The Story
Several people in Gordon Brown's office have contacted a bullying helpine. Christine Pratt, who runs the National Bullying Helpline (NBH) has stated that several calls have been made to the charity from Downing Street staff. Downing Street states that the reports are "malicious allegations" that are "without foundation".
Both the Conseratives and the Liberal Democrats have demanded inquiries into the allegations, and at a time when a general election is just around the corner, this could have a significant impact on Labour's votes, bullying does not give a sense of "A Future Fair For All".
However, in this story, there are a lot of things to be considered.
First of all, there have been "3 or 4" calls in the last "3 or 4" years, working out at an average of one call a year. This could quite easily be a single opportunity where Mr Brown has lost his temper, or perhaps, in times of high stress in Number 10, where there has been a lot of tension and anger, rather than bullying. The citizens information board defines bullying as "repeated inappropriate behaviour conducted by one or more persons against another or others at the place of work and/or in the course of employment and which could reasonably be regarded as undermining the individual's right to dignity at work." One call a year does not suggest "repeated" actions of any kind.
Secondly, perhaps Christine Pratt should be questioned for breaking the vow of confidence that the NBH offers to the victims of bullying. While it is true that Ms Pratt has not given away the details of the callers, it will most likely be very easy for Downing Street staff to work out who has made the call, especially in the event that Mr Brown has upset members of staff. Surely this can only have a negative impact on staff, who may even be forced to resign, not by bullying, but by their own motives now the story is out.
Finally, why now? The main question that should be asked with any story that takes a long time to come out. The first time bullying was mentioned in Number 10, how far was it looked into then, and why did nothing change? When the 2nd call came, why did the story not come out then? Did the NBH need publicity, and why has it conveniently been announced in the months leading up to a general election?
No doubt many questions will be asked, and only a handful of answers found. Such is political journalism, it may be a long time before we get to the bottom of this story.
