Gordon Brown has been asked in Parliament about the now infamous "fund with no name" that Peter Watt referenced in his book "Inside Out". Asked by David Evenett why it was not declared on the Register of Members' Interest. Brown's response was,
I know nothing of what he is talking aboutApart from the roars of laughter in the Commons, presumably he's either claiming that he hasn't read the newspapers, or noticed a complaint about him to the Parliamentary Standard Commissioner, or, he's calling Peter Watt a liar - having already branded him a criminal and screwing him over as detailed in the book.
Nice man, our PM.
If he is found to have known then it is cast iron misleading the house and a resigning matter.
ReplyDeleteAs the inimitable George Costanza, a role model for us all, once said: "It's not a lie if YOU believe it".
ReplyDeleteThe worst thing was that the BBC have decided to destroy the Daily Politics by engaging the half-witted Richard Madeley as a regular commentator.
ReplyDeleteDan, sorry but the Daily Politics blew it for me a week or so ago with Neil's truculent treatment of Eric Pickles. I had some time for Andrew Neil up until this point but on that occasion he just came off like the school bully who picked on the wrong victim.
ReplyDeleteI can confirm that as a result of that interview the BBC is now £142 per year worse off. Can pay won't pay.
You don't need to doubt Gordon's word, just understand he speaks a different language.
ReplyDeleteGo to the Babel Fish translatation page and put "I know nothing of what he is talking about" into the text box, select 'Gordon Brown into English" and click on 'translate'.
It comes out as:
'I know only too well what he is talking about'
I wonder if there was a bound collection of paper detailing with via writing the events in question.
ReplyDeleteIf only someone would sell such a collection.
Of course if they did it would probably have to be relentlessly plugged somewhere.
I agree desperate Dan. Madeley seems to be trying to recast himself as a political hack of some description and fails miserably. I think he had the orangey brown skin tone similar to that of Kilroy?
ReplyDeleteWell done David Evenett
ReplyDeleteDirect hit - I believe
Brown's aides released a statement saying that the Dodgy Donor had sent, through a proxy, a cheque for £50,000 for his leadership campaign. They claimed they had torn it up. The law required it to be handed over to the Electoral Commission where it would be forfeit to the Treasury. On their own admission an offence was committed.
ReplyDeleteNot very long afterwards - I have lost the date - Brown donated £50,000 to the Labour Party.
Well, as the old saying goes "you don't have to be a liar to work for New Labour, but it helps!"
ReplyDeleteAnd why didn't anyone ask Brown if he had ever grabbed or yanked a secretary out of her chair, causing an assault, and presumably a crime? Tough on crime, tough on the causes, Gordon - what would Harperson say!
Well done David Evenett
ReplyDeleteDirect hit - I believe
Nice to see if Wattsie can come up with the goods on Gordo and the alleged fund.
ReplyDeleteAs then its curtains for Gordo and perhaps a second and more searching inquiry into the S(m)ith Institute shenanigans.
Resign? didn't you know that's an old-fashioned, out of date notion which has no place in a New Labour Government. Much like honour, integrity and competence...
ReplyDeleteFirst rule of PR - tell the truth, because if you're found to be lying, the consequences will be much worse.
ReplyDeleteFirst rule of writing an autobiography - include interesting revelations (true or otherwise) that will get picked up by the papers.
No-one has any reason to trust Watt more than Brown. Let's just wait for the evidence.
Not for the first time the Yorkshire Terrorist misses the point.
ReplyDeleteThere absolutely IS more reason to trust Watt over Brown as the latter is a demonstrable liar. That is his history. In contrast when Watt's revelations were first disclosed those who should know (Douglas Alexander et al)were very coded in their "denials".
You have to be a very special sort of gullible to believe Brown's statement in the House. So it was bad PR? So what? Since when did Brown do GOOD PR?
A Columbo moment:
ReplyDeleteAnd another thing: if this was an allegation made about John Major in 1997 it would not be out of the headlines. And quite right too. The fact that the media have left it alone is a disgrace. The fact that the blogosphere is not therefore making the running is equally a disgrace.
Just how corrupt does this government need to be before the Warks and the Robinsons get stuck in?
Brown always lies and misleads. Its endemic with him.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was more of a gasp than a roar of laughter - it was so patently obvious that Brown was telling a blatant lie that most were flabbergasted.
ReplyDeleteI presume from now on he will be asked this at every PMs QT?
WV= squaddi.
ReplyDeleteThat is all.