Bliar in Meltdown?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: berlin
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bliar in Meltdown?
Not normally a Mail reader but this seems to be right on the button
A Government in Meltdown
Daily Mail, 27th April 2006
A Government in Meltdown
Daily Mail, 27th April 2006
If ever one day crystallised the incompetence, sleazy degrading behaviour and contempt for the electorate which are the hallmarks of New Labour, it was yesterday.
We had a Home Secretary who has allowed foreign murderers and rapists to roam the streets refusing to quit despite misleading the public he's meant to protect about his part in the debacle.
A Deputy Prime Minister admitting to a demeaning affair with his secretary with whom he had assignations at his grace and favour homes of Admiralty House and Dorneywood.
And a Health Secretary, who boasted last week that the health service has had its best ever year, howled down by nurses - yes nurses of all people - over her stewardship of the NHS.
Coming on top of the cash for peerages scandal and the Tessa Jowell affair, what a deeply unedifying picture all this presents of a government in meltdown.
But it was the incompetence of Charles Clarke, who was yesterday reduced to begging for forgiveness for the way 1,023 foreign criminals were set free rather than deported, that should most disturb us.
On six different occasions the Home Office was warned of the problem.
By his own admission Mr Clarke was told ten months ago of a 'systematic' failure - yet in that time 288 foreign criminals, more than a quarter of the total, have been let loose.
Twenty years ago a minister of honour would have quit over such incompetence.
But today's career politicians with their snouts in the trough, resign? Not a chance.
Of course Mr Clarke can't be totally blamed for the systematic inefficiency of the Home Office which clearly believes that the rights of criminals outweigh the right of the public to be protected.
Nor is he wholly responsible for the immigration policy of a government that has lost control of Britain's borders.
After all, is it unreasonable to ask what on earth all these foreign criminals are doing in this country in the first place.
Even if they'd been deported it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that they'd have slipped back into Britain illegally.
And what are we to make of John Prescott? The BBC, whose coverage of his affair yesterday was a journalistic disgrace, would argue that a man's private life has nothing to do with his job.
What craven nonsense. Mr Prescott is the Deputy Prime Minister, holder of a great office of state, wielding awesome powers over planning and housing.
He has taken advantage of a junior employee and used official government residences for his assignations.
But then this is a man who punched a protester and clung to his job even when it emerged he had dodged paying council tax (for which he has ministerial responsibility) on two of his three homes. Deputy Prime Minister? What a joke.
As for Miss Hewitt, she is presiding over an NHS enjoying record levels of investment - yet is wracked by deficits, redundancies and threatened closures. At the same time GPs are awarded a huge salary increase for doing less work.
No wonder she was barracked by nurses who fear for their jobs, her second such humiliation in three days.
And presiding over this whole sleazy show is a lame duck Prime Minister who took Britain to war on the basis of repeated lies and who cannot carry legislation without the help of the Tories.
Of course, the reality is that Blair, Prescott, Clarke, Hewitt and Jowell have to prop each other up to survive.
Out of ideas, drained of energy, lurching from one crisis to the next, New Labour has never looked more vulnerable.
We had a Home Secretary who has allowed foreign murderers and rapists to roam the streets refusing to quit despite misleading the public he's meant to protect about his part in the debacle.
A Deputy Prime Minister admitting to a demeaning affair with his secretary with whom he had assignations at his grace and favour homes of Admiralty House and Dorneywood.
And a Health Secretary, who boasted last week that the health service has had its best ever year, howled down by nurses - yes nurses of all people - over her stewardship of the NHS.
Coming on top of the cash for peerages scandal and the Tessa Jowell affair, what a deeply unedifying picture all this presents of a government in meltdown.
But it was the incompetence of Charles Clarke, who was yesterday reduced to begging for forgiveness for the way 1,023 foreign criminals were set free rather than deported, that should most disturb us.
On six different occasions the Home Office was warned of the problem.
By his own admission Mr Clarke was told ten months ago of a 'systematic' failure - yet in that time 288 foreign criminals, more than a quarter of the total, have been let loose.
Twenty years ago a minister of honour would have quit over such incompetence.
But today's career politicians with their snouts in the trough, resign? Not a chance.
Of course Mr Clarke can't be totally blamed for the systematic inefficiency of the Home Office which clearly believes that the rights of criminals outweigh the right of the public to be protected.
Nor is he wholly responsible for the immigration policy of a government that has lost control of Britain's borders.
After all, is it unreasonable to ask what on earth all these foreign criminals are doing in this country in the first place.
Even if they'd been deported it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that they'd have slipped back into Britain illegally.
And what are we to make of John Prescott? The BBC, whose coverage of his affair yesterday was a journalistic disgrace, would argue that a man's private life has nothing to do with his job.
What craven nonsense. Mr Prescott is the Deputy Prime Minister, holder of a great office of state, wielding awesome powers over planning and housing.
He has taken advantage of a junior employee and used official government residences for his assignations.
But then this is a man who punched a protester and clung to his job even when it emerged he had dodged paying council tax (for which he has ministerial responsibility) on two of his three homes. Deputy Prime Minister? What a joke.
As for Miss Hewitt, she is presiding over an NHS enjoying record levels of investment - yet is wracked by deficits, redundancies and threatened closures. At the same time GPs are awarded a huge salary increase for doing less work.
No wonder she was barracked by nurses who fear for their jobs, her second such humiliation in three days.
And presiding over this whole sleazy show is a lame duck Prime Minister who took Britain to war on the basis of repeated lies and who cannot carry legislation without the help of the Tories.
Of course, the reality is that Blair, Prescott, Clarke, Hewitt and Jowell have to prop each other up to survive.
Out of ideas, drained of energy, lurching from one crisis to the next, New Labour has never looked more vulnerable.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: berlin
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It never rains but it pours!
BBC Breaking News, 30 April 2006
BBC Breaking News, 30 April 2006
A small quantity of a Class C drug has been found by police in Defence Secretary John Reid's Scotland home, says Ministry of Defence.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jstars2 - first class letter, sums it up in a nutshell. However, in the interests of accuracy, there is one aspect that I would like to correct and inform PPruners of the REAL situation.
There has been a huge amount of press emphasis on GPs being awarded huge pay increases...
This has swept across all the media and paints a grossly false picture. Whilst I don't doubt that there are a few entreprenarial GPs out there who have managed to pocket £250K, these articles are well far of the mark when descibing the 'ordinary' GP's income.
For a start, a GP practice does not belong to the NHS. It is a partnership between doctors who have set up a practice with their own capital and contract their services to the NHS, their income derived from profits and savings generated from services provided.
Secondly, they do not have a salary paid by the NHS - they take 'drawings' out of the business, dictated by the level of profits the practice makes. The total income [NHS & private] has to fund everything - mortgage, building maintenance, gas, electricity, equipment, office supplies, staff salaries and every other business expense [inc paying tax, NI, employer's contributions to staff pensions and VAT]. From what's left, the partners have to decide how much to pay themselves after re-investing some of the profits.
The GPs for whom I work have not had an increase in drawings for two years, and the way things are going, it is unlikely they will take one this year - in fact, they are beginning to look at REDUCING their drawings as the Dept of Health [DH] are starting to renegue on some of the payments negotiated in the New GP Contract.
The much quoted figure of an additional £300M was down to Bliar's cronies not listening to the GP Council. The GPC told the DH at the time that they were under-estimating the capabilities of GPs as more work was demanded of them. The GPs rose to the challenge and did much more than the DH thought they would, hence the under-funding, leading to the defecit in that part of the budget. Rather than doing LESS work, GPs are doing MORE. Who do you think mans the Out-of-Hours service? - GPs, that's who, on their time off.
Like the letter in the Mail suggests, the Bliar Govt is in meltdown everywhere, no more so than in the NHS. If they scrapped half, YES HALF the bureaucracy throughout the NHS, they would save £HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS. And I talk from a platform of knowledge, not speculation.
FJJP
There has been a huge amount of press emphasis on GPs being awarded huge pay increases...
At the same time GPs are awarded a huge salary increase for doing less work.
For a start, a GP practice does not belong to the NHS. It is a partnership between doctors who have set up a practice with their own capital and contract their services to the NHS, their income derived from profits and savings generated from services provided.
Secondly, they do not have a salary paid by the NHS - they take 'drawings' out of the business, dictated by the level of profits the practice makes. The total income [NHS & private] has to fund everything - mortgage, building maintenance, gas, electricity, equipment, office supplies, staff salaries and every other business expense [inc paying tax, NI, employer's contributions to staff pensions and VAT]. From what's left, the partners have to decide how much to pay themselves after re-investing some of the profits.
The GPs for whom I work have not had an increase in drawings for two years, and the way things are going, it is unlikely they will take one this year - in fact, they are beginning to look at REDUCING their drawings as the Dept of Health [DH] are starting to renegue on some of the payments negotiated in the New GP Contract.
The much quoted figure of an additional £300M was down to Bliar's cronies not listening to the GP Council. The GPC told the DH at the time that they were under-estimating the capabilities of GPs as more work was demanded of them. The GPs rose to the challenge and did much more than the DH thought they would, hence the under-funding, leading to the defecit in that part of the budget. Rather than doing LESS work, GPs are doing MORE. Who do you think mans the Out-of-Hours service? - GPs, that's who, on their time off.
Like the letter in the Mail suggests, the Bliar Govt is in meltdown everywhere, no more so than in the NHS. If they scrapped half, YES HALF the bureaucracy throughout the NHS, they would save £HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS. And I talk from a platform of knowledge, not speculation.
FJJP
Now, I am more than a little right of centre and have little love for the current labour shambles BUT I think we are being led by the media yet again. The Prescott story is, IMHO, a non event. If anything, it will improve his popularity with the great unwashed.
My wife works in the NHS and it really does need a pullthrough with a christmas tree. An example: In her ward there is a very clever device for lifting patients out of bed, thus removing the risk of dropping or nurses hurting their backs. To use it all staff were required to attend a half day course. It stands in my wifes ward gathering dust because the nurses and assistants refuse to use it. The reason? They want more pay for operating it. Also, certain of the old guard regard 'sick leave' for bad backs caused through lifting part of the job spec. OK, one small example but there are many others. Some of the reforms coming in are overdue and they are working. Not surprisingly, one that is flourishing is the recruitment of more managers. The local authority now has a dentist commissar? My biggest bproblem with the Health Secretary is her snide, condescending attitude. Hopefully, she will be a little more humble after last week.
Ref Clarke and the Home Office. This has not just started nor is it a year old. This goes right to the core and has been going on for years. Instead of hounding the Minister, we should all be focussing on the entrenched Civil Servants at the senior and middle management levels. These low achieving jobsworths are the real cancer in the system. They rise to the top by way of PC initiatives and generate not wealth but beauracracy by the lorry load. Instead of seeing the Minister walk I would like to see a few coachloads of these cretins ferried to the job centre. Their replacements should be left in no doubt that they are not only responsible BUT acoountable too. Shape up or ship out.
Finally, why the hell should we suddenly get all worked up about foreign criminals being realeased to disappear and reoffend? We do it with our home grown ones all the time. Life means a few years at best and how often have you heard some released criminals referred to as High Risk? If they are high risk they should be in prison or am I missing something. The whole justice system needs a root and branch overhaul and the media need to stick to reporting the news, NOT setting the agenda and suggesting the response.
Rant over.
My wife works in the NHS and it really does need a pullthrough with a christmas tree. An example: In her ward there is a very clever device for lifting patients out of bed, thus removing the risk of dropping or nurses hurting their backs. To use it all staff were required to attend a half day course. It stands in my wifes ward gathering dust because the nurses and assistants refuse to use it. The reason? They want more pay for operating it. Also, certain of the old guard regard 'sick leave' for bad backs caused through lifting part of the job spec. OK, one small example but there are many others. Some of the reforms coming in are overdue and they are working. Not surprisingly, one that is flourishing is the recruitment of more managers. The local authority now has a dentist commissar? My biggest bproblem with the Health Secretary is her snide, condescending attitude. Hopefully, she will be a little more humble after last week.
Ref Clarke and the Home Office. This has not just started nor is it a year old. This goes right to the core and has been going on for years. Instead of hounding the Minister, we should all be focussing on the entrenched Civil Servants at the senior and middle management levels. These low achieving jobsworths are the real cancer in the system. They rise to the top by way of PC initiatives and generate not wealth but beauracracy by the lorry load. Instead of seeing the Minister walk I would like to see a few coachloads of these cretins ferried to the job centre. Their replacements should be left in no doubt that they are not only responsible BUT acoountable too. Shape up or ship out.
Finally, why the hell should we suddenly get all worked up about foreign criminals being realeased to disappear and reoffend? We do it with our home grown ones all the time. Life means a few years at best and how often have you heard some released criminals referred to as High Risk? If they are high risk they should be in prison or am I missing something. The whole justice system needs a root and branch overhaul and the media need to stick to reporting the news, NOT setting the agenda and suggesting the response.
Rant over.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Daily Mail, 27th April 2006
If you expect the Volkischer Beobachter to say anything positive about anyone not to the right of Mrs Schicklgruber’s little boy you’ll be in for a long wait
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maple 01
From the Guardian stable - somewhat to the left of of Mrs Schicklgruber’s little boy.
Prescott exploited me, says tearful ex-mistress
· Emotional television statement hits at Deputy PM
· I'm a laughing stock, he tells confidants
Ned Temko and Gaby Hinsliff
Sunday April 30, 2006
The Observer
From the Guardian stable - somewhat to the left of of Mrs Schicklgruber’s little boy.
Prescott exploited me, says tearful ex-mistress
· Emotional television statement hits at Deputy PM
· I'm a laughing stock, he tells confidants
Ned Temko and Gaby Hinsliff
Sunday April 30, 2006
The Observer
John Prescott's former mistress last night tearfully claimed she had been the victim of lies and had no choice but to go public with intimate details of their two-year affair.
In a television statement shortly before her account was splashed across nine pages of a Sunday newspaper, Prescott's diary secretary, Tracey Temple, said she felt she 'had to let people know the truth. But I never, ever thought I would actually have to do anything like this.'
Her interview, accompanied by extracts from a diary which she kept, raised concerns among close Cabinet colleagues that Prescott might quit his job and in turn prompt a challenge to Tony Blair's leadership.
Temple told the Mail on Sunday she had sex with Prescott in his Whitehall office, that the couple had sex immediately after attending the Iraq war memorial service in St Paul's Cathedral, and that they had sex in a hotel while his wife Pauline was downstairs. Among the most damaging of her allegations will be a claim that the relationship was carried out in Prescott's office while staff worked outside and that they also met at his flat in Admiralty Arch, which is paid for by the taxpayer……………..
……………..The newspaper also claimed to have exposed a second affair it said Prescott had had with a married former Labour Parliamentary candidate, which took place 20 years ago - an allegation likely to prove particularly hurtful to his wife of 44 years, Pauline, at a time when friends said she was seething over the affair with Temple.
Cabinet sources told The Observer that they were particularly concerned about the possible political fallout from Prescott's troubles at a time when another top minister, the Home Secretary Charles Clarke, remained under fire over the failure to deport foreign prisoners on their release from UK jails.
In a television statement shortly before her account was splashed across nine pages of a Sunday newspaper, Prescott's diary secretary, Tracey Temple, said she felt she 'had to let people know the truth. But I never, ever thought I would actually have to do anything like this.'
Her interview, accompanied by extracts from a diary which she kept, raised concerns among close Cabinet colleagues that Prescott might quit his job and in turn prompt a challenge to Tony Blair's leadership.
Temple told the Mail on Sunday she had sex with Prescott in his Whitehall office, that the couple had sex immediately after attending the Iraq war memorial service in St Paul's Cathedral, and that they had sex in a hotel while his wife Pauline was downstairs. Among the most damaging of her allegations will be a claim that the relationship was carried out in Prescott's office while staff worked outside and that they also met at his flat in Admiralty Arch, which is paid for by the taxpayer……………..
……………..The newspaper also claimed to have exposed a second affair it said Prescott had had with a married former Labour Parliamentary candidate, which took place 20 years ago - an allegation likely to prove particularly hurtful to his wife of 44 years, Pauline, at a time when friends said she was seething over the affair with Temple.
Cabinet sources told The Observer that they were particularly concerned about the possible political fallout from Prescott's troubles at a time when another top minister, the Home Secretary Charles Clarke, remained under fire over the failure to deport foreign prisoners on their release from UK jails.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Temple told the Mail on Sunday
I think in journo terms it's a 'spoiler' - The Observer didn't get the exclusive so they get up early, buy a copy of 'Der Sturmer' and then pinch the story under the guise of reporting the report, thus saving £200,000 and looking 'cutting edge' - and if it all turns out to be bollocks they can deny everything 'cos they were only quoting
p.s. Jacko, if you're reading I'll let you have the Hilary W story for £20....
Last edited by Maple 01; 30th Apr 2006 at 10:17.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
We do need to remember that Tracey has been paid £200,000 to kiss and tell. It's in her interest to max it up. A former lover of hers is quoted as saying that she had a huge and continuous appetite for horizontal PT.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maple 01
I get the impression that you might be missing the broader point here. Yes the right-wing Mail on Sunday may, in your estimation, be a tainted source and, yes, we all know that it has purchased Ms Temple’s story for the dual purpose of boosting circulation and knifing the Bliar administration. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the core issue of a love affair has been acknowledge as being true, by “deputy prime minister” Prescott and it is this admission of a long(ish) running tryst that raises questions of hypocrisy, dissimulation and mendacity from a political figure who has been prepared, with remarkable alacrity, to lambast his opponents with jibes of “tory sleaze”, ever since his lucky break which occurred in 1997 and which has lasted to this present day. These questions of hypocrisy dissimulation and mendacity then lead to further questions of character and suitability of the present incumbent for the “deputy” job, which, albeit we know to be something of a jokey creation of Tony’s, in the halcyon days when he could walk on water, and take the mickey out of a British Constitution that had never formally enshrine the position of DPM, let alone made it an elected office but which office is now the disposer of considerable – and in the present case – malign power over the running of national planning policy.
Whether one is of the right or the left, surely to have such an apparently questionable (on this and many other issues) figure remain in position, is of the gravest concern to all UK voters?
I get the impression that you might be missing the broader point here. Yes the right-wing Mail on Sunday may, in your estimation, be a tainted source and, yes, we all know that it has purchased Ms Temple’s story for the dual purpose of boosting circulation and knifing the Bliar administration. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the core issue of a love affair has been acknowledge as being true, by “deputy prime minister” Prescott and it is this admission of a long(ish) running tryst that raises questions of hypocrisy, dissimulation and mendacity from a political figure who has been prepared, with remarkable alacrity, to lambast his opponents with jibes of “tory sleaze”, ever since his lucky break which occurred in 1997 and which has lasted to this present day. These questions of hypocrisy dissimulation and mendacity then lead to further questions of character and suitability of the present incumbent for the “deputy” job, which, albeit we know to be something of a jokey creation of Tony’s, in the halcyon days when he could walk on water, and take the mickey out of a British Constitution that had never formally enshrine the position of DPM, let alone made it an elected office but which office is now the disposer of considerable – and in the present case – malign power over the running of national planning policy.
Whether one is of the right or the left, surely to have such an apparently questionable (on this and many other issues) figure remain in position, is of the gravest concern to all UK voters?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
woptb
No we’re not trivializing by saying he had a bit on the side – for the average citizen that’s going to be a matter resolved by personal conscience and negotiation (if found out) between spouse and offsprings. It is not a national matter casting doubt on the suitability of an individual who sets rules for the rest of us but who does not trouble to abide by such rules himself.
The nub of the matter here is that Prescott has presented himself as the solid family man, devoid of fancy (middle class) “airs and graces” and firmly loyal to his family and a bedrock of solid old style socialism and hence eminently trustworthy to formulate policy as a senior minister and safeguard the public trust.
We now find out that he is of the same ilk as “back to basics” John Major, who espoused this same political stance at the time he was “romancing” inamorata Edwin Currie and who came under Prescott’s withering fire before and after the inevitable (female) revelations.
No we’re not trivializing by saying he had a bit on the side – for the average citizen that’s going to be a matter resolved by personal conscience and negotiation (if found out) between spouse and offsprings. It is not a national matter casting doubt on the suitability of an individual who sets rules for the rest of us but who does not trouble to abide by such rules himself.
The nub of the matter here is that Prescott has presented himself as the solid family man, devoid of fancy (middle class) “airs and graces” and firmly loyal to his family and a bedrock of solid old style socialism and hence eminently trustworthy to formulate policy as a senior minister and safeguard the public trust.
We now find out that he is of the same ilk as “back to basics” John Major, who espoused this same political stance at the time he was “romancing” inamorata Edwin Currie and who came under Prescott’s withering fire before and after the inevitable (female) revelations.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Tony (never been able to refer to him as my Prime Minister), Cherie, Clarke, Jowell, Blunket, Mandelson, Prescott and others - what a contemptable bunch of people. And our lives are in their hands!!! As for Reid insisting that the drug belonged to a former occupier and declaring therefore that an inquiry is unecessary - tell that to the (hypothetical) young Flt Lt in a similar (hypothetical) predicament who would be summarily dealt with overnight.
Breathtaking. Out, out, the lot of them.
Breathtaking. Out, out, the lot of them.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm. More from the "right wing" press? Sounds like Prescott’s been “reliable” for a number of years!
Sunday Mirror
30 April 2006
PRESCOTT EXCLUSIVE: SECOND MISTRESS TALKS
By KAREN ROCKETT
Sunday Mirror
30 April 2006
PRESCOTT EXCLUSIVE: SECOND MISTRESS TALKS
By KAREN ROCKETT
JOHN Prescott had a SECOND secret mistress. Former Labour Parliamentary candidate Sarah Bissett-Scott, 57, said she had a two-year fling with Prescott and believed she was just one of a string of torrid affairs.
She has spoken exclusively to the Sunday Mirror and branded the Deputy Prime Minister a hypocrite for presenting himself as happily married.
"I was totally bowled over by him. He did all the running but I loved him and I think he loved me too," she said. "Looking back I was totally foolish and very naive but he is a very charismatic and persuasive man.
"It started at a Labour Party Conference but I want to stress he did all the running. There was a mutual attraction.
"Many women were flirting with him. People find it difficult to believe, but he is very charismatic and attractive.
"I was new to politics and he was so enthusiastic. He might be fat and ugly now, but when I knew him was a very attractive man. Naively I thought his wife lived in the North and he lived in London. I was very stupid. He led me to believe he was leading separate lives from his wife Pauline. But why pick on me? I assume there were many other lovers."
She has spoken exclusively to the Sunday Mirror and branded the Deputy Prime Minister a hypocrite for presenting himself as happily married.
"I was totally bowled over by him. He did all the running but I loved him and I think he loved me too," she said. "Looking back I was totally foolish and very naive but he is a very charismatic and persuasive man.
"It started at a Labour Party Conference but I want to stress he did all the running. There was a mutual attraction.
"Many women were flirting with him. People find it difficult to believe, but he is very charismatic and attractive.
"I was new to politics and he was so enthusiastic. He might be fat and ugly now, but when I knew him was a very attractive man. Naively I thought his wife lived in the North and he lived in London. I was very stupid. He led me to believe he was leading separate lives from his wife Pauline. But why pick on me? I assume there were many other lovers."
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
highcirrus,
Would you have demanded the head of John Major? Would you have been equally keen to get rid of Alan Clarke? Did the Mail campaign for the resignation of Boris Johnson? So no, I wouldn’t say a minister screwing around = "A Government in Meltdown"
My point here is the BNP on Sunday is trying to stir up anything that discredits Labour whilst conveniently forgetting its somewhat more lenient stance over Tory peccadilloes, sleaze and incompetence. Their silence over the many Conservative 'incidents' 1979-87 is a matter of record. And this is my problem with journos acting as an opposition to a democratically elected government - who are they answerable to? The Press complaints commission? Bit of a joke that. Their owners? Hmmm, good chance of fair unbiased reporting? All this makes the Mail a discredited source – we know they’re working to an agenda and thus can’t be trusted with straight reporting.
Would you have demanded the head of John Major? Would you have been equally keen to get rid of Alan Clarke? Did the Mail campaign for the resignation of Boris Johnson? So no, I wouldn’t say a minister screwing around = "A Government in Meltdown"
My point here is the BNP on Sunday is trying to stir up anything that discredits Labour whilst conveniently forgetting its somewhat more lenient stance over Tory peccadilloes, sleaze and incompetence. Their silence over the many Conservative 'incidents' 1979-87 is a matter of record. And this is my problem with journos acting as an opposition to a democratically elected government - who are they answerable to? The Press complaints commission? Bit of a joke that. Their owners? Hmmm, good chance of fair unbiased reporting? All this makes the Mail a discredited source – we know they’re working to an agenda and thus can’t be trusted with straight reporting.
I can remember more than one tory minister resigning having been caught with 'trousers down'; is it just my imagination or do labour ministers simply try to get away with it ( or fake suicide as per John Stonehouse).
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why Clarke should go:
He's responsible for a shambolic department;
His department's screw-up has put public safety at risk;
He was more concerned with downplaying the screw-up than fixing it - until he was caught out and even now the full facts have not been disclosed;
Only a resignation will demonstrate that the government takes public safety seriously.
Why Prescott shoud go:
He brought his office into disrepute (made it a laughing-stock);
He has flouted duty of care towards a subordinate - if he were in uniform he would be court-martialled;
His actions are in flagrant disregard of equal opportunities training;
He has indulged his affair using government resources;
He cannot be trusted or viewed with any credibility at all.
Why Bliar shoud go:
Presiding over a shambolic government;
Lying over Iraq (I can revisit that argument if required);
Making a catastrophic misjudgement in following Dubya's lunacy;
He ignores the sacrifices of the Armed Forces by refusing to visit the wounded and bereaved;
The public simply do not trust him and would not permit him to direct the use of military force in any future conflict.
We need a "Ministerial Office Test" that mirrors the "Service Test" and has similar stringent consequences for transgression.
He's responsible for a shambolic department;
His department's screw-up has put public safety at risk;
He was more concerned with downplaying the screw-up than fixing it - until he was caught out and even now the full facts have not been disclosed;
Only a resignation will demonstrate that the government takes public safety seriously.
Why Prescott shoud go:
He brought his office into disrepute (made it a laughing-stock);
He has flouted duty of care towards a subordinate - if he were in uniform he would be court-martialled;
His actions are in flagrant disregard of equal opportunities training;
He has indulged his affair using government resources;
He cannot be trusted or viewed with any credibility at all.
Why Bliar shoud go:
Presiding over a shambolic government;
Lying over Iraq (I can revisit that argument if required);
Making a catastrophic misjudgement in following Dubya's lunacy;
He ignores the sacrifices of the Armed Forces by refusing to visit the wounded and bereaved;
The public simply do not trust him and would not permit him to direct the use of military force in any future conflict.
We need a "Ministerial Office Test" that mirrors the "Service Test" and has similar stringent consequences for transgression.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Shropshire
Age: 73
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C'mon Maple, stop trying to hold back the tide. The whole bloody lot of them are exposed now, bang to rights for sheer hypocrisy and shambling incompetence.
It's all a media conspiracy I suppose ? Luvvies weren't too unhappy with media exposure of the now comparatively harmless peccadillos of the former Tory strain of pond life.
Just look back at Byers, Mandelson, Robinson, Irvine Vaz, Mittal, Ecclestone, Dodgy dossiers, Kelly.... Loans for Peerages etc etc etc
It's all a media conspiracy I suppose ? Luvvies weren't too unhappy with media exposure of the now comparatively harmless peccadillos of the former Tory strain of pond life.
Just look back at Byers, Mandelson, Robinson, Irvine Vaz, Mittal, Ecclestone, Dodgy dossiers, Kelly.... Loans for Peerages etc etc etc
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why Prescott should go:
He brought his office into disrepute (made it a laughing-stock);
He has flouted duty of care towards a subordinate - if he were in uniform he would be court-martialled;
His actions are in flagrant disregard of equal opportunities training;
He has indulged his affair using government resources;
He cannot be trusted or viewed with any credibility at all.
He brought his office into disrepute (made it a laughing-stock);
He has flouted duty of care towards a subordinate - if he were in uniform he would be court-martialled;
His actions are in flagrant disregard of equal opportunities training;
He has indulged his affair using government resources;
He cannot be trusted or viewed with any credibility at all.
Just to turn your argument back on itself
Why Maggie should go:
Presiding over a shambolic government;
Lying over The Falklands (I can revisit that argument if required);
Making a catastrophic misjudgement in following Ray-Gun’s lunacy;
She ignores the sacrifices of the Armed Forces by refusing to visit the wounded and bereaved unless it's a good photo opportunity
The public simply do not trust her
My point being that if you use any convenient stick to beat a political opponent you either apply the same moral standards to all or you end up looking like a hypocrite, that's not much of a problem if you're a private individual, as we all are to some extent, but if a so called 'news' organisation sets itself up as the moral guardian of the country and (unelected) opposition as the likes of the Daily Mail do, perhaps we should expect honest straightforward reporting rather than agenda setting?
And prehaps the journos that work for such papers should be expected to live by those standards they would impose on everyone else - Did Piers Morgan resign on a matter of honour after presiding over the Iraqi ‘torture’ fiasco? Did Boris Johnson resign over his serial affairs when running the Spectator?