ChatterBank2 mins ago
Did Mr. Brown do a deal with the DUP over the 42 days?
According to the Daily Mail (so this could be complete b0ll0cks) today in parliament, Mr. Vaz asked if he (Mr. Brown) had made any offers to the DUP, whose 9 votes were decisive.
And now for Mr. Brown's answer to this question:-
'I think that the criticism of the DUP has been totally misplaced. If there was any party in the House of Commons that knows what terrorism can do and what is its impact on our society, it is the Ulster Unionists.'
So now you know the answer.
My question is this; why did Mr. Brown not say that no deal was done (if that is the truth), conversely, if a deal was done � why did he not say that no deal was done?
After all, the DUP have publicly said that no deal was done, they could hardly say that Mr. Brown had reneged on a deal, that they publicly stated did not exist � without appearing as dishonest as Mr. Brown.
And now for Mr. Brown's answer to this question:-
'I think that the criticism of the DUP has been totally misplaced. If there was any party in the House of Commons that knows what terrorism can do and what is its impact on our society, it is the Ulster Unionists.'
So now you know the answer.
My question is this; why did Mr. Brown not say that no deal was done (if that is the truth), conversely, if a deal was done � why did he not say that no deal was done?
After all, the DUP have publicly said that no deal was done, they could hardly say that Mr. Brown had reneged on a deal, that they publicly stated did not exist � without appearing as dishonest as Mr. Brown.
Answers
1 to 3 of 3
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Hymie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Sounds like a bit of sophistry going on.
Probably no hard and fast deal more like a gentlemans agreement along the lines of "if you support me I'll remember it when we come to X Y and Z"
But then that's how a lot of politics works anyway. Back benchers obey the 3 line whip because they hope to be progressed into ministerial positions. MPs support candidates for leadership in return for positions under that leader.
It's a consequence of the party system without it you'd be back in the 17th Century when MPs had little or no allegiance to a party and getting any law though parliament would be he devil's own job
Probably no hard and fast deal more like a gentlemans agreement along the lines of "if you support me I'll remember it when we come to X Y and Z"
But then that's how a lot of politics works anyway. Back benchers obey the 3 line whip because they hope to be progressed into ministerial positions. MPs support candidates for leadership in return for positions under that leader.
It's a consequence of the party system without it you'd be back in the 17th Century when MPs had little or no allegiance to a party and getting any law though parliament would be he devil's own job
Oh and why did he not say that then?
Well apart from the inevitable twisting of the facts and manic screaming of the tabloids.
Ask yourself if a politician or a diplomat gets a reputation for telling everybody about what goes on behind closed doors would you want to deal with them in private?
Bit of a political version of the kiss and tell story.
Well apart from the inevitable twisting of the facts and manic screaming of the tabloids.
Ask yourself if a politician or a diplomat gets a reputation for telling everybody about what goes on behind closed doors would you want to deal with them in private?
Bit of a political version of the kiss and tell story.
1 to 3 of 3
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.