Friday, 5 June 2009

Iain Dale: "Brown Lied"

As the press rips into Gordon Brown's appalling all-round performance in all tomorrow's papers (eg: here), there was one piece of news that might go unnoticed (but damn well shouldn't) that just appeared on Sky.

Iain Dale, covering the front pages with Sir Michael White and Eve Pollard, became very animated when White began to put his usual moronic, self-satisfied Labourist spin on Brown's humiliation. Dale, after ripping White a new one for his extra-terrestrial nonsense, pointed out that Brown lied though his teeth in his press conference earlier today when he claimed he had never wanted to sack Alistair Darling. White sort of protested, but Dale nailed him by saying that White had known about it all along.

I just wonder, is it all fine and dandy for Brown to be caught in a lie like this? Or will he be finally held to account for his mendacity? Is it too much to ask if it's true that the Tories actually want Brown to carry on, as Dale has said just a few moments ago, that Brown be brought to book for at least one of his untruths? There are literally thousands to choose from. Why not start with his lie about Darling?

Here's the trainwreck news conference again, if you can bare it, complete with the Darling lie.

I draw your attention particularly to Fraser Nelson's economic exocet as well. The relevant article revealing Brown's lies, and to which Brown refers, about Labour cuts is here.

And meanwhile, in yet another scoop for the Sleazygraph, Brown (not him again!) has paid back £500 of money he claimed on two houses. It's just been on the news and there's no link to it yet. More later, then. [UPDATE: here it is.]

Never rains but it pours when you're an habitual liar, Broon, my man.


  1. Look (as Brown always says when he is just about to lie....) - if Brown was to take a walk down 20 miles of empty 3 lane motorway,he is so unlucky,he would be the only person to step in the dog turd half way along on the side of a lane.

    Today could be the start of the shattering of this bollocks about "I am purer than the driven snow".

  2. Let's hope so, friend. Let's hope so.

  3. I think Brown fairly successfully batted away the question from the dude with the funny pursed-lip accent, which is a shame if there was substance to his allegation. I'm afraid he fluffed it.

  4. Yes, there is substance to the 'allegation'. The point is, 'batting away' a question is not the same as answering it. And this is a question that could conceivably change the course of the country's political history. So Brown must be challenged with the truthful answer.

    Raise your standards 'commentor'.


Any thoughts?