Left reeling
Bubble — By Daran Hill on February 23, 2010 9:00 am
Picture this: every image used of the Prime Minister is intended to be evocative
IT MUST be hard to be a journalist and try to remain fully impartial at times. No matter how much painstaking care the BBC and others take to get the details of allegations concerning Gordon Brown’s ill-temper right, they cannot help but to shorten it to “Brown Bullying row” during news summaries.
For Labour’s people, and those who believe the allegations have little foundation, that must grate – because they rightly know that is what people hear in their cars, kitchens and over tea. It doesn’t just take headlines screaming “Prime Monster” to convey this damning impression. Without doing anything but perhaps cover all shades of opinion, the PM is tacitly confirmed as a bully. The talk has once more circulated on his personality rather than the effectiveness of the government.
But Andrew Rawnsley is standing by his story and refusing to step back from making – and repeatedly making – the argument that the Prime Minister is more than bad tempered. Watch the Rawnsley interview here and it’s as clear as ever that he is maintaining his line. “There are good sides and not so good sides to the PM,” says Rawnsley as he reflects on what has happened. Errr, quite, is the conclusion most people will draw who have been exposed in any way to this story.
Andrew Rawnsley will survive it better than anyone. He is a journalist of excellent reputation. He has the kudos of breaking a major story – or at least breaking a major aspect of it, since rumours around Brown’s fitness for office have long been circulating. Think “psychologically flawed” or the question about prescription medication. And I link deliberately to left wing publications to show that such stories have not been the preserve of the right. It is this whole backdrop which gives the new story legs in political circles and means it was not dismissed out of hand. Ultimately, Andrew Rawnsley has placed the icing on a cake that has been baking quietly for a very long time.
Another who stepped purposefully into this situation was Christine Pratt. She chose to enter the political arena once a story was already breaking and ultimately will probably end up the most ruined from this sad episode. Certainly the National Bullying Helpline has been brought into serious disrepute and the wobbly interviews Mrs Pratt gave to the BBC yesterday morning left her isolated and increasingly beleaguered. A string of patron resignations left her seemingly unable to phone a friend, let alone a helpline. Forget about Christine Pratt. In a week’s time we all will have.
Because ultimately it is the Prime Minister who has been damaged here. It is one thing to have an awkward question on Andrew Marr, or a vendetta in the right wing blogosphere, or a difficult article in The Observer. It is quite different when that Observer story migrates to the main stream and stays as the dominant story in the country for two days. Mud sticks is a true adage. His recent makeover has now been set aside. Think “Brown Bullying row”, it’s as damaging as “Prime Monster” in creating an image that cannot disappear either overnight or in the 70-odd days between now and the General Election. That is the real damage to the Prime Minister’s reputation in the last few days
“There are good sides and not so good sides to the PM,” we are told. But there are only bad sides to this story for the Prime Minister.
Tags: 2010 General Election, bullying, Gordon Brown, journalism
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
7 Comments
I dunno. I would expect a Prime Minister to shout, rant, bang his fist. He’s the boss, so he/she has to get stuff done. I don’t think that’s bullying, particularly. (any more than being told by a whip that you have to vote a certain way against your better judgement and conscience is, anyway)
As long as the… forceful… behaviour doesn’t become megalomania, verging on dictatorial, then whatever. Get stuff done, get on with your job. (And that goes for depPM and cabinet members too. Don’t like how the PM works? Go get a job in Tesco)
I think the real damage done here is to CONFIDENTIAL hotlines, whether for (real) bullying or anything else.
Al, agreed. These hotlines do good work, and it’s only one of their own that have damaged them.
I haven’t read whatever Rawnsley has to say. I just saw the BBC saying that there have been complaints by staff about bullying. My reaction: what kind of grown-up complains about being bullied by their boss? I mean, if you don’t like working for him then don’t!
How another part of the world reported the row:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxJoMIFDTSs&feature=player_embedded
I thought Rawnsley came off worse on Newsnight last night. I’d say that most of the reactions I’ve heard on phone-ins and blogs are sympathetic to Gordon. It’s so obviously a Tory plot that’s backfired. Looking on the anti-bullying charity’s website, the two main quotes they have on the front page are from Cameron and Widdecombe – ’nuff said!
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not necessarily sympathetic to GB. He set himself up in the job, and held onto it dispute attempts at leadership challenges and repeated calls for a general. If he can’t take the political heat, get out of the political fire.
And I’m not un-sympathetic to those people stressed out enough to call the Anti-Bullying hotline either. But the same thing, if you can’t take the political heat…
what does bother me is it being leaked to newspapers and used (by whoever) to make political gains at the expense of charities working their hardest to run these hotlines. But then again, I wouldn’t expect anything else from that lot in Westminster. The whole thing is a bearpit.
Al – “I dunno. I would expect a Prime Minister to shout, rant, bang his fist. He’s the boss, so he/she has to get stuff done.”
And he probably does. I’m not condemning that.
Lorraine – “I thought Rawnsley came off worse on Newsnight last night. I’d say that most of the reactions I’ve heard on phone-ins and blogs are sympathetic to Gordon.”
Most people will never have or will never have heard of Rawnsley. He doesn’t matter. Perhaps I was a little to kind on his survivability in all this, but the Prime Minister is the one who will have been most damaged by the story through the headlines etc. Most people will not have engaged with the story beyond the surface. Though I dare say in many households the Cole situation has probably assumed a larger news prominence. Even if there was a Conservative plot, can’t see how Widdecombe was involved, as she began distancing from NBH very quickly and resigned as a patron.
Al – “what does bother me is it being leaked to newspapers and used (by whoever) to make political gains at the expense of charities working their hardest to run these hotlines. ”
Christine Pratt walked straight into this situation on Sunday afternoon. Maybe feel sorry for other helplines, but she has ruined her own. As I said, “A string of patron resignations left her seemingly unable to phone a friend, let alone a helpline. Forget about Christine Pratt. In a week’s time we all will have.”