It is clear that David Cameron need to up his game. In an interview with Jeff Randall, he was unable to explain a £72 billion spending commitment contained in last year’s pre-Budget report. For a man who seeks to become the CEO of UK Plc, this is an appalling situation. £72 billion accounts for more than 10% of the budget and this implies either a lack of understanding by Cameron or an inability or even an unwillingness to get involved in the detail. To put this £72 billion into perspective, it is 20 times the losses reported by RBS, the bank that is 84% owned by the UK taxpayer.

For those that believe that Cameron need not have a grasp on this detail, it is worth noting this £72 billion of taxpayers money was listed simply as “other”. I suspect that most, if not all us would have investigated or queried such a massive sum of money described as “other”…which is the equivalent of miscellaneous!

I have to say that I was embarrassed for Cameron and the people of this country that the ‘heir apparent’, did not seem to have a grasp of the financial for this country. Little wonder that the people of this country are starting to have doubts about whether the Conservative Party has the depth and the skills to take this country forward. I virtually guarantee, that is Cameron had been the CEO of a large company and was unable to answer such a fundamental question, that he would have been quickly ousted.

Granted, Gordon Brown has completely screwed this country with his so called fiscal and monetary policies, but what hope do we have if Cameron cannot demonstrate a clear understanding of this country’s finances. A good leader, CEO of Prime Minister, would have a clear and detail knowledge of the finances of the organisation that he heads.

If Cameron wants the people of this country to entrust him with our futures, then he must demonstrate that he has the capacity, ability, the knowledge and the skills to take us forward. He cannot, as he has done so many times in the past, simply rely on the failures of the existing Government. We all know that New Labour have failed us…what we want to know is that he and his team have the answers. If Cameron cannot grasp the fundamentals of finance, then he does not deserve to lead this country.

I am not known for agreeing with the Labour Party very often. However, George Osborne’s suggestion that the people should be offered shares in a bank we already own, at a discounted price, is nothing other than a cynical gimmick. I would have hoped that the Conservative Party would rise above such silly electioneering.

The reality is, we already own these banks and therefore, the dividends or proceeds of a sale will already go back to the public purse, allowing us to reduce debt or invest. Why would we want to buy these shares at a “discount”, when as taxpayers we are already assured of receiving the full benefit when these shares are drip fed back into the market? Furthermore, why should any specific sections of the community receive special or additional discounts?

There are suggestions that young people, low-income families and parents saving for their children should receive extra discounts. Why? The banks were saved using taxpayer funds and debt. This proposal is not an equal or proportionate division of the proceeds of a sale of a publicly owned asset; it is just a cynical way of buying votes from one section of the community. In fact, this is a typical ‘Labour Party’ trick of attempting to redistribute wealth, in spite of the fact that the Labour experiment has proven to be an utter failure.

It could be argued that those on the lowest incomes and, for that matter, younger people, contributed the least towards the propping of the banks, so why should they receive shares at a more favourable rate? It simply does not stand up to scrutiny. I suggest that the Conservative Party get on with the real job of telling us what they will do if they get into power, rather than trying cheap tricks designed to garner support from a minority at the expense of the majority. We have had to put up with this type of positive discrimination for the past 13 years…enough now!

Government Ministers need to tread very carefully, because the public is watching, therefore any attempt to humiliate, marginalise or intimidate the charity ‘National Bullying Helpline’ or its CEO, Christine Pratt. We all know how vicious the Labour Party’s spin machine can be…and we will be watching very carefully.

Already Mandelson has suggested that there is a “political operation” to undermine the Prime Minister without substantiating his claim. Nonetheless, it has been implied that because the National Bullying Helpline has Anne Widdecombe and a Tory Councillor amongst its patrons, that there may be some political bias. Why? If the claims made by Christine Pratt are true, it makes little or no difference who is a patron of the charity. There are now suggestions that Pratt’s claims are not substantiated…please, how on earth can she do that without breaching confidentiality? Moreover, I suspect that the charity allows a person to seek advice and support without giving their names, which means it would be impossible to identify the complainants even if they wanted to.

No. 10 states that the charity never informed them of the claims against them. Is that any great surprise? It would appear that the charity is primarily a support group and do not have an interventionist role unless specifically asked to do so by their clients. This looks like a cheap attempt to undermine the charity or try and place some doubt on the veracity of the claims.

There are also suggestions that the charity has “breached client confidentiality”. That is total poppycock. No details of the specific claims have been made and they have not released the names of the complainants. Surely it is only a breach of confidentiality if the complainants can be easily identified, this does not appear to be the case? This just looks like another cynical and cheap attempt to divert attention from the real issue…a case of shooting the messenger!

Of course, the charity will now open itself to scrutiny, so I hope for their sake, that they are squeaky clean. Otherwise they will find themselves subjected to all sorts of questions and investigations, because they have shaken a hornets nest here. I don’t think it was wise for a small charity to speak out in this way, but there is an argument that they were prepared to stand and be counted, which at the very least, is a case of leading by example.

The bottom line is, that if Gordon Brown and No. 10 have nothing to hide, then the best thing they could do is stop attempting to defend themselves by attacking others and agree to an independent inquiry, where staff will be given the opportunity to make statements in complete confidentiality. Furthermore, they should agree to an immediate inquiry, so that the matter can be cleared up well before the General Election, because like it or not, the public will form their own opinion…and many will consider that there is ‘no smoke without fire’. This could be hugely damaging to the Labour Party’s desire to gain another term in office.

Workplace bullies typically surround themselves by weak or flawed characters that are invariably selected based, not on their skills, but the ability of the bully to control and/or dominate them. I will allow the readers to draw their own conclusions; I know I have formed my own.

Gordon Brown admits to losing his temper, shouting at people and throwing things, but this is dismissed by him and his colleagues as being emotional, demanding or passionate. No it isn’t, it is a sign of a man that is not in control of himself, which does not bode well for a man who is supposed to be in charge of this country. The people of this country are entitled to expect their leader to act like one! If Gordon Brown believes that he can achieve more my shouting and intimidating people, then he is deluded, which is probably true in any case, because this is the same man that thinks he had nothing to do with the financial mess this country is in!

So what is the definition of workplace bullying? Whilst there is no specific legislation, there is an implied terms and conditions of employment that place a mutual obligation of ‘trust and confidence’ on both employer and employee. This includes an obligation on the employer not to be humiliate, intimidate or degrade the employee, further, that the employee be treated with dignity and consideration. I wonder how this obligation fits in with Brown’s own admission of shouting, losing his temper and throwing things. No.10 can deny all it wants, but the facts must speak for themselves, if there is any suspicion of workplace bullying, then it must be investigated by an outside, independent inquiry. If Gordon Brown believes that he and his staff have done nothing wrong, then he has nothing to fear. This is, of course, the same justification he and his Ministers’ use to justify why we should not fear being on the Government’s DNA database!

How ironic that it was the Labour Party, in ‘The Road to the Manifesto’ that actually proposed the idea of establishing a basic minimum standard of fairness at work.

Of course, the National Bullying Helpline CEO has not accused Gordon Brown of bullying, but if there is evidence of bullying within No. 10, then he must assume responsibility and there should be an investigation to see if this is systemic or without foundation. In my experience, bullying tends to come from the top; it is part of a culture that develops until those at the top think it is normal! Personally I do not believe that it is acceptable to describe losing your temper or shouting at subordinates as simply being demanding, passionate or emotional. The public are entitled to expect exemplary behaviour from those that are elected to represent us and run this country; they must be beyond reproach and set an example to the rest of us. It doesn’t matter whether it is the Prime Minister, one of His Ministers, or one of their many aides. They are in public office and therefore subject to both public scrutiny and an expectation of the highest standards.

If there is evidence of Gordon Brown being involved in bullying or failing to act to stamp out this type of behaviour within his department, then he should resign immediately. Mandelson said “There is zero tolerance for bullying in the government as a whole, and certainly at the centre of government.” If this is the case, then this statement must be compared with the admission made by Gordon Brown about his management style.

The public is sick and tired of politicians believing there is one rule for them and one for the rest of us.