Tom Watson Starts His Leadership Bid

Should have seen that before; now I understand why moderate unions supported corbyn; is really support for Tom Watson

I think I was the first to suggest that the Corbyn leadership was being backed by the unions as a front for Tom Watson to take over the Labour leadership:

Another is that Corbyn wins, Labour MPs immediately rebel (two months perhaps – but they would be better declaring the leadership election infiltrated and ripping off the plaster right away than waiting) and a second election is scheduled. Tom Watson will be elected Deputy Leader in the forthcoming election, and would therefore be Acting Leader at the time. I can see Tom running, and he would win any second contest easily. I know and like Tom and he is a pragmatist. Compared to Corbyn he will look like Margaret Thatcher. Compared to Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper he will look like Jeremy Corbyn, however. Tom’s support in the Union movement is total. He would be an effective leader of the Opposition if (and my advice here is as his friend) he worked hard on understanding the shift he’d just made, and above all other things, controlled his temper and moderated his speech.

And so it proves. Corbyn endures a truly dreadful 48 hours as leader, with silence at the PLP, a fight over Remembrance Day poppies, and Labour women incensed at the sexism of their party.

But by the end of Corbyn’s first day as leader, Tom Watson has already made his move. There is an extraordinary headline in the Times today:

Unions join attacks on Corbyn’s top team

One senior trade union source described the appointment as mad and added: “I’m honestly shocked at how bad the operation has been for the past 48 hours. I honestly thought [Mr Corbyn] would be better than this.”

Even Len McCluskey, the Unite leader who has hailed Mr Corbyn as the future, was among those said to be pushing for alternative candidates to lead Labour’s economic strategy.

In public, trade union bosses were barely more polite — either about Mr McDonnell, or on Mr Corbyn’s electoral appeal. Dave Prentis, general secretary of Unison, said that Mr Corbyn would have to “grow into the job”. Sir Paul Kenny, general secretary of the GMB union… “Let’s see what the voters say. Because at the end of the day, they are really the important ones.”

What? The Unions, bastions of the left, move against the hardest left leader Labour has ever had?

Two words: Tom. Watson.

Even Len McCluskey, the Unite leader who has hailed Mr Corbyn as the future

Unite is Tom’s union. He’s been running Unite candidates to get selected as Labour MPs. “Hailed Mr. Corbyn as the future” until Tom’s been elected Deputy Leader. Thanks for that. Now off you go.

Dave Prentis, general secretary of Unison

Watson is very connected in Unison.

Labour MPs know that their barking mad membership who voted for lunatic Corbyn 60% will ruin any future contest. They need a man who can command armies. For whom they have already voted. That man is my friend Tom Watson. He’s clever. He’s a patriot. He’s pragmatic. Like I said a while ago, compared to Corbyn he’s Margaret Thatcher; compared to spineless Andy Burnham or moderate Liz Kendall, he’s Jeremy Corbyn.

And if he gets himself a good speechwriter, Tom is a very dangerous, very credible, alternative Prime Minister.


  1. michael · September 15, 2015

    God Forbid , that either of them get to be Prime Minister

  2. Peter · September 15, 2015

    He has form. Delivering a birthday present to Gordon Brown in Scotland? Yeah, right.

  3. john mcpartland · September 15, 2015

    He is also adept at calling out and naming paedos, except when the paedo is Labour affiliated then he vanishes like a bad smell in the breeze. And should Louise attend election hustings for her great friend Tom then she should expect to be sat at one side of the room or at the back as Tom has attended and excused gender segregated meetings. Indeed, Labour has a bright future shining down in the gutter.

  4. Fred Wyropiquet · September 15, 2015

    Tom Watson is also one of the few people who dares to stand up to tell of the illegal and immoral activities of Louise Mensch’s employers or, as they might put it, of some of their rogue employees. Of course the company have put Rebekah Wade/Brooks back in charge in the UK and she is the one who assures us that she could not see all the illegal activities going on all around her. This may make you think that Louise writes for a company that isn’t concerned about the illegal activities of its employees. And Tom Watson is a thorn in their side.

    In my book all this means that complaints and criticisms from this source are best disregarded or, at least, treat with care. If you are tempted to believe anything that Louise tells you then first look to see what her company has already done to the man. If you want to know why the Sun’s headlines are so vitriolic then read Tom’s ‘Dial M for Murdoch’. It’s not Tom Watson who needs to explain himself – he has done that.

    So Louise: having rightly castigated Ms St Louis for her false criticism of Tim Hunt – she was prejudiced and that prejudice coloured her (admittedly poor) journalistic actions – can we look at your prejudice? Can we say that your prejudice against an enemy of the Murdoch empire makes you unfit as an objective commentator? I can’t see how to avoid rejecting your claims against him.

    Yes Louise: I supported you 100% in your fight for Tim Hunt. You were right. In this case you are not just wrong – you are simply not in a position to tell the truth. The actions of your employers make your position as an objective commentator impossible.

    I look forward to a government that shuns private cosy chats with Murdoch and his editors (prior to unleashing an unprecedented attack on a media rival of Murdoch).

    • louisemensch · September 15, 2015

      I thought I praised Tom here. With what do you disagree?

  5. Ken Hall · September 15, 2015

    Oh do come off it fred, It’s funny how labour did everything they could to minimise any exposure of the “hacking scandal” when they were in power and profiting from it. Police investigations were stamped out. Leads and lines of inquiry were ignored. Why? Could it be because hacking was widespread in labour supporting newspapers, when labour were in power and having those cosy chats with Blair, Mandelson, Campbell et al? When Commissioner Blair, a known Blairite, was in charge of the Met. police? When the media, the police and the labour high command were in a very incestuous relationship, passing information gleaned from hacking between themselves for narrow, party political advantage? When titbits gleaned from hacking were routinely used to smear political opponents?

    How come that the hacking scandal happened right across what was known as “Fleet street” and yet one of the minor players, News International, was the only publishers who eventually faced police action after they deserted labour?

    What about the Daily Mirror where hacking was institutionalised and a very common practice, well known to those at the top? Has ANY Mirror journalist or executive had their doors kicked in at 05:00 in the morning? Had their lives put on hold for two years while the police engage in a political witch hunt?

    How come it fell to Cameron to take action against hacking? What were labour doing while the hacking was actually going on? Profiting politically from it, that’s what! Cameron was a very junior, back bench opposition MP when the labour/media/police conspiracy to enable hacking was taking place.

    Then when Murdoch rightly dumped the vile, incompetent, corrupt and criminal labour party, Labour were very happy to exploit the private grief of the Dowler family to attack the Murdoch empire, when the News of the World did not even delete the messages the left accused them of! But then, the left have never seen a dead child that they were not willing to exploit for their own narrow and selfish political advantage. At least Murdoch did (even symbolically) the decent thing when the scandal broke. He closed down the News of the World. What about that other bastion of politically correct, left wing liberal progressives, the BBC? They enabled, harboured and actively covered up for prolific paedophile activity by several of their biggest stars, on BBC property for over 5 decades. When are the BBC going to be shut down for what is undoubtedly far worse criminality than phone hacking?

    Now the facts are in the public domain, trying to attack Murdoch makes you out to be a narrow minded, selfish, bitter and delusional lefty with a very very large chip on your shoulder.

  6. mraemiller · September 15, 2015

    I’m sorry but as conspiracy theories go that’s just looney tunes. Neither Tom Watson nor the Unions are that organised and none of them expected Corbyn to win. He could have stood for leader if he wanted it. He stood for deputy leader because it’s a cushier number. Not an accident there were more deputy leader candidates than leader candidates. Seriously I don’t think the Unions or anyone else in the Labour party think that clearly about anything. I think they supported Corbyn because they thought he’d give them the easiest ride and he didn’t have all the Union support either… nothing actually is that planned in the Labour party … indeed it’s wonder many things happen at all…

  7. therealguyfaux · September 15, 2015

    Brummie Billy Bunter lookalike. The satiric sites will have a field day. “Shite-eating grin Martin Short” to “like a dour Terry Jones” to “hapless Wallace” to “waves his fist at clouds Grizzled Geezer Leftie” to “Who stole all the pies, and Buddy Holly’s specs?” Can Labour come up with someone OTHER than a figure who invites piss-taking?

  8. Alan · September 16, 2015

    Dear Louise,

    I apologise in advance for the off-topic nature of this message.

    I am writing an article which is partly inspired by your excellent blogs on Tim Hunt but is mainly about the conduct of an organisation which you have questioned and criticised here and I wish you could still question and criticise in Parliament (and I say that as someone who has never voted Conservative in their life). I have pitched the article to one newspaper but I haven’t had a reply and I’m struggling to think of any other newspaper or magazine which would be brave enough to take on the organisation in question, even though since I pitched the article the organisation in question has provided yet more proof of its dishonesty and hypocrisy. I think you are brave enough to take them on.

    Could I please e-mail the article to you so you can read it and if you like it you can use the ideas and evidence in it as the basis for an article, a series of articles or even a book? I don’t use Twitter, Facebook or any other social network or have a blog or website so the only way I could send the article to you is by e-mail. I need to give my e-mail address in order to post this message so if you e-mail me from an address with the Unfashionista domain name or Hotmail or a Gmail address or whatever e-mail address you feel comfortable using I will reply and tell you which organisation I’m writing about and why, send you the article and give you some more information which you can tweet and write about this week.

    If you are not interested in reading my article or writing about the organisation in question that’s okay. You might be turning down the chance to expose a very big scandal but that’s okay.

    Thank you very much for reading this message and I look forward to receiving a reply.

    Keep up the good work.


  9. Pingback: Jeremy Corbyn: (mostly) the right message, but the worst possible messenger | shaunjlawson
  10. Pingback: Tom Watson: he who wields the dagger WILL inherit the crown | shaunjlawson

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s