Pre order Peter's book, INSIDE OUT, HERE.
From the ES City Diary...
Former Labour Party Treasurer Peter Watt says: “We had — in every year bar one — spent more money than we had raised. Year on year our debts had soared to £30million.” At least their approach to economic management has a certain consistency, then...
Guido is reporting that the Sunlight Centre have reported Brown to the parliamentary commissioner over the donations (slush fund) recorded in the t'atty exercise book'.
I do not see how Brown could accept this money and not report it. The other issue is that if it was from money just donated to the labour party, then I would have thought many labour members and MPs would have wanted to have records of how it was spent. After all by what labour party rule was Brown entitled to his own private polling or private anything for that matter??
Many of the questioners re "Why publish it NOW ?" seem to be attacking the messenger rather than the message. Surely the correct target to hammer is the person performing such atrocious acts, rather than the person exposing them. Without that bahaviour, there would be nothing to expose, no ?
As it is, there will be much rudeness about other post-election books wanting to know why the writers waited til AFTER we had a choice of Brown when they KNEW what he was like. Funny where people's loyalties lie. EG "We knew he was a criminal, but he was OUR criminal." The WIDER public good does not seem to figure in the equation.
I see the BBC have decided, either by meme or by editorial dictat, that the most effective way to undermine the book is to trash the motives of its author. I was disappointed that Andrew Neil played the man, rather than the ball. perhaps he owed Andrew Marr a favour.
PS - did Brown receive his money for this 'fund with no name' in brown envelopes?
It certainly gives a whole new meaning to the phrase.
I missed Peter Watt's interview.
When I switched on, a Labour and Tory MP were introduced (sorry, cant remember their names).
Brillo said to the Tory (MP for Milton Keynes); "We don't get many Tories on the show. Why don't they want to be on the show? We're not going to change the way we do things."
That was the gist of what he said, in a very grumpy and aggressive tone.
What's it all about?
I've seen plenty of Tories on the show. Has someone complained about bias or is there now something of a boycott by the Tories?
He had trouble giving a reason why anyone should vote Labour!
Here's the same interview, viewable for those of us currently (or permanently) outside the UK:
As Alan Douglas says, the attack is on the messenger not the message.
No one attacks the message, apart from a 'non denial, denial'.
What a total loser Peter Watt is...
He works with Gordon Brown first hand, sees how incompetent he is, tells the world how idiotic and disfunctional he is and still says he will vote for him!
He may not be a criminal in the eyes of the law but his voting intentions must come pretty close!
Peter Watt - the Tory Kim Philby.
[That's a compliment BTW]
Lol'd at Brillo in the context of PW's insistence that he'd be voting for the intellectual giant of Brown rather than Cameron :
"Lenin had a huge intellect" (2:36)
Apart from that, thought it was a bit depressing, going on and on playing the man but telling us nothing about what he'd written. Seems to have been a fairly consistent thing in most of the interviews, see also the 5 Live interview (starts at 10:10)
Liked the way he blamed his publisher for the decision to serialise in the Mail....
"recorded in the t'atty exercise book'."
At least he has an exercise book. Back in November Guido promised to publish monthly financial statements for his fake NGO. Nothing since.
Post a Comment