What drivel.

Oh dear.

Sunny spent so much time telling us that “bonkers Brown” was just a right-wing “meme”.

Now you’ve gone and spoiled it.

I don’t hear many objectively claiming that the incidents reported by Rawnsley are false, the question is if they are proof of a “bullying Brown” or one of a Brown in several lapses of mood and judgement, and indeed if they were as incidents quite as bad originally as they are now described.

Bullying is a serious issue that needs to be addressed properly, not only to protect those being victimised but also to ensure that those being accused aren’t tarred with a brush unfairly. As harsh as it may sound, the occasional bad day with your boss being shouty is just a bad day, not abuse.

If more evidence comes out that shows a systematic and knowing abuse of staff I’ll HAPPILY spread the word, but even for someone as distasteful as Brown he doesn’t deserve to be tarnished in this way unless it is absolutely true.

The thing is, we all already knew the PM was an angry, shouty, lapel-grabby, Nokia-hurly nutjob. Rawnsley’s revelations are nothing new.

However, they might resonate with same people who bought Brown’s toe-curlingly awful tears-for-Piers nonsense, and so any good work that did may have been undone by Brown’s true nature.

The fact is, all this has done is over-shadow the “take a 2nd look at us, and a long hard look at them” message. So that is a result for the Blue Team.

Anyone want to say that there was no Tory political advantage here?

So it is right for us to know, but only at a time that suits the opposition. What rubbish. Credible allegations of bullying should be pursued, not held in reserve until they can do political damage. Anything else is showing that concern for the victims is not the reason for going public.
If the evidence makes Brown look really unpleasant (like picking on junior staff who can’t fight back) it will affect peoples’ opinion of his judgement. Otherwise a bit of smoke, with no real evidence of fire, will make no difference to the electoral result.
Even for the many people who can’t decide whether they dislike Brown or Cameron more, I can’t see this being a deciding factor.

If Gordon Brown is a “dominating, paranoid, near-psychopathic bully”, what does that make Saddam, Mugabe, or Gahafi? – I mean the list of brutal leaders seems virtually endless.

Compared to the big boys our depressed overlord looks like a choir boy?

@5.

And Cameorn is an effete, out-of-touch, do-nothing, silver-spoon-fed, Old Etonian toff.

We can all do lists of supposed personality flaws.

Anyway this has cost Cam 15 polling points since Conference in the doing-a-good-job stakes (what has Cam ever done by the way?).

The right-whingers comments here are serious facepalm material that reflect badly upon their emotional intelligence. I pity the poor sods.

#1 & #2

Oh, do go away.

BenM,

“And Cameorn is an effete, out-of-touch, do-nothing, silver-spoon-fed, Old Etonian toff.”

Sorry, how is a style of presentation and personal background comparable in any way to accusations of bullying. In fact, my understanding of bullying (having had this happen to me) is that the act of picking on people from being from a better-off background is bullying. So you set up your petty strawman and make a comparison based on an attitude of discrimination and hatred. Does it make you feel big?

Daniel,
If this reflects badly on my EI, so be it (if only because I do not know how I would measure it). It also reflects a serious non-partisan belief, that bullies must be defeated because they are unfair. How many children have not fulfilled their potential because they were afraid to attend a club or be seen trying hard? How many people have been driven from jobs in which they were otherwise happy because of bullying? How many people have had their lives made a living hell by bullying family? Anyone trying to equate this sort of behaviour to a caricature of Mr Cameron’s background needs to take a long look at themselves, and if that is not displaying EI, then what the hell is the point of it?

P.S. For information, until this weekend I had ignored the Mr Brown is a bully meme as something without evidence, possibly dreamed up by his internal Labour rivals (it does not appear to come from the Conservatives). I now have to rethink that.

@9:

Somebody who consciously uses the phrase “right-whinger” is in no position to talk about emotional intelligence.

I bet you said Tony B. Liar as well.

W:

You seem to miss the point with BenM, while those on the right throw out vile insults about Brown being a “nutjob” and “bonkers”, I think BenM was offering a counterpoint to that, I think with the gist that it is best to stay away from such trite comments.

We are all bullies, we have all bullied in some form or another to get out way, let’s not get carried away. I myself am not too keen on this bullying story because the sources and the organisation in question are dubious and the knowledge is not ours to pass judgement on.

MC:

What else am I to call an idiot that comes here, offers little other than right-ring talking points (actually not even that, just errant and glib commentary that is neither here nor there) and makes a fool of themselves? I besmirch the term right-wing or Tory or even Conservative, for the odd shaped hybrid you present Coxall.

This is abject. Brown has flaws and is wrong on policies but to endorse this personal witch-hunting that is being run straight out of CCHQ is truely abject.

Brown has flaws and is wrong on policies but to endorse this personal witch-hunting that is being run straight out of CCHQ is truely abject

FFS. Rawnsley and the Observer are run by CCHQ? Who knew?

The source for all the really nasty stories about this Govt have always been internal – from the TBGBs to Brown throwing nokias at people. In this most recent story, the Tories have basically sat on their hands and watched.

Rather than posing a false comparison between the PM and ‘normal bosses’ and dichotomy between methods of removal, we could all grow up and design constitutional arrangements which recognised that political leaders shouldn’t be bosses at all but policy coordinators and chief spokespeople. Primus inter pares and all that.

I guess this will feed into the opinion polls. Nothing needs to be ‘right’ anymore, it just needs to change the momentum of public opinion. Which the aftermath of Andrew Lawnsley’s opinion piece seems to have achieved.

BenM says:

And Cameorn is an effete, out-of-touch, do-nothing, silver-spoon-fed, Old Etonian toff.

Hmm…. I can agree with that. And not someone I could possibly vote for.

However:

If more evidence comes out that shows a systematic and knowing abuse of staff I’ll HAPPILY spread the word, but even for someone as distasteful as Brown he doesn’t deserve to be tarnished in this way unless it is absolutely true.

Well, you couldn’t, in all concience vote for them either, could you? Assuming it is true, of course….

Flee to a minority, or not so minority party, though most of their leaders are either of the nasty tendancy or covering it up.

Darrell,

I doubt CCHQ have been pushing this, because they don’t need to. It exists on its own, and I have seen references to this for over a year bubbling around on various blogs. It looks organic, with people treating it carefully but wanting it out there for whatever reason. Have to say, I am surprised it came to this though – poor media management somewhere, as surely Mr Brown would have had a response ready.

@13:

Wait, pointing out that viciously bullying your staff is unacceptable is a “right-wing talking point”?

Daniel,

You are right about Ben’s comment, although I am not sure that Martin’s comment was in the same league or justified the response. If I had checked context I may have been more restrained (although I still maintain his language is of the type used by bullies, however justified it appears to others).

As to the bully thing. We are not all bullies, although most of us may have been guilty of upsetting or indimitating others. Bullying is being aware of your behaviour but continuing to do it.

And this story looks true. The pieces fit together. I wish they didn’t, as for all his failings I believed Mr Brown to be a good man. I think the knowledge is ours to pass judgement on, because we possess it, and this saddens me that I have to come to this judgement.

If these stories are true then they are indefensible. If someone in Brown’s position, pretty much as powerful as you can get in this country, behaves as described we should all be concerned. These acts suggest serious character flaws for anyone, let alone our Prime Minister.

Now we need some tales of tory kiddie fiddlers or we’re stuck with Call-Me-Dave. Bugger again.

Watchman,

What? Do you mean the deplorable ‘Is Brown Bonkers?’ campaign? Honestly, there are some legitimate attacks in politics but the point is that Rawnsley is aiding and abetting a witch-hunt whose character today has been exposed by the nonsense coming from Christine Pratt who sounds every inch like a Conservative stooge.

Tim J

I refer you to the comments I made in the last comment. The latest ‘intervention’ clearly looks like it was orchestrated from CCHQ.

Coxall:

First up, you’ve ducked on your offensive use of language, fair enough, that’s what you do, hit and run vacuous comments but you seem to forget that this bullying isn’t confirmed by a source I yet trust, so your use of vicious is a glorious embellishment and if you read the comment I said that you are incapable of even trotting our right-wing talking points.

Good grief you’re bad at this.

W:

“Bullying is being aware of your behaviour but continuing to do it.” Sometimes yes, sometimes no, some bullies have no idea who and what they are.

And there is plenty of judgement passing going here, which is typical of blogs, it perpetuates judgements being passed with no need of personal commitment or reflection but I’d be surprised if in the highest power and pressure position in the UK bullying didn’t occur, it is a tough environment.

Yurrzem!

They are not indefensible, there is always context there is always circumstance, there is always two (or more sides) to a story and passing withering and imperious judgement before all the facts are at hand is a dangerous business.

“These acts suggest serious character flaws for anyone, let alone our Prime Minister.”

I think you need to get out more or be more honest about yourself, one of the two or perhaps both.

@23:

Could you elaborate how you think this Tory Plot has been carried out?

Darrell,

The problem here is that Guido’s ‘Is Brown bonkers?’ campaign appears to draw on some of the same incidents chronicled presumably independently by Andrew Rawnsley. So the question is not does this make Rawnsely wrong? (unless you can show Rawnsley was using order-order.com.) It is whether this makes Guido correct on other aspects of the campaign? It’s not a nice thought is it?

I never liked this campaign, seeing it as gutter politics and irrelevant. But the meme was there and elsewhere.

Your use of language is interesting incidentally. ‘Aiding and abetting’ is normal in criminal activity isn’t it? But what Mr Rawnsely did was journalism, which is legal, however it feels. And Ms Pratt “sounds every inch like a Conservative stooge”; maybe, but the fact is the information she released is there regardless of her political leanings or intentions. A messenger may impart bias, but bias does not mean the fact is wrong.

@24:

Back up here a second. This is LibCon, I’ve said many times I don’t come here for informed debate. More a guilty pleasure, watching Sunny dance for my amusement. However your bizarre attempts to bring left/right into this is fascinating.

I’m not sure what you’re saying. You don’t believe Rawnsley is a trustworth source? Or that you don’t believe any of the rumours about Brown’s behaviour that have dribbled from the lobby over the years.

I certainly hope you’re not saying that Brown’s reported behaviour is somehow acceptable. That’s not acceptable, left or right.

Daniel,

“…I’d be surprised if in the highest power and pressure position in the UK bullying didn’t occur, it is a tough environment.”

Is that a justification: that there is pressure? I have been under pressure and I have never felt the need to strike out at others (the only time I do let my emotions fly under pressure are when my other half manages to get under my skin, and vice versa). Swearing, shouting and even hitting walls would be fine, but picking on others because of the pressure on you? How is that fine – by that logic is the more pressured role of US President enough to justify President Obama assaulting someone. Could we excuse a local councillor from littering because of the pressure? Ridiculous; to be a good person requires overcoming temptations to hurt and blame others.

I don’t like how the word “bully” is being used – I think being shouty and sweary isn’t the same thing as bullying, although it can be unpleasant to be on the receiving end of it, it’s very different from, say, being repeatedly victimised or denigrated. It’s possible to be a bully and never lose one’s temper. So what’s Brown being accused of – angry outbursts or bullying?

Coxall:

We’re drifting far off topic with this so I’ll make it my last word on the matter with you. Your excuses (although transparent at least, which is perversely admirable) for you behaviour speak volumes, I’m glad you put them up here again, it reads like a definition of a troll and of flame bait fodder.

In answer to your questions:

I don’t believe (yet) that Rawnsley source is trustworthy, see Tory Troll for reference.

As for rumours about Brown’s behaviour, I have no doubt he loses his temper, throws things and generally gets angry. As do we all at times and I cannot even imagine the pressures and tests of being PM. I want my leader to be human, not perfect.

As for acceptable, I’ve said before: context, circumstance and fact will help me make my mind up on that, as of yet, much hyperbole and rumour and not much of substance. Yet.

So we’ll see.

Watchman:

Not a justification but context, circumstance and the facts of the matter are crucial before we pass judgement (I’m still not sure about what gave us the right but still…)…well scratch that, plenty already have, showing their partizan bloomers as they run to the ‘bash Brown beach party’.

I’m glad you’ve been under pressure and never lashed out at others…ever…in your life, you are the only person I know who can say that so well done.

As I said, these is all rumour and bluster at the moment, I need more than that before I try and understand what is going on.

Luis Enrique:

Excellent point.

I didn’t see the Piers interview as I’m not into celebrity fawning. So, could you tell me, as this was intended to show Gordon Brown’s “true character”, did he mention that he gets very angry with himself. And others. Throws papers around in a rage. And swears at co-workers. All now admitted by him – since the interview?

The easy thing would be for Sir Gus O’Donnell to deny, in unweasil-worded language, that he’s never warned Gordon Brown about his behaviour.

That would surely lay the matter to rest.

I don’t believe (yet) that Rawnsley source is trustworthy, see Tory Troll for reference.

Just as an aside here, Adam Bienkov is attacking (questioning, whatever) the legitimacy of Ms Pratt’s charity – saying basically that it is too closely connected with the Tories to be trustworthy. Regardless of the truth or otherwise of this, it has nothing whatever to do with Andrew Rawnsley.

Rawnsley describes his sources as:

These witnesses include virtually everyone who has sat in the cabinet over the New Labour years as well as the most senior aides to both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. I have conducted extensive interviews with military figures, diplomats, intelligence officials and civil servants at the most senior level. These include Robin Butler, Richard Wilson and Andrew Turnbull, successive cabinet secretaries of the New Labour years.

Ms Pratt may or may not be a credible witness – though it would be odd for to make utterly untrue claims, given how easy they would be to verify. But there is surely no question that Andrew Rawnsley is a credible journalist, nor that the allegations he makes are extremely unlikely to have been made up.

So Tim is this in relation to the anti-bullying hotline thing, the two go hand in hand don’t they? Or that is the way it is being pitched?

As I’ve said before, I’m no fan of Brown but I’m also no fan of attempts to smear him, at all, so for me, I do not buy that he is some kind of monster. Not yet anyway, until I see more compelling evidence and I still have a problem with people thinking they know how hard his job is and presuming that only a saint must inhabit it, when it must be utterly, utterly demanding.

Watchman,

The point is that what Rawnsley did was trashy journalism of the standard pioneered by the ‘Is Brown Bonkers’ campaign. We should not judge people by their faults nor should we judge them by Observer pieces or campaigns of personal vilification. In politics policies are what matters. I really do cringe and wonder at the people here who think that this kind of behaviour would be exceptional in the office of Prime Minister. I am not excusing systimised bullying which is wrong but I would be surprised if Brown didnt have the odd outburst of temper now and again; he wouldnt be human if he didnt.

This isnt even about politics anymore; it’s a witch-hunt which is why I used the language of aided and abetted. What Rawnsely did was legal but it was wrong and he certainly should not be praised or venerated for it like some unintentional servant of democracy.

The information she released was rubbish. She claimed to have complaints from the office of Deputy PM after it ceased to exist. Obviously she wasnt briefed very well…..

Martin Coxall @ 33:

Yes, that’s the peculiar thing. Seeing as how Gus O’Donnell was such a big player in this, how come there is so little mention of him?

So Tim is this in relation to the anti-bullying hotline thing, the two go hand in hand don’t they? Or that is the way it is being pitched?

They were independent, but linked I suppose. After all the Rawnsley allegations were made in the Observer, Lord Mandelson rushed out to dampen down the story. Among the things he said, or suggested, was that there was no bullying atmosphere in no. 10 and these stories were just malicious fabrications.

Ms Pratt then rang her local radio station and said that it was irresponsible simply to deny that there was a problem – she should know, she was head of an anti-bullying charity and had personally spoken to ‘at least two’ people that worked for no 10. Rather than just deny there was a problem, no 10 ought to set a good example to employers by reforming working practices (or something. I’d stopped listening by that point…). She didn’t make any specific accusations about any one person or event, she just said that it was poor form to deny something when it was true.

She may be a Tory stooge but if she were, you’d think her story would have been clearer and better prepared – she said on Today that some of the complaints were from the ODPM – which hasn’t existed since 2007. You’d also think that CCHQ would have made sure her comments went to a BBC journo, rather than a phone-in on BBC Surrey (or wherever).

@24
I know myself well enough. I’m not being hypocritical, as you imply.

We should not judge people by their faults.

Isn’t that precisely what we should do?

Tim J:

I’ve done some more reading on the Rawnsely business and I stand by what I say, I don’t believe it, not at the moment, or I do not believe what is being intimated. There will be a kernel of truth somewhere but I’m holding back on passing a judgement on Brown.

And with regards to passing judgement on people’s faults, best not too, glass house, throwing stones and all that.

Yurrzem!

I’m glad you know yourself, I must presume then you do not know humanity very well, based upon your comment.

@41

I don’t know them all yet.

Yurrzem!@42

I can tell that.

Daniel,

“I’m glad you’ve been under pressure and never lashed out at others…ever…in your life, you are the only person I know who can say that so well done.”

I am sad for you. You never had a good teacher then? Never worked with a good boss? Never had good colleagues? I lash out myself, but at myself (in that I may be more like Mr Brown than I’d like to admit) and never on to other people. Most people I have worked with have been the same.

“As I said, these is all rumour and bluster at the moment, I need more than that before I try and understand what is going on.”

Fair enough. But the lack of denials is speaking volumes – it is not that Mr Brown has refused to engage, but that his engagement does not deny the stories (just something he has not been accused on doing!). The fact Andrew Rawnsely is risking his reputation and connections on this also suggests he is pretty confident it is true.

W:

Woah there slick, you’re slightly stepping over the mark now, it would be like me calling you a liar for the statement I made about you. I may think you are lying but to say it would be bad form and unprovable, thus pointless.

So I don’t need you to be sad for me (vomit), I’ve had plenty of good teachers, exceptional ones and plenty of awesome work colleagues that would leave you for dust. I’ve also pinned a teacher against a wall when I was 16 blockaded my class inside a science lab because I was angry.

I’ve also worked with people who were idiots and needed a foot up their ass.

That’s life, that’s the richness of it.

“But the lack of denials is speaking volumes”

I read plenty in the Guardian and any other article on this unproved rumour, so I take that as a falsehood. As for you believing it in the face of no evidence but Rawnsley staking his reputation on it, you’d be surprised what a man would do for a quick buck. But you in you ivory tower wouldn’t understand such things…

Sunny spent so much time telling us that “bonkers Brown” was just a right-wing “meme”.

cjcjc – only someone as idiotic as you would equate angry behaviour with mental illness. Looks like your Tory troll facade is coming apart. That’s the only reason you come here these days don’t you?

Darrell,

“This isnt even about politics anymore; it’s a witch-hunt which is why I used the language of aided and abetted. What Rawnsely did was legal but it was wrong and he certainly should not be praised or venerated for it like some unintentional servant of democracy.”

It is wrong to reveal that the Prime Minister has a bad temper and a tendency to over-react and abuse people when things go wrong? Obviously that’s not information any of us should be privy to, as it may give us the wrong impression. We are not worthy to judge our masters and betters… Sorry, I cannot see any other way to read this, and it scares me. I suppose you could say the facts are wrong, but this seems difficult to believe, especially since it appears Mr Rawnsley is providing confirmation to the rumours that formed the original meme.

What is wrong is your statement here: “The information she released was rubbish. She claimed to have complaints from the office of Deputy PM after it ceased to exist. Obviously she wasnt briefed very well…..” Mr Rawnsley’s book was being serialised in the Observer; the accusations contained within were reputed by Mr Mandelson; Ms Pratt heard this and then made her contribution. Ms Pratt is supporting evidence for Mr Rawnsley, who by publishing a potentially defamatory statement or two has probably shown he has enough evidence anyway. You cannot rule of Mr Rawnsley’s evidence, which has priority, because Ms Pratt’s late evidence may be flawed.

Incidentally, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was not abolished (only the post); it became (in the main) the Department of Communities and Local Government, which would provide an alternative source for the error – if data-counting had started under a previous name, it may still be recorded under that name even if the organisational name had changed. Just offering the suggestion, since this seems so important to some people.

Seems to me like people are giving Rawnsley – a Blairite journo – far too much credit… of course, he (Rawnsley) doesn’t have to prove anything, because like any good journalist he needs to protect his anonymous sources. So it’s all very murky out there and I can’t help but think this is a belated Silly Season story that’s just been dug up and dusted down.

CAVEAT: of course any serious allegations of bullying (not merely losing temper – there are examples of every PM doing that (even Major!)) should be investigated by the proper authorities, but merely because the PM is known for is gloomy outbursts does not make him a de facto bully. Innocent until proven, and all that other stuff we normally believe in, eh?

Daniel,

“But you in you ivory tower wouldn’t understand such things…”

No, it’s not as if I’d ran my own business or been unemployed and struggling to pay the rent in recent years or anything… You may be guilty of false assumptions there.

“I’ve also pinned a teacher against a wall when I was 16 blockaded my class inside a science lab because I was angry.”

I never did that or anything like it, I hit walls or the like instead (and I got angry – bullies do that to you). Less harmful to others. You may vomit at my pity, but to have had to use the violence you did suggests there was something wrong. I assume you no longer react that way?

More to the point, you chose not to believe the story/rumours (take your pick). I think it looks horribly likely. That is our individual choices. I can no more prove Mr Rawnsley right (although there are corroborations) than you can prove him wrong. Such is life.

“Bullying is being aware of your behaviour but continuing to do it.” Sometimes yes, sometimes no, some bullies have no idea who and what they are.

Daniel, you’d better frame this but I agree with you.

Watchman is out of date with the new definition of what constitutes bullying. It is no longer defined as being something done by one person to another, it is defined by the feelings of the victim. So if someone feels that they have been bullied then de facto they have been irrespective of the intentions or actions of the perpetrator.

So Gordon walking past the receptionist and forgetting to say good morning is bullying- if that is how it is perceived. Of course the eagerness to be offended when offence is not intended pretty much sums up what is wrong with our society.

Given the characteristics required to fight and claw your way to the top job in a political party, it would be rather surprising and worrying if those around Brown didn’t feel bullied from time to time.

W:

You missed the dig in relation to your: “I feel sorry for you” schtick.

“You may be guilty of false assumptions there.”

Indeed and I am not the only one round these parts.

Violence is natural, you see it as something wrong, I actually have a bigger problem with people who hit inanimate objects, now that is ridiculous but we’ve all done it.

I’m glad you think it looks likely, I don’t, not yet but it doesn’t surprise me at all you’ve taken that stance, as is your right.

The burden of proof is on him though and as of yet, there is no proof so I’d say it is leaning towards fiction. So far.

pagar:

I do anti-bullying work in schools, when it comes to children and young people the definition of bullying is down to the intent and down to the regularity of it and the constancy.

It is repeated harassment, whether physical, verbal, phycological…text messages and forum messages.

Of course a person who feels bullied should flag that but it doesn’t automatically mean they are, it may be a crossing of wires, a mis-communication and can be cleared up quickly.

So we find ourselves in some slight form of agreement..perhaps! Heh.

Sunny, I don’t think anybody here accused the PM of being mentally ill. Unless that’s your interpretation of his behaviour?

With ref to the Coxall:

Well you did at comment 4, never mind cjcjcjcjcjcjcjc at comment 2.

I am a Labour guy myself but I agree with Paul Sagar that it is correct for a journalist like Andrew Rawnsley to look into the nature of those at the top of government such as Gordon Brown.

We very much need good journalistic investigation into government at all levels.

I do have a concern about the extent to which Andrew Rawnsley’s accounts are true.

I feel that we can’t ever really know this but the public will make its own mind up when deciding who to vote for at the forthcoming general election.

Watchman,

Its nothing to do with Brown being a ‘better’; its to do with him being a human being which you dont seem to want to give him space to be. You want to put him on some pedestal and judge him in a completly different way to the rest of humanity which is wrong, wrong wrong and very bad for democracy indeed. In fact, your the one who elevates Brown above the rest of us because you judge him by a different standard. I’d like to see how temperate you would be in his position.

What Rawnsley seems to have done is take speculation and heresay and make it into a character assination. Pratt admits talking to the Conservatives – case closed on her impartiality as a source.

There seem to me to be two questions here: Is Rawnsley telling the truth and is the behaviour he describes as bullying appropriate for a Prime Minister?

Rawnsley used to be a good journalist. I haven’t read him for some time but I believe him to be respected as more than just a hack. (I hope this means he’s better than other “respected” journo’s such as Trevor Kavanah.) He is happy to stand by his sources. This makes the allegations seem reasonably reliable.

Is it appropriate for a Prime Minister to bully employees (not just other politicians) or to have outbursts of anger? Prime Minister is not just any job where you might say, “Ok mate, it could happen to anyone under the circumstances.” We expect more, rightly.

Unlike others in this thread who are happy to say, “I don’t like Brown, but…” I have been unhappy with Brown since he was Chancellor. PFI is a huge con, the working families tax credit system is so complex it disqualifies some of the most needy, he weakened city regulation by introducing the tripartite system and has presided over a tax regime that is weak on corporate evaders and wealthy “expats”.

Sadly the behaviour described by Rawnsley fits into a pattern. It rings true.

@29 Luis Enrique: “I don’t like how the word “bully” is being used – I think being shouty and sweary isn’t the same thing as bullying, although it can be unpleasant to be on the receiving end of it, it’s very different from, say, being repeatedly victimised or denigrated. It’s possible to be a bully and never lose one’s temper. So what’s Brown being accused of – angry outbursts or bullying?”

Bullying is a subjective observation. So shouty and sweary is not necessarily bullying, just a bad way of handling problems.

On the other hand, there are at least two ways to handle bad news or a report that doesn’t meet your standards:
1. Shouty and sweary.
2. Calmly explain your concern.

If your resolution is consistently point 1, you are probably bullying.

Another Conservative media plot unravels before our very eyes:

“Tory MP Ann Widdecombe has resigned as patron of an anti-bullying charity after it claimed No 10 staff had used its helpline. She said publicising the phone calls had been a breach of confidentiality. Prof Cary Cooper and TV presenter Sarah Cawood have also stepped down from the National Bullying Helpline.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8527881.stm

“Britain’s top civil servant has said he did not confront Gordon Brown about ‘acting in a bullying or intimidatory manner’ towards Downing Street staff.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8529292.stm

Widdecombe’s resigned too.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8527881.stm

TORYFAIL

So Coxall – will this make you retract? I don’t suspect it will…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/22/gus-odonnell-denies-warning-gordon-brown

Another Conservative media plot unravels before our very eyes

Wait, what? It was alleged by Mandelson that this must be a Tory plot – look at all those Tory patrons of the charity. Now it turns out that they didn’t know, and disapprove, of the actions of the head of the charity and have resigned that means that the Tory plot has failed? Logic fail…

Sunny – Did you see Rawnsley on Newsnight? He’s sticking by his story, and says he has first-hand direct evidence of the conversation that took place. By implication that can only mean O’Donnell told him. Rawnsley said he would not of course reveal his sources unless it became a question of his professional integrity. Someone’s telling lies – or being very misleading at best here.

I think this attack on him by this prat of a woman down in – where’s she from, Swindon? – I think that’s backfiring on her.

– Phil Woolas on LBC.

Mr Brown’s wife Sarah spoke out in his defence, telling GMTV that “what you see is what you get” with her husband.

-the Independent

Who’s running damge limitation for Gordon, exactly?

I feel another Fer Fucks Sake coming on.

Rawnsley is a pretty good journalist and is happy to stand by his sources. That suggests to me that the story is strong, probably true. The rest are side issues.

As a trades unionist I worked for years against workplace bullying. Its simply not justifiable. How can anyone who claims to be on the Left defend it? Its like racism, its indefencible.

Stop this idiotic relativism and justification!

Brown appears at best bad mannered and unable to cope with the pressure. At the beginning of the War Churchill was guilty of being rude to someone . Clemmie wrote to Winston saying he had practically unlimited power, the only people he could not sack was the King and the Archbishop of Canterbury . Consequenty Winston should be careful the way he handled his power and should remain courteous with those who were not in a position to answer back.

If Brown has problems with the pressure, then I am glad he was never responsible for the defence of the UK in WW2 or held a senior military position during the Battle of Britain, The Convoys of WW2, The Defence of Malta or any of the major battles.

There are plenty of jobs where the challenges of leadership is to maintain a sense of calm and cool authority, and perhaps even a sense of humour, during periods of extreme stress.

Yurrzem!

Your comment reads as if you have not read wither the post or the long list of comments, the leap you make to support Rawnsley is quite a huge one that skips out many crucial factors.

So until rumour becomes fact and evidence is provided, as any trade union man should know, a false accusation of bullying is a damaging thing for anyone.

Unless you are operating another brand of relativism on the job in question?

Charlie2:

I’m not sure where these sweeping and profoundly personal statements of yours are coming from, I was not aware you were and insider in Westminster able to conjure such damning judgements from your first hand experience of working with the PM?

You then draw out the fiction to encompass the UK at wartime, making silly generalisations and vastly stretching the remit of hypothetical judgements, let us stick to the facts or lack of them, to hand.