Former deputy leader’s version of history being eagerly pushed by media will probably not include these events
Labour losing 50 seats is in national interest
Tom Watson has said, in a new Guardian article, that:
The ultimate betrayal of working-class people is not to take power when you can
However, in June he told the media that Labour should fully commit to a new Brexit referendum and campaign for remain – even though he admitted the move might well cost Labour votes.
Labour MPs in leave-voting seats predicted – correctly – that such a change would cost Labour around fifty seats in ‘leave’ towns, wiping out any chance of Labour taking power.
Fellow front-benchers said that in the Shadow Cabinet meeting that followed, fWatson was challenged for saying that Labour should pursue a course they felt would lead to defeat – and responded by questioning whether a Labour government was not in the national interest.
One Shadow Cabinet member told the SKWAWKBOX at the time:
Jon [Trickett] challenged his ‘national interest’ spiel by pointing out that losing seats would harm Labour’s chance of forming the next government and that this was clearly the real national interest.
Tom interrupted him, saying “Is that the best you can do? Jon, do you really believe that?”
Watson’s co-religionists on the right of the party are now conveniently ignoring that the losses they now want to blame on Jeremy Corbyn were exactly what they were warned would happen if the new referendum switch they were all pushing for took place.
Attacks on Jennie Formby
One of the most shameful incidents of Watson’s tenure as deputy leader was his decision to attack Labour’s general secretary Jennie Formby when she was being treated for breast cancer.
Watson wrote a letter to Formby demanding that she publish the party’s response to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) antisemitism investigation.
The letter was almost immediately leaked to the media – but Labour sources said that Jennie Formby had offered to meet Watson to provide him with the information and had even taken time out from chemotherapy treatment to give an update to the whole Shadow Cabinet. Watson was present, but did not ask any questions.
The attack triggered a wave of condemnation, with even the West Midlands Labour Board – Watson’s home patch – unanimously supporting Formby. The South-East regional board described his behaviour as ‘abhorrent’. NEC members went public to call for his resignation.
Watson’s attack on Formby was not a one-off. In February he was chastised by front-bench colleagues Dawn Butler and Emily Thornberry after another bout of criticism of the general secretary and her hard-working staff – and an attempt to insert himself into Labour’s disciplinary processes by demanding to be copied in on complaints sent in by MPs.
Formby politely but effectively put Watson in his place, telling him his ‘inappropriate’ attempt to insert himself into the process would ‘confuse’, ‘compromise’ and ‘pollute’ the disciplinary processes she and her staff had been working hard to improve.
‘Shockingly unfit’ – and a global trend
In May, thousands of Labour members signed an open letter to Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC) to express their complete lack of confidence and calling on the ‘shockingly unfit’ deputy leader to resign:
who has repeatedly shown himself to be actively working against the current Leadership, the membership and the Party during his tenure.
From his derisory comments to the press regarding the party membership, to him mass blocking large segments on social media when he was elected to represent us.
From him briefing in the media against Party staff and Party policy, to showing an egregious misreading of the mood of Labour members and voters.
From his distracting and counter-productive little vanity projects that do not go anywhere, to his unmitigated inability to have done a single tangible thing that has benefited Labour members or voters in his nearly 4 year tenure.
We believe Tom Watson to be shockingly unfit to be Deputy Leader of the Labour Party.
The wish among Labour members for Watson to resign was not a new phenomenon. Almost a year earlier, the #ResignWatson hashtag trended as the global number one.
Protecting his mates
Also in May of this year, an NEC member went to the extraordinary lengths of publicly condemning Watson for his behaviour in the committee’s disciplinary meetings.
Although Watson has been a vocal critic of Labour’s disciplinary processes, Lara McNeill’s lengthy Twitter thread attacked Watson’s lack of knowledge around the rules – and accused him not only of ‘deliberately miscommunicat[ing] Labour’s rules to undermine us tackling complaints’, but also of ‘filibustering’ meetings, briefing to the media and protecting his ‘mates’:
Other NEC members made similar complaints earlier in the year.
Give me a better conference slot or I’ll criticise the party more
In August last year, Watson was unhappy with the Monday ‘slot’ offered to him for his speech at Labour’s annual conference – so unhappy that, according to party insiders, he threatened to step up his public criticisms of the party.
Watson’s slot was not improved – and days later an interview appeared in the Guardian in which Watson attacked Labour’s electability and disciplinary processes.
Child sex abuse false allegations
In a scandal now conveniently omitted, only five months after the fact by the media now giving eager space to Watson’s comments – pressure again grew for Watson’s resignation as Carl Beech was jailed for fraud and perverting the course of justice.
Watson was accused of pressuring police and the government to pursue Beech’s claims:
IICSA, the official inquiry into child sex abuse allegations, was also told that Watson had jumped the gun without listening properly before telling Parliament there was a ‘powerful paedophile network’ linked to Downing Street.
Watson was also forced to apologise to the family of former Tory minister Leon Brittan. In that apology, Watson described his own words as “emotive and unnecessary”.
It’s our job to stop the Tory government falling
In another remarkable incident, Watson last year told Sky News that it was his job to prevent the collapse of Theresa May’s Tory government – and that its ‘meltdown’ was ‘no good’:
Saudi arms sales
In June, the courts declared that UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia have been illegal, because those weapons are used in attacks on Yemeni civilians. Jeremy Corbyn welcomed the ruling and called on the government to end those sales, describing them as a ‘moral stain’ on our country.
In 2016, the Labour leader forced a Commons vote on ending arms sales to Saudi Arabia and military support in the devastation it was inflicting on the people of Yemen:
The Tories, of course, voted against the motion. Tom Watson did not support it.
Praise for the architect of Windrush scandal, hostile environment and misery
When Theresa May resigned as PM earlier this year, Tom Watson made a public tribute to her ‘honorable intentions’ and her attempts to ‘do what was right for our country’:
Communications union head Dave Ward summed up the feelings of many in his reply to Watson’s tweet:
Attempt to take power away from Labour’s members – and its leader
In the run-up to Labour’s 2016 annual conference – and with Jeremy Corbyn on course to win an even bigger majority in his second leadership contest – Watson asked the party’s NEC to accept a ‘blockbuster’ plan for changes to the party’s democracy.
Among those proposals was a switch back to the ‘electoral college’ system, in which a few MPs would have as much voting power as Labour’s entire membership.
Watson also wanted to take away Corbyn’s power to appoint his Shadow Cabinet and switch instead to an election by MPs – more power for those right-wingers again.
And a bonus…
In September, when Watson escaped an attempt to abolish his deputy leader’s position at the party’s conference, BBC News reported a tweet by the deputy leader that mocked the attempt and crowed over the likely swamping of any positive messages from the conference.
But the tweet was not by Watson – it was by the well-known ‘Satiresocialist’ account. The BBC believed it and didn’t bother to check (click video in tweet to play) its authorship:
The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here for a monthly donation via GoCardless. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.
If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
The snake has gone
Plenty more still left in the party. In fact, they are still in charge.
Watson closeness to other Parties and to defectors got him immense ideological protection from the corporate media even when his Deputy Leadership position became untenable. BBC/Sky censored the objections to Watson’s anti-Labour-party behaviour that engendered 38,000 petition signatories of no confidence in him on change.org. Demands for a Deputy Leadership election were supported in May 2019 by an open letter to the NEC of mass signatories again expressing no confidence in Watson – again censored. The largest Constituency Labour Party Hornsey & Wood Greed followed by many others also voted on mass in July 2019 demanding an election of his post, once again corporate media coverage censored this. Compare this to how Corbyn’s position with its mass support was treated by the Owen Smith sympathetic media.
Given that Watson wouldn’t submit to the democratic election, delegates even planned to ‘shun’ and boycott the hall, when Watson spoke at conference. Omitting all these details the public was suddenly deluged in sensationalist media ‘outrage’, when the Party at the end of its tether had to consider abolishing Watson’s position altogether.
And of course Watson’s outrage about alleged ‘anti-semitism’ was never put in the context of his free trips to Israel
One has to wonder why Watson wasn’t challenged for his position as Deputy Leader using the democratic process that is clearly laid out in the Labour Party’s Rule Book. There was only one effective way to unseat Tom Watson, why wasn’t it used.
One has to wonder how & why so much effort was expended preventing Watson from being subject to scrutiny.
Citing the imagined equivalency supposedly offered by the rule book on this, is a bit like claiming that the complaints of Black Britons of domestic racism, imperial slaughter and the torture of people-of-color that went on under the Blair regime, are treated every bit as seriously by the NEC, as the complaints of white Israel supporters.
Bernie 29/12/2019 at 9:23 pm
I’ve no idea where your ideas/claims of equivalence came from, the rule book is quite clear about the procedures for challenging an incumbent deputy leader. All that is required is for the challenger to garner the support of the required number of MPs/MEPs and you can have an election.
“Where there is no vacancy, nominations
may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of Party conference. In this case any nomination must be supported by 20% of the combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP.
Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void. The sitting Leader or Deputy Leader shall not be required to seek nominations in the event of a challenge under this rule.”
Members had no democratic power to challenge Watson,
But an elite unrepresentative group of MPs/MEPs could challenge Corbyn despite his overwhelming popularity with the membership. From this democratic deficit we got the double-standards.
Bernie 29/12/2019 at 10:01 pm
So what criteria would you propose for getting rid of the Deputy Leader who was voted into office by the majority of a combination of members, affiliates and registered supporters.
ps Bernie
You appear to have forgotten that it is the members who actually decide who is leader (or deputy leader) as illustrated by JC’s victory with an increased majority when he was challenged. It was a to put it mildly a bloody nuisance and counter productive but it did not expose a democratic deficit, in fact quite the contrary.
What a shame members didn’t get to decide on ‘a bloody nuisance and counter-productive’ election for Watson. But then, when leadership elections take place and who gets on the ballot has been decided by MPs, not member.
This is one of a number of reasons why the theme of internal democracy and regular constituency votes on the position of MP has been a contested theme during Corbyn’s leadership.
It is a strange deceit to pretend that 2mins after the previous Leadership contest, that all those who were forced to vote once more for Jeremy Corbyn and against Owen Smith – in an election that was forced on them by Blairite MPs – were having their wishes honoured.
Bernie – Unfortunately you missed answering my question about how you would alter the criteria for triggering elections against incumbent Leader and deputy leader posts.
Numerous establishment efforts detailed here were made to exempt Watson from democratic scrutiny. Yet we have a situation where a source asks, why wasn’t Watson’s deputy leadership positioned challenged by members according to the rule book? Then latterly makes perfectly clear via later posts, that they were aware that it’s MPs NOT the members who get to make these challenges – read the posts on this issue.
This is a level of neoliberal manipulation that is not really worth engaging with.
Bernie 30/12/2019 at 6:59 am
Maybe it might be helpful to all concerned, including you, if instead of wasting your time deliberately misrepresenting what I said you devoted a little more time to suggesting how the rules could be changed to allow members to have more influence over holding the incumbent officers of the party to account.
If anyone was concerned about how the rules for leadership elections might be changed why would they instead post this…
“One has to wonder why Watson wasn’t challenged for his position as Deputy Leader using the democratic process that is clearly laid out in the Labour Party’s Rule Book. There was only one effective way to unseat Tom Watson, why wasn’t it used.” – quotes are hardly ‘misrepresenting’? – see previous posts.
One minute there’s claims that election rules are equitable the next someone is claiming to be on the side of the dissenters.
Surely this is the traditional tactic of entryists?
Bernie 30/12/2019 at 9:54 am
“If anyone was concerned about how the rules for leadership elections might be changed why would they instead post this…
“One has to wonder why Watson wasn’t challenged for his position as Deputy Leader using the democratic process that is clearly laid out in the Labour Party’s Rule Book. There was only one effective way to unseat Tom Watson, why wasn’t it used.”
Simply because it is and was undeniably the truth. All the actions you have highlighted so far were self evidently ineffective and there has been a notable absence of any other suggestions from yourself.
“One minute there’s claims that election rules are equitable the next someone is claiming to be on the side of the dissenters”
I never made any claim that the rules are equitable I just clearly stated the fact that under the current rules (which is the reality of what we have to deal with) the only effective way of getting rid of TW was for him to be challenged as per the rules.
.
Surely this is the traditional tactic of entryists?
Are you another refugee from Left Unity?
As I said before, it would be far more constructive if you could stop pissing about trying to spread division and actually do something constructive by suggesting changes to the rules that you find so problematic or are you one of those devotees of the Tooting Popular Front who’s only happy when bleating from the sidelines about how unfair life is.
Hopefully Tom will now vanish into obscurity and we can all have a rest from him.
A major GDPR and SECURITY BREACH by the Cabinet Office that has put people at serious risk. Those placed at risk include people working in sensitive government posts (including security) as well as celebrities. The information released included the House Number and Post Code of all those in the New Year’s Honours List.
The Cabinet Office has apologised after a list of the home addresses of New Year Honours recipients, including police officers, politicians and celebrities, was accidentally posted online.
A spokesman said: “A version of the New Year Honours 2020 list was published in error which contained recipients’ addresses.
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/uk-news/apology-after-home-addresses-new-17483045
The Tory’s Cabinet Office have screwed up big time.
and the BBC says ………………………………………..tumbleweed
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50929543.
To be fair the BBC started reporting this somewhere between 2 and 3pm today.
For some politics is a vehicle to money and influence.Tom Watson has been supported by the Labour party for many years and has left the Labour party with his reputation intact and a full wallet.He’s managed to crawl away with a good pension and money 💰 in the bank..We dont need an inquiry into the Labour defeat,we need a good look at how such a destructive right wing cancer are allowed to still thrive inside of the socialist Labour party.The need for a purge of the broad church ideology has never been !more important.We do not want Friday the 13th to be the end of the the socialist Labour party,but the beginning of a socialist Labour party with a leadership tp reflect the socialist revival.
Joseph OKEEFE at 9:15 pm
My Labour Party membership card quite clearly states “The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party.”
Steve H. And your point is?We all know including yourself that the Labour leader has been hounded out of the job he was chosen to do and so we all know that the RWing and the media have conspired with the traitors to stop a Labour government led by Jeremy Corbyn . Democracy has been in short supply inside of the Labour party and so I wonder what you’re saying?. The party is not a social democrat party or anything other than a Socialist Labour party .that needs a clearout soon if the membership are to be retained.We are socialist are we are dead in the water comrade. And your card like mine says democratic socialist Labour party .Can we really tolerate another blairite leader or a carreerist leader on the backs of our subscription…. Use your vote for socialism or bust!
Joseph – I am simply pointing out that to the majority of the membership the distinction between the Labour Party being a democratic socialist party as a opposed to a socialist party is an important one. Anything else that you are seeking to attach to my comment is entirely your own creation.
Steve H If I appeared to attach anything it wasn’t you.I am pointing to probably the obvious fact that the membership will drift away unless we are given a leader who’s background and voting record supports the most vunerable,the same as Corbyn. Socialist thinking puts the people first.(working class).Make no mistake steve I blame the rotten archaic system for what we are about to recieve and I and many other people will feel not grateful for a rampant Right wing shambles of a Tory regime and the boot that will soon go into the heartlands for their misguided support of the elite.More importantly now is that the only hope for ordinary people is a United Labour party in a democratic socialist vision of a Britain for the people You must realise that we can’t carry on regardless of the baggage we carry .Somthing has to go and I am sure most would agree that democracy first and a clearance of longstanding baggage from the Blairites is a priority if we are to regain any supporters.in a general election which I believe will come much sooner than we think. Gerrymandered boundrys ,intimidation of socialist news outlets such as squawky ,canary,Zelo and supporters of these outlets will start and we must be ready..A divided Labour party cannot win am election campaign….Solidarity comrades.!
Since the Party has resumed its traditional shape and ideology, Neoliberals have been attempting to colonise the phrase ‘democratic Socialist Party’ in the same way the entryists previously appropriated the phrase ‘social democrat’. With ever crumbling credibility they then burnt their way through the labels, ‘Thirdwayer’, ‘Blairite’, ‘Neoliberal’, then ‘Moderate’ – ‘moderate’ torturers anyone? And now in a brief period of time having made mockery of the term ‘Centrist’ they’re now having ago a ‘democratic socialist’. It’s like watching a dodgy, bankrupt double-glazing company constantly resurrect itself.
All through this page you’ll find the poster trying on this label has used pedantics to defend Blair’s phony social provision – despite Blairite obsessions with a ‘Scrounging, Culture of Dependency’, has pretended that Watson’s treatment was not privileged in comparison to Corbyn’s and has even defended the BBC, who hardly need Labour members help.
🙄
Ding dong the snake has gone!
Apart from SureStart and the minimum wage, New Labour did absolutely nothing for the working class. They did ensure Thatcherite continuity on the trade union front, and that includes maintaining a ban on more modern balloting methods, and, in the field of education they were a complete disaster, as anyone reading such writers as Clyde Chitty, Stephen Ball, Caroline Benn and Prof. Diane Rest would discover. I am a teacher of over three decades experience and I can attest to it.
Any one who thinks a return to New Labour is now the route to rebuilding is totally deluded and obviously does not live in the country!
Watson is the past of a particularly inappropriate kind, and is best forgotten.
Marc Wadsworth is yet more evidence that Labour is over, because it will go back to being a mirror of American politics.
Two sides of the same coin…
Because you say so?
You obviously haven’t been listening to the voice of the Membership or our Leader Jeremy Corbyn for that fact!
Sure Start was a middle class bun fight, up there with pushy parents and good schools in working class communities
Obviously, Doug, you had no contact with the SureStart initiative – or you wouldn’t be so far off in outer space in your comments.
RH
Obviously
Very little of what they did was for the poorest,
Middle class parents travelled miles to drop kids off in the creches because they were very good and very cheap
Most other services offered were charged for putting them out of reach of most of the community
Nope. I was a school governor for all that period, and oversaw the establishment of a SureStart Centre.
20 odd years in the free advice sector working with every community group
Will agree the work they did for the least well off was extremely valuable and much needed, made a big difference to the parents and children,
Not least their work with very young dads was ground breaking
But it was a small part of each centre
Regards
I more recognize that last comment. Our school was one where 20+ languages were spoken, and the Centre was far from a haven for the better-off. It was developed as a natural (and flexible) adjunct to statutory provision, an one which filled a massive hole in what was available to the community.
Ludud57 – Totally agree with your comments over nuliarbore education policy – a specific example of the way in which the Blair governments laid down the red carpet for an inevitably succeeding Tory governmkent.
The overarching effect of the policy had the effect of embedding the notion of the superiority of private education and knee-jerk ‘accountability’ notions, and, of course, (as with the NHS), starting the privatisation of the service. The sequence of Education Secretaries was a series of car-crashes involving bears of little brain.
But – yes – SureStart was a worthwhile initiative, and – despite the dependence on private capital (a disaster), the resource issue was tackled.
A fie upon autospelling!
I meant Prof. Diane REAY.
Her book “Miseducation” (Polity Press) should be read by all socialists and social progressives.
Then they could add to the education debate with confidence and the conviction of authority.
Wasn’t Watson also responsible for Labour’s “Digital Revolution”? That was a whizz under his guidance wasn’t it?
Skwawkbox continues confusedly banging the Tory policy drum for Leaving the EU, despite the fact that a Leave policy would have shed many more votes.
It was, as anybody on the doorstep will tell you, the image of Corbyn what done it, not Brexit – although the bog press line on both did cut through.
The overarching factor was – as with Brexit (and here is the link) that establishment media constructing an anti-Labour narrative, focused on Corbyn and aimed at the SunMail gullible who ate it up in sufficient numbers – just as they did the Brexit propaganda.
Brexit was always a policy for the plutocrats, dependent on a tissue of propaganda. So was the Tory vote – all of a piece.
Yes RH, not one for maths are we, also, it would seem you are unable to listen to a grain of truth, when issued by the likes of Steve Howell – Corbyn advisor for 2017 Election – he called it right mate and your lot, THE REMAINICS buried us, as my own Constituency of Torfaen demonstrates – see Brexit Party/Tory Party vote, add both together and our sitting Remain MP will be gone, but hey, lets worry about a few middle class voters who fettishise about the EU, which ain’t no workers bastion as the French are clearly demonstrating this week.
Was one seat gain worth it RH for 52 losses, that’s how demented you and the Three Musketeers are on these BTL threads.
Your outraged rattle throwing says it all.
Simply – it wasn’t Brexit – a concept not half understood by most who voted for it. It was the wider Tory propaganda campaign of which the Brexit scam was but part of the bait for the gullible SunMail fodder, who ended up hating an image of Corbyn that had been implanted.
Your obsessions don’t change one iota of the hard facts.
I wouldn’t even go so far as to cite the LexiTories support for Tory policy as a major factor in the loss of seats, reprehensible tho’ it was in being contrary to policy during the election period. As always – the Tooting left was irrelevant despite lending credibility to Tory policy.
Now, now RH, stop spitting your dummy when awkward truths are placed in front of you, truths like if Labour embraced Remain/PV tripe it would be a kiss of death – and lets not forget, you could cleave many votes from Remain Labour seats without it damaging the sitting MP, whilst in Leave Labour seats this was not the case, as Tom Watson’s old seat suggests, I mean, his Remain stance was so popular, and his betrayal of the Labour working class so popular, they elected a Tory FFS, at least in my neck of the woods disgruntled Leave votes went to the Brexit Party, whilst former UKippers went full on Tory. And our South wales seats are lined up like Nine Pins to fall to the Tory’s if the Party elects another middle class Remain fanatic as Leader.
It’s all right Chris – I don’t hold any angst for your adoption of Tory policy. It was naive and a mistake to think that coat-tailing the Tories was a recipe for success.
It was indeed innumeracy to think that Labour’s success depended on alienating the Remain majority of its support. Even more naive to think that the minority vote for the plutocrats – which Brexit was – represented a ‘working class’ rebellion instead of just lumpen gullibility fuelled by the plutocrat press.
I appreciate that holding onto your illusions is a protection against facing the reality of the Tory hegemony that you supported on a whim. But, realistically, the odd LexiTory point of view wasn’t really a factor in the Tories’ success. It was just the usual pissing in the wind by the Tooting brigade.
Your bending to Tory desires and the propaganda press wasn’t really of any significance in the great scheme of things. More a symptom of confusion than a cause.
Taking a stance on an issue which picks up a lot of votes and gives thumping majorities in a few seats or which narrows a majority in seats you have little chance of winning whilst overturning your majority in more seats you need to retain results in overall failure.
And that is precisely what occurred RH, regardless of your evidence free opinion to the contrary. Saying something is so just because you say it is so does not make it so.
We operate in a First Past The Post winner takes all Constituency system and the actual real world evidence of seats lost in Leave voting areas demonstrates the reality that It is seat numbers and the distribution of votes not votes per se which count.
The reports from the doorstep canvassers also demonstrate the reality you are seeking to deny and the delusion at the heart of he snake oil you are selling. One example will suffice:
https://medium.com/@andi.j.thomas/door-knocking-for-labour-in-2019-fa804a921508
“To my surprise, it was the very idea of a second referendum that seemed the sticking point. It would have almost been comical if it weren’t so sad: as soon as the words “second referendum” or “another public vote” or “final say” left my mouth — and I tried as many variants as I could think of — then shoulders slumped, brows furrowed, heads shook. Lights went out in eyes. This was across the political spectrum, by the data we had: Labour voters, Lib Dems, Tories, don’t knows. From people inclined to remain and to leave.”
Whether you like it or not is totally irrelevant. The objective factual real world evidence does not support the flimsy evidence free subjective self defined opinion you are putting forward.
I have nothing but contempt for Watson & so sounding like an apologist for him rankles slightly, however………………to say that there can be no criticism of Ms.Formby because she was undergoing treatment for cancer is like saying that criticism of Wavertree MP Luciana Berger is not acceptable because she was pregnant…….& so the motion to deselect her @ that time was withdrawn.
If the General Secretary of the Labour Party is suffering from an illness she should take time away & a temporary replacement found. There have been massive mistakes made during her tenure & many members suspended & expelled without reason. Distinct similarities with Ian McNicoll.
McNicol had about 9 years I think to litter the party with like-minded staff loyal to the incumbent “centrists.” They couldn’t be fired wholesale on a change of leadership or a new GenSec. Loyalty to a previous boss is insufficient grounds for dismissal and we believe in employee rights.
GenSec isn’t meant to influence committee decisions and those decisions are the problem, not her administrative decisions.
One responsibility she does have (on paper) is running the election campaign – but does anyone seriously think a GenSec is or should be like a dictator – or that she planned election strategy on her own?
If you want to blame her for “massive mistakes made” you could at least be specific. Otherwise it comes across as scapegoating.
I believe that a lot of the problems arise from the disproportionate and undemocratic influence that Union leaders have on the selection of our MPs, NEC personnel and our party’s procedures.
https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201912291077891695-tom-watson-is-guilty-of-disloyalty-and-betrayal–you-let-us-down-tom/