FOR the sake of the Labour Party, David Pitt-Watson must be wished well in his new post as its general secretary. It is to be hoped that his achievements will be more auspicious than the manner of his appointment.

That the Downing Street favourite was chosen on the slimmest of margins on a split vote by the National Executive Committee is not the most ringing endorsement of a candidate for such a crucial role. That the decision relied on at least some of the NEC members breaking their earlier pledged allegiance to the primary challenger does not commend the integrity of the individuals or the NEC’s collective decision-making process.

There is a legitimate defence that individuals may have been swayed by the force of the arguments put during the three candidates’ presentations to the interviewing panel. But that, as everyone involved knows, was not the case. Nor was the standing of the NEC enhanced by the decision to allow an outside employment consultancy to oversee the secret vote. There is a case for keeping the ballot secret in any appointment process, for the sake of the successful candidate and the authority of the post. But why did the NEC allow itself to be put into a position by Number 10 of voting itself out of the scrutinising process? Could it not be trusted to conduct its own affairs, or could not individuals be trusted to vote the “right way” if the possibility of their choice was in danger of being made known among colleagues?

Gordon Brown’s aides have been making much in the past weeks of Mr Pitt-Watson’s Labour background, fearing that his City whiz-kid image might be outdone by Unite’s Mike Griffiths’ died-in-the-wool record in the labour movement. He has, after all, been an assistant general secretary (who, it is said in his favour, resigned because he could not stomach the right-wing shenanigans of former general secretary Margaret McDonagh). And he has served as a Labour councillor.
These positive factors cannot be taken away from Mr Pitt-Watson and can only serve to help whatever efforts he makes to reassert the party’s morale, influence and purpose. The signs are, however, that restoring financial stability will take precedence over party rebuilding. That, in the shorter term may be an inescapable priority. But getting the balance right will be crucial.

And, to a certain extent, the crisis has been played up by Mr Brown and his aides in order to smooth Mr Pitt-Watson’s path to the job. The outstanding loans, for example, which make up the bulk of the party’s £20 million debt, are reportedlu already the subject of an agreement with the individuals involved to restructure payments over nine. The formal signing of the deal has been put on hold to allow Mr Pitt-Watson to announce it as one of his first successes in putting the party on the straight and narrow. It is important for Mr Pitt-Watson and the party leadership to realise that the purpose of raising money is for political activity and not the other way round.

***

ALISTAIR DARLING’S first Budget will not be seen by history as a blazing beacon on the road to socialism. A cautious – positively prudent – package amid bumpy and portentously turbulent economic currents, it was designed to batten down the hatches while holding the “new” Labour ship on its broadly market-driven course. The £1billion package designed to alleviate child poverty flickers through as a reminder of what should be the underlying principles of a Labour Government as does the help for pensioners, while the modest environmental measures should be welcomed.

But even in announcing the extra help for families suffering relative and absolute poverty, Mr Darling has been forced to acknowledge defeat on the Government’s targets on child poverty. The Government said it would halve child poverty by 2010, taking 1.7 million children out of poverty and end it completely by 2020.

To date, 600,000 children have been officially removed from poverty – a proud achievement, but short of the Government’s own targets. The measures announced this week will remove a further 250,000 by 2010 but that will still leave more than 2.5 million in poverty, or 3.5 million once housing costs are taking into account, in one of the richest countries in the world. Welfare experts estimate another £3.4 billion is needed. Mr Darling’s Budget was not, as he boasted, a blueprint for aspirations, but an admission of the Government’s poverty of aspiration.