarines disappeared.

Lewis took the stage expecting to make the announcement and was only notified of the change via a post-it note, having reportedly signed it of with the leader’s office in advance. 

Lewis was, I’m told, “fucking furious”, and according to Kevin Schofield over at PoliticsHome, is said to have “punched a wall” in anger at the change. The finger of blame is being pointed at Jeremy Corbyn’s press chief, Seumas Milne.

What’s going on? The important political context is the finely-balanced struggle for power on Labour’s ruling national executive committee, which has tilted away from Corbyn after conference passed a resolution to give the leaders of the Welsh and Scottish parties the right to appoint a representative each to the body. (Corbyn, as leader, has the right to appoint three.)  

One of Corbyn’s more resolvable headaches on the NEC is the GMB, who are increasingly willing to challenge  the Labour leader, and who represent many of the people employed making the submarines themselves. An added source of tension in all this is that the GMB and Unite compete with one another for members in the nuclear industry, and that being seen to be the louder defender of their workers’ interests has proved a good recruiting agent for the GMB in recent years. 

Strike a deal with the GMB over Trident, and it could make passing wider changes to the party rulebook through party conference significantly easier. (Not least because the GMB also accounts for a large chunk of the trade union delegates on the conference floor.) 

So what happened? My understanding is that Milne was not freelancing but acting on clear instruction. Although Team Corbyn are well aware a nuclear deal could ease the path for the wider project, they also know that trying to get Corbyn to strike a pose he doesn’t agree with is a self-defeating task. 

“Jeremy’s biggest strength,” a senior ally of his told me, “is that you absolutely cannot get him to say something he doesn’t believe, and without that, he wouldn’t be leader. But it can make it harder for him to be the leader.”

Corbyn is also of the generation – as are John McDonnell and Diane Abbott – for whom going soft on Trident was symptomatic of Neil Kinnock’s rightward turn. Going easy on this issue was always going be nothing doing. 

There are three big winners in all this. The first, of course, are Corbyn’s internal opponents, who will continue to feel the benefits of the GMB’s support. The second is Iain McNicol, formerly of the GMB. While he enjoys the protection of the GMB, there simply isn’t a majority on the NEC to be found to get rid of him. Corbyn’s inner circle have been increasingly certain they cannot remove McNicol and will insead have to go around him, but this confirms it.

But the third big winner is Lewis. In his praise for NATO – dubbing it a “socialist” organisation, a reference to the fact the Attlee government were its co-creators – and in his rebuffed attempt to park the nuclear issue, he is making himeslf the natural home for those in Labour who agree with Corbyn on the economics but fear that on security issues he is dead on arrival with the electorate.  That position probably accounts for at least 40 per cent of the party membership and around 100 MPs. 

If tomorrow’s Labour party belongs to a figure who has remained in the trenches with Corbyn – which, in my view, is why Emily Thornberry remains worth a bet too – then Clive Lewis has done his chances after 2020 no small amount of good. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. He usually writes about politics.