'Bully' Brown loses credibility

The charity was left in an invidious position. It either kept its own counsel after Lord Mandelson, Mr Brown's second-in-command, denied allegations that there's a culture of bullying inside the heart of government – or it confirmed, without breaching the names of the staff concerned, that a small number of the Downing Street workforce had sought advice for stress-related issues.

Yet this should not distract too much attention away from the central issue: is Mr Brown a fit and proper man to lead Britain, and are his many temper tantrums (which have not been denied) a help or a hindrance in the governance of the country?

This is a legitimate question which Ministers have no right to suppress, especially when Labour's leader has sought to make "character" a key electoral issue.

Mr Brown is, after all, the former Chancellor who was described as being "psychologically flawed" during one of his numerous feuds with Tony Blair. Yet a long sulk inside the Treasury is very different to losing one's temper inside 10 Downing Street, and potentially

humiliating secretaries who are only doing their job.

The difference between being a perfectionist and intimidation is a very fine one – and Mr Brown needs to recognise this. Blaming the pressure of the recession will not suffice. Mr Brown's three predecessors all faced national crises of varying complexity, but they were never

accused of being disrespectful towards their staff.

But there's another issue at stake and it is this: people simply do not believe, or trust, politicians when they go on the record to deny splits or criticisms about their record. On too many occasions, the original claim – denied at the time – is then substantiated in subsequent political memoirs.

It may emerge that the Prime Minister is a victim of this culture. But, equally, he's the system's greatest beneficiary. For he only came to power because Labour's leadership candidates were too weak to stand up to Mr Brown, his under-hand tactics – and his mood swings. If they had done so, Downing Street may not be at the centre of such an unedifying political scandal.