So the Prime Minister bullies his staff and flies into rages, thumps the back of chairs in the Prime Minister’s car, hurls abuse and projectiles etc, etc. All this according to Andrew Rawnsley, one of the best political journalists of his generation, in his new book ‘The End of the Party’. Nonsense says Number Ten though I know who I believe. Yet how important should these bullying accusations be? Unpleasant and unappealing yes. But Brown is hardly pursuing vendettas against people who have not bought into the political game. He is not targeting the boss of the typing pool or the policeman at the door. He just seems to be shouting, growling and stropping somewhat ridiculously. (Most journalists will be familiar with the type.)
It’s not as if Britain has always elected gentlemen Prime Ministers or at least not what I would regard as gentlemen in the true sense of the word. So I tend to think it is not the tantrums that should be the real issue.
The book also considers Brown’s record on the bank bailout and overall economic management. From the excerpts on banks, Brown comes across as outstanding, working with the Chancellor to convince the world to recapitalise their respective banking sectors. In the UK, noone can underestimate what it would have been like had people not been able to get their money out of two of Britain’s largest banks in October 2008.
But what also comes out of the extracts from Rawnsley’s book is Brown’s extraordinary record towards Alistair Darling, undermining him for speaking the truth about the economy, bottling an election call, and imposing many of the measures in the subsequent pre-budget report, a mini budget for an election that never was. This included a half baked attempt to emulate the Tories on IHT despite the fact there was no time to cost it properly. Brown deploys some of his most deeply unpleasent press spokesmen and former press spokesmen, including one he had already had to sack, to do his dirty work in undermining Darling. Surely rather than undermining your Chancellor mid crisis, you either replace him or back him.
But maybe the most damaging revelation is Brown’s attitude to the deficit and spending. The coffers are bare, yet the promises from Brown to all and sundry keep coming.
This is not a case of Brown standing up against cuts for the sake of cuts regardless of the economic case. The timing issue is very much up for debate depending which gang of economists you care to believe. No this is Brown as the Prime Minister who can’t say no. These arguments with Darling were happening as recently as 2009.
That for me is the real damning revelation – not just that his acquaintance with Prudence was a passing infatuation – but that having broken all his own rules and failed to put enough aside for the inevitable downturn, Brown still doesn’t see the error of his ways.
Voters may well punish Brown the bully, but it is Brown the big spender that is the real villain of the piece for me.
Can’t disagree with a word you say BUT my old economic text books ( Keynesian of course) tel me that when Industry and the consumer stop spending the government has to even if this means printing money. The alternative was tried in the 30’s and Maggie Thatcher tighten you belt economics simply resulted in mass unemployment. The price for all this printing will be higher inflation – passing on the bill for the credit crunch to those ( the vast majority) daft enough to keep their money in cash.
So although I dislike the man I’m glad that he was a big spender in the last few years and that Cameron will not be able to do any real damage until later in the year. Now is not the time to stop printing.