[Archived] Podger Prescott

[thenodrog]

As if all this wasn't bad enough .....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2168926,00.html

Just when he thought his personal nightmare was over It's just got worse for the Westminster lothario .......

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2168938,00.html

His political career is in shreds so just how he still gets to keep his sumptious apartment (that Mrs Prescott spent a fortune of taxpayers money re-decorating) at Admiralty Arch, and the palatially splendid Dorneywood is an insult to the overburdened taxpayers and the grass root union members of this country.

How does the hypocrite even manage to pretend that his politics and principles are of the far left?

Try as I might I cannot think of a closer real life likeness to Orwells pigs from Animal Farm than John Prescott.

Edited May 7, 2006 by thenodrog

[Flopsy]

the pigs were intelligent and politically astute. I cant see any resemblance

[Cocker]

What does John Prescott and an MFI flatpack have in common?

A few screws in the wrong place and the whole fookin cabinet falls apart

[Anti-Man Utd]

Jmes Whale has been joking about Prescott a lot on Talksport recently. Hardly a scandal is it compared to the other stories in the last couple of weeks.

[Anti Euro Smiths Fan]

This is what John Prescott said in 1996 - speaking to the last Labour Conference before they took power:

"For too many Tories, morality means not getting caught. We are a party of principle. We will earn the trust of the British people. We've had enough lies. Enough sleaze."

Well it's just over nine years ago that New Labour was elected on an anti-sleaze ticket.

Since then it's become clear that we've got New Labour, New Sleaze - a party that sells honours to anyone with a big enough wallet and a party that changes it's manifesto commitments when they are given a £1m donation. (Bernie Ecclestone).

A Home Secretary who released over 1,000 foreign criminals back into our streets - the same Charles Clarke who lectured us about how ID cards will keep foreign criminals off our streets and make our communities safer.

Some may argue that John Prescott's particular sexual liaisons are his own private business - but this is the same guy who made political capital out of various Tory MP's antics in the bedroom.

I notice that Sir Menzies Campbell has weighed in with some criticism of John Prescott. Sir Menzies has had one or two 'little local difficulties' in his own party in recent months.

I had to smile earlier this week at the excuse that Mark Oaten came up with for cheating on his wife and paying for sex with rent boys. Oaten blamed his behaviour on losing his hair, which he said contributed to a mid-life crisis. The same Mark Oaten, who when putting his name forward for the Lib Dem leadership, told party members that he had no skeletons in his cupboard and posed for happy family pictures at the kitchen breakfast table.

Link: Oaten tells of despair at losing his hair.

Edit: Earlier link relating to the antics of Simon Hughes is now out of date and no longer working.

Edited April 20, 2008 by Anti Euro Smiths Fan

[colin]

For those not interested in further details about Mr Hughes's rather adventurous love life, please don't click the link below - no need to shoot the messenger....

"Hughes buggered man within an hour of meeting him"

407151[/snapback]

Not shooting the messenger Smithy, just wondering where the "Hughes Buggered Man........" bit came from. It seems you know more detail than the Sunday Mirror and quite frankly (Mr Shankley) I find it rather disturbing

[broadsword]

Makes me laugh!

If you don't want to know the sordid details of this story do not click this link, which is entitled, 'Simon Hughes bugg...'.

Hysterical.

... and what's the big story, "Politician turns out to be free-loading hypocrite", well, strike me down, what a shocker. We should all be so very surprised, before we go back to vote for a mainstream party in a few years time.

Edited May 12, 2006 by Bryan

[thenodrog]

... and what's the big story, "Politician turns out to be free-loading hypocrite", well, strike me down, what a shocker. We should all be so very surprised, before we go back to vote for a mainstream party in a few years time.

407434[/snapback]

Sad innit? So many people voting the way their Dad's told em to vote many many years ago? A strange but tangible aspect of human behaviour which politicians absolutely thrive on.

Sad.

[broadsword]

You could put a red rossette on a chimp and the people of Blackburn would vote him into office.

John Prescott is a disgrace to public office. But no-one raises an eyebrow because it's par for the course.

Westminster is just far too comfy and teh whole damn thing needs shaking up. The rot starts at the top with a Prime Minister who has only a passing regard for teh purpose of Parliament. I would say that the sooner he goes the better, but as Gorgeous George says, Tony and Gordon are two cheeks of the same bum.

[Guest Dik Bleek]

You could put a red rossette on a chimp and the people of Blackburn would vote him into office.

I thought they did for the local elections!

[Anti Euro Smiths Fan]

Well there are plenty of people jostling for position for when Prescott eventually goes....

Alan Johnson, the Education Secretary, publicly declared his interest in the job last week. Constitutional Affairs Minister Harriet Harman says she believes it is a "necessity" for the next Deputy PM to be a woman, while Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt also says she favours a woman to take over from Prescott.

Apparently Gordon Brown is said to favour either Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain or Alan Johnson in preference to two of the potential leading women candidates - Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt.

There's also speculation that Jack Straw, recently demoted from Foreign Secretary to the rather less grand job of Leader of the House of Commons, and Hazel Blears, the Labour party chairman, could decide to throw their hats into the ring too. It could be a contest with many runners and riders.

Makes me laugh!

If you don't want to know the sordid details of this story do not click this link, which is entitled, 'Simon Hughes bugg...'.

Hysterical.

Thank you Bryan for taking my earlier post in a lighthearted spirit.

If a male actor, TV entertainer, pop star etc, decided to indulge in liaisons with other men he'd met on gay websites, I wouldn't have a particular problem with that. But the problem with Mr Hughes is that he deceived voters in Bermondsey, where he was first elected as an MP in a by-election in 1983.

The liberals conducted a smear campaign against the gay Labour candidate Peter Tatchell, handing out leaflets to voters with a picture of Simon Hughes and the words: "The Straight Candidate." A picture of Tatchell was superimposed next to a picture of Her Maj, with the words: "Two Queens together."

Simon Hughes then threatened legal action against Channel 4 in 1987 for a programme called "After Dark" where a guest on the programme suggested that Hughes might be gay.

And just a week before the start of the Liberal Democrat leadership contest earlier this year, Hughes denied that he was gay in an interview with the Independent newspaper. So one could suggest that he not only deceived the voters in Bermondsey in 1983, but he was also looking to deceive the Liberal party membership as a whole.

If Hughes didn't want to discuss his private life all he had to say to the Independent was "Sorry, no comment" - and then he wouldn't have been accused of lying.

Edited April 20, 2008 by Anti Euro Smiths Fan

[thenodrog]

Makes Prezza kinda 'honourable' then eh aesf?

[colin]

Smithy,

You're not suggesting that people should vote for candidates according to their sexual tendencies are you?

It would certainly be a revelation if every candidate at local and general elections had to submit a subsiduary manifesto based on their sexual preferences. Doggy, missionary, leaping off the wardrobe, purchases from Ann Summers that need batteries.......interesting but hardly going to help when you want to know which candidate supports (say) building nuclear power stations.

I tend to think that people will vote for candidates based on their policies and politics. Don't you?

Anyway, how come you are so interested in Simon Hughes being gay?

[blue phil]

Smithy,

You're not suggesting that people should vote for candidates according to their sexual tendencies are you?

No I don't think he is , Colin . Well spotted , Sir .

What he is suggesting (if you concentrate really , really hard) is that the element of hypocrisy involved makes these liars unfit for office .

Unless , of course , your standards are so low that you don't consider such characteristics to be any bar from standing for parliament . Probably the case with yourself I'm afraid

[colin]

No I don't think he is , Colin . Well spotted , Sir .

What he is suggesting (if you concentrate really , really hard) is that the element of hypocrisy involved makes these liars unfit for office .

Unless , of course , your standards are so low that you don't consider such characteristics to be any bar from standing for parliament . Probably the case with yourself I'm afraid

I'm not talking to you, I'm asking AESF. I'm afraid.

[blue phil]

OOOOOHHHH.........Bitchy

Have the chill pills not kicked in this early , Col

[American]

Smithy,

You're not suggesting that people should vote for candidates according to their sexual tendencies are you?

It would certainly be a revelation if every candidate at local and general elections had to submit a subsiduary manifesto based on their sexual preferences. Doggy, missionary, leaping off the wardrobe, purchases from Ann Summers that need batteries.......interesting but hardly going to help when you want to know which candidate supports (say) building nuclear power stations.

I tend to think that people will vote for candidates based on their policies and politics. Don't you?

Anyway, how come you are so interested in Simon Hughes being gay?

He's not suggesting that, Hughes was...

[colin]

OOOOOHHHH.........Bitchy

Have the chill pills not kicked in this early , Col

I probably deserved that.

But if you are going to be Alistair Campbell to Smithy's Tony Blair you should expect some flak.

[joey_big_nose]

I do agree that lying to the press outright in a way that will sway the voters is unacceptable.

But doesn't anybody feel all this prying into the private lives of MPs is going a bit too far? The point is surely their policies and carrying out of the duty to the constituency. But it is not dereliciton of duty that makes the headlines but sex scadals, mainly because everybody is so goddamn sordid. You can bet your bottom dollar if he had done something outside of the real of sexuality the impact would have been less.

I said this before, but perhaps it is worth saying again, if the public is more interested in the sex lives of celebrities than in the policies and parties that create the society in which we live it is hardly suprising we have the set of politicians we do, and that our parliament runs in a less that perfect manner.

The tools are entirely at the disposal of the public to create a nation of their own choosing. We are a completely democratic state with a functioning court system and an, at least compared to the United States, government free of the binding hand of private interests. We are not a nation of victims hoodwinked and pushed around by maleovlent interest which conspire against us. Each individual is not powerless. We are a nation of free people with a collective voice. The only thing that chains us down is our collective apathy, and the wilful ignorance of so many people.

I personally feel that most MPs are decent men who are by no means perfect but willing to eschew larger salaries in the private sector in order to serve the public. Sure they become cynical over time, much like TND and AESF, but they put themselves in the firing line which both of those two individuals are too busy (or scared?) to do. Of course there are exceptions, but I grow extrodinarily tired of gleeful people pointing out the faults of others without doing anything about it.

[thenodrog]

Sure they become cynical over time, much like TND and AESF, but they put themselves in the firing line which both of those two individuals are too busy (or scared?) to do. Of course there are exceptions, but I grow extrodinarily tired of gleeful people pointing out the faults of others without doing anything about it.

How frickin hypocritical is that statement? What a plonker. Do you never read what you have written before posting JBN?

Edited June 7, 2006 by thenodrog

[blue phil]

I do agree that lying to the press outright in a way that will sway the voters is unacceptable.

But doesn't anybody feel all this prying into the private lives of MPs is going a bit too far? The point is surely their policies and carrying out of the duty to the constituency. But it is not dereliciton of duty that makes the headlines but sex scadals, mainly because everybody is so goddamn sordid. You can bet your bottom dollar if he had done something outside of the real of sexuality the impact would have been less.

I said this before, but perhaps it is worth saying again, if the public is more interested in the sex lives of celebrities than in the policies and parties that create the society in which we live it is hardly suprising we have the set of politicians we do, and that our parliament runs in a less that perfect manner.

Well I must differ from most voters in that the character of the politician is more important to me than his "policies" . Yes there are decent , honest politicians - I could perhaps name Mathew Parris (now an ex polician) who as most people are aware is gay. But is he the kind of bloke who would , like Simon Hughes , slag an opponent off for being gay while keeping his own sexuality a secret ? I somehow doubt it . Therefore most people wouldn't give a fig about his private life - the fact that he's not a hypocrite is enough .

Other decent politicians I can think of off hand are Frank Fields , Dale Campbell Savours , Boris Johnson and Anne Widdecombe - two Tories and two Labour (I can't think of a single Liberal !) . Perhaps people should start voting entirely on the character of their representatives rather than the policies they espouse like so many sheep . Individuality is far more important than following the party line . That is the best way of improving standards in politics .

Unfortunately , it's a sad fact of life that those most attracted to politics and gaining power are those most unworthy of it . It's a bit paradoxical to expect those unhappy with the current pool of career politicians to themselves join the game . Most are too busy trying to earn a living and pay the mortgage .

[joey_big_nose]

How frickin hypocritical is that statement? What a plonker. Do you never read what you have written before posting JBN?

How is it hypocritical?

I am not the one who desires to to radically alter the political and social environment in which I exist. You and AESF obviously have deep lying concerns about the way society is structured and the course it is taking, and, presumably from the nature of your posts, feel much more qualified and able than the politicians in charge to sort things out.

It is clear, at least in the way I read your posts, that the pair of you consider yourselves morally and intuitively superior to the members of the administration of the country and vast swathes of the population of the country in general.

Yet you limit action, as far as I am aware, on the subject to sniping on an internet message board.

Edited June 7, 2006 by joey_big_nose

[joey_big_nose]

Unfortunately , it's a sad fact of life that those most attracted to politics and gaining power are those most unworthy of it . It's a bit paradoxical to expect those unhappy with the current pool of career politicians to themselves join the game . Most are too busy trying to earn a living and pay the mortgage .

I am not sure that is neccesarily true. Those who go into politics tend to be, in my experience, idealists who honestly believe, rightly or wrongly, that they can change things for the better.

For the talented young person there is no financial reward from going into politics rather than business, and in the strong whip system of this country no real prospect of accumilating any notional amount of power in the short term. While there are people who are in there for the kicks, just look at Archer, to sustain yourselves through those years of paying your dues you have to really actually believe in what you are doing.

Politicians are just people. Some good, some bad, but merely through making a sacrifice (and don't for one second think there are not huge sacrifices) to serve the people (one few if any of us on here have), like teachers and doctors, worthy of some respect.

I feel personally that the routine abuse handed out to politicians is part of the problem that we have. All to easy to blame, very hard to actually get up and change things.

[Anti Euro Smiths Fan]

You're not suggesting that people should vote for candidates according to their sexual tendencies are you?

No Colin, but it's possible to argue that back in 1983 in the predominantly working class seat of Bermondsey in south London (near to the old Millwall docks and the infamous Millwall F.C.) , for some voters in the area at the time - I'd emphasise the word 'some' rather than all, they might have been put off from voting for a gay candidate and may well have looked for an alternative at the ballot box.

Back in 1983, homosexuality had only been legal in Britain for 16 years and it was illegal for 20-year-olds to indulge in gay acts. I think people's views on homosexuality have generally got more liberal over the last 20 - 25 years. In the early 1980s, a rather less tolerant view of homosexuality was probably more prevalent, particularly in working class areas.

The problem with Mr Hughes is that he deceived voters in Bermondsey in 1983 - as his campaign team conducted personal attacks against the gay Labour candidate Peter Tatchell, focusing on his sexuality. Clearly the liberals felt that Tatchell's homosexuality was an issue for working class voters and that it was a "vote loser" for Labour.

There was a huge 44 per cent swing in Simon Hughes's favour in the 1983 Bermondsey by-election - the biggest swing in any by-election in modern history. It seems that the tactics of the Liberals - focusing on personal attacks on Peter Tatchell had worked with the voters, or at least had done them no harm.

50 years of Labour rule in the Bermondsey area were ended on that night in 1983 and Hughes pushed up the Liberal vote by a staggering margin. Tatchell blamed his loss on "an unprecedented campaign of smears" and the 1983 Bermondsey by-election was later described by one media commentator as "the most personal and vicious by-election of modern times."

It's possible to argue that, at best, Hughes was somewhat reticent about his own sexuality while his Liberal campaign team eagerly attacked the sexuality of his opponent. Or at worst, Simon Hughes fraudulently won such a massive swing in 1983 by conducting a hypocritical campaign of deceit

Edited April 20, 2008 by Anti Euro Smiths Fan

[colin]

Thanks for the reply Smithy,

To be honest I'm not too bothered about Simon Hughes' success in that election.

However I do find it interesting that someone such as yourself (and indeed a large number of the population) find it surprising that a gay man would want to hide his sexuality from the electorate. Perhaps it's because they are continually whipped up into a homophobic froth by the media.

Then you criticise Hughes for hiding his homosexuality. The poor bloke can't win can he? He either comes out as gay and gets clobbered or doesn't and gets clobbered later.

That said, his treatment of Tatchell was pretty disgraceful. As you have already said, that was homophobia. Which somehow leads me to ask why did you bother posting in the first place?