After Gordon Brown left the Treasury, workers taking days off for stress dropped by a third. After Gordon Brown moved to Number 10, stress levels went through the roof.Clearly the Prime Minister is a 'passionate' man as John Prescott, a little too vigorously perhaps given the subject at hand, made clear on Channel 4 News this evening.
General Elections can be won and lost on a number of factors but the potentially loose facts of Andrew Rawnsley should not be one of them.
That said, the suggestion that Gordon Brown is a bully is now out in the open and the public will make their own mind up. Who is the real Gordon, the man weeping tears in front of Piers Morgan or the man who roughly shoves people when he doesn't get his own way. Perhaps it's both, perhaps it's neither, but we shouldn't automatically assume that the latter will result in a drop in the poll results for Labour.
Kevin Rudd admitted he went to a strip joint and his poll rating shot up, South American politicians have public affairs and it guarantees another term, Australians voted for John Howard term after term on the back of him banging the table loudly and getting things done and the UK voted in Margaret Thatcher for over a decade. Sometimes the meek don't inherit the political earth despite what our better angels may occasionally wish.
Gordon's passionate demons, in contrast to Cameron's needy 'like me' approach to Politics, may end up being the very thing that pushes Labour ahead of the Tories. There's not that many cuddly Lib Dem votes to win after all and the Conservative voters might like a bit of abrupt decisiveness in contrast to Dave's smooth, wafer-thin sincerity.
I'm not defending the way Brown is alleged to have treated people; but with a recession on, wars to fight and a planet to save, maybe a leader who doesn't take no for an answer isn't a bad thing in the grand scheme of things.
15 comments:
Great writing, especially "passionate demons" and "smooth, wafer-thin sincerity".
Great writing, especially "passionate demons" and "smooth, wafer-thin sincerity".
Hmm. A sentence containing the words: "abrupt", "decisiveness", "Gordon", and "Brown"? You're 'avin' a laugh...
What he did to the slow typist is crucial.
If she chirps to the media he is toast.
Maybe the Tories keep that powder dry until 7 days before the election day.
Negative campaigning; the only way to win.
Sorry Jeff - he's a terrible leader and certainly the worst PM of my lifetime.
I'm sick of these Labour parasites. I feel a rant coming on....
The Labour Party (Scotland sub-branch) would like the Electoral Commission to run any Scottish constitutional referendum. Why? To stop the Nats 'rigging' a plebiscite, they say. Well, they should know about rigged Scottish referenda, after the one they orchestrated in 1979. But let's dig a bit deeper - why, exactly, do they want a body whose remit does not include non-Westminster plebiscites to supervise our one? There's an obvious answer I'm afraid, and in classic Labour style it involves cronyism, self-interest and cash.
Let's first consider who set up the Electoral Commission. Yup, that's right - the Labour Westminster Government. Who funds the Electoral Commission? You do, via the Labour-controlled Treasury. And who was it who decided that there was "insufficient evidence" to prosecute Wendy Alexander for her crime in accepting a political donation from overseas, despite Alexander writing a thank-you letter to the donor at his overseas address - a cast iron piece of evidence if there ever was one? Yup....Labour's Electoral Commission.
They set it up. They run it. They fund it. So....is it any surprise that Labour want their wholly-owned subsidiary, the Electoral Commission, to 'supervise' (ie rig) a Scottish constitutional referendum? No. Should the SNP roll over and accept it? No way.
Anyway....Gordon Brown. Psychologically flawed, as Alastair Campbell said years ago. Roll on our English cousins kicking him out on his arse. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
R of S
Sorry, that is a very disappointing article, but no surprise. Labour or SNP, what is the difference in the way they operate these days? No wonder you don't find anything wrong with the way that Brown operates.
The more mud that gets thrown at the guy, the less I'm able to avoid feeling sorry for him. I despise the way the media thinks it can dictate who runs the country and the way it's turned personality into the most important factor in politics (or at least has tried to), and they've really tried to do a number on Brown these past few years.
- the "You weren't voted in by the public" rubbish (err, we elect MPs, not PMs)
- the intrusive, almost bullying nature of the questions over his health, eyesight, mental well-being
- that ridiculous non-story over the hand-written condolence letters
- the constant moaning about his media-persona, and then the constant ridicule when he tried (admittedly badly) to do something about it
GB has done some terrible things as Chancellor and PM, but these types of stories were a disgrace and were usually attacks on a human being, rather than his position. Put together with the multiple failed coups by ex-cabinet ministers, I think it would be hilarious if Brown somehow wins (or at least avoids losing) this election. Maybe it would show the media a thing or two, and despite their gross failings, they're still preferable to the Tories, who are already licking their lips as they eye up public services and institutions to privatise.
A flawed personality is better than a false one. If Brown had realised this earlier and ignored the many bits of bad advice he's obviously been given over the years, maybe he wouldn't have had so many battles with the media, and maybe he could have concentrated on fixing his own mess a bit better.
Anyway, I'm hoping that my initial preference (substantial SNP gains in Scotland, but Labour somehow managing to keep out the Tories UK-wide) is still feasible. England can vote in the Tories if they want, but not until we've voted to isolate ourselves - through independence - from the mess they'll make.
Thanks James, 'demonic passions' was plan B.
To keep the theme going, with regard to other comments, I hasten to add there's a small element of devil's advocate going on here.
Mekquarrie, I'm assuming you think that was too little rather than too much? ;)
You can't force people to have opinions on someone and letting the media blindly guide one's views is a dangerous game (as we should know up here)
I don't profess to know much about GB and certainly won't conclude the man's a bully just because Andrew Rawnsley's telling me so.
Call me old-fashioned but I prefer policy to make my voting mind up over.
Always plenty of space for a rant R of S. I'm way behind on that story so thanks for the nougats to chew over.
Got a post on the boiler though, with a fine headline my pun editor James'll be glad to know!
Ah, I don't think I'll ever tire of Anonymous commenters telling me how disappointed in me they are.
Disappointed you may be Sir/Madam and Brown's alleged behaviour may not endear him to you and I but I am merely pointing out that other out there may actually find this 'news' good reason to vote for the man.
Margaret Thatcher used to shout and yell at her ministers but was said to be extremely polite and considerate to her civil service staff. And rightly so.
It's inevitable that tempers fray and harsh words are spoken in politics, whether it is in 10 Downing Street or during the lowliest council by-election. I have certainly my fair share of stand up rows with fellow activists during campaigns. We all have.
However there's a big difference between a free and frank exchange of opinion between people who are in the same party and fighting for the same cause and yelling and shouting at someone who is an employee. Employers have a duty of care towards their staff to provide a safe, unthreatening environment in which to work. Civil servants are not members of political parties. Gordon Brown should absolutely not treat them in the same way that he would treat party colleagues because it's a totally different relationship.
I don't know if he does really go about screaming and yelling at staff and throwing things about the place. It's perfectly possible that the whole thing is a dirty tricks campaign. But if he does, there is no possible excuse for it.
Well said Indy.
I do wish people would stop this nonsense portraying Brown as a moral, righteous and substantial politican. He is absolutely the reverse - he just looks that way.
I guess in the world of Left wing prejudice, being articulate and well-presented means "wafer-thin."
Crap.
IainM
The huge difference between Crash Gordon and Howard is that Howard did not bankrupt Australia! Your comparison is glib to say the least!
Post a Comment