In search of the “real” Tom Watson

Labour’s campaign chief Tom Watson is a bit of an enigma. Over his career in politics he’s been given plenty of labels, called many things (some kind, some less so) and done a range of jobs within the party. But is the “real” Tom Watson the slayer of Murdoch? Or the so-called “Brownite boot boy”? That’s what I was trying to get to the bottom of when I interviewed Watson for the latest issue of Total Politics (available in all good retailers) – so I asked him, “which one is the real you?”

“Politicians always say they don’t like political labels, but in my short time in the party I’ve been described as Brownite, Blairite, Old Labour, New Labour, left wing, right wing – I suppose I’ve been on a journey. There’s no doubt when I first entered Parliament in 2001, I had worked for the party: I’d run elections, and I was pretty narrow in my politics. I wanted to see the political gain for Labour in every piece of activity I did. I still want Labour to win, but I guess I’ve got broader horizons now. That doesn’t mean to say I’m not ruthless about wanting to win this general election, I just think there’s a different way of doing it.”

The truth is probably that all of these conflicting labels and roles are all Tom Watson – just not necessarily at the same time.

Here’s some of the other highlights from the interview:

Watson on the Labour Party’s “quiet revolution”

Watson calls it a “quiet revolution”, describing it as “the Labour Party re-laying roots in communities which perhaps we’d lost touch with, and new techniques for mobilising communities around the issues that they want politicians to address, rather than the ones that politicians think they want addressing.”

Watson on the need for trust in politics:

“The lessons from the Murdoch and banking scandals are that trust in big institutions has gone. People don’t trust politicians, they don’t trust what they read in newspapers, they don’t trust the banks, they don’t believe privatised utilities work in their interest. People have seen the limits of markets and the unaccountable power of vested interests. If we outline the remedy to the trust deficit, then we really can capture the spirit of change that’s afoot in the country. Labour will embody this change.”

Watson on what the party needs to do better organisationally to win:

“We still have a lot to do to get the party machinery right. We have to focus on fund-raising… then there are also things I’d say I actually want to revolutionise [the party]. We need to up our game with our digital presence: We know what we have to do, but just haven’t got the resources to do it, but I want to ensure we can sort that out this year.”

Watson on why we can’t win the election with staff alone:

“The gap between what can be delivered by full-time professional staff and what it takes to win an election is too great. We empower volunteer members who are the people who are going to win the election in 2015.”

Watson on taking a government job after the election:

“Ironically, when I stood in 2010, I ran on my own digital manifesto, and had quite a bruising encounter with the government whips of the day pulling me out for opposing the Digital Economy Act. I’d like to be able to return to work in that area. We need to stand up for greater transparency in powerful institutions and within government – the government very quietly disassembled some of that legacy. For example, the Department for Education advises people who seek to set up free schools on how to set them up so they don’t fall foul of the remit of the Freedom of Information Act. I want to make sure we can revisit that transparency renaissance, but obviously that isn’t up to me; that’s up to Ed. I’d be happy either way. I don’t have personal ambition any more, but if it works for him, I’d do that.”

Watson on the future of journalism:

“Let’s remember, the phone hacking has affected only very narrow sections of the press. When I talk to lobby journalists, I think they feel unfairly treated and sometimes, occasionally, tarred by the same brush. They think the whole of journalism is damaged. It’s funny, because I feel more optimistic on behalf of their profession. I always say in speeches that it took courageous journalism to crack open corrupted journalism.”