Bullying: a story of Westminster hypocrisy
There are few things more nauseating than the duplicity that emanates from the heart of Westminster whenever allegations of bullying or harassment are made against a politician.
Without shame or self-awareness, the same people who leapt on accusations against a political foe sweep in behind an ideological ally when they face charges of a similar nature. Those on the other side of that dividing line likewise assume a contrasting position to the one they had taken before.
Rarely, if ever, does there seem to be any genuine concern for the alleged victims, a recognition of the accusations at hand, or much by way of caution. Those who harbour such instincts are drowned out by the noisiest contributors who appropriate alleged wrongdoing for political gain. The transparent nature of their involvement sullies the waters and creates doubt where there should be empathy and concern. Calmer heads do not prevail.
A collective regression ensues where the capacity to bully is based on playground attributes such as height and stature or machinations over intent. “It does beggar belief that a woman who is barely more than 5ft tall managed to terrorise all those 6ft 3in public school mandarins,” wrote Allison Pearson in the Telegraph, whose article defending Priti Patel echoed a tweet by Labour’s Diane Abbott, who questioned whether David Leakey, a former member of the Armed Forces, could be bullied by John Bercow.
This perception of bullying is so surface level that it throws into sharp relief how little is understood about the nature of the behaviour involved and its associated consequences. This approach goes some way to explaining why the problem persists in the Houses of Parliament.
It took me several months to gain some Westminster insiders' trust to open up about their views or experiences with John Bercow. I sensed a great deal of trepidation, as though what could change or be gained due to doing so.
Like Priti Patel, Bercow has always staunchly denied any accusations of bullying. As we have seen with those who have defended Patel, friends often rejected such allegations based on their own dealings with the individual involved. Putting the debate over the bullying claims to one side, basing a defence on such terms is not really sufficient. Just because something is beyond your own comprehension does not mean it could not take place.
When dealing with bullying allegations, we also seem to linger on whether someone set out deliberately to mistreat an individual. When researching my biography of Bercow, I was particularly struck by this quote from a Commons official, who spoke to me on condition of anonymity. “Bullying is not about intent; it is about impact. How can anyone say they haven’t bullied anyone without pausing to ask, to find out.”
Another member of Commons staff noted: “If someone who worked under me were signed off with stress, it would make me think about my own behaviour and whether or not the way I treat people is up to what is expected.”
Any onus for self-reflection is alleviated by the actions of those with whom these politicians share a political affiliation. Brexit trumps bullying claims, Margaret Beckett declared as she defended Bercow on the Today programme in 2018. “Time to form a square around the Pritster,” Boris Johnson recently ordered MPs over WhatsApp.
This trend has worsened as political partisanship has increased. Such claims are dismissed as some form of ideological attack by the opposing side, which must be clamped down on at source. With Patel, it was ‘Remainer’ civil servants; with Bercow, it was ‘Brexiteer’ Tories.
Why would there be much by way of introspection when the cavalry comes to your defence unless and until it is not politically expedient to do so.
All the while, of course, the alleged victims are left to their own devices, knowing even if their claims are validated that nothing really will be done about it. This week one of those to accuse a politician of bullying told me: “I’ve made my peace with the fact that nothing ever changes.” Others who may have considered coming forward will now be thinking: what’s the point?
Articles decrying “snowflakery” reveal an undertone of cynicism about those who allege bullying. On the contrary, people who have made such proclamations have, in the very act, taken some of the most courageous steps you can take in public life. To go over the top and call out unacceptable behaviour perpetrated by someone in a position of power takes considerable guts. It comes with press scrutiny and exposure, the likes of which few of us have or will ever experience.
At risk are jobs and livelihoods. Taken into account is the impact on one’s family and the fact that a Google search of their name will now forever produce results associated with the accusations.
As with concerns over racism, no major political party is safe from this problem. Rather than seeking to address the underlying issue, mudslinging and horse-trading ensue, with all sides refusing to cede ground.
Decency and character matter in public life; it sets the standards for what we expect from society. It may be politically advantageous in the short-term to seek to neutralise charges of misconduct, but only a fool would believe it will not have long-term consequences.
As for our understanding of bullying, there is still a long way to travel. Comparisons with workplaces of old or arguments that achieving change requires force shine a light on an enduring and at times pernicious outlook that fortifies a certain group of people against misconduct claims. Twas ever thus, the outriders may as well be saying.
Such attitudes are no longer tolerated towards other forms of workplace malpractice, so why should it be different with accusations of bullying?
We must remember that being a reforming politician does not give you carte blanche to treat people poorly. The best politicians know that achieving reform is a balancing act of leadership and bringing people with you. Determination is a prerequisite; being indecent to colleagues is not.
