IS HE THE MOST MALIGN MAN IN POLITICS?
No not Jeremy, his shameless deputy
UNDER Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of Labour, all sorts of weird and not so wonderful characters have emerged from obscurity to take positions of influence. But although the hard-Left is now dominant, there is one position in the party it does not hold – that of Deputy Leader.
The irony, however, is extreme. Because you would have to search far and wide to find a character less suitable to be the champion of decency and moderation in opposition to the Corbynites than the man who holds the position, Tom Watson.
Throughout Mr Watson’s career he has shown himself to be one of the most malign forces in mainstream British politics. He has used parliamentary privilege to smear decent and honourable men as paedophiles. He has campaigned to shackle the press. And he plotted to bring down Labour’s greatest ever Election winner, Tony Blair.
But worse, far worse than any of that, has been his behaviour last week in defending his friend Max Mosley.
Let us be charitable and assume that Mr Watson had no idea that Mr Mosley, who has donated £540,000 to the Deputy Leader’s office, had any history of involvement in racist politics.
That is, of course, an unlikely assumption. Mr Mosley was heavily involved in the Union Movement party of his fascist father Sir Oswald – and that involvement has long been public. But for the sake of argument, imagine that it came as a total shock to Mr Watson to discover last week that Mr Mosley has had such a long and revolting history as a proselytising racist, a supporter of the apartheid South African regime and a man who published a leaflet in a 1961 by-election campaign accusing coloured immigrants of spreading diseases and threatening children’s health. You’d think that he would say ‘how awful’ – and condemn the man responsible.
You’d think he would say: ‘I want nothing more to do with such a vile racist.’ You’d think he might even apologise for having associated himself and the Labour Party with Max Mosley. As if. Mr Watson is, you see, shameless. Instead of doing any of that, he stood up in the House of Commons and simply said he wouldn’t give Mr Mosley ‘the time of day’ if he still held such views. But he then reiterated that he was proud to be a friend of Mr Mosley, lauding him as ‘a man who, in the face of great family tragedy and overwhelming media intimidation, chose to use his limited resources to support the weak against the strong’.
What rot. Mr Mosley is one of the richest men in the country – estimated to be worth nearly £12 million – and he has used that wealth to try to shackle the press.
He has handed over £3.8 million via his family trust to fund the state-recognised newspaper regulator Impress, as well as funding his fellow hater of a free press, Tom Watson.
As for the idea that Mr Mosley’s racism is ancient history, in an interview on Channel 4 News last week he repeatedly refused to apologise for that racist by-election leaflet.
He would not even take up the offer by interviewer Cathy Newman to reject the idea that immigrants should be deported, while insisting: ‘I have never been a racist.’
It should be extraordinary that a Deputy Leader of the Labour Party would choose to praise such a man. But shamelessness is Mr Watson’s defining characteristic.
When he smeared decent Conservative politicians as paedophiles, rapists and murders he did so without a shred of serious evidence.
He even claimed at Prime Minister’s Questions that there was a ‘powerful paedophile network linked to Parliament and No 10’ under Margaret Thatcher.
He also said former Home Secretary Lord Brittan was a paedophile who compared with Jimmy Savile.
Mr Watson eventually made an apology of sorts, but it was after these foul accusations have been shown to be baseless.
Most of the opprobrium this week has – quite rightly – been focused on Max Mosley.
But in his own disgusting way, Tom Watson has shown himself to be equally unworthy of a place in public life.
Watson failed to condemn Mosley. He is shameless
He smeared decent Tories without a shred of evidence