Tuesday, 23 February 2010

There are no PR winners in the Gordon Brown Bullying row

I thought I would share my thoughts on who is winning the media battle over the current Number 10 'bullying' row.

There are currently two sides to the argument.

One, Gordon Brown is a 'bully':


Two, the Head of the National Bullying Helpline is a  'Tory pawn' and a 'prat':

This whole ugly mess epitomises the very reason the public are fed up with spin, unfounded allegations and UK politics. The media are also to blame for leading on gossip, non-stories and hearsay; rather than facts and evidence.

From a PR perspective neither party wins as no one is improving their image with voters over this row. Constituents have jobs in which they see this sort of stress and intimidation every day, frankly there is little traction in the debate for either party.

Again, the coverage will leave yet another PR scapegoat in Christine Pratt - although appointing Max Clifford suggests this is more of a 'phone and tell' rather than 'good woman, done-bad' hard luck story:


Again, making this news public is a PR disaster for the Charity which must surely now undergo crisis comms to avoid imploding.

So with the Government, Opposition and a major charity all failing to secure positive coverage, who are the winners from this row?

The answer is nobody, bar Andrew Lawnsley who will no doubt sell some more copies of is book...nice work, Andrew!

I just wish politicians would wake up and realise that politics needs high quality debate right now and this whole story is a nonsense, "The Thick of It" style mess which adds no credence to any party.

P.S. Could it just be a coincedence that this story is keeping the Falklands row out of the main headlines? Perhaps it isn't as silly as it seems...


  1. Did you see this blog post? It casts doubt on whether the charity is a functioning charity at all: http://torytroll.blogspot.com/2010/02/who-are-national-bullying-helpline.html

  2. He claims bullying is trivial and does not matter. He is an evil thug.
    All this guff he talks about black men doing mugging then he says bullying does not matter. Well if he thinks violence and abuse does not matter why does he claim to care about black men doing muggings and knife crime, or is he a psychotic idiot who thinks violence only counts if it is done by "blackies".
    Also he is obsessed by black men and yet needs viagra to satisfy white women. I wonder if there is a link there?
    Rodless Liddle. The tiniest weeniest little white dick in the world.