Fitaloon at MicroShaft

Direct from Nick Cohen in the Standpoint Magazine.

The personal relates to the political very closely in Gordon Brown’s case because his bullying is not a manifestation of his dynamism and determination but of his childish inability to admit error and acknowledge the need for change. Nowhere are the weaknesses of his character more obvious than in his aides treatment of Alistair Darling during at the start of the economic crisis. Darling had told my Guardian colleague Decca Aitkenhead that we were facing the worst recession in 60 years. If Darling was guilty of anything, it was understatement. But Brown could not tolerate his clear-headed assessment, because it revealed that his supposed economic miracle was an illusion and implied that his failures to regulate the banks and balance the budget would have catastrophic consequences. Out went his attacks dogs to undermine the chancellor at the very moment when he needed the Prime Minister’s support.

I heard Charlie Whelan, Brown’s prolier-than-thou public school boy, denounce the Chancellor outside a Soho pub. It says much for Whelan’s cockiness that he did not go off the record but conducted his black propaganda operation in a public where anyone might have overheard him.

I was free to report what happened and here’s what I wrote at the time

I was waiting with a crowd of guests at the Pillars of Hercules pub in Soho for the start of a party being thrown by Kevin Maguire, the Mirror‘s amiable political editor, to celebrate his wife’s launch of a chick-lit novel. Political journalists and rom-com novelists are not the most promising mixture for a convivial evening, but we were all rubbing along until for no reason Charlie Whelan, Brown’s point man in the unions, turned to the journalists and started laying into the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As he was speaking in a public place and did not ask to go off the record, the etiquette of journalism allows me to say that I was astonished. Darling had been a loyal friend of Brown’s, but that did not stop Whelan from denigrating him. More pertinently, it was obvious even then that we were indeed facing the gravest economic crisis of our lifetimes; obvious to everyone, that is, except the Brownites. Because Darling had implied, however obliquely, that Brown’s stewardship of the economy had been less than magnificent, Whelan and his friends were willing to betray an ally, make an unnecessary enemy and undermine the Chancellor at a moment of national danger. The result was predictable. Darling could barely contain his contempt for the deviousness of a man he once considered his friend. (I imagine having to go to work every morning and contemplate the mess Brown left at the Treasury did not help cool his temper either.) Meanwhile, Balls rode on the back of the destabilisation campaign and implied that if Brown wanted rid of the Chancellor he would blushingly step forward to offer his own modest self as a replacement. Yet Darling survived the attacks and gained in stature.

On Sky this morning Darling recalled that briefings like Whelan’s were going on across Westminster and that he felt as if the forces of hell” had been unleashed against him.  Brown replies that “I was never part of anything to do with this. Look, this was the most amazing time… and lots of things were happening in this time. But I would never instruct anybody to do anything other than support my chancellor, and I think Alistair will confirm that.”

In which case will he sever all his links with Whelan? Will he upbraid him for trying to undermine the Treasury during a national crisis?You only need to ask the question to know the answer.

Of course the scheming bully Brown knew nothing of this,  Sorry I will have suspend belief on that.

The Magazine | Standpoint.

Oh the poor “victim” Gordon Brown, he had nothing to do with releasing the “Forces of Hell” against his own Chancellor, despite the fact that the the two men at the centre of the story, Charlie Whelan and Damien Mcbride were his pet attack dogs, employed by him to go after those he opposed.

Then again we have had the issue of Mcbride and the “Red Rag” saga when again we had to believe Gordon Brown knew nothing about the plans of his personal attack dog.

Let me just suspend belief that Brown knew nothing, this is a man who has to be in control of everything and is suspicious of everyone around him. His defence is worthless.

According to Politics Home:

Mr Brown has denied suggestions that he instructed Downing Street staff to brief against Alistair Darling following an interview in 2008.

Alistair Darling has said the ‘forces of hell’ were unleashed on him after he said in a candid interview that Britain faced the worst economic crisis for 60 years.

Mr Brown said: ‘I would never instruct anybody to do anything other than support my Chancellor, and I think Alistair will confirm that.’

He admitted that he and Darling faced ‘tough’ and ‘challenging’ times together throughout the financial crisis, but added: ‘We’ve got a huge mutual respect for each other, and I think he would confirm that.’

Lying, bullying, scheming are what Brown is about, the Government is paralysed at the moment as Brown concentrates on how he can avoid his demise rather than governing, we cannot even get a date for a budget when our economy is in it’s worst state in decades. Brown is “Unfit for Office“.

Time for a Change

PoliticsHome – All today’s politics in one place Brown denies instructing No 10 staff to brief against Darling | PoliticsHome | On Air Today.

Benedict Brogan has the following:

Curiouser and curiouser. You remember that on Monday John Prescott was at his hectoring best, laying in to Andrew Rawnsley on every telly outlet. As I reported, one of his points of attack focused rather bizarrely on Andy Coulson. In strongly-worded terms, he suggested it was a bit rich to accuse Gordon Brown of bullying when David Cameron has on his payroll someone who was ‘convicted’ of bullying and who cost his then employer an £800,000 employment tribunal pay out. Prezza even had a transcript of the judgment to wave about. Part of Labour strategy it seemed was to create some kind of spurious equivalence between the two. (Mr Coulson may not be to everyone’s taste, but he is not a candidate to be Prime Minister.)

And what’s this? The DCMS select committee report on press standards, privacy and libel has just been published tonight. Buried inside the committee “notes”, a propos of nothing, that the News of the World paid £800,000 in November 2009 to sports reporter Matt Driscoll “after persistent bullying by then editor Andy Coulson” (paragraph 450).  Put aside that Mr Coulson was never asked to give evidence to the industrial tribunal or involved in the case, the issue patently has nothing to do with the matter the committee was investigating.

So how did it get there? The paragraph was sprung on the committee by Tom Watson (above) on February 9 – a fortnight ago – when it met to finalise the report. The paragraph was voted through by 4 to 2, with the committee dividing on party lines. Mr Watson, you may remember, happens to be the former Cabinet Office minister who confirmed in a recent Parliamentary answer that there had been up to five reported cases of bullying in Downing Street. He’s also a big ally of Mr Brown’s who does a lot of his media heavy work. And a fortnight ago Number 10 – and presumably Mr Watson – knew that the Andrew Rawnsley book was imminent and likely to focus on Mr Brown’s behaviour.

As readers of this blog will know, I’m not minded to back conspiracy theories. But isn’t it a bit too convenient to believe that the committee’s report was edited by a notorious Brown ally to include a gratuitous reference to Mr Coulson and bullying, just weeks before a story Downing Street knew about came to light? As I say, curious.

Curious this definitely is, unbelievable many would say, standard practice in the Labour Manual of Dirty Tricks as deployed by Alastair Campbell and his “Forces Of Hell” is what I would say.

Update: Guardian has this.  Strangely enough Tom Watson was immediately twittering about it along with @pickledpolitics. Tom Watson says he had no idea of Rawnsley book when he moved the amendment on 9th Feb , was he in a coma at this time?

Benedict Brogan – Telegraph Blogs.