Of course there is nothing interesting about the realisation that a) Brown shouts at work and b) there's a lot of pressure for people working with Brown (or in politics in general). But it's Pratt's behaviour, which is now (also) raising some eyebrows. Why would she, as the chairperson of a allegedly confidentially run charity, decide to breach such confidence by virtually revealing who has been calling the centre? Moreover, her connections to the Tory party may also raise questions about her motivation to 'speak out'. Looking into her past a bit further more information transpires:
It seems that she was at the centre of a court case involving bullying (she being the alleged bullyee), however, at the time (in 2003) her case was thrown out. In fact, the court found that the correspondence she pursued in relation to this case was "discourteous and hostile" as well as "aggressive, accusatory and confrontational". Other claims of discrimination were equally rebuffed. While running the charity the National Bullying Helpline, it further appears that she exploited vulnerable individuals who contacted the helpline by overcharging them and coercing them into signing contractual agreements. Moreover, it also seems that the charity's tax status is not quite in order and that this will be 'reviewed'. I wonder if Pratt wishes she had shut up rather than (yet again) go public with nonsense.
But it also reveals something more about Britain nowadays. There is of course the obvious issue, namely that Britain is becoming more and more litigious. It also reveals something about the schizophrenic ideas the media and the public hold about politician. They should be compassionate and softly-spoken yet tough and go-getters at the same time.
Meanwhile, the personalised anti-Brown frenzy (which never focuses on actual issues, e.g. neoliberal economics) continues to portray him as both a weed and a dragon at the same time. One can witness the same people making these two contradictory claims almost in the same sentence.
Similarly, 'successful' managers and bankers are seen as 'role models' yet the same behaviour by politically inopportune individuals (e.g. Brown) is deemed 'bullying'.
Public and media discourse in the UK is in danger of becoming so schizophrenic that it will simply become impossible to govern this country in any meaningful fashion. Those who think this schizophrenia will end with the end of the current administration will find themselves sorely mistaken.
17 comments:
Spot on. The whole thing stinks..and as for the incidents described, I think Brown comes out of them all looking far more human than I'd ever taken him for. I certainly not going to start touting for Brown but I want a prime minister who actually gives a fuck.
Further more..if that's bullying then I must have been the victim of severe psychological abuse for bloody years from Mrs Fish. "We've been together now for 20 years..and it don't seem a day too long...etc" but if a week goes by without far stronger language and something been thrown, something's amiss. Thank god for my cat like reflexes and suspicion of the whole victim culture thing..
The NBH seems a bit iffy too
http://www.hrdiversity.co.uk/html/people.html
The Pratt's seem to be a couple of consultants chancing their arm and exploiting both genuine misery and, no doubt in some cases, hopeless wimps in thrall to victim-therapy-litigation culture
Monkey, agreed. It wouldn't surprise me if Brown actually came out of this with some credit, particularly since Fat Dave decided to wade in with his demand for an 'inquiry'. Inquiry into what? Into Brown shouting at work? Give me a break.
Of course none of the excited lot talk about the policies, because of course those excited by the bullying saga fundamentally all agree with New Labour: They are all neoliberals. The only thing they are interested in are cat fights.
And yes, good point about the notion of bullying in general. Bullying is a symptom of neoliberal guilt to detract from real issues of exploitation and hierarchy.
Presumably by writing this I am bullying Pratt.
Thanks for the link. It looks even worse than I thought; a whole fucking industry behind it.
Yes...this whole thing has made me smile with wry tedium for ages...this being the latest manifestation of an oft repeated idiocy...
Here's my tuppence worth: this is like the reformation of manners all over again but with a modernistic sting that's both hilarious and depressing at the same time.
Ever since the 16C when self-righteous religious authorities took it upon themselves to eradicate what they saw as immoral elements in public life - especially focussing on the comportment of ordinary folk - in a kind of desperate re-drawing of the thresholds of shame and embarrassment, there has been one body or another who have equally struggled to have their own version of behaviour stamped across the heads of society in general.
Partially this is the result of having such a powerfully hierarchical society where the higher ranks deem it their right to establish all kinds of patterns including (and possibly most importantly in a symbolic way) manners and behavioural tendencies.
So...the Pratt (perfectly named)is merely following an age old fashion of attempting to undermine Brown by suggesting that his (alleged - but most probable) bullying is not the kind of behaviour that should befit the leader of a nation.
But paradoxically she's doing it in what can only be seen as the ultimate in bullying by suggesting that she and we (the rest of the properly behaved world) are righteously disgusted with Browns failure to submit to the expectation of the dominant elites re-drawn thresholds - she's trying to crush Brown from above for the very crime of crushing from above (bullying) and shes invoking the thresholds of shame (Browns) to do so...bloody ridiculous really...
And amusingly, as your say olching, as bullying could be seen as a symptom of guilt which ultimately detracts from the more systemic horrors, focussing on it at all is a form of metaphysical bullying by omission! he he - that's quite funny.
But...and without wanting to go on (I should be doing some work right now instead of harping on about this Pratt)...I wonder if this will actually do Brown some good? We do after all, live in an environment where worshipping desire (consumerism at its basest where it's the desire rather than the acquisition that (suppossedly) drives the machine) means that bullying isn't really recognised as the crime it's alleged to be.
So - even though he probably doesn't have to, if Brown can pull off a "Blair" and position his bullying as a righteous mission that cannot be judged without first judging the righteousness (which is of course beyond judgement), then he up in the polls and benefiting from what will eventually be seen as a spiteful pieces of electioneering on the part of the Tories.
Anyway...thanks for the piece olching - I really like your blog.
Thanks Lester.
Yes, interesting, moral reformation as a form of intellectual, ethical 'bullying'. It probably feeds into the whole public outrage/offence culture (see e.g. the Brand-Ross saga).
I can't help but feel though that the British media and public are trapped in their own contradictory demands regarding, well, most things (put crudely: something ought to be both fast and slow, emotional and rational, expensive and cheap, nice and strong-handed etc...).
Great blog, great responses - the frustration is almost tactile.
Olching, I think you've nailed something with: 'media and public are trapped in their own contradictory demands' (although I think that 'public' is a media construct and the silent majority don't voice their thoughts - but I digress).
You're right - what is it with that bizarre binary need - one OR the other? What's that all about? Why can't stuff be nuanced in the media and politics? Why not say: 'Well it's a bit fuzzy but I reckon this direction's better than the other' or 'yeah fuck it, shit happens but we're still determined to make it better for everyone'.
Binary politics, hey? (even though we know they're so central that they're amorphous) They can only debate each other by dissing each other - oh for the day when someone with balls emerges from any political opposition and says:'yeah, good call, I'll support you on that but it needs a bit of tweaking to meet my constituents' needs'
And what do we get? Fucking Avatar the movie.
"And what do we get? Fucking Avatar the movie."
Yep, that's about the size of it, parallax. Films like Avatar are not merely annoying, but also the carriers of society's ideology. Hollywood reinforces a lot of the nonsensical and dangerous ideological claptrap espoused in significant sections of the media and politics.
...Hence the bully handbags...
Hi Olching!
Very interesting report on a non-event. I just like the way that they don't mind their name.
Came to give you a song to cheer you up: it’s not really my kind of music, but I came across it the other day, and it is both good old fashioned protest pop and a swinging dance tune. I see you have a Lester here and I take it that it is the outstanding Lester Jones so if I translate the text I’m sure he can make the appropriate corrections. I believe the coming elections are not in any way a certain win for the conservatives, nor that the labour party cannot turn away from neo-liberalism. Just don’t stop agitating! That is the trick!
(Hm, and just FYI, I voted for you, Olching). Don’t know how many positions are allowed, so will make a double posting if that’s OK. Here’s the song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz42mhyNn08&feature=related
So old fashioned!
PS. Either this will appear in some five consecutive repetitious postings, or, if I’m lucky, only once.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz42mhyNn08&feature=related
Not much of a link
And here’s the text. I chopped it with my axe, so not fine-tuned.
Do not tire; do not be weary, dear.
Don’t give up; do not give in, my dear.
Don’t say, just do not say it;
That nothing can be changed.
If they can do it out there, then we can do it at home.
And yes, it’s hard, it’s hard for sure, my dear.
And yes, we are few, we are maybe few, my dear.
And it is true that we do not hold the power to decide.
But if they can change it out there, then so can we do here.
Look around, look around the world:
People are fighting, fighting all over the world.
Look at Vietnam and look at Nicaragua!
Look at Zimbabwe and El Salvador!
The road is long, the road is long, my dear.
But don’t turn around; don’t ever turn back, my dear.
We have no choice, we have no choice, because if there will ever be any change,
we must do what others have done: we must do it ourselves.
Look around, have a look around in Sweden:
There are those who are fighting, there are those who fight in Sweden.
Who are struggling today, fighting for tomorrow,
fighting for us and fighting for our children!
They think of you and they think of me, my dear.
They have faith in you; they have faith in me, my dear.
They hope and they believe that we’re not just thinking about ourselves.
And if we can reach that far then that’s already a big change.
We believe that when we’ve come that far, there’s already been a big change!
Hi Elly,
Tak sa mycket for the song and comments!
Yes, it is LesterJones who posts here.
Are we doing protest songs?
Here's mine:
Liberation/Stagnation
You can post as many as posts as you wish. By the way, who is this Björn Afzelius?
As far as Labour's love affair with neo-liberalism is concerned: I think it probably will take a term or two in opposition with some bloody infighting.
But hey, some of the neoliberal wankers like Purnell are committing voluntary politocide. Let's hope some others follow suit.
I'm resigned to a Tory government (indeed, 'looking forward' to the amusing crash-and-burn of Osborne once in a position of power), but it's the braying toffs I'm dreading most in the aftermath of the Tory victory.
Like I said, not really my music; I came across it trying to explain to a young person the basics (IMO) of the opposing interests of socialists and conservatives. The election campaigns in the 80ies were more explicit than they are today, when everyone throw their net far and wide, hoping that the mere reach of it, will harvest enough votes to secure their existence. They are not concerned about ideologies unless it’s Sunday and even then it is negotiable and thin.
I think there actually is a difference between the possibilities to act under a conservative government and, in your case, a Labour regime. The conservative agenda is carried out with the no-going-back tactics. Most reforms aim to make irreparable damage to earlier implemented equity reforms. I know that New Labour has done its bit here, but there is a big difference as to class perspective. That is why I think it matters: nothing is worse than an even more right wing government.
Today the far right are, even as we speak, uniting across the EU to campaign explicitly against non-European born citizens and residents and their families. I believe there are some writings in the Lisbon treaty to help them make a case.
Afzelius was campaigning for the left and was quite proud when the conservative leader said (thinking the microphone was off): “Someone ought to shoot that Afzelius”. On national radio! To him it was a badge of honour. I think he was quite happy to produce an endless string of dance music with clever texts. Perhaps he was hoping for the subliminal stimuli effect.I posted it because I thought I could hear a distant lack of faith, of (horror) defeatism from your neck of the woods. Remember that they are a miserable bunch of good-for-nothings trying to steal your country (as Moore putsit). They’ve done it here and believe you me, they will do it so swiftly that you will have lost your shirt before you realise it’s freezing.Too many words! And failing to paragraph the bloody thing.
That was me/Ellymiranda
Oh yeah...liking this..kinda Leftie Desert Island Disks
chickentown
White Riot
Stickin with the Union
Oliver's Army
..also, I'd swap my Bible and Complete Works of Shakespeare for a frying pan and complete works of Hobsbawm...luxury..big bag of weed with plenty of seeds and a million packets of Rizla
Elly,
I'm not sure the 80s election campaigns were more explicit, just more divided. Now, the main parties all agree but for some nuances (important ones nonetheless).
They are explicit (fairly) nowadays, but it's just that no one (or few) gives a shit that they are singing from the same hymn sheet.
Monkey,
Hobsbawm is and will remain a towering great. It's always important to point out to the imbecilic right and 'centre-left' (whatever that means) that the biggest thinkers come from the left.
"The biggest thinkers come from the left."
It's OK Olching, we know our place in the intellectual hierarchy (tugs forelock).
Actually, what you say might even be true. But it doesn't really matter.
I touched on the whole "Puritan" thing with Lester on CiF the other day, and for sure there is a leftist tendency to ascribe some sort of agency to historical processes where none really exists. Of course capitalism is "constructed", but (and this point is crucial) there was no overarching theory standing behind the disparate trends and currents which caused it to come into being over a long period of time. Of course, during this time, things
crystallized into a more-or-less rigid and self-reinforcing ideological position, to the extent that many people especially on the right, are actually unaware that there are beholden to ideology at all (a criticism I take fully on board, by the way), however, this ideology is by and large post-hoc, unlike leftism, where the ideology precedes all else.
So, if the left has the biggest thinkers, it's because theirs is a theory-driven political philosophy, and therefore by its very nature attractive to intellectuals.
No big deal, really!
Hi Pat,
You were doing so well until this:
however, this ideology is by and large post-hoc, unlike leftism, where the ideology precedes all else.
You've made this claim before (and I've seen and heard this elsewhere), but it doesn't stand up.
Ideology doesn't simply crystallise out of nowhere, but rather the manifestations of ideology are what you think is the crystallisation of ideology.
You are aware of this, but then retract it: The attempt to be 'non-ideological' is deeply ideological in itself and not just post hoc (which is a false perception anyway, see above) but in advance.
What is non-ideological anyway?
Just a reminder from Poland,
oke of the Year . Polish anarchists support Polish nationalists in Belarus and support picketing the Russian embassy. The words useful idiots comes to mind or is it useless idiots since they are not even being paid by the USA to stand about looking rebellious so that Soros can use counterculture to get his hands on the Belarusian economy.
http://krakowconservationwatch.blogspot.com/2010/03/useful-idiots-polish-anarchists-support.html
There is also lots on how Market Leninism works in practice as regards a subvervient Rada Meijska and rapacious financiers and lawyers who are trashing whole section of Krakow, violating UNESCO Conventions, using marketspeak, and destroying Krakow's green space and nature reserves.
Elements of the old blog are creeping back in
BTW, Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine has a tour de force section of Poland's subjection to "shock therapy" which at the microcosm of Krakow's system is in full operation-buildinggs destroying cultural heritage are looming up without any democratic accountability and enforced by quangos.
Hi Karl,
Good to hear from you again. I agree that Klein deals with it quite neatly. I think it has been recognisable in Poland in micro- and macrocosm particularly since the early 2000s.
Post a Comment