What is John Prescott actually for ?

[Dick Smith]

Made me larf!

In a lot of places they wouldn't give houseroom to the vindictive Calvinistic complaints of a retired Scottish copper, probably they would be too busy...

[Beryl]

So Dick, are you implying that I cannot think for myself but just echoing what I may or may not read in the papers?[:D]

There is such a thing as misconduct in  public office. If a policeman can narrowly avoid jail but lose his job for having sex in a patrol car, then why should the Deputy PM not face such a charge for having sex with his secretary in his office, in works time? I don't like double standards.

As for politicians not getting a fair trial, who would you cite as an example Lord Archer ? Aitkin?

 

 

[Dick Smith]

I'm afraid you will have to sort out implications for yourself.

You might like to read 'What the Media are Doing to Our Politics' by John Lloyd.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1841199001/qid%3D1147526531/026-6634221-1484402

If you do read it, read it more closely than you read my post. I didn't mention fair trials, I guess you just threw that in to 'make a point' even though I never said it...

[Ron Avery]

Beryl  The copper was on duty , in uniform and in his Police car.  There is no firm evidence aside from tabloid gossip that Prescott did his dirty deeds either in his office or in "works time".  It would also be difficult to argue that any minister was either on or off duty.at any given time of day.  In the public eye they may be on duty 24/24 and 7/7 but in reality aren't they entitled some time off like the resrt of us?.

[Beryl]

I took 'hearing' to be in the legal sense, hence my use of the word trials.

I wasn't aiming to make a point , just misconstrued the meaning of the word as you intended it be meant.

 

Ron,

I understand your point of view and your put forward a good defence for the Deputy PM. But to me it seemed to be misconduct and that the decision to not even consider a full investigation into this affair was in my opinion ,wrong.

 

[Gluestick]

[quote user="Dick Smith"]The press in this country ensures that no politician ever gets a fair hearing, no matter what party. They have, over years, developed a mindset in the public that all poliiticians are corrupt and dishonest or else incompetent. Large sections of the population seem to find thinking for themselves too hard or time-consuming to bother with, so they simply parrot what the press says.
In what way does John Prescott's size or looks impact upon his work? In no way. Yet several of you here seem to think those things are paramount. Simple insults do not count as considered political thought, I am afraid.

Quote: Ron:

Spot on Dick, I actually worked under Prescott's direction on the London Jubilee line Extension and it was to his credit that it was finished in time for the Millenium.  He is a no-nosense *** kicker, he is a very able manager and doer and he gets things done.  He not only bangs heads together he also suggests alternatives and strategies  He had had a full time job before they gave him a Department and he will now revert to making things happen in Government and the country by banging heads and kicking arses which is what he excels at.  The right wing press in the UK have a habit of going for the most able politicians because a successful government is the biggest threat to the Tories returning to power. 

As far as I know Beryl  its not a criminal offence to shag your secretary, good job too as many so called captains of industry would be doing time if that were the case, mind you Prescott never got her up the duff and then walked away like another politician that comes to mind. 
[/quote]

Perhaps I am wrong, but in my naviety, I thought that politicians, being in the public eye, were meant to be exemplars of virtue? Additionally, a party, which, made as a central plank of its election  manifesto, Tory Sleeze, seemed to have fallen foul of its own stated objectives here and there..............

Personally, having no political affiliations and believing they are all as bad and as incompetent as each other, I do find the comment that "All politicians are corrupt et al", unfortunately does indeed sum up the public perception of the breed. With good reason.

Many years ago, I developed my theory of what I called, "Political Interference Factor": i.e. the amount by which politicians interfere in our daily lives. If it is ten percent (in relative terms of taxes and dynamics of society) then we pays our tribute, ignores the sods and gets on with our own lives.

When, as now, it reaches circa 90%, then, " Houston we have a problem!"

When these clowns are not only expected to behave responsibly, handle the affairs of state with ability and dignity, and fail on most counts: yet award themselves vast salaries and wonderful pensions (all on top of their "Consulting" work and other ex-curricula activities - in working time for which they are being paid by us), then I believe we, the public have cause for criticism.

The words best Practice: Best Value and Accountability sort of spring to mind.

Interesting how we can all have different experiences.

A couple of years ago, I was a speaker at a seminar hosted and organised in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

Not only was the whole place a chaotic shambles, but the "IT Expert" who was supposed to sort out the laptop and network connection, in order that the presenters could, well, present, didn't have a clue.

The facility literally dripped with very upmarket projection, audio and multimedia equipment, however.

After spending many hours on a very upbeat Powerpoint, I finished up doing the whole thing verbally.

There were literally zillions of people all strolling around with bits of paper, however.

Highly impressive: not.............

 

[Iceni]

TTBOMKAB he is not required to DO anything. The "rank and file" voted him into his sinecure in a sort of BOGOF deal where the booby prize for the UK as a whole was TB as leader. If I am correct then unless JP resigns (and why should he give up loadsamoney for no work) or dies of course you will have to suffer him a while longer. On the plus side he gives minutes of harmless fun to HIGNFY fans.

John

not

[Dick Smith]

Then your knowledge is sadly lacking, as you so often show when posting about politics.

As deputy PM Prescott chairs and runs a number of important cabinet committees. One of these is the Domestic Affairs Committee, which oversees all domestic policies, and is quite important...   Also the Public Health and Local and Regional Government committees. It is generally accepted in Westminster that JP is an adroit and effective chairman, good at doing what Ron said he was good at and getting departments galvanised.

He is working on Britain's responsibilities under the Kyoto treaty, as well as working with departments including energy and work and pensions.

His pay is the same as other cabinet colleagues of the same rank and seniority. He has the same use of an official car, and in his case a grace and favour accomodation, which is also hardly exceptional. He claims less in expenses than many of his colleagues, more than Peter Mandelson but less than William Hague and Martin McGuinness (who of course doesn't go to Westminster at all) and much less than the record-holder Eric Joyce.

I am rather depressed by this constant litany that all politicians are idle time-servers only interested in lining their own pockets. You really need to do a bit of research and find out what they do. Trouble is, that involves a bit of work...

[Russethouse]

'and in his case a grace and favour accommodation, which is also hardly exceptional'

LOL Dick, have you SEEN Dorney Wood ? [:)] Couldn't it at least be for the official use of several ministers? Or if it is already, that be made clear?

He has been caught out as a hypocrite and I suspect his presence in office will not be any great asset when push comes to shove and the Sun, Daily Mail readers etc all get to use their vote ,which in a democracy counts equally to anyone else's.

I'm beginning to get an inkling that Ruth Kelly may be of more concern but I have only seen 'headlines' as yet........

 

[Dick Smith]

The government own dozens of places like Dorney Wood, and has for a hundred years. That really isn't important. And I don't honestly think that his 'hypocrisy' really matters all that much to voters, although the constant corrosive abuse from the media probably does. As we have seen in this thread a lot of that is mindless ad hominem insults based on his appearance or fantasies about him having two cars. Why shouldn't he have as many cars as he wants? Just an example of the press (the Sun in this case) making a ridiculous attack and people following along without ever applying a second of critical thought.

Kelly is a worry. She is a deeply religious person, which in my book is closely related to fanatical bigot. Her time at education was extremely undistinguished, losing the support of the profession, her civil servants and the general public. She is committed to 'Faith Schools' (as is Tony Blair) including fundamentalist ones, both Christian and Muslim. She doesn't see segregating children by religion as divisive... She is conservative to the point that she turned down educational reforms which were supported by the teachers, heads and her own civil servants, partly out of fear of change, partly out of fear of the Daily Mail and Sun (who, amazingly, claim to have an education correspondent).

Her connections to Opus Dei are more or less worrying depending on how much we can find out about what is essentially a secret organisation. It is certainly not socially liberal or progressive, and carries worrying elitist overtones.

I'm afraid that people are just dumb when it comes to politicians. They rush to attack people like Prescott, who has done a lot of good in his day, and don't protest the appointment of people like Clark or Kelly, who are actually dangerous.

[Deimos]

 

[quote user="Dick Smith"]The press in this country ensures that no politician ever gets a fair hearing, no matter what party. They have, over years, developed a mindset in the public that all poliiticians are corrupt and dishonest or else incompetent.
[/quote]

Not in a position to agree or otherwise with this. However, what probably contributes a lot to such press/truth issues with regard to politicians is that these days they are rarely prepared to appear in public to answer questions. On the rare occasions they do they answer questions that were not asked, evade or refuse to answer anything they had not agreed to discuss “when agreeing to go on the program”, etc. There are quite a few incidents where they are found to have lied, cheated, been deceitful, etc. I tend to feel it is for the politicians to regain our trust – something that they don't seem to be achieving at the moment.

[quote user="Dick Smith"]Why shouldn't he have as many cars as he wants?
[/quote]

He can have as many cars as he wants, provided he does not expect me to pay for them and that he uses them responsibly. Though to tell us all to give up using our cars and switch to public transport, but then use one of his cars for a 100 yd journey is probably a bit much. Anyway, we all have to pay for Tony Blair to be flown on holiday by the Royal Airforce so why shouldn't Prescott be allowed to waste fuel, pollute, etc. as well.

[quote user="Dick Smith"]One of these is the Domestic Affairs Committee, which oversees all domestic policies, and is quite important...   Also the Public Health and Local and Regional Government committees.[/quote]

From what I have seen he no longer has responsibility for local government, regional policy and planning (Telegraph 6/5/2006 “He loses his wide ministerial responsibilities for local government, regional policy and planning.”).

In fact Hazel Blears has said his new “important” role is to bring the parliamentary Labour party together and to work closely with her on the Labour's National Executive. Sorry, but my opinion is that Labour's National Executive is something related to the Labour party and should NOT be funded by the tax payer.

[quote user="Dick Smith"]... and don't protest the appointment of people like Clark or Kelly, who are actually dangerous.
[/quote]

I agree absolutely (and I would add a few other names to the list).

Ian

[Dick Smith]

Prescott's Jags (he only has one, he had two some time ago) are his own property, paid for by him. As a cabinet minister he gets the use of an official car, but then even I have had that! Official cars are routinely used for security as well as transportational reasons, of course.

Tony Blair has not used the RAF to go on holiday as far as I am aware. Do you have a definitive source for that?

Please read what I said. Prescott chairs a number (about 50) cabinet and other commitees. That is not the same as having departmental responsibilities, the two are separate. The committees oversee and co-ordinate the work of departments.

Of course Prescott also has Labour Party duties. They are nothing to do with his parliamentary responsibilities. They are not funded by the public purse, and were it to be so you would hear all about it, as other political parties keep a close eye on that.

I really do think that people who criticise politicians and the workings of politics ought to learn enough about the subject not to simply recycle old stories and slurs.

[Deimos]

[quote user="Dick Smith"]Tony Blair has not used the RAF to go on holiday as far as I am aware. Do you have a definitive source for that?
[/quote]

I cannot claim a “definitive source” as I've not spoken to hi  personally, nor have I read official government documentation on it.

However, what he is alleged to have done (and Tony has not publically denied it), is that he has used the “Queen's Flight” (RAF Squadron 32, flying in a Bae 146 at a cost to tax payers of £100,000) for a recent holiday to Egypt.

After this it then emerged that he had actually been doing this for many years.

Seems that he has been using the “security reasons” arguments, though it is now considered that he is liable to pay personal income tax due to the “benefit in kind” (http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2154159/blair-liable-tax-holiday).

Telegraph: “Tony Blair is facing fresh criticism over his holiday arrangements after the disclosure that he cost taxpayers up to £100,000 by using the Queen's Flight to travel with his family for a Christmas break in Egypt, during the height of the tsunami crisis.”

Times: “TONY BLAIR was accused of using the Queen’s Flight as his personal taxi service after it emerged that he had spent more than £130,000 of taxpayers’ money on a string of family holidays.”

Times: “His holiday in Italy in August 1997 cost £17,000; in France £18,000 in August 1998; in Italy £19,300 in August 1999; and Italy again £16,000 in August 2000. In 2004 Mr Blair and his family combined his holiday to Italy with a trip to the Athens Olympics at a cost of £18,000.”

Times: “The questions will also focus on whether Mr Blair benefited from using the flights to attend three Labour Party conferences in Blackpool and Scotland.”

But Tony is not the only one to do this: “Margaret Beckett, the Environment Secretary, whose department is responsible for reducing both carbon emissions and air travel across Government, is one of the next highest users in the Cabinet. She has cost the taxpayer over £100,000 on 110 flights in three years.” (Times)

BBC News: “Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett took 106 RAF flights between 2002 and December 2004 - many to East Midlands airport, near her home in Derbyshire.“

etc., etc.
Maybe its all just malicious gossip – I have no idea as I've only read about it.

Ian

[Dick Smith]

There are several things being confused here.

When Tony Blair uses the Queen's Flight for official visits, the public purse pays. If he includes an element of personal travel at the same time he pays a contribution towards that. The argument has been that he has not paid enough of the cost - though presumably he paid what he was asked to pay, and that may be a contentious area anyway.

Margaret Beckett's flights were the most cost-effective way of getting her to Brussels for official meetings. There were no appropriate scheduled flights, and all this was discussed at the time and the audit office did not object.

Most of these reports are simply mischievous, as they don't bear scrutiny.

The security aspect is a pretty genuine concern at the present time, don't you think?

[Gluestick]

In the best interests of this forum, I am not going to write at length on this subject, as I believe politics are best avoided in such places, as they can quickly lead to inflamed feelings.

I must, however make the following observations:

I do not see quite how Mr Prescott manages to actually get any work done, since from what has been said, all of his time must be taken up with meetings! There is an old dictum, "Do a little well: or a lot badly!".

As anyone, myself included, who has anything to do with the parliamentary process knows, the house of commons is empty during "Debates", most of the time and MPs (including Ministers) rush back to vote on debates they have not either listened to or participated in! WHich makes a nonsense of the whole process.

My wife until a short time ago, worked at quite senior level, for one of the largest firms of management consultants in the world. They had numbers of permanent "Special Advisers", at huge cost, based in various government departments, all paid from public purse funds, and mainly concerned with "Proving" how well the government were doing; which is political, not administrative.

I am amazed, with his various domestic overhead, how Mr Prescott could afford to run two Jags, bearing in mind the present level of government salaries.

Despite Mr Smith's reassuring words, most electors and commentators are hugely unimpressed by current so-called democractic government and its performance: and deeply annoyed at the amoral attitudes demonstrated by politicians. I would include Tony Benn amongst the critics!

 

[Dick Smith]

Yes, his job is in large part chairing committees, so he spends time in meetings. Don't really get your point, there.

Yes, government uses a large number of consultants. Most of these are used in the civil service to make it look as though there are less civil servants, so not really anything to do with this discussion, though it could be another one.

MPs not being in the house for debates is an old red herring. How would the process of government work if they all spent all day in the debating chamber, instead of working in committees, where the real business is done, and in, yes, meetings with officials and departmental planning, let alone being out and about meeting the public etc.?

I can afford to run two cars, why shouldn't John Prescott who earns three times as much as I do?

Tony Benn is a nice guy (apart from the pipe) but he isn't really credible any more.

Phrases such as 'most electors' are clearly untrue, as most electors voted for the present government or one of the alternatives within the same system. 'Commentators' or most commentators is again an unverifiable assertion, and is probably untrue.

Like I said before, people who critcicise need to think about what they are objecting to, rather than all this hearsay and kneejerk stuff.

[Iceni]

[quote user="Dick Smith"]

I can afford to run two cars, why shouldn't John Prescott who earns three times as much as I do?

[/quote]

Perhaps "is paid" rather than "earns" ?

John

not

[Iceni]

[quote user="Dick Smith"]Then your knowledge is sadly lacking, as you so often show when posting about politics.
As deputy PM Prescott chairs and runs a number of important cabinet committees. One of these is the Domestic Affairs Committee, which oversees all domestic policies, and is quite important...   Also the Public Health and Local and Regional Government committees. It is generally accepted in Westminster that JP is an adroit and effective chairman, good at doing what Ron said he was good at and getting departments galvanised.
He is working on Britain's responsibilities under the Kyoto treaty, as well as working with departments including energy and work and pensions.
His pay is the same as other cabinet colleagues of the same rank and seniority. He has the same use of an official car, and in his case a grace and favour accomodation, which is also hardly exceptional. He claims less in expenses than many of his colleagues, more than Peter Mandelson but less than William Hague and Martin McGuinness (who of course doesn't go to Westminster at all) and much less than the record-holder Eric Joyce.
I am rather depressed by this constant litany that all politicians are idle time-servers only interested in lining their own pockets. You really need to do a bit of research and find out what they do. Trouble is, that involves a bit of work...
[/quote]

So as I suspected he does not really DO anything.

John

not

[powerdesal]

Dick,

I am not going to get into a politcal argument with you as its

reasonably clear to me that we hold opposing views about the present

Government of UK, or about particular individuals in it. You are

'robust' in your comments, as you are entitled to be, although if I

were the target of your responses I would feel somewhat 'patronised'.

Your statement that '..........most electors voted for the present

government or one of the alternatives within the same system.......' is

not (IMHO) a justified response to Gluestick post. As most people get

their information from the press and the press reflect the views of

their readership it is reasonable to form a view that such response

shows a great deal of dissatisfaction with the state of Democracy and

Government in the UK, there is no 'probably untrue' about it.

People who criticise are not necessarily unthinking nor are they

necessarily guilty of kneejerk reactions or of responding to hearsay.

They are guilty of not agreeing with you or with the present UK Govt.,

a somewhat different thing is it not?

Regards

[Dick Smith]

Steve - I think that anyone who really believes that chairing government oversight committees is 'not working' really needs a proper political education. I don't mind people objecting to me over matters of policy or politics, but I think that people should not make statements where their understanding is so clearly limited or blinkered.

[Russethouse]

Sorry to divert from the subject of John Prescott, but one thing I do agree with Dick about is concern regarding Ruth Kelly. From the little I have read (and I admit I have skated over the topic and not explored it in depth) it seems that the the organization she belongs to 'Opus Dei' (sp) has views that should she agree with, would make it very difficult for her to carry out her duties regarding equal opportunities.

At the very least it means that anytime she makes a decision that is questionable, all this will come to the fore and there will be endless appeals and people feeling they have been wronged. That doesn't seem to be a good thing to me.

Re John Prescott - he may be a real go getter and the best thing since sliced bread, but surely having a sexual relationship with a member of staff, a civil servant, in the office with the door open, shows a stunning lack of integrity and common sense? Do we actually want such a person heading up all these committees?

[Ron Avery]

Re John Prescott - " but surely having a sexual relationship with a member of staff, a civil servant, in the office with the door open, shows a stunning lack of integrity and common sense? "

Don't remember reading that anywhere Gay, was that a tit bit that Max Clifford just threw in for the readers of the News of the Screws[:D]  Do you really think that he is that daft, even if he weere single he would not be that stupid.  Did you notice how the secretary who was a bit of a glam puss before is now pictured like a secretary in a third rate porn movie.

[Beryl]

Like you Gay, I don't know a great deal about Ruth Kelly but I read that she refused to comment on her views on homosexuality, which, given her current post is a little worrying. Of course, she is entitled to her beliefs but if they impact negatively on the way she does her job, well that's a different story. I suppose it would be political suicide to openly state she does not agree with homosexuality but silence can often be misconstrued. I would have much more admiration for the women if she openly gave her opinions on this matter.

 

 

[Dick Smith]

Ruth Kelly can't possibly give her opinions, they would cause such an outcry. They were no more acceptable at education.

Whilst we have 'committed' Christians running governments, this is the sort of thing which will happen.

[Hoddy]

I’ve been reading this with interest because I don’t see English newspapers at the moment.

I don't particularly like John Prescott’s, but I can't see how his sex life affects his ability to chair committees.

I’m not sure how this story came out. Did she kiss and tell ?  I’m not at all happy about women who do that about a consenting relationship.

I find the idea that newspapers reflect their reader’s views an interesting one. I would have thought they are more likely to reflect their proprietor’s views.

As for Ruth Kelly, her (and Tony Blair's) encouragement of faith schools flies in the face of anyone who thinks that we need a concensus of ideas to make a society work.

Hoddy