The one who states his case first seems right,Last night, I heard about the National Bullying Helpline's unexpected intervention in the great debate (src): his detractors say he's a bully, his supporters say he's just obnoxious. Mandelson, of course, called him something close to a bully when he was out of government and is now telling us he's merely a very passionate individual.A stony-faced Brown all but admitted that there had been allegations of thrown mobile phones at a very raucous PMQs last May, where he was skewered by a Conservative MP:
until the other comes and examines him. (Prov. 18:17, src)
Monday, February 22, 2010
A political proverb
I'm sore tempted to make Proverbs 18:2 my new blog motto, but here's an observation appropriate to today's news:
In other words, there have been very real questions about Brown's behaviour and those questions, while not directly substantiated, have an awful lot of circumstantial evidence behind them. Politically, that is a very dangerous place to be: a credible denial is not possible, while confirmation would cause an almighty problem.In that context, the intervention of the head of the National Bullying Helpline was surprising for its happening, although less so for its content. That was last night.This morning, we find out that the charity is linked — possibly not improperly — to a consultancy which does commercial work in the same area, as the charity's executive director is, with her husband, the head of the company. Hence the proverb. Labour, of course, has been using this to its advantage, whatever the actualité. The story is fast turning into a rat's nest, although the overall impression is that the head of the charity has tried to use this story to advance her commercial interests. What a Pratt she is.The real shame, therefore, is that the genuine questions that exist around Gordon Brown's treatment of staff — and these stories have been doing the rounds for a couple of years — are being submerged in this swamp of who said what and whose interests are being served. The people whose interests are most directly affected, the staff at Number Ten, are ignored by the Westminster circus, and yet they are the ones, if any, with the real grievance. It seems unlikely that CCHQ put the NBH up to this; their own interests are enough of an incentive. Instead, focus on the real story, which is whether the Prime Minister is fit to run the government.