Why has Peter Watt chosen now to put forward his side of the story? It is hard to see how any of this helps the Labour Party’s cause. If his book were being published six months earlier he could at least argue that there was still time to get rid of Brown; if his book were published six months later it wouldn’t matter either way (and it would subsequently be less profitable for him to do so). One hopes that the full book will go some way to answering that question but at the moment it is mystifying.
Based on the Mail on Sunday extracts, I would tentatively conclude two things. The first thing is that Gordon Brown is even more of a waste of space than I assumed he was. Even if only half the things in these extracts are true, they portray a man totally ill suited to lead the country, let alone a general election campaign.
But if Brown comes off badly, in many respects Watt himself comes off worse. The extracts all have the tone of someone who appears to deny any personal responsibility whatsoever. This may just be selective editing on the Mail’s part – seeking to emphasise all the bits that put Brown in the worst possible light – but it is hard to see how they managed to do this when publishing the substantive section on the Abrahams affair.
David told me he used an accountant to ‘legally gift’ the money to his associates.
He had apparently been advised that as long as they were UK residents, on an electoral roll, and – however briefly – legal and rightful owners of the money, there was no problem. Every donation was reported to the Electoral Commission.
Over a five-year period, Kidd, Ruddick, Dunn and McCarthy collectively gave us a total of £600,000 – money that was gratefully received.
Kidd had also donated money to Harriet Harman’s deputy leadership campaign. Nobody at HQ ever really thought these donations were anything other than lawful.
If no-one really thought that was the case then Labour is in an even worse state than we thought. As Mark Pack pointed out at the time, the guidence emailed to him and Watt by the Electoral Commission was quite emphatic. And as someone whose job at the time mainly consisted of pointing out all the potential loopholes of the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000, it was clear to me that any rational person perusing the law would quickly conclude that such an act was against both the spirit and the letter of the law. The problem with the law was how easy it would be to bypass in practice, not what it said (in this instance at least).
To read the fact that Watt still maintains that he had been neither negligent nor dishonest therefore is quite gobsmacking. To make matters worse, it appears to flatly contradict this article – written by Watt’s ghost writer Isabel Oakeshott – where it is “understood” that Watt did not know that the donations from Raymond Ruddick and Janet Kidd came from Abrahams:
Now the case against Watt is on the brink of collapse following evidence that he did not know that David Abrahams, the Newcastle businessman and donor, was using agents and took reasonable steps to ensure the gifts did not break the law.
Watt is said by friends to have been devastated by the so called Donorgate affair, believing senior party officials had made him a scapegoat. Sources involved in the inquiry say Watt told police that he believed the go-betweens – Raymond Ruddick, Janet Kidd and two others – were donating the cash in their own right.
It is against the law to make a donation to a party on behalf of someone else without making the true source of the cash clear. No prosecutions have been brought, however, and lawyers believe the wording of the law make a successful case unlikely.
This 2008 account flatly contradicts the Mail extracts. In the latter, Watt admits that he knew about Abrahams using Kidd, Ruddick and others to act as go betweens. In the former, he apparently told the police the exact opposite.
Given Oakeshott and Watt’s subsequent relationship, it seems highly likely that Watt himself was the source for the 2008 article. Perhaps the full book will in some way reconcile these two wavering accounts from the same people. Either way, the account given in the latest extract is barely credible.
Overall, Watt comes across in these extracts as an innocent, something which I don’t mean as a compliment. It suggests that he was out of his depth. It is an interesting counterfactual to wonder whether a more grizzled national secretary would have been able to keep Gordon Brown on track when he wavered over the 2007 phony election.
It is worth noting that, in keeping with other Labour national secretaries, Watt was elected by the National Executive Committee not employed. He was also not Tony Blair’s choice, with the “grassroots alliance” out voting him by 16 to 10. Whatever misgivings I might have about how the Lib Dems’ equivalent – the Chief Executive – is appointed and held to account – I wouldn’t wish Labour’s system on my worst enemies. You need a system whereby committees can come to a consensus, not one in which the individual is seen to be owned by a particular faction on day one. No wonder Brown didn’t bother dealing with him directly and left it to Douglas Alexander to work as his intermediary. The very best thing that can be said about this working relationship is that it cost Labour an unneccesary £1.2million.
Peter Watt has decided to tweet his experience of this book launch, using the very Grant Shapps-esque “peterwatt123“. Thus far, his utterances regarding the launch and extracts have been very Kung Fu, with him tweeting this morning that “Loyalty is a two way street” (there’s a philosophy essay in that). More bizarrely, with both his profile picture and past tweets, he appears to be using his kids as a shield on the apparent assumption that people will go easy on a family man (see this as another case in point). Why not keep this stuff seperate from the book? It’s all very odd (and before you argue that these tweets are none of my business, I was only alerted to them because his publisher started promoting them).
> Why has Peter Watt chosen now to put forward his side of the story? It is hard to see how any of this helps the Labour Party’s cause.
I’ll give you one possible answer, James – Watts didn’t choose it. Rather the book launched was timed for maximum financial and political gain by his publisher, one Iain Dale.
You may be interested to know that Dale comments on the timing in person on this PoliticalBetting.com thread: http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2010/01/09/is-this-another-storm-in-a-tea-cup/comment-page-2/#comment-1379313
You are making assumptions, first that Watt cares about the impact on the Labour Party. When he has seen the rot at its heart and been a victim of its corruption why would he?
LJH – if you are right, then he is shockingly naive. More shockingly naive than even I thought.
Richard – I certainly am making that assumption. If he is now a flag waving Tory he only has to say so. But it seems like a bit of a leap and doesn’t say much for his strength of character.
I agree that his understanding of the law appears to be atrociously weak. Setting aside the rights and wrongs of publishing it at this time (personally I think the freshness makes it more interesting and helps confirm our worst fears/greatest hopes ;-)) I think I’ll invite Mr Watt to a Conservative event in the near future. Seems good value.
“It is hard to see how any of this helps the Labour Party’s cause.”
It is very easy to see how this helps Labour. The party has one could say been hijacked by a man with overweening personal ambition, whose subsequent actions are dragging it, never mind the whole UK, into financial and moral mires. Compared to the amateur “Tory sleaze”, Labour have bloody well nationalised sleaze, both TB and GB.
Outing and ousting this political virus or trojan would certainly serve both Labour AND the country. GB has been self-promoted well beyond his ability levels. Who would seriously now argue that he was a towering genius as chancellor ?
I understand that Watt is still a member of Labour and still donates money to it. Also, the publication dates were all set way back in November, and the MoS agreement was made before Xmas.
I think it a pity that the Watt book did not emerge BEFORE the Hoon/Hewitt fiasco.
If true about the cancelled election, GB lied quite brazenly the the nation on TV about “of course considering it”. The same body language and means of expression were used by GB when asked about taking mind-controlling medications. So what is the real truth of that ?