British Politics’s Blog

The ravings of an individual, UK voter frustrated with our politicians

Posts Tagged ‘PMQ

Does Gordon Brown throw his toys?

with 3 comments

Well, first of all, I guess we all have episodes where we lose our tempers and throw our toys, so if the rumours are correct, should we judge him harshly? Well, in my humble opinion, the answer is yes!

According to the respected Bloomberg, current and former aides of Gordon Brown have claimed that he is prone to throwing around Nokia phones, pens, staplers and once, even shoved a printer onto the floor. It is claimed that this had lead to a sort of “gallows humour”. These rumours were fueled when a spokesman, asked about the claims, refused to issue an absolute denial, instead he said “This is not an account I recognise”. Not what we would expect if the suggestion was so outrageous.

Needless to say, the rumours have persisted and today at PMQ’s Gordon Brown was asked by a Conservative MP  what the government intends to do about “bullying in the workplace”,  given the complaints about a “senior Whitehall manager” throwing mobile phones and printers around and swearing at switchboard operators. Gordon Brown looked furious, in fact, it was probably just as well he didn’t have anything to throw, but he moodily responded by saying: “All complaints are dealt with in the usual manner.”

Nobody likes a bully and if the rumours are true, then Brown must resign immediately, because all joking aside, this is not what we would expect of the person that is supposed to be running our country. Temper tantrums are a sign that the individual is no longer in control and that is the last thing we need in this country, even if it is just for a few minutes. Although, many, like myself, would say that he is not in control even when he is calm.

The other thing that bullying bosses need to truly understand is, that messengers will invariably provide their bullying masters with a sanitised version of events if they know they are going to be lambasted or assaulted. Therefore, the boss will never be in possession of all the facts, which often explains why the ‘bosses’ appear to be remote, out of touch or insular. Invariably, all bullying bosses fail, unless they have taken the necessary precaution of surrounding themselves with strong, competent managers, who will not take their shit. If Gordon Brown is prone to the types of temper tantrums rumoured, then he is in trouble, because from where I am standing, he is surrounded by yes men (and women), so who would be brave enough to stand their ground? Still, surrounding yourself with weak people is the classic trait of a workplace, egocentric bully.

Of course all this is conjecture, but if it turns out that there is some substance to the rumours, I would urge any ‘victims’ to have the courage to come forward and expose the bullying.

Advertisements

Written by British Politics

6 May, 2009 at 4:00 pm

Harman does it again

with 5 comments

At PMQ’s Harriet Harman made the following statement in response to a question about who had put Fred Goodwin forward and why; “I think Sir Fred was nominated for a knighthood because of his services for the Prince’s Trust.  “I understand it was not in recognition of his services to banking.”  Tut, tut Harriet, have you learned nothing? If you want to be PM in waiting you don’t try and guess the answers, you can only do that when you have the position, ask your boss! This statement has since been corrected by an official from her office.

But what does it tell us about Harriet Harman? It is, after all, only a few days since she suggested that the government would consider introducing new legislation, which would then be made retrospective, to enable the government to reverse Sir Fred Goodwin’s pension entitlement. Now, whilst I accept that there are at the very least, moral reasons why Sir Fred should not receive this pension, the fact remains that government ministers were party to, if not fully au fait with, the content of a compromise agreement, which is legally binding on all sides. To make matters worse, any threat to introduce legislation designed to target one citizen is a draconian move and anyone supporting or suggesting such an act must be considered a threat to all of us, especially when they are from a government that has paid lip service to civil liberties.  Sir Fred is NOT deserving of a pension in my view, but surely there are other ways in which this can be dealt with, for example, whether or not he had failed in his fiduciary duty?  If he had not, then there would, presumably, be some form of legal recourse using existing and established law.

In my view, Harriett Harman has, in the past week or so, confirmed why it is that she will never be a viable candidate for prime minister (or, more accurately, leader of the Labour Party).  Firstly, her judgement; no minister, whatever the motivation or justification should ever seek to use the immense power of government to target a single British subject. No-one deserves that, not even Sir Fred. Secondly, her knowledge on the subject matter; how is it that Ms Harman can claim to know all the details surrounding Sir Fred’s pension arrangements and the negotiations thereto, but not why Sir Fred was nominated for a knighthood and by whom? As Alan Duncan said, “Instead of worrying so much about her campaign to succeed Gordon Brown, she should focus on mastering the detail.”

I find it difficult to recall anything useful that Harriet Harman has ever done during her time as an MP, though I am happy to be corrected on that one, any takers? That said, at the risk of arguing against myself, perhaps that is why she would make a good leader of the Labour Party for their period in the wilderness which is certain to come after the next election. But PM, never, at least not in my life time, of that I am certain.

Written by British Politics

4 March, 2009 at 5:19 pm