This is your response to allegations made by Rawnsley that Brown bullies his staff? ‘Bunker accused of allowing a bullying mentality in no 10. Responds by smearing and intimidating head of charity’.

- A personal endorsement from Conservative leader David Cameron
- One of their patrons is Conservative MP Ann Widdecombe
- Another patron is Boris Johnson’s Chair of the London Health Authority, Conservative Cllr Mary O’Connor
- They have close ties to Conservative controlled Swindon borough Council.

- They wrote to Cameron and Brown asking for an endorsement. Brown never bothered to reply, Cameron did.
- Their founding patron was Ann Snelgrove
- She’s chair of the bloody London Health Authority – appointing her as patron is hardly evidence of political skulduggery.
- They’re based in Swindon for God’s sake. Of course they have ties to the local council – that’s why local MP Ann Snelgrove was their founding patron.

Weak. Really weak

Great idea: Let’s bully the Bullying Helpline.

Serialised in the Observer. Followed up with a headline in the Guardian. Yet you simply reprint the reactive smear operation from the bunker, using Bienkov as cover.

That woman, who is probably naive about the kind of people that work for Brown, is now going to get the Dr Kelly treatment. Hope you’re proud of yourself.

From the LibCon archives.

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2009/11/25/cameron-more-to-be-done-on-workplace-bullying/

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2009/03/02/why-labour-shouldnt-run-alan-sugar-for-london-mayor/

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2009/06/07/labour-women-demonised-and-dismissed/

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2009/08/23/dependency-culture-and-bonus-culture/

First GB was rumoured to be hopelessly addicted to monoamine oxidase inhibitors, now he’s frothing at the mouth like a rabid dog, snarling and snapping at underlings in the PMs office.

So which is it?
Is Brown seriously ‘depressed, or has he simply stepped into this man’s shoes?
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Tony-Blairs-Right-Hand-Man-Alastair-Campbell-Was-A-Bully-And-A-Liar-Says-Adam-Boulton/Article/200809415105531?lpos=UK_News_Article_Related_Content_Region_7&lid=ARTICLE_15105531_Tony_Blairs_Right-Hand_Man_Alastair_Campbell_Was_A_Bully_And_A_Liar,_Says_Adam_Boulton

I agree with Tim J’s analysis of the relevance of the NBH angle, although there is a risk they will damage the credibility of the service once they start blabbering to anyone who will listen whenever allegations are made against figures who just happen to be in the public spotlight.

Blimey, not even Brown’s most craven and slavish servants in the MSM are running with this iffy talking point.

And that other patron, mz bratt, is definitely a Tory. I mean, she’s middle england all over. Look at her website.

http://www.mzbratt.co.uk/

a & e @ 4:

anyone with hands-on experience in psychiatric assessment could put a label on Campbell within a minute. Even the man on the Clapham omnibus can sense that there is something not quite right with Brown. You don’t have to be a clinician. No smoke without fire.

There’s no smoke without fire?

Sunny could be gasping for breath, crawling along the floor of some hotel corridor unable to see even an inch ahead, and yet he might still not acknowledge the fire!

Whether “Brown bonkers” – he is – or “Begg still an Islamist” – he is – no amount of smoke is enough!!

Look, there’s a small story here about the BBC.

But I feel compelled to point out that on last nights BBC1 evening news the BBC responded EXPLICITLY to the charge that they hadn’t checked facts re that bullying charity.

The fact is, the real story is Brown. As I argue at my place, if what Rawnsley says us true then it was right for the allegations to be made. I don’t want to see a Tory government. But if Brown is the paranoid bully Rawnsley describes, the electorate has a right to know.

Pointing to the BBC’s lack of fact checking on a side issue is, frankly, spurious.

This bullying helpline angle is just a diversionary tactic,straight from the Campbell playbook. The issue is Brown’s behaviour, and I completely agree with Paul (Sagar) and A&E on this.I’m not a huge fan of Rawnsley (has had a tendency to pull his punches) but journalistically he’s been scrupulous on this matter.He has testamentary evidence to flesh out all of the rumours around Brown’s behaviour which establishes that the man’s personality is not one suited to the position he holds.Tribalism shouldn’t blind you to that fact.

Conservatives and libertarians can hardly talk though – they are in favour of removing regulations that restrict the ability of employers to bully their employees – believing the only protection an employee needs is the market. Indeed get the bloggertarians drunk, and they’ll probably tell you bullying helplines are just part of PC non jobs.

More sanctimonious claptrap from Tories like TimJ.

Fact is, this is a serious brach of confidentiality and Ms. Pratt has been naive in the extreme to wade into this.

No substantive bullying allegations have been made against Gordon Brown, the nub of this story being perhaps an unchecked culture of frustration and paranoia in the bunker.

Not even Ms. Pratt on the radio this morning could cite a case where the PM was complicit.

Except that the blunder-headed Sun newspaper has yet again tried to make this personal. Which may well provoke further sympathy for the PM.

So you have to laugh at the sight of desperado Tories willing this organisation to do the electoral bidding for their flailing and inept Political Party.

Gave any of the negative commentators here actually read Tory Troll’s excellent piece?

For example, how weird is it that an alleged anti-bullying hotline releases details of a call? That is not the behaviour of a service based on confidentiality and anonymity in order to deliver the very best service.

Then take on board the heavy, heavy level of conservative involvement and then the dubious nature of the alleged charity itself and you have a very questionable scenario indeed.

#1

The trouble is that Snelgrove already distanced herself from the “charity” way before this happened. Adam Bienkov’s evidence does seem to suggest that the “charity” acts as a promotional vehicle for a profit-seeking business which is owned by the people who run the “charity”! Snelgrove’s concerns about this business were why she distanced herself (seemingly wisely).

This “charity”‘s evidence can’t be taken seriously. Rawnsley is asking people to take him at his word that his source is reliable, so it’s a question of whether we believe the word of a journalist, or hold someone innocent till proven guilty. I just hope this doesn’t result in some kind of media witchhunt for Rawnsley’s source.

No substantive bullying allegations have been made against Gordon Brown, the nub of this story being perhaps an unchecked culture of frustration and paranoia in the bunker.

You appear to have missed the specific allegations in the Rawnsley book. It is Rawnsley who has made the direct allegations that Brown is a bully – including revealing that the head of the civil service had to have a quiet talk with the PM to tell him that his behaviour was unacceptable. What Ms Pratt has done is react to claims that bullying is not a problem at no 10 – and she was never making the allegation that Brown himself was a bully (although Rawnsley, Tom Bower, Lance Price, Frank Field, Chris Mullin, and shedloads of others have made exactly this allegation over the past decade – that story about turfing a ‘garden girl’ typist out of her chair has been circulating for over a year).

This squares with the fact that the Cabinet Office admitted last year that people in no 10 have been disciplined for bullying and harrassment offences.

The problem is that, in trying to rebut this story the Labour pr machine just confirms all the issues raised over the weekend. Head of a charity raises her head over the parapet, and within minutes the bunker goes into full ‘she’s a Tory!’ ‘she’s breaking the law!’ ‘she’s lying!’. She gets intimidating letters sent to her, and her charity gets referred to the Charities Commission.

It’s like those protests agains the Danish cartoons – If you call us violent we’ll chop your head off! If you call us bullies we’ll make your life a living hell!

[deleted]

Now, where have we heard allegations of bullying before?
Ah yes:
“He was a smarmy bully who regularly threatened journalists. He loved humiliating people, including a colleague at ITV he would abuse publicly as ‘Bunter’, just because the poor bloke was a few pounds overweight.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/02/04/david-cameron-what-the-experts-say-115875-22017276/
And:
“A News of the World reporter who suffered from a culture of bullying led by former editor Andy Coulson, who is now David Cameron’s head of communications, has been awarded almost £800,000 for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/nov/23/andy-coulson-now-bullying-payout

For once, I’m afraid Tim J is right.

16 – Tu quoque? That’s a bit disappointing.

C4 reports:

“She [Pratt] repeated her allegation that she had also taken calls from two people who work “in the deputy prime minister’s office” in “the last eighteen months.”

I asked if she accepted that there hadn’t been a deputy prime minister since the summer of 2007 when John Prescott stood down from the job. She seemed not to have realised that but repeated the allegation.”

http://blogs.channel4.com/snowblog/2010/02/22/christine-pratt-still-vague-on-downing-street-bullying-claims/

Perhaps Cameron can get Coulson onto the calls for an inquiry. Ha ha!

planeshift,

“Conservatives and libertarians can hardly talk though – they are in favour of removing regulations that restrict the ability of employers to bully their employees – believing the only protection an employee needs is the market. Indeed get the bloggertarians drunk, and they’ll probably tell you bullying helplines are just part of PC non jobs.”

Any actual evidence for this strawman. Andrew Rawnsely is not the best of my knowledge either a Conservative party member or a libertarian, and he published the accusation, so trying to attack others rather ignores the point. And I await with interest your evidence for Conservative party policy to abolish anti-bullying legislation. Even most libertarians (a movement with the unifying principle being ‘do no harm’, and very little other unity) would see bullying by bosses as abusive and harmful and therefore wrong.

Chris,

“Now, where have we heard allegations of bullying before?
Ah yes: [cuts into attacks on Andy Coulson]”

We also heard about them from Alistair Campbell. It is unfortunate but this sort of behaviour is expected from spinners it appears (it doesn’t suggest they are very good at their jobs mind you). But is Andy Coulson the Prime Minister, seeking to lead his party into an election or is he merely a Conservative party employee. This straw man would perhaps be relevant if the accusations were against David Cameron.

In summary – in defence of the indefensible you both set up straw men which are irrelevant to the issue at hand – the revelation that there has been bullying in 10 Downing Street reported to the National Bullying Helpline. And before anyone criticises, I think it was wrong for this to be revealed. But that it was suggests Ms Pratt may have felt it was wrong for the problem to be denied and ignored, and that she had to speak. Which suggests in turn she felt that the bullies were covering it up? Does anyone want bullies to be allowed to get away with it?

The problem is that, in trying to rebut this story the Labour pr machine just confirms all the issues raised over the weekend. Head of a charity raises her head over the parapet, and within minutes the bunker goes into full ’she’s a Tory!’ ’she’s breaking the law!’ ’she’s lying!’. She gets intimidating letters sent to her, and her charity gets referred to the Charities Commission.

Oh give it up Tim J.

If Ms. Pratt did not break caller confidentiality she got darned close, and she naively blundered into the row without having the necessary substance to back up what she was saying. She certainly brought her organisation into disrepute.

Labour has every right to defend itself when evidence against them is so threadbare.

And that’s what Tories like you really hate. The fact that an organisation being smeared (thus far – and if an individual comes forward voluntarily then I agree it really is all over) actually comes off the ropes to fight back. You’d rather Labour just took the beating simply because you’re partisan.

What I don’t understand is this: the story was well-trailed before publication. Not much new stuff on publication on Sunday. But no-one reacted until then.

Surely, in the Blair days, Madelson and Campbell would have knobbled this type of story long before it came out, with that amount of warning.

Mandelson’s “defence” just seems to be fuelling it and Cambell is apparently not interested.

Are they just leaving Brown to hang out to dry?

When you have to resort to “Bully-Boy” Prescott to defend alleged bullying then something is seriously amiss.

BenM,

“Labour has every right to defend itself when evidence against them is so threadbare.”

It does. But does it have the moral obligation to decide someone is not a bully despite accusations and defend him regardless? Because that is the key issue.

OT: I can’t work out if @15 if plain old spam, or biting satire (replace “replica watch” with “politician” and it makes more sense)…

And that’s what Tories like you really hate. The fact that an organisation being smeared (thus far – and if an individual comes forward voluntarily then I agree it really is all over) actually comes off the ropes to fight back. You’d rather Labour just took the beating simply because you’re partisan.

Meh. It’s happened too often before. Rose Addis, the Paddington rail victims – the first instinct has been to attack the messenger – as Tories, as racists – or preferably as both. You’re admirably dedicated to putting your side of the story (I recommend an equally spirited display by Ben over on political betting), but you’re missing the point.

1. Allegations of varied reliability have been circulating about Brown’s temper and his habit of yelling at/throwing things at employees for (literally) years.
2. Rawnsley’s allegations are more detailed and harder to deny than most.
3. Mandelson denied that there was any problem with bullying at no 10 (and said that ‘he took his medicine like a man’ when Brown raged at him. Which makes him sound like an abused wife).
4. Pratt said that she had personally received phone calls and emails from workers at no 10, and that info on bullying had been downloaded from computers there. She didn’t allege any specific behaviour by anyone, just said that it was irresponsible simply to deny it was happening.

For the bunker to swing into full ‘discredit the messenger’ mode just tends to confirm the sense that the Brown clique are aggressive and intimidatory. Or ‘bullies’ as that’s more usually known.

“Even most libertarians (a movement with the unifying principle being ‘do no harm’, and very little other unity) would see bullying by bosses as abusive and harmful and therefore wrong.”

But despite it’s being wrong, no legislation should be introduced to deal with or prevent it.

Because that would be state interference.

Rather, the bullied employees should just leave their jobs and find new ones.

Because in the market paradise of Libertopia, there’s always enough jobs to go around and it’s always easy to change between them – and hey, through the magic of markets bully employers will disappear because their staff will all leave and work for others.

Who needs trades unions when the market guarantees worker rights so successfully? Who says that fantasy is dead in politics?

Tim J

Your argument doesn’t stack up. Pratt claims to have been motivated to speak by minsiterial denials, which related specifically to the PM. You can’t have it both ways.

These people do come across is very dodgy.

#23

Yes, it does have that right because these are only allegations and they only come from one source.

Pratt clearly has her own motivations (a “charity” which funnels for-profit business to her own company seems like a massive loophole in charity law to me) so we’re left with Rawnsley, who says his source is impeccable but won’t say who it is (understandably, and rightly, and hopefully it will remain that way, although given the state of the media I’m far from convinced).

So it basically comes down to whether we believe believe Rawnsley, and trust his judgement about his source. I don’t, and think the PM like everyone else should be assumed innocent unless there is more reliable evidence.

“But despite it’s being wrong, no legislation should be introduced to deal with or prevent it.”

It would probably be dealt with under the common law or a libertarian legal code. Your boss bullies you, you can take him to court.

Tim F,

If you read Rawnsley’s op ed piece yesterday, he explicitly claims that he has numerous credible sources.

This is not just about one loose-cannon accusation. It’s about a lot of people saying the same thing.

Rawnsley is a fairly credible journo. He’s been in the game a long time. And he’s hardly a Tory.

Fact is, this one looks real. Unfortunately.

Hey bullying is an important issue – which is why it’s important to ask why the helpline broke confidentiality.

It’s well known about PM’s behaviour – that was the story yesterday morning. This became the story last night, which is why it’s being written about. Though I suspect none of the Tories screeching here are that fussed either way except that the story has moved on from where it started. Funny no one said anything about Coulson’s bullying either.

The complaints made by BullyingUK against NBH are serious stuff.

Paul @ 26

But despite it’s being wrong, no legislation should be introduced to deal with or prevent it…… because that would be state interference……rather, the bullied employees should just leave their jobs and find new ones…..through the magic of markets bully employers will disappear because their staff will all leave and work for others.

Couldn’t have put it better, Paul.

You’ve obviously been reading some good books lately.

[30] “Fact is, this one looks real. Unfortunately” – more or less real than the depression/MAOI story doing the rounds like week?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100011610/gordon-brown-and-the-pills-what-was-andrew-marr-thinking/

MAOIs are well known for being just about the last line of drug treatment for depression; their use strongly implies that the PM had already worked his way through the family of SSRIs and perhaps even a tricyclic? – in other words this class of drug strongly suggests he must have been suffering severe symptoms?

So now, in addition to having a serious mental health problem, Brown it seems is a bully?

Well personally I find it almost impossible to imagine that any recent PM has not relied on some form of intimidation or other to control the nest of vipers surrounding him/her – perhaps it has always been so?

It is well known that ministers had to leave their balls at the door whenever Thatch summoned cabinet, while Blair seems to have out-sourced bullying to his favourite rottweiler, Alaistair Campbell, another NuLab high flyer suffering from the depression-bullying syndrome.

I can well imagine Brown throwing a hissy fit – but to my mind this is understandable, indeed almost inevitable given the monumental pressure associated with the post?

I can well imagine Brown throwing a hissy fit – but to my mind this is understandable, indeed almost inevitable given the monumental pressure associated with the post?

As an aside, and I realise this will be doubted by people that think I’m revelling in the story ‘cos I’m a Tory, I’ve never had much of a problem with the stories that Brown has been horrible to Labour MPs – or even SpAds. Yelling at Bob Shrum while in his underpants is funny – but that’s all it is. Shrieking abuse at Charles Clarke or Frank Field is basically par for the course – it’s not great behaviour, but I’m sure worse things happen. I don’t, for instance, imagine that Field was unduly traumatised – he can stand up for himself.

What really gets me is that the targets of his rages often seem to be people that can’t stand up for themselves and can’t reply. Typists and junior civil servants should simply not be subjected to tirades of abuse – as Rawnsley suggests that they have been. If you’re reducing switchboard operatives to tears, you’re not being strong or passionate. You’re being a cowardly bully.

IMO we need to step back to assess the media manipulation that’s going on.

It’s the modus operandi, developed and practised by Alastair Cambell when Blair was PM, of rapid successive launches of new media stories so that there’s no chance of the public disentangling one before the next one hits the headlines and diverts attention to something else. What’s left in public consciousness is a legacy of fleeting and vague impressions, mostly lacking substantive support.

It’s as well to recognise that this technique can be hugely effective in achieving destructive objectives. The only antidote is to illuminate what’s going on.

Alastair Campbell doesn’t deserve all the credit for originating this MO. Remember this from Harold Wilson’s time?

The labour party is like a stage-coach. If you rattle along at great speed everybody inside is too exhilarated or too seasick to cause any trouble. But if you stop everybody gets out and argues about where to go next.
http://creativequotations.com/one/480.htm

Wow.

The National Bullying Helpline as Tory Party front. Desperate times call for desperate measures, I guess.

I see Crash’s PPS, Anne Snelgrove has weighed in this morning, informing us that there is a “really nice atmosphere” in No. 10.

Nothing to do with her slender 1,300 majority, of course.

Desperate times call for desperate measures, I guess.

You mean like your idol Iain Dale putting up a pic of Brown comparing him to Hitler?

Tim J: What really gets me is that the targets of his rages often seem to be people that can’t stand up for themselves and can’t reply.

I agree with you on here. I find that inexcusable. But nevertheless by this morning the story had moved on.

Don’t shoot the messenger, Sunny, there’s a good chap.

I see Groper Jack just can’t keep it zipped. You really ought to keep him chained to a radiator somewhere.

^ unworthy self-link -1

^ unworthy self-link -1

Why? Relevance?

I’m sure if it’s unworthy it will be deleted soon enough.

Remember guys, the Boss is always right.

Got to stay On Message, no matter what.

No sneeky running to the press.

@ 26, 32.

Technically, if harm is being caused by those using their power over others, it is the role of the state to intervene, according to every political philosophy I know including libertarianism. I am not sure, but I suspect anarchy as well. Mind you, you’ll find libertarians who agree with your interpretation – and others who see them as idiots.

Anyway, this is getting us nowhere on the actual issue of the thread, fun as it is. Although as an interesting aside, if the Prime Minister is bullying staff, who do they take their grievance to – the queen or parliment, because there is no other possible oversight?

if the Prime Minister is bullying staff, who do they take their grievance to – the queen or parliment, because there is no other possible oversight?

They are employed by the civil service which has established complaints procedure.
As revealed in these parliamentary answers:

http://dizzythinks.net/2010/02/brown-admits-his-office-has-bullying.html

Ooops

I love how, when it suits them, people love to play naive, workplace bullying is part and parcel of workplace life, in that it is unfortunately a regular occurrence (that needs to be stopped wherever it is found of course).

The idea that as intense a workplace as Number 10 or politics in general should be absent from the huge list of places where it goes on is bizarre at best but wilfully ignorant at worst.

Ooops

I’d have more faith that you guys were genuinely worried about bullying if you complained when Andy Coulson was employed.

Now, suddenly, there’s all this faux-outrage and concern. Heh.

44 – so it’s all right then? It’s OK if Brown does bully his staff?

Sunny,

If I had been a Conservative party member at any point, it might have been my concern (also, I never saw those stories – clearly hanging round the wrong blogs (or not reading the Daily Mirror – would you get your news from the Sun either?)).

As I have said before though, you cannot compare the leader of the governing party who is also an elected official with an employee of another party, and who it should be pointed out is not accused of bullying now, even if he has done it in the past.

Bluntly, I think this shows how worrying this is: this is so unprecedented that all you can do is try to draw comparisons with the Conservative’s head spin doctor. Which won’t lead to comparisons with Labour’s spin doctors who associated with Mr Brown in any way. I wouldn’t go there myself, as it is only likely to make it worse.

Now we all know Alistair Campbell is a bully. Or is it Malcolm Tucker? Sorry, I get the two mixed up.

Ooops

I’d have more faith that you guys were genuinely worried about bullying if you complained when Andy Coulson was employed.

Is this whataboutery?

Haven’t spotted this elsewhere, so I’ll provide this quote from the Times (just because it may explain why Ms Pratt chose to intervene in this):

“Lord Mandelson’s interview was heard by Christine Pratt, the chief executive of the National Bullying Helpline.

She said this enraged her because she and her staff on the helpline had received a number of calls from Downing Street staff. They were unhappy and wanted help and to download information. She thought that Lord Mandelson’s denials broke the first rule of a well-run organisation which should always confront a bullying problem.”

Link (sorry, forgotten how to instert html into text if anyone wants to remind me): http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7036008.ece.

@30
Employees taking their bosses to court without trades unions? More fantasy. You live in a very weird, sheltered place. A home somehwere?

This issue of failure to check is small bear in comparision in comparison to the failure of at least three regulators to investigate substancial claims a long time ago.

The issue of oversight must not be overlooked.