Pitt-Watson is new general secretary by a whisker

1:28 am frontpage, news

by Chris McLaughlin

CITY financier David Pitt-Watson was appointed by the slimmest of margins this week to be Labour’s new general secretary in a split vote by the party’s National Executive Committee.

Downing Street favoured Mr Pitt-Watson, a former assistant general secretary, beat runner up Mike Griffiths, a Unite union official, in a secret ballot by a majority of just one or two votes, according to estimates by those present.
There was intense speculation after the special meeting on Monday – attended by the Prime Minister for the entire duration of four-and-a half hours – that some trade union representatives may have switched their votes in private either against their own organisation’s policy or after giving personal reassurances to Mr Griffiths, who was seen as the union and party candidate.

The ballot was conducted by an outside employment consultancy, Rockwell, after party chair Dianne Hayter objected to party scrutineers overseeing the vote and members voted, amid what some described as confusion, for the private firm instead. The decision followed heavy lobbying by Number 10 for Mr Pitt-Watson, 51, who was seen by Mr Brown as better qualified to handle the party’s financial affairs.

The meeting was fully attended by the committee’s 32 members, although the Communication Workers’ Union representative was barred from voting because he was late in arriving due to bad weather, while local government representative Sally Powell arrived from her sickbed.

Mr Pitt-Watson, who is also a former Labour councillor, is to stand down as chair of Hermes Equity Ownership Services which he founded after leaving his last Labour Party post. Recently a vocal supporter of a private takeover of Northern Rock, Mr Pitt-Watson immediately confirmed his first priority is to establish financial stability ahead of the next election. He will work closely with Mr Brown’s political secretary Fiona Gordon. Critics of the appointment believe she will effectively take control of the party organisation on behalf of Downing Street while Mr Pitt-Watson concentrates on finance.

Mr Pitt-Watson said: “I am looking forward to working with members, stakeholders and staff to achieve our objectives. My first priority is to get the Labour Party ready to win a future general election. It is also to establish robust party structures and procedures in terms of finance and compliance to create stability for the organisation going forward.”
Mr Griffiths said: “I am obviously very disappointed and sad, too, not for myself, but for the differences that could have been made. David is the new general secretary and, as a member of the executive he will have my support.”
Mr Pitt-Watson replaces Peter Watt who dramatically resigned last November in the row over Labour’s donations by proxy.


4 Responses
  1. Peter Kenyon :

    Date: March 15, 2008 @ 2:44 pm

    As the NEC is a representative body in the interests of greater transparency would it be unreasonable to ask for a named vote?

  2. swatantra :

    Date: March 23, 2008 @ 3:50 pm

    A named vote is out of the question; it goes against the very idea of democracy. You might as well ask members to put their hands up in the hall.

  3. a :

    Date: March 26, 2008 @ 5:12 pm

    Voted “against their own organisation’s policy” - so it is union policy not to listen to the candidates and make the best appointment? So much for equal opportunities.

  4. Around the World » Blog Archive » Gordon’s Choice As General-Secretary Doesn’t Want the Job :

    Date: April 10, 2008 @ 5:01 pm

    […] donations by proxy and is under investigation by the police. Gordon sat in at the NEC meeting to personally push through the City fund manager’s appointment. LabourHome reported this morning that he “has […]

Leave a Comment

Your comment

You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.