Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Sarahgate

The spin from Team Brown is that Sarah Brown's intro to yesterday's speech was entirely her idea and only discussed a few hours before the speech was given - and that it was entirely her idea.

On the Today Programme this morning, Gordon Brown says: "We discussed it over the summer".

They can't even get their stories straight over that.

PS She did do it very well though.

29 comments:

trevorsden said...

'she did well' ??

Well she is from the world of PR - she runs her own company dosn't she?

All I can think is that Brown was terrified of being booed as he cam on stage.

Newmania said...

She was PR ligger for the Labour Party if she could not sell you would be surprised .
Lets face it Brown forgot to have sex until his 50s and probably got her out of catalogue. The whole thing is a prop and its not as if that’s unusual in politics is it.

....What , you think she met that animated cadaver and “Fell in love ....” ? Yeah right and Lisa Marie Presley , luuurved Michael Jackson .In a sane world the two of them would be chased by torch bearing peasants and finally cast over a cliff bellowing with inchoate rage

Its unnatural; I tell you UNNATURAL !

kinglear said...

Mrs. Lear says Sarah Brown needs someone to explain to her about dressing properly. There is no need for her somewhat pudgy exterior to be quite so blatantly on show.

Anonymous said...

Sarah Brown has left herself wide open to media scrutiny and analysis. So much for wanting a quiet private life.
As for this 'my children are not props' - well it doesn't seem to stop Gordon mentioning (see Boulton interview or BBC Breakfast today) that he has them whenever he can.

James Ellerington said...

Sarahgate?

Are you now seriously trying to suggest a discrepancy over when Sarah Brown decided to introduce her husband's conference speech is on a par with the illegal activities authorized and carried out by the President of the USA's staff and loyalists in the 1970s, including campaign fraud, political espionage and sabotage, illegal break-ins, improper tax audits, illegal wiretapping on a massive scale, and a secret slush fund laundered in Mexico to pay those who conducted the operations?

Do you honestly think it's that serious?

Are you genuinely trying to suggest this is a resigning matter for the Prime Minister?

Iain Dale said...

Dont be pathetic. I was drawing attention to two very different versions of events. Which one is true?

Ross said...

Sarah Brown actually appears competent and likeable, I don't want to alarm Gordon but I think she might be plotting to take over as Labour leader.

Anonymous said...

Iain Dale said...
"Dont be pathetic. I was drawing attention to two very different versions of events. Which one is true?"

No. You just invite arses like KL to make personal and nasty comments about Sarah Brown.
That's OK I suppose if you like that sort of thing, and posters here do. But it works both ways, so no complaining if Mrs. Cameron gets some unpleasant comments aimed at her.
Though you'd be deleting them pretty sharpish, eh Iain?

Kcila said...

Mrs Broon's intro was puke making.

Mr Broon's speech was ghastly.

The content was as flaky as Gordy's dandruff.

Just where are the positives?

Oh yeah there aren't any!

Good bye Gordon and take yer dreadful PR harpie with you!

Cam4me said...

"But it works both ways, so no complaining if Mrs. Cameron gets some unpleasant comments aimed at her."

The difference is, Labour troll, David Cameron doesn't feel the need to drag his wife into the public spotlight to further his own career.

dalesman said...

Guido was having a go at Sarah on his blog a few days ago and I told him he was out of line.

Changed my mind.....she's put herself in the limelight, whether it was her idea or her hubby's.

Anonymous said...

Cam4me said...
"The difference is, Labour troll, David Cameron doesn't feel the need to drag his wife into the public spotlight to further his own career."

No, he parades his disabled son instead.

Arkangel said...

Sorry you Labour trolls but Sarah is now fair game.
She (or Jonah) put her directly into the firing line.

BTW, who on earth SHAKES their wife's hand when they've just done you a favour?

LiberalHammer said...

It's not that big a deal, is it? Cameron isn't averse to family photos being taken and published. Whether it was a decision taken ages ago or recently doesn't matter and I think you're perhaps reading too much into a minor discrepancy.

It's really a tactic imported from the States, perhaps to make the candidate seem more human. Though if it is going to attract the bilious comments of Newmania perhaps not a good one.

John said...

"No, he parades his disabled son instead."

At least he's honest about it. Instead of Brown who's children aren't props but apparently his wife is.

And as Iain said, isn't mentioning the fact that he wouldn't use his children as a prop using them as a prop?

Anonymous said...

Cam4me said...
The difference is, Labour troll, David Cameron doesn't feel the need to drag his wife into the public spotlight to further his own career.

Hmmm. Just wondering where you might have been in recent years that has no newspapers, TV's, internet access?
Soft white walls and large bunches of keys come to mind.

David Anthony said...

"The difference is, Labour troll, David Cameron doesn't feel the need to drag his wife into the public spotlight to further his own career."

But now he has to make the decision whether to be introduced by his wife next week.

I suspect this will become the norm from now on.

Philipa said...

Oh leave the poor man alone and stop dancing on his grave.

simon said...

The reason why we take a different view of a wife or husband taking some role in presenting a politician's public image, and children doing the same, is that spouses are adults and can take their own decisions. Children, on the other hand, are children.

Judging by some of the unpleasant and ignorant comments here, posters haven't moved on from a world in which women are chattels, to be judged purely on appearance. No wonder Mrs Cameron, who clearly isn't a Tory herself, isn't keen to be involved in Tory politics.

Anonymous said...

Typical Nu Labour astro turfing here.

Not bothered about who Brown gets to introduce him, It's all about the SPIN involved and unthinkingly reheated by the Beeboids and MSM.

trevorsden said...

There was me thinking the 'use my children as props' were aimed at Tony Blair.

After all where has Cameron used his children as a prop?

Brown has used them in publicity photos / xmas cards, thats been published. Cameron says he is grateful for the NHS because its cared for his disabled son. So? So you labour tolls? So what?

You have just sat through Brown saying (yet again) how great the NHS is because it treated him for his bad eye?

That Brown blatantly uses his wife as a stooge and then criticises others is just typical Brown hypocricy.

And as Mr Dale points out - labour cannot even resist spinning that.

Dangermouse said...

Dalesman - share your opinion. She's in the firing line now. Tant pis.

Amazing troll activity - you think they'd be glued to the conference like good little comrades.

Anonymous said...

Mrs Lear presumably reads the Daily Mail

dalesman said...

Re: Mrs Lear:

Perhaps she should read the Guardian. Madeleine Bunting seems to think that Sarah is the best thing since sliced bread.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/24/gender.gordonbrown

stuart said...

Really, does it matter? She spoke to soften the public's image of Brown. We all know that.

Cameron has films of himself doing the dishes put on the internet. All staged.

Everyone is at it. It's perfectly legitimate. Why bother fussing over it? Who cares?

Ian Thorpe said...

Made me think she might be a better PM than her hubby.

Anonymous said...

No, the lying about how Sarah's introduction was planned doesn't matter a damn to the Labour Party. It should matter a helluva lot to the Daily Telegraph that Rosa Prince ('Political Correspondent') swalled and regurgitated it whole with stomach-churning embellishment all over today's paper.

No attribution of course - none.

Can't work out why the DT is so willing to hire itself out as a Hallmark Card for a Labour PM. Can't it afford to employ reporters?

scallywag said...

It was a put up job that had been planned for ages. Obvious as the lack of nails on his fingers.

He may not use his kids as props, but he's OK about his missus doing his dirty work.

John Pickworth said...

I don't think it matters much one way or t'other whether politicians use their families or not. Many voters actually like to know about their back stories - and of course the media too.

What has changed recently was Blairs 'hands off' the family tirades but then stooping to use them when it suited him. Now we have Brown doing the same silly thing and trying to score political points by simultaneously protecting his family (and hence knocking the opposition) and then dragging them into every interview/speech.

They can't have it both ways and should be the focus of intense criticism when they try to play this cynical game with us.

To his credit, Cameron doesn't appear to have sunk to this level. He's been quite happy to introduce his family to the public and as long as he doesn't complain later about the exposure then its all good.