Is it wrong of me to feel remarkably little sympathy for Gordon Brown over this? The closest I can come to sympathy for the man is for his children, who genuinely may be innocent victims in all this. But Brown is the man who shamelessly sucked up to the press - including those rags controlled by Murdoch - at the same time as shamelessly trying to manipulate and bully the press while getting others to smear his rivals. There are innocent victims in the scandal engulfing Murdoch's UK operations, but I struggle to see Gordo as one of them.

From a LabourList article speculating on who was behind the latest leaks to hit the beleaguered Miliband Minor leadership:

So we could well presume it was the Tories. It may not rid them of Balls, their bogeyman, but it has got the spotlight off them temporarily and has got everyone focussed on Labour’s big split.

Errr, no, that doesn't make sense. I'm not a Tory, but I'm pretty sure that if I was then one of the main people who I would want to keep at the very heart and at the very head of the Labour party would be Ed Balls. Yes, he manages to land some blows on the Tories. But he does so in such a way that makes him utterly repellent - like a school bully with no self-awareness whatsoever. He comes across as a repugnant individual; a nasty little thug who finds arguing with and smearing his opponents almost arousing. He is about as popular as foot and mouth disease at a country fair.

So the Tories will want to keep Balls as Shadow Chancellor for as long as possible. Having that vile puff adder as close to the top of the Labour party is great for them - it will remind the people of so much of what they hated about the Brown years. And if the Labour party wants to figure out who has stitched up Balls so nicely over the past week then they should bear in mind that if you climb to the top of the greasy pole by shafting other people, you leave in your wake a lot of enemies. And if you also leave a paper trail, then at some point you can be sure that someone you fucked over will delight in returning the favour...

Brown and the Bigoted Woman

Ok, we've all been there. We've had a difficult conversation with someone, and then we've said something about them and been overheard when we thought we were out of earshot. And that's what basically happened to Brown today. He was caught out.

And you know what? He was sort of right. The woman was arguably bigoted in some of her opinions. And Brown has a right to express his opinion about her. So why does this matter? Why, given all the things that Brown has done wrong in his time in politics, will this probably be the thing that kills his career once and for all?

Because he said it behind her back. He revealed himself, once again, to be a coward.

He's allowed to disagree with the woman, and he's allowed to think that she is bigoted. But offering a few platitudes before he runs back to his car and disappears is frankly pathetic. If he disagreed with her, he should have challenged her. He should have explained why he thought she was wrong, and debated with her. He is a leader in a democracy fighting an election, for fuck's sake. Now more than ever, he should be willing to engage with the people explain his own views, and discuss why he doesn't agree with others.

Don't forget that this is Gordon Brown - the self-styled conviction politician. Some fucking conviction politician, Gordo, if you are afraid to engage with an old woman who used to be a member of your party when she expresses her own opinions, and asks you questions.

As such, it is difficult to know how this could be much worse for Brown. Arguably, things would have been better had he insulted this woman to her face, or argued with her and lost. At least that way, he might have retained something approaching dignity from this sorry situation. But as it stands, Brown could not appear more pathetic - the bullying little man who runs away from old ladies, only to insult them behind their backs when he thinks they, and the rest of the nation, aren't listening.

Gordon Brown: absolutely pathetic.

Gordon Brown Meets His Public (Part II)

Further evidence - as if any was needed - of the basic misanthropy of the Prime Minister and why any campaign strategy that has him exposed to people and their views is destined to be disastrous.

Praising Brown For His Flaws

In an extraordinary piece on how Gordon Brown’s egregious flaws are actually the reason why he has managed to cling on to power, The Independent’s Steve Richards seems to be reveling in the idea that Brown being a wanker is why he is still Prime Minister. Now, a better – or more patient – blogger might care to dissect the whole article. I can make my point just by fisking two paragraphs.

There is a pattern here. When Brown was Chancellor, a thousand voices predicted at certain key moments that he would never be Prime Minister.

Only a thousand? I’d have thought there would have been tens of thousands of voices all claiming that Brown would never be Prime Minister. Some out of hope, some out of fear, some out of a sense of incredulity that someone so incapable and unsuited could be considered a potential PM, let alone actually taking on the role.

A thousand theories accompanied the voices. He was Scottish. He was too openly disloyal to Tony Blair. He was so obviously useless.

All of which is true, but only the last reason should really be a barrier to becoming PM.

When he became Prime Minister the chorus moved on to predicting his demise before the general election.

Mainly because he has, as Prime Minister, been shit and… well, useless.

He is about to lead the party's campaign.

Hopefully to defeat and all.

How has he survived for so long at the top of British politics, at least since 1992 when he was made shadow chancellor, if he is this deranged, bullying incompetent who cannot communicate and has no strategic skills?

I’ve emphasised the crucial word – more on that later.

Part of the answer relates to stamina, appetite for politics and thick-skinned durability. There are not many people who could put up with such assaults on their character.

Does Brown really possess a thick skin? And does he really put up with assaults on his character? If he does have such a thick skin, then why did he employ the compellingly vile Damian McBride to bully people on this behalf? And why are we hearing so many stories about Brown flinging mobiles at people who bring him bad news? Raging like a baby in a tantrum when encountering criticism is not the behaviour of someone with a thick skin or who is putting up with character attacks in a stoic way.

Evidently Brown wants to keep going even if that means facing a daily hell of abuse.

Yeah, this is probably true, but is also true of many other politicians. In fact, putting up with regular abuse should be one of the criteria on the job spec. Because while Richards might be wanting us to feel sorry for Brown, the truth is that he gets the normal amount of abuse for someone in his position. Certainly, the sort of abuse he gets is easily comparable to the amount that Major got when he was PM. And Cameron – Brown’s would be nemesis – gets a fair share of abuse to, particularly given Cameron’s supposed status as a toff. Just to put the cherry on the cake, much of the abuse thrown at Major and Cameron comes not only from the party Brown leads, but also from Brown himself. Yes, Brown puts up with abuse. It may even be a “daily hell” owing to the thinness of his skin. But it is the sort of abuse that he is perfectly happy to dole out to others as well.

If he did not want to do so he has had more opportunities than most to give up.

This is a bit of a nonsense statement. Of course Brown has had opportunities to give up – every day is an opportunity. He could end this supposed misery by tendering his resignation right now. The same is true of any wealthy man with a great pension plan to fall back on. Brown hasn’t had more opportunities than most people (in his position). He can give up any time he wants.

What Richards is probably referring to, though, is the number of coup attempts Brown has suffered during his relatively brief time as PM. And it is true that Brown has had more attempts to depose him than most Prime Ministers. But the crucial factor that has to be taken into account is the quality of those coups. Aside from the fact that they were shit and going nowhere, did any of them really offer Brown the chance to stand down with even an iota of dignity? I mean, who on earth could bring themselves to stand down as the result of a coup led by Hewitt and Hoon?

Quite clearly, one of the reasons why Brown has been able to stay in power is because his opponents have been utterly, utterly shite.

The other reason is, of course, Brown himself – he is a bully and he is manipulative. He spent his time in Number 11 carefully crafting the narrative that he was not only the natural successor to Blair, but the only one. When the end for Blair actually came, the Labour party could not think of any alternative to Brown. And the bullying – Brown’s attack monkeys, and his rages - mean that anyone who might even try to control or even oppose him cannot. Far more than Blair, Brown has broken the Labour party. He has made it into a cowed shadow of a political organization – the political extension of his own schizophrenic ego.

Brown has survived; he may yet confound expectation and win the next election (although I strongly doubt that). However, his survival is down to anything other than positive reasons – his bullying and the incompetence of his colleagues.

The Forces of Hell!

So, it turns out that Gordon Brown was nasty to Alistair Darling. I particularly like the hyperbole of "unleashing the forces of hell" - it speaks volumes about the privileged position of Mr Darling that getting a weekend of negative press is on a par with hell. God knows how he will cope when he (hopefully) loses his job at the next election. That will probably be hell... x1000!

The notion that Brown bullied his Chancellor can surely not be news to anyone right now. But what really strikes me is how strongly Brown's cowardice comes through in this story. He unleashed the forces of hell on the Chancellor, strongly implying that a lot of his concerted campaign to undermine Darling was delegated to others. Then he didn't follow through with his bullying - Darling kept his job. It makes Brown's actions even more pathetic. He comes across as a frustrated man venting said frustrations on his colleague. Nothing quite so dramatic as the forces of hell, but rather just a boss from hell.

And there is a certain genius to Darling's comment - it ensures his job is secure for a while yet. Brown the coward will not dare to remove Darling, for fear that it confirms what we all already know - that Brown is a bully. Which is ironic since Darling should arguably be sacked now given the amount of embarrassment he has just caused Brown at a time when Brown is floundering anyway...

Brown the Bully

Apparently the Cabinet Secretary didn't give Gordon Brown a verbal warning:

But a Downing Street spokesman said: "The cabinet secretary would like to make clear that he has never raised concerns with the prime minister about him acting in a bullying or intimidatory manner in relation to Number 10 staff, let alone giving him any sort of verbal warning."

But of course he didn't! After all, he was probably too scared of Brown bullying him...

Joking (?) aside, this story will probably run its course over the next couple of days without ever being resolved. Every lurid accusation that Brown is the boss from hell as well as the Prime Minister from hell will be met with a cagey denial. Unless any proof comes forward, then this story will just fade away, without any real conclusion about Brown's behaviour. But even though I doubt that the accounts of bullying will ever be properly verified, doesn't it speak volumes about our PM that these largely unsubstantiated claims could gain such traction? It really says something about (the public perception of) his character that so many could so rapidly buy into the idea of the PM as a bully. It is hard to imagine anything similar happening to any of Brown's immediate predecessors in Number 10 - I mean, can anyone really imagine the grinning homunculus Blair chucking a mobile, or Major grabbing an official by his lapels and screaming the "C" word at him, or Thatcher manhandling a secretary from her chair because she wasn't typing fast enough? No, no, of course not. It is just Brown. There is something special about Brown that makes these allegations believable when they probably wouldn't gain any traction with better other people.

After all, how many times have we all been told that bullies are, at heart, cowards? And history has no shortage of the examples of the cowardice of one Gordon Brown...

Labour: A Second Look

In all the excitement of the utterly predictable news that Gordon Brown is a bully, I forgot to comment on the "launch" of Labour's General Election messages. Actually, to say it is a launch of messages is probably overdoing it a bit. "Lacklustre mumbling about stuff" is probably more accurate.

But here it is, for anyone who is interested:

Gordon Brown has urged voters to take a "second look" at Labour as he unveiled his election campaign themes.

Unfortunately, when you have been in power for well over a decade, what you tend to find is that people have given you a second look. And a third one. And a fourth one. And so on. In fact, they are sick to bloody death of you. So if you election campaign is based on people taking a second look at you, then you're going to fall at the first hurdle. Because, quite simply, no-one is going to give a fuck about what you're saying.

Hell, this launch was so shit that it even makes the idiotic English Democrats' campaign launch look positively spectacular.

Peter Mandelson, defending his "boss" against claims of bullying:

He said the book showed a "man who is quite emotional, who is quite passionate in what he believes and is doing ... who gets angry but chiefly with himself, who doesn't bully people".

Not to put a dampener on this desperate face saving exercise, but if the best person you can get to defend you against the charge of bullying is the political equivalent of Skeletor, then you may as well not bother trying to fight that charge at all.