Back into the Westminster Village. Readers may have already seen the news reports alleging that Gordon Brown bullied members of his own staff in Downing Street (his office, it should be said, denies such claims). Apparently, a charity that runs a sort of hotline service took a call or calls from folk at Number 10 pleading for help. The issue threatens to turn into a major political storm. On the BBC Breakfast News this morning, one of the presenters was trying quite hard to put the charity on the defensive but the charity adamantly backed up the claim that complaints of bullying had been received. It did not, it should be noted, state that it believed Brown was in the wrong.
Some may say that harping on such matters misses the “Big picture”: should it matter whether a prime minister is a decent person to work for or is a total jerk? I think it does matter, just as it matters when it turns out that so-called climate scientists fabricate evidence and then try and lie about it, or bully or generally try to intimidate anyone who disagrees. It matters, in other words, that some of the people that we might disagree with in our ideological battles are shits and liars. For one of the emotional tactics that collectivists of various hues have used over the ages is that “We are good people.” To be an AGW skeptic, for instance, is not just to be wrong, it is a sign that you are a Bad Person. To have disagreed with socialism was, for a long period of time, also a sign that you were “bad” in some way, or that you failed in terms of compassion, etc. Mr Brown is a man who goes on a lot about “values”: indeed, he waves his morally excellent beliefs around like a badge. So to find out that he allegedly bullied junior staff who might be reluctant to answer back is a useful fact to know about.
This point should not be pressed too far. After all, people whom I regard as being broadly on the side of the angels can sometimes be hard work and be rude. But it is interesting, I think, that a person known to be tough as a debater and sometimes rude to cabinet colleagues, as was the case with Mrs Thatcher, was well known for treating her staff in Downing Street with great kindness and consideration, according to various accounts that I have read. In the end, I think it matters in how a powerful person treats those who are not powerful. On that basis, the stories coming out about Brown are very damaging indeed.
This could be an interesting week in UK politics.
Update: I see that Rod Liddle has suggested that the alleged victims of workplace bullying grow a bit of backbone. I guess he has a bit of point, but Mr Liddle would presumably draw the line when an employer starts throwing physical objects at staff, causing potential injury. Many years ago, I used to hear stories about a news editor for a regional publication who would hurl typewriters at staff, lose his temper uncontrollably, etc. In that case I think an employee should not only sue, but if necessary, hit the employer in self defence.
The Beeb now claims the complaints were not against Brown himself. I wonder if the bullying helpline got the consent of the callers before going public: I know I wouldn’t want them on national TV with my story if I’d called in to ask them for help. If I wanted exposure, I’d give the Telegraph a call.
Re: Browns ‘moral compass’ – its always been my theory that people who emphasise one aspect of something are subconsciously trying to hide their failings in that very area. Just as a man who is very vocal in his dislike of homosexuals may in fact be in the closet himself, anyone who constantly displays his moral and ethical credentials is probably trying to hide his lack of the same.
Genuinely decent people are seen as that without prompting. They do not have to proclaim it to all and sundry.
It would have been interesting to see the chat between Brown and Gus O’Donnell. I used to work in local government, and the elected officials were given massive deference by all the employees. But several department heads had had run-ins with councillors because the councillor was abusing a member of staff, and the deference stopped very abruptly.
Right from May 1997 it has been obvious this is a government of yobs. Their “hinterland” is the football terrace.
The worst part about workplace bullying, especially when it is from a “boss” is that in order to grow a backbone one must be prepared to lose ones living.
It is the power that the employer has over the bullied worker that shows the extreme cowardice of anyone who would bully or use power in this way.
It is a perfect illustration of Hayek’s observation that positions of power attract people who enjoy wielding power over others.
Brown wielding power over his employees just shows what motivates him at the most basic level and in iteself is a very good argument for a libertarian outlook on government.
Two points if I may, Jonathan:
First, it does matter if they are liars (see Climatgate, or Brown proclaiming his compassion while supposedly behaving uncompassionately), but not necessarily if they are shits. I mean, does it matter if someone with whom you absolutely agree on ideology is a total shit? Not a liar, but a honestly unpleasant person?
Second, it would depend on the nature of ideological disagreement in question (see Brown and compassion above).
its always been my theory that people who emphasise one aspect of something are subconsciously trying to hide their failings in that very area. Just as a man who is very vocal in his dislike of homosexuals may in fact be in the closet himself…
Or as Princess Diana repeatedly assured us in the Panorama interview that she was completely sane.
Yes, it does matter. No matter how much these people (in this case, allegedly the PM, but in other cases it’s the various moral panic campaigners) claim to be doing things “for the children”, their actions show children that the way you get what you want is to bully others, demonize them, and shout them down.
I’m no fan of the PM’s but I don’t count this episode against him.
I worked in the civil service for a short while. Encouraged by the ethos of the place and lack of any real management or work ethic, the office was full of staff claiming to have ‘stress’ or some special need or other. Absenteeism was rife. Punctuality was dreadful. Flexitime was routinely abused. Many strange requests were taken seriously – staff needing left or right hand desks, desks near or far from a window, breaks every hour so claustrophobic staff could go outside to the open space of the car park, inabilty to work under flourescent light, a suspiciously large proportion of devoutly religious staff claiming to need special breaks for prayers in the prayer room. Posters on the walls surged us not to tolerate all kinds of dsicrimination or bullying.
I can imagine what passes for bullying in the civil service – being told off for not working and preferring to spend time browsing the internet would probably be sufficient.
Pete is probably right. But Gordon Brown is of that world. It’s always fun when lefty interests conflict.
Too early and with little information to tell whether Brown acted unethically. The reason for my caution is that many people today demand that disagreement with them must be in the words that they prefer. It is probable that someone was told that an idea he put forth was silly or stupid and rushed to the bully help lines. So if all he said was that a certain idea was stupid, then he has nothing to apologize about. Cameron ought not to try and take this too far either because if he takes government, he may have to say many unpalatable things to some civil servants.
I have absolutely no problem whatsoever in believing that Brown is a bully. He’s thrown tantrums before and he’s wheedled and cried and used his wife and kids to try and keep power so why would he not shout, scream and bully his staff. He’s a complete shit in every conceivable way.
He and his cronies took every opportunity to stab Tone in the back, not because he believed that he would do a better job for the people of Britain than Blair, but because he felt it was his due, and now that his position is threatened, expect him to lash out even more.
That’s not to say that this latest episode isn’t another attempt at a palace revolt, but I’m pretty convinced it’s based on real behaviour.
“…in order to grow a backbone one must be prepared to lose ones living.”
That’s a necessary virtue in a free society.
I’m with Jim,
It’s just so plausible. Think of it. One of the most effective tactics ever to get out of something is to admit the lesser offence and that is just what Lord Voldemort has done on Brown’s behalf.
Lest we forget this is “Heathcliff” Brown. Who in their right mind compares themselves to that thoroughly unhinged character.
I don’t want Brown out of office. I want to see him colostomized with a runcible spoon.
Gordon is a self deluding, no not the right words, totally self believing Sociopath, who, if anything goes wrong, blames anyone else but himself. He honestly does believe that he has saved not only Britain, but the world, instead of damn near destoying it in 12 short years.
If The Thick of It, is even a quarter of the reality of what is like to work in high office in this country, like Yes Minister was in it’s day (and I rather think it is) then I am so glad to have left the Civil Service in the early 80s instead of being promoted further.
If the twat had tried this type of thing with me, he would have had such a mouthful of a tongue lashing, he would be a dribbling gibbering wreck at the end of it, and if he got physical, which he is emminently capable of doing, remind me which is his blind eye? I wouldn’t want to be accused of blinding the cunt totally.
But you have to wonder what sort of wimps we have in the Civil Service these days. What’s with this ringing of Helplines? Jesus wept!