Lynne Featherstone

On my last post 'Gordon, Temper Temper' a comment came in which I publish below. Having vaguely defended Gordon Brown to the extent of asking in that last post whether the passion of caring makes you a good boss or a bully - this comment continues the dichotomy - as to where truth lies. I remind readers this is a comment posted on a previous blog post.

Jon says:

About 15 years ago, Mr Brown when he was Shadow Chancellor, used to be one on my regular clients, I worked as a telesales operator at a tour operators and he used to regularly fly to Nice (S.France) for whatever reason.

On one occasion he reduced me to tears when I was unable to find a flight for him. He turned up at Heathrow (last minute) and demanded me to get him onto a flight immediately to Nice. When I was unable to do so, due to it being a Friday and flights being completely full, he launched into the most unbelievable tirade of abuse I had ever experienced. This was not controlled anger and I saw first hand the terror he can cause, let me assure anyone he can be very scary - what I experienced was rage fuelled by not getting his own way yet it was not bullying in my opinion as it was an isolated incident - his rage is not malicious, it is passionate rage as I also found him to be warm and courteous prior to this incident and typically Scottish.

So 15 years on and he is my Prime Minister and remember this episode like it was yesterday, apart from nearly losing my job for putting the phone down on him and my language back to him - I was called in to the MDs office but cleared of misconduct due to the nature of his call and the abuse I received.

I always wondered if this was an isolated incident and perhaps I caught him on a bad day - should I have apologised for my language, should he have to me, for the way he spoke?

All things aside I would far rather have a strong personality running the country than a shrinking violet and assume he uses the fear factor as a tool in what must be a fairly stressful job - I am sure that a lot of this story is pre election banter and if it were not this then it would be a n other story.

I also now have the ultimate dinner party story of having told the PM to FO!

Two things struck me about the allegations about Gordon Brown's temper, bullying and violence. Firstly - if Rawnsley has written something untrue - why doesn't Brown sue? Probably too simplistic.

Secondly and perhaps more interestingly is what constitutes bullying? If a 'boss' shouts at an employee because they've done something wrong - something serious that puts the firm or organisation in jeopardy - is that bullying or is that just the sign of someone who is passionate about their work, firm or reputation?

My mother, who ran a small chain of shops in London's West End was from the old school. The customer was always right - for a start. She was definitely paternalistic (I know - it needs to be maternalistic really) and when employees erred grievously they would be called into her office. She would lecture them and tell them exactly what she thought of their actions and what would happen if such an occurrence recurred.

She was much loved and respected by her employees, most of whom stayed with the firm all their working lives. Was she a bully - or a good boss?

So - another coup bites the dust.

Hoon and Hewitt have egg, no - a whole omelette on their faces. So what happened? I assume that H & H had reason to believe that the six cabinet members named on the news last night had indicated that they would jump if the water looked inviting. Clearly - within an hour of their letter/text to colleagues  - the water was icy and none of them jumped. And not jumping - the lukewarm messages of support for Brown dribbled out in an untimely and limp-wristed way.

So - Brown is damaged. Labour is damaged. H &H are damaged. Well done team Labour!

But, leadercide is not easy. I first arrived in Parliament in May 2005, to a strange atmosphere in our Parliamentary Party. I didn't really know why, as this was clearly my first experience of a Parliamentary Party, and for all I knew that might have been normal - but it felt bad.

 Of course, now, we all know from what happened that Charles Kennedy was in trouble because of his then drinking problem and there was a need for drastic action which did take place and did result in his resignation. Of course, the difference is huge in that Charles was a great leader, much loved by the Party and the country and the problem was a very human problem. Perhaps this was even more difficult - as it wasn't his talent or ability that was the issue - and colleagues were rightly very reluctant to hurt him. However, in a situation which in a way was more difficult, actually Ed and everyone recognised that if we were to act we had to act swiftly and all together or not at all.

However, it was my induction into how important it is to know clearly in your own mind what you believe must happen and then act upon it when and if the moment arrives. I remember getting a call from Ed Davey saying that a letter was going to Charles which basically said if he didn't resign the signatories would all resign their positions - did I want to be a signatory. I was spokesperson for Crime and Policing at the time but not a member then of our Shadow Cabinet.

I remember saying I would have a think and phone him back. I put the phone down - but within a few minutes picked it up again and called Ed back - knowing in my own mind that Charles had to go for the sake of the Party and therefore I would and should be a signatory. As I walked from my kitchen into the my lounge the moving Sky headline on the bottom of the screen said something like 'and one of the first signatories is Lynne Featherstone'. It terrified the life out of me. I had no concept of the public aspect of the decisions you take - as a new MP.

Anyway - the point of telling this story - is to demonstrate the importance of making a decision in your own mind - so that when the moment comes those who needed to act did so. What seems to have failed so monumentally in the Hoon/Hewitt fiasco is that they were weak in their actions, that none of the cabinet were prepared to actually show leadership and put their heads above the parapet and the timing and the moment was wrong. It's a real - he who hesitates is lost - scenario.

With no leadership, no defined successor, no specific action to be taken - even the mild and misguided aspiration that this would settle the matter once and for all - was lost.

Leadercide needs real guts ,and right timing. H & H and the cabinet apparently had neither.

Hi Ho! Hi Ho! It's off to an election we go - and can't you just tell from the first salvos from Labour against Cameron and Tories against Brown that it's going to be an edifying few months.

No doubt we LibDems will be above such things - judging from Nick's pronouncement this morning (continuing a theme from Conference) that we are different to the other two parties. We are. We definitely are. So - let's hope we remain different. The last thing this country needs is the same bankrupt politics that has held sway for so long. New hope with each new Government - only to find out within a few years that they fall from grace and were just the same in the end as the one before.

Would we be as good as I believe we would be in Government?

When Alexander Litvinenko was murdered (in Muswell Hill), poisoned - I challenged the Government and then Home Secretary John Reid to pursue his killer without fear nor favour, however close the trail got to the Russian establishment.

That is the promise I got from him - but in the end - and despite taking Mrs Litvinenko for a private meeting with David Miliband in which he also promised to bring this to the European table to put pressure on from that angle - justice has never been done.

And it will never be done - because not only is there definitely fear and favour - but it would seem that real justice will always take second place to trade deals and arms deals, with political expedience coming way above the justice that ordinary folk believe in.

If the Libyan bomber had genuinely been released for genuine compassionate reasons because he was genuinely going to die within three months and we are a compassionate country and there were genuinely no other considerations - then we could argue the genuine debate about whether he should have died in prison or be released.

As it is - we have been duped again. It is quite clear, after all the leaks and all the published papers of correspondence and the contradictory statements (contradicting themselves usually)that Straw and Brown have made, how justice gets treated as an expendable add-on. The size of the tragedy at Lockerbie highlights throws into sharp relief that expendable face of justice.

Of course there should be a debate between the main party leaders. It would put them on their metal in front of the nation - where we pick up all kinds of signals (most of which have little to do with policy) and see how they deal with pressure under fire. One of the problems, however, is that the conditions that are put down before someone like the PM will take part will probably sterilise the process - perhaps even to the point of pointlessness - and the 'dealing with pressure under' fire is totally minimised. Secondly - the incumbent has the advantage of office and so never really wants to give the others the exposure - let alone give them a chance to outshine them. And - given Gordon Brown's cowardice quota (as Chancellor he used to let his junior ministers take the difficult questions at Treasury Questions) it is hard to imagine he will grow the balls to get out there and fight.

But as for someone who loves getting out there and fighting the fight - I have a confession, I'm a bit of a fan of Peter Mandelson. I know - you're not meant to say things like that and no - I don't agree with his policies etc etc etc. But this guy is clever, clever, clever - and a real operator.

Although I knew that he ditched Brown for Blair in the leadership contest - and therefore was never to be forgiven - I hadn't really fully appreciated his Machiavellian talents fully. I just hope that he is keeping extensive and honest notes - because if his autobiography tells the truth one day - it will be the most fascinating read ever.

I remember doing the Westminster Hour on a Sunday night the week that Gordon announced his was bringing Mandelson back from Europe, popping him into the Lords and making him Business Minister. I said that I had been completely taken aback by the move because it was brave, clever, shocking and I didn't think Gordon had the balls to have the vision to take this brilliant strategic move. Retrospectively, I am now sure that it was Mandelson's proposal - not Brown's. And of course - you have to pay the piper - which is why Mandelson now sits on all the important Government committees and pulls the strings. Where will his rise and rise end? Will we see him come back to lead the Labour Party post Brown?

Gordon Brown in his statement to the Commons on the G8 - which was mostly about Afghanistan - re-iterated the same exact statistics on helicopters that Harriet gave at PMQs. He said that we had increased them 60% in the last two years as well as increasing the flying time capability. Many members referred to the need for helicopters - but the Prime Minister just repeated the mantra again.

I managed to get called myself to ask him what percentage of that 60% increase were helicopters that can transport troops. Once again he re-iterated the figures he had now given a number of times. I can understand he didn't want to give numbers - but percentages should have been alright.

He went further than Harriet in that he did say that both types of helicopter were in that 60%. What is so difficult though without a proper answer - is to know whether the Government is hiding the fact that so few of the helicopters in that additional 60% could actually carry troops or whether it is a military secret.

So - whilst we're waiting for tonight's results in the Euros - I pause to wonder how the mighty (and not so mighty) are fallen. I guess Caroline Flint has the most egg on face . To support Brown publicly and then execute a complete volte face to diss him certainly doesn't help her message re window dressing. And during her stints as Minister for Housing and Europe she hasn't really registered.

I am surprised, however, that Dawn Primarolo, didn't get a promotion - as she has impressed me. She was particularly good at steering through the Embryology Bill - which was hardly the easiest of gigs - but which she did successfully, authoritively and well.

Looking at Gordon Brown's record from the outside - and his behaviour and attitude to women - Caroline Flint probably has a point in that the Prime Minister always seems uncomfortable with the women in the Cabinet. The shame is that the accusation came from such a flawed quarter. He clearly damned and dumped Blears. He was underwhelmed by Flint. He failed to support Jacqui Smith. Conversely - he has protected Darling, Hoone, Purnell - although with hindsight he might have not bothered.

Harriet Harman has handled herself and the situation pretty well over recent weeks - and as she actually is the only person with a mandate (albeit not loved by her brethren - and I do mean brethen) maybe she could push further forward. Round and round she goes - where she stops nobody knows...

Game on - blimey! Came in from election at around 11pm to find news of James Purnell's resignation. As the night wore on - it seemed the senior cabinet members were rallying around - but they would, wouldn't they?

Of course - given the nature of Brown - he won't cave in or go quietly - and the ultimate threat he holds in his big clunking fist is to go to the Palace and call for a general election. I reckon he would do that in preference to an ignominious exit. That is his trump card - his only card right now.

As the reshuffle takes shape - we will see whether there is one last play of the dice - or not.

Watching the tumultuous nature of history in the making is something quite extraordinary to experience first(ish) hand. But in the four years I have been in Parliament - it seems it is always thus - a brutal rough trade indeed. I looked at Gordon during PMQs on Wednesday - where given the pressure he didn't do too badly. I wonder how anyone is tough enough (or egotistical enough) to bear these moments. Backed into a corner and fighting for his political life - but still fighting.

As today moves on - we will see the full effect of the election results and the scale of the meltdown in Labour. In eight hours of telephone canvassing for the Euros yesterday - I found very, very few Labour voters. But who knows - the dire straights that Labour are now in may make those who bleed Labour if you cut them cleave to their tribal past - whether from pity or loyalty - who knows. Today and then on Sunday (with the European election results) we'll see.

As for Purnell - I wonder - did he think this was his moment? If fortune favours the brave and who dares wins - did he think that this was his moment for a footnote in history, his chance to make his mark and be a serious player in future years? This game of chess is not quite at checkmate, however, and depending what happens next - we will see if he was brave - or foolish?

Listening to the news. Jacqui Smith gone. Hazel Blears gone. To live through and witness the end of the old order is a sombre experience – a necessary experience – but a sombre and sobering one.

As the government of this country goes into free fall – the shameful secrets of the establishment unmasked – the flawed character of a Prime Minister who doesn’t understand leadership in a modern age - the calculated death by a thousand knives as they plunge into Gordon Brown today – each one landing another death blow – as cabinet ministers murder the man who put them where they are. Et tu brute?

So – just coming up to PMQs. Cannot imagine at a human level how you get up and go out there to fight your corner when the pressure is so immense it must be hard even to breathe. Quite how Gordon Brown will be able to form a new administration as all these blows rain in, I don't know. He should accept the inevitable and resign. Given his character he may not. But if he cannot form an administration – it might not be out of character for him to go to the Palace next week and let loose the dogs of war.

I never knew it would be like this.