Tuesday, February 19, 2019

Tom Watson's public display of disloyalty is one of the most extraordinary spectacles in recent political history

It's one thing for the likes of Blair McDougall to believe that the Corbynite left are to blame for increasing the chances of continued Tory rule by "forcing out" Luciana Berger and others.  But whoever is ultimately at fault, there is no question about what the strategy should be for those who remain inside the party after a breakaway, assuming the priority really is to get the Tories out of office.  To minimise electoral damage, you have to ruthlessly attempt to stamp out the new group, detract from the credibility of those who have joined it by accusing them of cowardice for not resigning their seats and fighting by-elections, attack them for betraying activists and breaching the trust of voters who elected them, etc, etc.  We've heard that script time and again over the years whenever there have been splits of any size, or indeed even when there have been isolated defections.  It works.

Bizarrely, though, the Deputy Leader of the Labour party is doing the complete opposite.  Tom Watson's reaction video posted on Facebook after the breakaway must be one of the most extraordinary spectacles in the recent history of British politics.  He barely even made a token effort to suggest that the splitters had done anything wrong (the best he could muster was that they had acted "prematurely").  He left viewers in no doubt that the splitters had the right prescription for the future, and that the current Labour leadership have the wrong prescription.  As there is no prospect whatever of Jeremy Corbyn resigning as Labour leader any time soon or substantially changing course, the calculated effect of Watson's intervention is to aggravate the electoral damage of the split, rather than to mitigate it.  With Labour having used the 2017 election to almost miraculously reverse the disunity and self-harm it had been indulging in for a year or longer, Watson has weirdly seized an opportunity to intentionally drag Labour back to its pre-election state.  He's cheering on the splitters in the hope they will do roughly what the SDP did - ie. fail as a party, but remake Labour in its own image with the help of the fellow travellers who stayed behind.  And as we all know, the SDP only 'succeeded' at the cost of an extra decade and a half of Tory rule.

Watson and others are self-evidently not prioritising the removal of the Tories from power, but instead are solely concerned with winning a Labour civil war, even at the expense of many more years of Tory government.  The "moderates" will squeal with indignation at any accusation of "betrayal" from the left, but if your loyalty as Deputy Leader is to a faction rather than to the party you were elected to serve, you don't really have much defence against the charge.

The conclusion of the video saw Watson call for a more broadly-based Labour front bench - a not-terribly-subtle way of saying that Jeremy Corbyn has appointed the wrong people.  In truth, there is nothing unprecedented about the lack of balance on the front bench - Tony Blair came from one extreme of the party just as Corbyn did, and he had only a sprinkling of token left-wingers in his team, all in junior positions (Chris Mullin, for example).  But somehow the sidelining of people on ideological grounds is beyond criticism when it's the right that does it.  Can you imagine what would have happened if John Prescott had posted a video in his time as Deputy Leader saying that Blair had appointed the wrong ministers?  His position would have been instantly untenable.  And in any normal party functioning normally, Tom Watson would just have made his own position untenable.


  1. Whilst I get your points, there are many, and Tom Watson could be one of those, that thinks that if the Labour party continues on its track, then it has no chance of winning the next time. Certainly polling shows that currently the best Labour could hope for is a tiny majority, but with the Conservatives remaining the biggest party and Labour having to form a colation of the other parties to form a Goverment being a distinct possibility.

    Of course the counter argument often made is that once an election campaign starts Labour would surge again like they did in the last election. THey may well make some ground, but Labours real surge came becasue the Conservatives decided to run the most disaterious campagine in recent momory, something they will not do twice in a row.

    The aim of a political party is to gain power; if you think that the party is heading on a course that could stop this from happening surely it is his duty to stop this from happening, rather than sit by and let it happen.

    1. I absolutely read the your last paragraph as Tom Watson doing absolutely everything he could to stop labour from gaining power. After all, they don't want power; they want the Tories to carry the can for the Brexit that Labour support and voted for (referendum bill, article 50 etc). So, that means they've 10+ years at least in opposition before everthing's settled. The way things are going, could be 20 years before all the deals are signed etc and the economy is showing some signs of recovery (outside the SE) after the 'Great Brepression'. Only then would labour considered making a real bid for government. They abolutely don't want to take power then have to take responsibility for things.

    2. Was what 16 years of the Tories the last time this happened?

      Something to look forward too if we stay in the UK anyway.

  2. To highlight this Survation (which is one of the more 'Labour friendly' pollsters has Cons 5pts ahead of Labour in latest poll.

    1. That Survation poll is post-split, so it simply highlights the point that disunited parties poll badly. Watch that Conservative lead grow even further with the help of Watson, Dugdale, McDougall, et al. And they won't care. That's exactly what they want.

  3. So, work not paying anywhere near enough for people to get by, in a large part due to the brexit devalution of the pound (which put up the prices of everything, an effect that has not gone away). So, folks are having to work longer, take second jobs, go full time rather than part time.

    Forget early retirement. Want to go part time to spend more time with the kids? Forget it. Back to the minium wage and that dream of your own home is just that - a dream.

    But to the BBC, this is all great news.

    Low unemployment and lowish employment = good news. Well paid jobs for all.

    Low unemployment and skyrocketing employment = bad news. Poorly paid jobs that won't pay the bills for most.


    If you want to see an economy doing well you could e.g. look at Denmark where unemployment is falling, as is employment. Jobs are well paid so folk can work less and enjoy life more. Their unemployment is, within error, about the same as the UK, but with 10% less people in work. They've taken early retirement....gone sailing around the world...spending quality time with the kids.


    10 years on from the big crash and things are not improving, but getting worse.

    1. I'm assuming that you have a link to a respected academic saying that low employment /high employment IS VERY VERY BAD.

      Otherwise you are just a bloke on the internet with a extreme anti UK bias desperately trying to put a negative spin on things.

    2. It seems your Government/party don't agree with you either.
      Business Minister Jamie Hepburn said: “Despite the huge and continued challenges of Brexit, the Scottish economy and jobs market continues to strengthen.

      “Labour market outcomes for women and young people in Scotland once again outperform the rest of the UK.

      “As GOOD as these latest stats are"

    3. Only an idiot would not understand the point. Do I need an expert reference to tell you high unemployment is bad? What about low unemployment being good generally? Expert needed?

      If wages are high, people can afford to work less and retire early etc. This reduces employment levels. If work doesn't not pay enough and people are struggling, they have to work more = 'record high employment levels'. My daughter is in primary and understands this. You don't get it?

      Here is your link:


      UK wages pick up but still below pre-2008 crisis levels: ONS

      But this is REALLY GREAT right? Wages have not risen over all 10 f'n years. No wonder people have to work all sorts of hours to make ends meet, taking 'employment levels to a record high'.

    4. Scotland has lower unemployment and lower employment rates than the UK as a whole. So that is definitely better than the UK.

      If you removed the Scottish figures from the UK, Scotland would look even better.

    5. Not talking about high unemployemnt, talking about low unemployment high employment, you have a link that combination is VERY VERY BAD.

      Wages have not risen to post 2008 levels in the vast majority of countries, that bubble burst with the crash. But people have more money in their pockets than a 5 4 3 2 or 1 years ago, hows that bad. Part time employment is also falling meaning that people are not working 'all sorts of hours'.

      Again I await your link for a source to your claim Low unemployment and skyrocketing employment = bad news other wise there is nothing further to discuss.

    6. Have the Scottish Nat si party made any proposals to prevent capitalists doing their frquent normal boom and bust tactics.
      You can always blame the Tories! You Nat sis are a joke, even in a so called independent Scotland you would still blame the English Tories when you fuck up the economy. Key word, always blame the Tories.

    7. "But people have more money in their pockets than a 5 4 3 2 or 1 years ago".

      No, they don't:

      They have about 2% more money than 3-5 years ago, but brexit largely put an end to wage recovery post 2016. Will take many years to get that back at current, slightly more positive wage growth rates. Further £ devaluations due to brexit will likely send real wages spiraling downwards again.

      I have explained my reasoning, which is economics 101 stuff. You can't understand it yet are disputing it without providing any sort of counter argument, nor any link proving what I say is wrong. What you do state about other matters is factually wrong based on ONS figures.

      So, you are just shouting 'You are wrong!'. That is just childish screaming, not a debate.

      Personally, I, like most people, would like to work a bit less for the same salary. If I did that, it would reduce employment levels. I'd need a better salary for that though.

    8. I'm not shouting, I'm asking for evidence for your statement. this is normal, I am assuming you have such evidence, if it is economics 101 there must be ample written that you can use. I can find none, if you can not provide any then can only assume that you just trying to spin figures to represent your clear bias.

    9. I think I can see where the confusion is, you are thinking from a social point of view, and yes I agree it would be nice to retire early. But from a economic point of view this is bad. Once you are not in employment you are no longer generating income for the Government. Your not paying tax and NI but still costing the Government. Even if you do not claim direct costs (ie benefits) you still cost in areas such as health and social care, a cost that tends to increase with age.

      So from an economic point of view low unemployment(less direct cost to Government such as benefits) and high employment (more people paying into the economy) is a good thing.

    10. But for people, its a bad thing. If they'd like to have some time to themselves before they die. Maybe be able to spend a bit more time with the kids or their elderly parents...

      The government are of course also people. So it must be bad for them too. Unless they are doing just fine thanks and can retire early with a nice pension...

      But yes, you are sort of right; if people don't exist and are just robots in capital generating machine. However, most voters don't want to work their erses off until they die, particularly as we only get one life as far as we know. Hence you can see that in booming economies where government income is good, people start working less (unless all they care about is making a large pile of money). If salaries are good, taxes revenues are still more than enough for the government.

      In the UK however, we are right down the bottom of the tables for wage growth. We have historic highs of people being forced to work extra hours / not retire early (as evidenced by abnormally high employment levels), yet Hammond is still very short of revenues, productivity is rubbish (when people over-work, productivity reduces) and we're looking at austerity for decades to come.


      UK wage growth weakest in G7 since financial crisis


      UK has weakest wage growth in advanced G20 nations, says ILO

    11. luckily the average UK retirement age is compatible with other countries so we can enjoy time before we die.

      This will increase, of course, globally as the population ages. Scotland is one of the countries that this is going to be a major issue putting a drag on the economy.

    12. Aye, that's what you get when Scotland's economy, trade deals and migration are 'reserved' to England!

      Certainly, leaving the EU is going to be a disaster for Scotland's age demographics, and so tax income going forward. Will be back to the 1980's where 1 in 10 (mostly young) left in search of a better life! We need loads of young Europeans to come and live here freely due to free movement. As it stands, young European workers are streaming out of UK exit gates; net emmigrating in their hundreds of thousands due to brexit.

      Ergo, independence is not just desirable, but an absolute must.

      As for the UK economy....this is just a disaster. Record levels of people forced to work to make ends meet yet:


      UK worker productivity growth falls to two-year low on back of Brexit concerns

  4. Well, we are now at the point many businesses can no longer function properly due to brexit. Do they buy stock/manufacture for EU exports which could now economically cause them a huge loss due to tariffs? Or do they start cutting jobs in anticipation of that?

    Over the next few weeks we are going to see the number of businesses moving or going into administration really starting to ramp up.

  5. I saw on twitter some mention of the so called Independence group 'taking over the SNP at WM, as the third largest party', should they recruit another 29 to thr 'group'. Now, given they were not a party as such at the GE, and they were not voted in as anything other than the party(s) they said they were loyal to, is that even possible? It would seem to be a very underhand way to diminish and push out the SNP at WM, perhaps it's their actual plot! Put nothing past them, it could all be a set up with Tories in complete knowledge of it all, these people play dirty.

  6. Wee Knickerless over in France crawling as usual. More interested in the frogs than the Scottish working class. At least Wee Macron the Rothschild banker did not get tae grope her willy he is to busy trying to destroy the French public services.

  7. An excellent assessment of Watson's reaction and equally important to point out that in a properly functioning politically party it would simply be unacceptable.

    What is interesting here ( as well as being completely predictable) is the consensus among the chattering classes (and even among some otherwise coherent commenters here) that this is a sensible, if possibly doomed, attempt to make Labour electable again despite the fact that the labour vote suffered a continuous decline under the Blairites which has been arrested by Corbyn.

    1. Labour only need to take a step back from Palestinian, Hamas, Hezbollah and Sinn Fein fascists and make the social conditions of the the British people priority. Labour are a British Politic Party. Being in the wilderness does not help the poor.