Across nine pages the Mail on Sunday tells the story of John Prescott's 'Abuse of Office'. We learn that Mr Prescott has had at least one other affair but Tracey Temple's revelations are likely to be most damaging:
- Ms Temple tells how she was ferried about by the taxpayer-funded Government Car Service during the small hours of the morning.
- She tells how they had sex in Mr Prescott's Admiralty House flat (the one for which he famously neglected to pay his council tax) after the Iraq War Memorial Service.
- On one occasion the two lovers enjoyed sex in a hotel whilst Mrs Prescott waited downstairs for her husband to join her for dinner.
Questioning Mr Prescott's honesty, Ms Temple suggests that the affair ended much more recently than claimed by John Prescott. The Mail on Sunday links Mr Prescott's energetic pursuit of Ms Temple during and after office hours to his shambolic ministerial record. In a leader it reflects on the "dismal picture" of New Labour painted by Ms Temple's diary:
"A powerful Government department and its staff on a seemingly endless round of parties and dinners, their heads ringing with hangovers as they superintend plans to concrete over the country, destroy local democracy and slice England into alien Euro-regions. If this is the standard of behaviour in the private offices of New Labour potentates, no wonder the Home Office cannot find its lost prisoners. It is amazing anything gets done at all."
The Mail on Sunday - frequently given to hyperbole - is surely right. It is this combination of personal sleaze and government ineffectiveness that deserves to be written on this Labour government's grave.
45% of respondents to the Mail on Sunday's BPIX poll (main results here) say that John Prescott should resign. 48% of voters told YouGov/ Sunday Times that Tony Blair should sack him. Back to BPIX, half of voters think Mrs Prescott should dump her husband. Only one-in-ten think the Deputy PM deserves a second chance.
The Mail on Sunday lists aspects of the Prescott affair and BPIX asked voters which concerned them most. Interestingly - at 58% - Mr Prescott's betrayal of his wife caused greatest offence. Voters seem to be more in tune with ConservativeHome's belief that private vices are of (limited) public interest.
Max Clifford, who arranged the £100,000+ sale of Ms Temple's story to the Mail on Sunday, has hinted that there may be more to come with Mr Prescott's lover possibly negotiating TV or magazine deals. This saga is not over.
What I always find saddening is that when people get caught, they always say how much they regretted their action, pity they didn't think about that before embarking upon their actions. Mr Prescott's disgraceful behaviour reflects badly on politicians as a whole and not just on him and his party, but he is coming up to retirement so maybe he just doesn't care anymore.
Posted by: Paul Kennedy | April 30, 2006 at 10:09
After skimming through the Mail on Sunday's revelations, dressing gowns at the ready et al, surely a case for "Wham Bam! Thank you Maam!!" What was that blog of yesterday about rough around the edges uber sex?? I rest my case! And undoubted abuse of ministerial lodgings, cars, ?office desks or at the least, sofas? The man must go.
Posted by: Annabel Herriott | April 30, 2006 at 10:39
"The man must go". Agreed. But then what?
Posted by: Richard North | April 30, 2006 at 10:41
"Voters seem to be more in tune with ConservativeHome's belief that private vices are of (limited) public interest."
That's what I suspected, and I thought it rather dismaying that we have every single politician now chiming as one that this affair is just a "private matter".
Posted by: John Hustings | April 30, 2006 at 11:14
What we also need to know is how much Prescott's (and I dare say others) outrageous behaviour is going to cost us?
Although government may turn a blind eye to such pecadillos, molesting junior employees is quite rightly a sacking offence in most large British companies. What made companies take it seriously was not PC-dom but the risk of getting sued for zillions.
In government they don't seem to give a toss about that, so to speak....but it's not actually their money.
Posted by: Wat Tyler | April 30, 2006 at 11:14
Oh dear. Against my express instructions, Mrs T's gone out to buy a copy of MOS.
I suppose I'll HAVE to read it.
Posted by: Wat Tyler | April 30, 2006 at 11:20
John Hustings: "That's what I suspected, and I thought it rather dismaying that we have every single politician now chiming as one that this affair is just a "private matter"."
All political parties have skeltons in cupboards I guess, John, and all fear the press opening the doors to them...
Posted by: Editor | April 30, 2006 at 11:21
I thought it rather dismaying that we have every single politician now chiming as one that this affair is just a "private matter".
Though that's perhaps not surprising given our party's experience in the 90s. Doubtless there are a few Conservatives out there who aren't whiter than white in this regard, and there remains the nagging fear that kicking up a fuss about Prescott's indiscretions would give the press carte blanche to turn the lights on them...
Posted by: James Hellyer | April 30, 2006 at 11:23
"All political parties have skeltons in cupboards I guess, John, and all fear the press opening the doors to them..."
Yes, but it is very sad that it has come to that. And I think you're right, they all fear the "hypocrisy" charge. Nicholas Clegg even said on 'Any Questions' that he could only foresee one circumstance in which a politician should lose their job over an affair, and that's when they've advocated "family values". Thus we have 'de facto' a ruling doctrine of amorality: There's nothing wrong with cheating on your wife and breaking up other people's marriages (causing tremendous misery to respective spouses and children), but espousing "morality" is the far greater sin.
I don't expect politicians to preach to the nation -- preaching is the job of churches, not politicians -- but that's not to say that they shouldn't uphold moral standards. And there is a difference in my mind.
If our politicians behave no better than yobbish footballers, then why should anyone respect them? Perhaps politicians don't want respect anymore, they just want free reign to indulge their desires.
Posted by: John Hustings | April 30, 2006 at 11:34
I don't expect politicians to preach to the nation
Unless they're preaching about compost heaps, recycling and driving your car less often, obviously.
Posted by: James Hellyer | April 30, 2006 at 11:38
I love the picture the BBC are using when they have his quotes in text.
Posted by: Andrew Woodman | April 30, 2006 at 12:03
A poll in the Sunday Times shows 52% upholding the opinion that Prescott is a buffoon unfit for high office.
I have personally held this view for many years ever since I saw him crash that solar-powered Honda car to the dismay of onlooking Japanese officials. The stupid grin on his face said it all.
Posted by: Richard | April 30, 2006 at 13:34
It's usually hard to feel any sympathy for Pauline Prescott but, in this instance, my heart goes out to her.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | April 30, 2006 at 13:59
>>>>A poll in the Sunday Times shows 52% upholding the opinion that Prescott is a buffoon unfit for high office.<<<<
Everybody with any sense had already come to this opinion within a short time of Labour coming to power in 1997, when the successor to Tony Blair is elected he's going too so he's going within the next 2.5 years and given that there probably will be maybe 6 months between the new Labour leader taking over as Prime Minister then probably it's actually closer to 2 years now.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | April 30, 2006 at 14:37
The aspect of John Prescott's stupid behaviour that I think should be emphasized over and over (and many more times) again, is that having made much mileage in a sarcastic, not say vicious way about Tory MP's doing similar things when he was in opposition, he has been STUPID enough or arrogant enough to do the same thing himself. Somehow I think it is unlikely that he sees it in quite that light!!
Posted by: Patsy Sergeant | April 30, 2006 at 15:16
"Everybody with any sense had already come to this opinion within a short time of Labour coming to power in 1997"
I probably did think lowly of him around then but the Honda incident in 1998 is the earliest I can remember wanting to hurl a brick at him.
Posted by: Richard | April 30, 2006 at 16:03
I hate to EVER be any way defensive of the buffoon that is Prescott, but one does have to ask about the motives of this woman.
She knew he was married. She knew his wife. She is in her 40's for heaven's sake, not some young niaive teenager. What did she expect. Maybe she expected the 100K that she has got for the story via that slimeball Max Clifford.
I'm not defending the oaf from Hull, far from it. He has NEVER been fit for office. But really, one has to paraphrase Mrs Merton:
"So Tracy, what first attracted you to the overweight, married, O A P, Deputy Prime-Minister?"
Posted by: Jon White | April 30, 2006 at 19:16
"I work for a bookies and I'm very tempted to have a bet"
Conflict of interest, much?
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | April 30, 2006 at 20:17
Good one Mr White.I'd quite forgotten the Mrs Merton parallel.I'd agree with the sentiments of your post too.I hope Prescott refuses to resign and keeps his face in front of the public as a fine sympol of this tawdry,sleazy and incompetent government.
Posted by: malcolm | April 30, 2006 at 20:44
The thing is that if he DOES resign then according to the Labour party constitution the Labour party will have to have an National party election for a new deputy leader. As they are having to repay how much was it of the loans? £3.5million i think it was, they are cash strapped. If they were to sell Labour Party Central Office, they have the quite large problem that they only own about £500k in it as it is mortgaged up to the hilt.
This now presents a problem for Blair as it is going round that the Leftie backbencers are going to field a candidate against Blair to start a leadership contest on the basis that the party is cash strapped and they want him out at this point so they dont have to pay for another election 6 - 12 months down the line. This is all fine as long as Brown throws his hat in the ring and gets Blair to stand aside, I somehow do not think that this will happen though I somehow suspect that there will either be a scrap between the Blairites and the Brownites or Brown just wont stand.
If the latter happens Blair would do his usual come-back-kid routine, cling to power and the Labour party is faced with yet another Leadership election costing a pretty penny a few monthes down the road.
This could well end up being the most expensive affair any cabinet Minister in History has ever had. Thanks John!
Posted by: Dan Paterson | April 30, 2006 at 21:18
Dan, that would be no problem for them. I think about 10 peerages should fund it nicely.
Posted by: Jon White | April 30, 2006 at 21:21
Prezzer has started reminding me irresistably of Homer Simpson. Doh!!
Posted by: Annabel Herriott | April 30, 2006 at 22:56
Prezzer's love is Chinese food Annabel, not doughnuts. But then, Pauline's hairdo does have more than a passing resemblance to Marge's.
Posted by: Jon White | April 30, 2006 at 23:09
The thing is that if he DOES resign then according to the Labour party constitution the Labour party will have to have an National party election for a new deputy leader.
The front-page story in the Sunday Telegraph today suggested (for what it's worth) that there was already a plan afoot to have Prescott relinquish the ODPM but remain as Deputy Leader of the Labour Party to avoid a potentially divisive internal election.
Posted by: Richard Carey | April 30, 2006 at 23:18
Who here would expect the sack if:
1. your jobs were behind schedule
2. and your jobs are over budget
3. and your customers are complaining
4. and you're caught shagging in the office on company time?
I would (and I work for myself)!
Posted by: Mark Fulford | May 01, 2006 at 15:19