John Prescott protests too much

Our esteemed Deputy PM may have been kept out of sight during last Thursday's terror scare but he wasted no time  attacking yesterday's statement on homeland security from David Cameron.  Mr Cameron's intervention was "almost beyond belief" said Mr Prescott.  Meanwhile Defence Secretary Des Browne has accused the Tory leader of opportunism.  But, as today's Sun Says, "David Cameron is entitled to ask awkward questions about the Government’s handling of the terror crisis."  For many years Labour did nothing about the growth of Muslim extremism in Britain.  In fact, the 'Muslim leaders' that Labour have chosen to dialogue with - as Martin Bright and Michael Gove have documented - have often been the more extreme representatives of Muslim opinion.  Labour is repeating the same mistakes that it made in the Northern Ireland peace process - flattering Sinn Fein at the expense of a healthy relationship with moderate Republican opinion in the SDLP.

Labour talks about a consensus on counter terrorism but that is a consensus they want to hide their failures behind.  A consensus at Westminster normally ends up as a conspiracy against the public and David Cameron was right to say what he did yesterday.  Labour are overreacting because they have long hoped that a reputation for protecting the public was one of their electoral trump cards.  They don't like the fact that yesterday's speech by the Tory leader showed they are going to face some stiff competition for being Britain's principal party of homeland security.

A leader in today's Telegraph criticises the alleged hastiness of David Cameron's speech and accuses him of having "stumbled" into "a wholly predictable row by criticising the way the Government is combating terrorism".  The Telegraph's criticisms are unfair.  Most of what David Cameron said yesterday - on a borders police force, for example, and a minister for homeland security - are settled Tory policy.  Yesterday, in the aftermath of last week's plot, was a very good time for Mr Cameron to remind voters of those and other Tory policies.

Comments

[Andrew Woodman]

I wonder if anyone in the country takes what John Prescott says seriously. I would imagine the Muslim leaders don't take assurances from a multiple adulterer very seriously. As for Des Who's charge of opportunism, perhaps he should look up opposition in the dictonary.

[malcolm]

What is really 'beyond belief' is that we still have John Prescott as our Deputy PM.He serves no purpose other than to act as a laughing stock and is a total embarrasment to Britain.

[Geoffrey G Brooking]

Very well done David Cameron for taking a stand.

I am sure DC won't be letting Prescott get him down.

JP is just a laughing stock so nobody will take his comments seriously anyway.

[legal eagle]

The contempt that people hold JP in (on all sides) means that any negative comments about DC won't be a problem. Prescott is one of our strongest electoral assets.

[EdR]

The Telegraph leader is one of the most appalling and laughable they've ever written. They attack Cameron for not speaking out and for speaking out, they attack him for being 'led' by others, for having an opinion they dislike then for being opportunistic, for being silent then for picking a fight with government, and then for having insufficiently complex view on the situation. I'm sure Heffer's Saturday article will go on to moan about his tan or that he didn't scowl enough. Measured criticism of Cameron is one thing, but this mindless, incoherent yah-boo yobbery would make Mickey Mouse blush.

[James Maskell]

Cameron does have a very good tan it must be said...

[william]

Last time David Cameron proposed a repeal of the Human Rights Act and its replacement with a British Bill of Rights, the media took up the story and ran with it.

The Sun blazoned it over page after page. This time, silence. Nothing. Zilch.

Instead, Prescott's smokescreen has received top billing. The man who has demonstrated better than anyone the rewards for loyalty and unity, is eminently qualified to give Cameron a dressing down. But he mentioned not one word about Cameron's actual policy proposals.

It's as if last time Cameron attacked the HRA, the media thought that by attacking him in return, he would turn round with his tail between his legs and find something else to talk about.

But no. Here is again saying that Preachers of Hate cannot be deported because of the Human Rights Act. The debate last time established that we cannot withdraw from Human Rights laws unless we also withdraw from the EU, but now there is silence across all titles and broadcast media on these aspects of the terror threat.

Cameron will have no choice but to repeat his policy statement, until they show that they are listening and that they understand.

Treat them like an out of control classroom of badly behaved children, Dave.

The combination of media silence and Prescott affronted shows that you're hitting a very raw nerve indeed. Keep smacking it.

[Nev]

"A consensus at Westminster normally ends up as a conspiracy against the public"

Is this at last a recongition by Conservative Home that the Tory stance on Iraq was wrong?

If the Party had adopted an intelligent strategy under IDS then life fro him and his two successors would have been so much easier on this issue. It was IDS worst legacy and the boil still hasn'tbeen lanced.

[Richard Weatherill]

I thought DC's remarks were well judged and very measured. At least it's an area where we do actually have some policies.

Apparently, no-one's allowed to criticise the government's handling of security matters for fear of breaking a completely spurious 'unity' of approach. We mustn't be afraid to highlight the government's serious failings in not addressing this problem sooner, or in the right way. At the same time, we mustn't acquiesce in their illiberal measures that would curtail the freedom of British citizens for no tangible benefit.

I was extremely worried by the proposals for 'instant justice' floated by ACPO yesterday. Several of them would represent major steps along the road to a Police State. Unfortunately, I suspect they'll receive a sympathetic hearing at the Home Office.

[Patsy Sergeant]

As I said before I am entirely happy about David Cameron's speech, I also think a large number of ORDINARY people will feel the same way! Labour must think the same also, otherwise they would not have retaliated so swiftly in such a typical fashion - typical that is for the apology for a DPM that everyone is saddled with at the moment.

What nobody has mentioned so far on this thread, about the DPM, is what a brave little? man he was to go visiting two of the least used airports in an official capacity - presumably (he would certainly not go unless he could charge the visit to the public purse!), and then announce as one would expect from him, that everything seems to be under control now.

I am afraid I don't agree, really with the people on this thread who say that SURELY EVERYBODY must see him now for the farce/clown/dumdum that he is. I am afraid some people seem to work on the premise that if a person is in a position then they must be capable in some respect!.......

[elrafa]

Hmmm, I wonder. DC's comments were a bit ill judged if you ask me.

He should have anticipated the attack that the Labour Party would launch. It is so obvious that they would protray him as inexperienced, lightweight and fiddling juxtaposed with Reid etc who have the gravitas for real responsibility.

DC should have offered support for the government's measures then said he would table a bill in opposition time for the use of intercept evidence etc. As he didn't he looks like he's playing politics with the terrorist threat, and not playing them very well.

[william]

It's the government that plays politics with the terrorist threat. Tanks at Heathrow Airport a few years ago to ensure a bit of publicity. Now arrests of supposed conspirators with no evidence provided or prosecutions just as support for the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon were starting to slip.

If there are 20 separate conspiracies and a determination to kill Britons, they would have managed a little bit more death by now. The government is actually disappointed by the amount of terrorist attacks as their fighting in Afghanistan especially is starting to look expensive in lives, for little net gain.

The Americans have persuaded Blair to take on the greater casualties on their behalf as the American pubic will not tolerate casualties while ours is apparently made of sterner stuff - or just more compliant.

Cameron is sounding intelligent. If we cannot deport preachers of hate, and they are fomenting armies of home grown terrorists, let's change the law so we can. That's that little matter of the Human Rights Act all over again. John Prescott and John Reid have yet to mention it. Of course the Blairs don't like that one as the HRA was Cherie's little pet project that sent her Chambers' earnings into the stratosphere.

Cameron has been ignored by Labour on the HRA. He should repeat his point about the HRA every day now. He's found Labour's weak point, and they don't like it.

[elrafa]

and it was the bloke on the grassy knole, and the moon landings were a hoax.

Bit of a conspiracy theorist are you William?

If there terrorist threat is so low that the government has to fabricate it, then why crack down on preachers of hate, as you call them? Surely their impact is minimal?

Should the police come out and produce all the evidence now to the press just to satisfy the doubters or should we wait until a trial to consider any evidence?

Cameron sounded lightweight and his comments were perfunctory. Opposition for opposition sake. Not much of the new consensus politics he advocated.

[Mark Fulford]

It was a good, necessary speech by David Cameron. The issue of terrorism will dominate political affairs for this generation and it is unthinkable that the opposition can only speak on it behind closed doors.

We all (including Labour) knew that Prescott would make a tit of himself this summer. Sure enough he has – although he may yet do better and biff Dave on the chin. To provoke this outburst was not opportunism, it was inevitable.

[Michael McGowan]

Well said, Mark.

[elrafa]

I'm guessing you haven't seen a lot of tits in your life Mark.

Now I'm no Prescott fan at all, but his response was base politics. We should have been able to anticipate that New Labour would wrap themselves in defence of the realm, public safety etc. They are effectively asking the public "can you trust this man Cameron on the terrorist threat, when he criticises protective actions?"

Non politicos look at the headlines not the content. They see Cameron criticises Government actions against terrorists not the reasonsed content of the speech.

As for the S*n I am instinctively on the opposite side of any argument they make.

[Mark Fulford]

I'm guessing you haven't seen a lot of tits in your life Mark.

To answer that I'd need to to quantify "a lot".

[Kristian Shanks]

Iain Dale made a very good point on his blog. Cameron has been attacked for breaking the alleged cross-party consensus on terrorism with this speech. But surely the Tories, Libdems, lefty Labour MPs did that ages ago when they voted against 90 Days and some of the other anti-terror legislation? It's the opposition's job to, um, oppose, particularly when you've got a cackhanded government trying to foist illiberal policies on the country.

And who's writing the editorials for the Telegraph these days? Heffer?

[Ted]

Kristian

no "Simon Heffer is away"

What a joyous, day brightening phrase that is.

[George Hinton]

No-one takes Prezza seriously, he is a noisy buffoon giving to knocking his opponents. Indeed we all know that NuLab are very good at rebutting of putting up a smokescreen against any counter comments.
We should see the words from NuLab as positive, that they are worried about the content and commit the professional foul of playing the man.
Keep up the pressure.

[william]

Bit of a conspiracy theorist are you William? (elrafa)

What? me?

OK show me the evidence and I'll shut up.

Meantime either we care about the effects of the HRA or we don't. Last time it was all about murderers, rapists etc who should have been deported - and they were carrying on with their killings. Cameron spoke up.

This time it's about Preachers of Hate, and Cameron's speaking up again.

Maybe Britins being murdered is no problem, and in fact Cameron should contribute to the real conspiracy - that is the silence that permits the government to dismantle all our defences while enemies and criminals pick off targets to suit.

We need more opposition not less, for god's sake. labour have controlled the media for ten long years, and the truth is barely recognisable.

And yes I do think the government is capable of spinning terror to ensure political support. Sorry.

[Jonathan Mackie]

William there is no denying that the HRA is a giving us a problem, particularly in how it has altered the relationship between the individual and the state.

I would say that the timetabling of parliament has caused more difficulty than the Act itself. As debate is timed out the judicary is having to interprete or guess in otherwords what parliament is legislating for. As a result we have judge made law, which is inconsistent with our legal legacy and with parliamentary majority.

I do share your concern that there is a degree of spin, but I truely don't believe that the government closed down the entire air transport network to cultivate public support for the war in terror. I was at London City last Thursday and believe me people were shitting themselves. Reid had a lot of support amongst people I was waiting with. No-one doubted that a threat existed and questioned the authority of the government.

All in all there needs to be some checks and balances over the home office in particular to stop them taken unnecessary powers. That is a job for parliament and the select committee system.

[EML]

The stubby article in the Metro this morning, for anyone who cares for such a rag, was all about Prescott's attack on Cameron, with barely two or three sentences on what the latter actually said in his speech.

Who in the media is actually friendly towards Cameron? The Times?

[MH]

I agree with all of the comments on the general uselessness of Prezza. This said, I found Dave's content and delivery very weak. He just never remotely looks the part on 'grown up' issues like Foreign Policy.

[Tom]

To pick up Nevs point Tory support for the invasion of Iraq has to rate as one of the single greatest political blunders of all times. At the very least support should have been predicated on the existence of all those WMD's Blair was warning us about.
Having said that, isn't it about time Her Majesty's Opposition started questioning the Governments handling of the "War on Terror" in more detail. Lets look at the facts for a minute:
1) We still have no clear definition of the objectives of this war.
2) We still have no clear understanding of WHO the enemy is.
3) After 5 years and billions of pounds we are CATEGORICALLY not safer than we were when this war started (to put that into context, 5 years into WWII we were on the brink of D-Day)
4) Bin Laden is still at large, not least because when we did have him cornered after the invasion of Afghanistan Blair/Bush decided to let him go so they could needlessly invade Iraq
5) The Taliban are once again a threat, and Afghanistan is nowhere near as stable as it should be, again because of the PREMATURE decision to invade Iraq
6) Had we completed the invasion of Afghanistan, captured Bin Laden and stayed in force to properly stabilise the new government Iran would now have a secure and democratic Afghanistan on one side and an implaccably hostile Iraq on the other. As it is, the mad mullahs have been able to MASSIVELY expand their influence over both Afghanistan AND Iraq because of the strategic incompetence of the west.
7) Saddam was no threat to anyone and going nowhere. We could have dealt with Iraq at any time once Afghanistan and then Iran had been dealt with. What, exactly, was the rush?
8) Having over committed our troops through a lack of strategic understanding, Labour (ie Brown) refuse to put their money where their mouth is and provide the resources the forces need.

Now can someone please tell me how the combined intellectual might of Cameron, Hague, Fox, et al can fail to make a decent case out of all that, because if they have I certainly haven't heard it.

[David Belchamber]

The only thing to add to Tom's excellent comments is to ask what intelligence the opposition parties were given as reasons for going to war against Iraq.
I would like to see the wording of the two versions compared to judge how weak that intelligence was before it was sexed up.
This is crucial, because I am sure that Blair confirmed that regime change was not a legitimate cause for war, whereas I think from memory Bush claimed it was.

[David Sergeant]

I never understood why the media, including the Telegraph, often have a different way of dealing with the Tories than other parties. Any anouncement be a Tory leader is picked at, particularly for Labour's view. Labour always say Tory statements are "beyond belief" and they presently have a stock of insults about lack of experience. To say Cameron left himself open to such rubbish is just lack of nerve, Labour's view is then given servile publicity on the basis of it's affect on the Tories rather than it's common sense.

Not just the Telegraph, when the Lib/Dems tax proposals were published the Times said Cameron had been outflanked but if Cameron had said such a thing the Times would have referred it as Cameron attenpting to outflank the Lib/Dems.

Perhaps people expect more from the Tories than other parties.