The media sandstorm being whipped up about Brown's bullying behaviour comes as something of a surprise to me. Rumours of his temper and aggressive management of staff have been circulating for years. But it is not the accusation that he has been bullying staff that worries me most; instead I think the responses to the allegations are far more of a concern.
Lord Mandelson, for example, said that he had experienced Brown's wrath, and that he took his medicine "like a man". That Mandelson claims this was the brave thing to do only undermines attempts to stop this type of behaviour in the workplace. How can it be braver to allow this behaviour to go on, rather than challenging it?
Gordon Brown's responses to these allegations are also concerning. When asked whether he has bullied anyone, the PM consistently responds: "No. I get angry sometimes, doesn't everybody? I get impatient." It's clear that he either does not understand, or does not care, about the impact of his angry or impatient behaviour, and how it can be a form of bullying.
But why do people bully in the workplace? Brown has defended his behaviour by claiming he is "driven to do the things". In reality, research has demonstrated that people who demonstrate bullying behaviour report a greater need for power and authority and are motivated by domination. Given Brown's position as PM, this would suggest that simply achieving power and authority does not stop the bullying; if anything, it is likely to encourage the bully to continue with the behaviours that have seen them promoted, or voted, into the successful position they are in.
Whilst I don't believe for one second that the culture of shouting and being angry in British politics is something that Brown is solely responsible for introducing (you only have to look at the way MPs jostle and jeer one another in the House of Commons), I do believe that we all have choices to make about how we conduct ourselves at work. Brown simply chooses to preserve this particular tradition of British politics, and perhaps hides his actions less well than most. Rather than simply focussing on Brown's behaviour, the question should be asked, how many Ministers, Junior Ministers, and senior civil servants have mirrored his bullying tactics to get what they want? And how far down the public sector food chain has this behaviour trickled? Perhaps it's not so surprising after all that there are twice as many claims of harassment and bullying in the public sector compared to the private sector.
Finally, a mention for Christine Pratt, the chief executive of the National Bullying Helpline: confidential is supposed to mean confidential. How can going to the press, even before raising concerns at a general level with the employer, ever be the right approach in this situation?
In April 2000, Nick Griffin shared his vision with a group of white nationalists in the US: “perhaps one day, by being rather more subtle, we’ll get ourselves into a position where we control the British broadcasting media”. Tonight, Griffin is due to appear as a panellist on BBC’s Question Time. So, has he achieved his vision?
There is no doubt that since his conviction for inciting racial hatred in 1998, Griffin’s tactics have changed. He talks about using “saleable” words to win British votes, such as “security” and “identity” rather than “racial purity”. He takes every opportunity to insist that the BNP is not a racist party. But Griffin’s insistence that the party is not racist does not make it so. Even on its own website there is an ongoing debate amongst BNP members about whether they are members of a racist party of not. One member comments “I don't like what Muslims (sic) believe in, practice or preach. I don't want them in our country and I certainly don't want them as a neighbour.” Another states “What is of interest to us, though, is whether THE BNP is racist - and it would help if this website, above all, was able to answer the question honestly. I think the answer must be yes…. I mean, if we're racist, we're racist. And I don't mean this in an unfriendly way at all...”
I prefer this level of honesty and would rather have a debate with someone who is willing to be open about what they believe in, rather than Griffin’s spun comments around racial purity, when in his own words, he is looking for British people to “change their mind and say ‘every last one of them must go’”.
What this level of honesty makes clear, though, is that whilst Griffin might be becoming more politically canny, the remainders of the BNP are still many steps behind him and it is no surprise that Griffin is the only spokesperson that the BNP is willing to put forward in front of the media.
So is it an atrocity for Griffin to be being a panel member on Question Time? No. Whilst he may be more polished in his spin of BNP values, at the heart of it, Griffin still represents a party of hatred, not a party of governance, as even a cursory look through their manifesto makes clear. I do believe in the freedom of speech, even for odious people like Griffin. I also believe that people need to hear what Griffin and his party stand for so that they fully appreciate just how racist the BNP actually is and whether they really want these people to take decisions on their behalf. After all, who knows which groups of society they could focus on next?
Here we are in the final run-up to the US election. And what a marathon it's been. We've had the primaries, the conventions, How To Vote guides on YouTube, high profile advertising in racing video games and an infomercial; now it's all down to the voting next week.
Barack Obama's strong lead in the polls over the Republican candidate John McCain continues to grow. This healthy lead remains despite press speculation that American voters will falter at the polling booths and decide that a first black president is just a step too far. The Republican leader John McCain, however, thinks this is unlikely. As he said in a recent Larry King interview, "Look, there is racism in America. We all know that...but I am totally convinced that 99 and forty-four-one-hundredths percent of Americans are going to make the decision based on who is best to lead this country". Let's hope they don't have to do the math on that one....
Regardless of the outcome of next week's election, it's fair to say that in the US, much as in the UK, overt, traditional forms of racism are becoming increasingly taboo, to the point that we are now looking at a popular black Senator. It's taken time though - 1870 saw the first black congressman to be seated in the House of Representatives. Even more surprising, perhaps, is that the UK was more than 20 years behind the US in electing its first ethnic minority MP, Dadabhai Naoroji, in 1892. Even today, with only 15 of our 605 MPs being from a minority background, we still find ourselves playing catch-up. Perhaps some may argue that this is simply due to numbers - the US after all has a higher proportion of people from ethnic minority backgrounds. But given that over here in the UK we still struggle to vote for black dancers in Strictly Come Dancing and black singers in I'd Do Anything, I'm not going to hold my breath. Perhaps the 2008 US elections will be another opportunity for the US to lead the UK in breaking new ground.
Feed
The media sandstorm being whipped up about Brown's bullying behaviour comes as something of a surprise to me. Rumours of his temper and aggressive management of staff have been circulating for years. But it is not the accusation that he has been bullying staff that worries me most; instead I think the responses to the allegations are far more of a concern.
Whilst I don't believe for one second that the culture of shouting and being angry in British politics is something that Brown is solely responsible for introducing (you only have to look at the way MPs jostle and jeer one another in the House of Commons), I do believe that we all have choices to make about how we conduct ourselves at work. Brown simply chooses to preserve this particular tradition of British politics, and perhaps hides his actions less well than most. Rather than simply focussing on Brown's behaviour, the question should be asked, how many Ministers, Junior Ministers, and senior civil servants have mirrored his bullying tactics to get what they want? And how far down the public sector food chain has this behaviour trickled? Perhaps it's not so surprising after all that there are twice as many claims of harassment and bullying in the public sector compared to the private sector.