Is Bullying Endemic in Westminster?

(c) World Economic Forum

The headlines over the last few weeks have been filled with allegations that Gordon Brown has bullied his staff. The publication of Andrew Rawnsley’s The End of the Party has stoked the speculation. The book, published this week,  contains allegations that the Prime Minister has physically abused his staff.

The story quickly escalated and before long the director of a national anti-bully charity had said they had received complaints from Number 10 staff. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling, spoke about the “forces of hell” being unleashed on him in August 2008 after he suggested the recession would be the worst for sixty years.

Darling seemed to implicate Brown’s inner circle of close advisors, apparently taunting Damien McBride when saying: “I’m still here and at least one of them is not.” Inevitably, this has focused the media on Gordon Brown’s leadership style, and whether these allegations make him unsuited to a high stress job, like that of Prime Minister.

Indeed, Gordon Brown’s premiership has been dogged by accusations that he has mistreated staff. In April 2009, a series of stories surfaced which accused the Prime Minister of throwing mobile phones at staff and even pulling a secretary from her seat. In June 2009, a series of Cabinet ministers resigned with some citing Gordon Brown’s behaviour as a reason for resignation. Most memorably, Caroline Flint said Brown had treated female ministers as “window dressing” and had blocked them out of important decision making.

For some, especially in the Conservative party, the stories are a laughing matter. Conservative blogger Iain Dale has made a list of ‘Gordon Brown’s top tantrums’. Actually numbers four and thirteen are really very amusing. There was also a question asked during Prime Minister Questions by Conservative backbencher Stephen Crabb; he asked what the Prime Minister woul be doing about bullying in the workplace, given reports of a senior whitehall boss throwing around phones and shoving his staff.

The question hit the mark perfectly. A visably irritated Brown stood up and gave his wooden reply: “Any complaints are dealt with in the usual manner.”

But for all the fun and games this is a deeply serious matter. For instance, back in 2007, Brown’s campaign for the Labour leadership was aiming to prevent any candidates standing against him, an ambition the campaign achieved ruthlessly.

There was speculation that John Reid might stand. Ultimately, he pulled out after a story in the Mail on Sunday accused him of sexually harrassing Dawn Primarolo when she was a new Member of Parliament in the 1980s. Primarolo, who in 2007 was Paymaster General, a junior Treasury minister, remains a loyal supporter of Brown. The article noted how John Reid’s “enemies in the Labour Party were queueing up to reveal why they considered him a liability.”

Ivan Lewis was dealt the same treatment. The Bury South MP and Health minister had suggested on several occasions in 2008 that Labour may have to review the leadership issue. He held onto his ministerial portfolio but not his reputation. Stories in September 2008 appeared which accused him of sexually harrassing a civil servant. Writing in The Observer, Nick Cohen argued that Brown’s allies had smeared Lewis as revenge for the veiled criticisms on Brown.

And who can forget the ‘smeargate’ scandal when the Downing Street aide Damien McBride was acused of fabricating smears to be used against members of the Conservative party.

But it’s not just Brown and the Labour Paty that resort to this kind of character assassination. Remember those stories about Steve Hilton’s arrest following a dispute at Birmingham New Street after the 2008 Conservative Conference? Suggestions that these may have followed an argument at the top of the Conservative party mean that Hilton could have been on the receiving end of the Conservatives’ own smears. This led Tim Montgomerie, editor of ConservativeHome, to tweet “Another day, another anti-Steve Hilton story. Someone is out to get him.”

In his book, The Political Animal, Jeremy Paxman describes the whips, those charged with keeping discipline in party ranks, behaving in ways that would be criminal were it outside parliament. Take, for instance, this anecdote:

“… he [Paul Marsden, Labour MP] found himself increasingly uneasy at the way the Blair government was aligning itself with George W. Bush’s military campaign in Afghanistan. In the course of trying to explain why Marsden was wrong, Armstrong [Hilary Armstrong, Labour Chief Whip] said or shouted, according to Marsden, ‘those that aren’t with us are against us’, ‘war is not a matter of conscience’, ‘it was people like you who appeased Hitler in 1938’… The verbal assault was followed followed by a whispering campaign suggesting that the cause of Marsden’s anxiety about the war was simply that he was insane. A few weeks later, he defected to the Liberal Democrats.”

Most of the time, the whips rely on offering treats to loyal MPs; places on fact finding missions to the Bahamas or perhaps a knighthood. However, Paxman details cases where the whips turn to little short of bribery, blackmail and even verbal or physical abuse to ensure MPs vote the right way. Often enforcing tight discipline where there is no manifesto commitment, or even in contradiction of the manifesto.

Political parties need loyalty from their members, but taking this too far can stifle debate and paralyse accountability. It’s impossible to see how reasoned argument or logic can ever triumph when the bruisers can smash their plans through parliament.

Just as troubling is the proliferation of smearing. Briefs against senior members of the same party jeopardises proper decision making at the top of government, even at Cabinet level. The danger is that governments may not even be able to hold themselves to account or properly scruinise their own actions.

This website is filled with contributions from young people, most of whom are passionate about politics. On one hand, it’s important for us to know what we’re getting into. But we can’t let ourselves be dragged into that model. We can never lose sight of the need to change the way that Westminster conducts itself.