Smooth Talking Politicians

BrianH

BrianH

At the Start
Joined
May 3, 2003
Messages
6,108
Location
Banstead, Surrey
On the campaign trail yesterday John Prescott chatted with a local reporter:

Mark Choueke (South Wales Argus): How did you react to Peter Law's decision to quit the party after thirty-five years service to Blaenau Gwent as a Labour politician?

John Prescott (Deputy Prime Minister): It didn't even register with us. The voters just have one choice, vote Labour, or they'll end up with a Tory government. It's unfortunate that some of our decisions upset some people.

MC: But this isn't about upsetting Peter Law, it's about upsetting many thousands of Labour voters in Blaenau Gwent who helped you form a strong government - they feel alienated.

JP: Why are you asking me about this? I don't care, it's a Welsh situation, I'm a national politician.

MC Are you too big to care about the Labour voters in Blaenau Gwent? Do you think there may be something in your party's methods of working that require a rethink when a politician chooses to stand against you after thirty-five years' service to Labour?

JP: (Walking away) Where do they get these amateurs from? You're an amateur, mate. Go get on your bus, go home.

MC: Are you too big for the regional press now John?

JP: Bugger off. Get on your bus, you amateur.

MC: Is my interview over John? Because if that's all you've got to say, that's what will go in the paper.

JP: (Turns aggressively back to reporter) Ooohh, I'm scared, go ahead, put it in your paper.

Huw Edwards (Labour candidate for Monmouth): I could answer this question for you Mark.

MC: I hoped to hear what the deputy prime minister had to say about it.

JP: (Ignoring reporter) I've never seen a school in such a lovely setting.
 
Is this honestly true?

This guy is Deputy Prime Minister - if anything happens to Tone, THIS is who we'll all end up with.

He's Labour's answer to John McCririck............

The man is truly appalling - I cannot believe how he is where he is, when he so flagrantly flouts the law (speeding, throwing punches etc etc). He alone is enough for me to vote elsewhere - and before you all jump to conclusions, that does not necessarily mean I'll be voting Tory... <_<
 
To be fair, the throwing punches thing was understandable. If someone threw an egg at me, my fist making contact at high speed with their jaw would be the least they could expect. Why should he be any different, just because he's a politician?
 
Originally posted by Songsheet@Apr 21 2005, 12:36 PM
This guy is Deputy Prime Minister - if anything happens to Tone, THIS is who we'll all end up with.
Click to expand...
No we won't. It's not like the American vice-president. There would be a short period while the party chose a new leader. You'll remember that Margaret Beckett didn't take over from John Smith, although this was when Labour was in opposition of course.

In the unlikely event of it happening you can have a big price Prescott with me.
 
Brian - if they are in power, he WILL be in charge until a new PM is elected. Even 10 minutes with him in charge, however 'nominally', is 10 minutes too long.
Realistically, it would take at least a week (if not longer) and JP would be in the cat-seat. Of course he won't end up PM - that isn't what I meant and you know it.

Simmo - I didn't have you down as being naive. Of course it's unacceptable - hundreds of politicians have suffered the indignity of having eggs thrown at them and managed not to punch their assailants - it's a known part of the downside of being on the campaign trail.

He had his security police there - which is more than anyone outside the cabinet would have - so he especially had no excuse for such behaviour. He's boorish and arrogant and just about the worst advert the Labour Party has. Let's hope the other Parties make hay with the Blanau Gwent incident!
 
I agree with you totally, Jules - Prescott is a disgrace & he makes my skin crawl. He is so bloody ignorant and a pompous megalomaniac - he clearly doesn't give two hoots about any of the voting public just so long as Labour get in again and he can retain the power he has somehow managed to attain.
 
One thing that JP doesn't have a lot of is power - except perhaps in his right hand.

Do you not think that when the new government is formed he'll find himself "shuffled", though?
 
That's assuming Labour get in again, Brian - yes, I know it is very likely they'll get in again, but it isn't a stone cold certainty until it has happened.
 
Still time for someone to make a disastrous cock-up, though it's more likely that the Tories would be the ones making it.
 
Originally posted by Shadow Leader@Apr 21 2005, 03:06 PM
That's assuming Labour get in again, Brian - yes, I know it is very likely they'll get in again, but it isn't a stone cold certainty until it has happened.
Click to expand...

Indeed, as soon as The Tories get all their pigs ready for take-off, The Labour Party will be shitting bricks.
 
"Still time for someone to make a disastrous cock-up"
Click to expand...
I'd have to agree with that - remember Harold Wilson's "A week is a long time in politics"? And we've got two!

Lynton Crosby, the Conservatives' Australian "immigrant" chief election strategist has written to every single Tory candidate to say thatb they should throw off their tiredness and not lose focus. He tells them in the letter to ignore the opinion polls as they are wrong. It's Crosby who persuaded Howard to concentrate on immigration and asylum issues, which senior Tories, including shadow cabinet members, saw to have backfired and approached the leadership with an appeal to broaden the campaign. To no avail though - Crosby will not allow the campaign to be deflected. He appears to have taken total control over the campaign, leaving the party co-chairman, Liam Fox and especially Lord Saatchi, marginalised.

And now the Currant Bun - which claims to be the paper "what won it" for Mr Tony before - has endorsed Labour again, when Howard held out hope that Murdoch would switch. No chance, Mr Howard, our Rupert only backs winners.

Perhaps I should repeat on here the offer I made to terry on the Other Sports board. I'll lay 9/2 a Labour majority of under 50. Any takers?
 
The reporter was a prize buffoon what the hell does some internal Welsh assembly matter have to with the general election campaign .

Prescott's response may have been unwise but frankly it is justified . As for the idiot who Prescott defended himself against he had just assaulted Prescott it was self defence Julie .
 
I disagree with you there, Ardross - why should Prescott pooh-pooh the reporter's question? He was a regional reporter asking a question pertinent to that region - he surely shouldn't be so arrogant to think that individual constituencies are beneath him? All this "I'm a national politician" shite - it is the regional voters that decide the outcome of the election & the whole idea of going on an election campaign to various constituencies is to persuade the people to vote for your party!
 
Originally posted by Ardross@Apr 21 2005, 02:34 PM
The reporter was a prize buffoon what the hell does some internal Welsh assembly matter have to with the general election campaign?
Click to expand...
I can't believe I'm reading that! But having read it, I'll reply:

(1) It has a great deal to do with the election campaign. Blaenau Gwent is (was) the safest Labour seat in Britain with a majority of over 19,000. Now a former Labour Welsh assembly member and popular long-serving Labour politician has announced that he will stand for the seat as an independent at the general election.

(2) This poses two immediate problems for Labour. It will have to defend a seat regarded as rock solid, and it has now also lost its working majority in the Welsh National assembly.

(3) There has been a great deal of controversy in the constituency for the last eighteen months since the party anounced that it wanted an all woman short list for candidates to defend Blaenau Gwent after the retiremant of MP Llew Smith.

(4) Far from being a "prize buffoon", Michael Choueke would not have been doing his job correctly if he had not raised the issue of the possible weakening of Labour support in the constituency that had returned Aneurin Bevan and Michael Foot to parliament and that was in his newspaper's area of circulation.
 
As you might imagine, the place was swarming with journalists. I got it from the Guardian's Oliver Burkeman.

But Prescott's people aren't denying the story as printed.

Mr Prescott's spokeswoman told the BBC that he had already answered questions about Mr Law earlier.

She said: "In this particular situation the approach was quite unreasonable and quite unprofessional. There was just one question and the reporter kept going back and back on it."

Referring to Mr Prescott's "I don't care" remark, the spokeswoman said that had to be put in context.

She said: "Mr Prescott is not indifferent to this matter at all. He had answered questions quite repeatedly. The journalist was being quite arrogant and unreasonable about it."

Mark Templeton, news editor of the South Wales Argus, commented: "That is just absolute nonsense."
 
James, your comments in defense of Prescott above are totally misguided at best, slavishly biased at worse - Prescott no more had the right to swing a punch than I would if someone had thrown an egg at me - and you know it. As I pointed out, he had his security officers with him and any politician with an ounce of self-restraint would have left those experts to deal with the situation.

It's the very fact which has been displayed time and time again that Prescott has no self-restraint that is the root cause of my criticsm and it highlights the Labour Party's lack of judgement that he hold such an influential position.

Let alone the fact that he put his chaffeur in the position of being done for speeding (and it was in the dangerous driving speed range) purely because he was late for his next appointment.......

Michael Choueke was perfectly entitled to ask his question and you know it. If Prescott didn't want to answer, he should have used the usual politicians weasel-words or pointed out he had earlier answered that point, with courtesy and then moved on.

He's an ignoramus.
 
Depends on what you consider to be an appropriate reply to a question from the Deputy PM really, personally I think that an obtuse comment is not.
 
Originally posted by Shadow Leader@Apr 21 2005, 03:58 PM
Depends on what you consider to be an appropriate reply to a question from the Deputy PM really, personally I think that an obtuse comment is not.
Click to expand...
He'd do OK on here, wouldn't he?
 
Back
Top