´óÏó´«Ã½

Could there be any greater symbol of the coming end of the Blair era than Prescott being forced out? The man who has stood beside Blair for more than ten years, convincing the party that the 'New' in New Labour isn't that far away from traditional Labour values.

The fact that the cabinet is looking more and more like a Blair fan club is not encouraging for the PM. Far from strengthening his position, it simply shows how alienated he has made the other wings in his party.

Everyone in the party is still behind him, but rather than cheering him on, many of them are now sharpening their blades.

Would you have also asked the question about Michael Heseltine Nick?

Prescott attracts a lot of criticism about his workload, but little of it is balanced in terms of weighing his contribution against that of his predecessor, who often seems to be above criticism.

Having said that - if we're applying the question fairly to both parties, rather than just the current government, which continued a previously-set precedent, then the question 'what does a deputy leader/PM do?' is a fair one.

I follow politics closely, but I am sometimes confused by how what the DPM does is noticeably different and distinct from what would be done by, say, Labour Party Chair or 'Cabinet Enforcer', when one has been in post. I'm aware that the current DPM, and his predecessor, chaired cabinet committees, but is there nobody else who could do that?

Annoyingly, the link to your blog today has a wrong usage of the phrase "beg the question". However, if the mistake had not been there I would not have clicked, and I would have missed this interesting and thought-provoking commentary. Thanks, lazy subs!

Prescott's days are numbered. What I cannot understand is the attitude of the Chancellor in all this. Gordon Brown should challenge for the leadership. He would win a leadership contest. His prevarication in this matter could cost him the position of PM. Has there ever been in modern times such a thing as an 'orderly transition'? Every day that the Chancellor waits for an orderly transition increases the likelihood of his not succeeding Tony Blair. In my view Blair doesn't want him to be leader. Prescott and Blair are finished. If Brown wants to succeed, he must challenge soon for the leadership.

Nick's comments about the importance of the role of deputy leader highlight why Prescott is still there. So we taxpayers are funding his salary and perks for his party role, not his governmental role. Sleaze - wot sleaze?

Of course the Conservative Party functions very well without a deputy. Hague fills DC's shoes at PMQs when he is not around but he doesn’t do that officially. What does the deputy do? Whatever is politically expedient.

Could there be any greater symbol of the coming end of the Blair era than Prescott being forced out? Yep - Blair could leave, that would be a much greater symbol of the end of the Blair era.

John Prescott made the Deputy Leader post into a link between the Party rank and file and the leadership. Remember when John Smith took away the Block Vote from the Unions at Labour Party conference? John's Deputy Leader, one Margaret Beckett, was very careful not to be too supportive, just in case he lost and there was an election for leader (which she thought she might win.)It was John Prescott who rallied the party behind John Smith and who took on the Deputy Leader mantle.

He's a politician who has had an affair? So what! He played Croquette whilst running the country? So what! George Bush and a host of US Presidents play Golf.

Prescott ain't perfect. But the current campaign against him in the media shows that the class system is alive and well in this country. We still sneer at a non University educated man with a working class way of expressing himself daring to pretend he is worthy. The Labour Party will have lost a great deal if it allows only Public school graduates to hold high office.

Nick, Now that Blair's preferred successor Charles Clarke is out of the running, I think Margaret Beckett is being groomed for leadership, ultimately as a foil for the Brown camp and I think she'll succeed but she might be a short-lived PM after the next election. Feasible?

What matters here is the title of a person's position. If Prescott is a Deputy Prime Minister then his salary is paid for from the public purse. The pupblic should therefore be seen to be getting value for money.

If Prescott's position is that of Deputy Leader then he should be paid from party funds.

As we have no clear idea of his role in government we should be told clearly what exactly he does.

Blair needs more than a Deputy Leader. He needs a strong and charismatic supporter, someone who has the ideals of the Labour party and the popularity and force to get things done.

Prescott is no longer this man. He is a laughing stock in public eyes. Whatever he may deliver, less and less of, in party circles is negated by the continued bad publicity.

If Blair is the consummate politician he believes himself to be then he'd have no fear in letting him go. Unfortunately, I believe that, like Mrs T at this stage, he has lost his political radar and touch.

I am not a New Labour supporter, but it seems to me that Prescott has out stayed his welcome. In political history it would surprise me to learn that any other high profile goverment politican has survived so many disgraces? How he kept his job after punching a member of the public, let alone having an affair with an aid and obusing his privelges?
As a replacement, Blair obviously needs a staunch allie, and surely Alan Milburn is that man, especially has I have seen it touted about that Blair would prefer Milburn to be his successor than Brown!
Another name has to be John Reid, surely he is due a move into a new department!!

Hi Nick,

There has been recent media chatter that should Prescott be 'released' from his position it could instigate a leadership challenge. Is this still the consensus or has the political climate changed?

Sex with secretary, 2 gas guzzling cars, non rent paying, luxury homes, oh and croquet playing and chairing something or other.

Disgusted.

Well if he does such a good job as Deputy Prime Minister then perhaps "PRESSA" should become PRIME MINISTER.
Who remembers that song.....Gordon is a moron!

As a bit of a Tory I find it difficult to understand why so many Conservative MPs are calling for Prescott's resignation.He no longer has the power to do any damage to the country but should remain in place as a testament as to why it is such a bad idea to vote New Labour again.

"He can knock heads and progress chase..." Progress chase? Is this your own linguistic tribute to the Deputy Prime Minister? Surely even Mr Prescott would not be bold enough to concoct such a verb. (Mind you, there's no disputing that he can knock heads.)

In response to Willie Samuel, I think the current backlash against Prescott is based upon his incredible hypocrisy - not the fact he is supposedly "working class". To start with, Prescott used to shout from the roof tops regarding Tory sleaze, and secondly, he always falls back on his out of date class-war mantra. This from a man who now claims his affairs are "a private matter", and who now wouldn't know "working class" if it hit him on the head with a croquet mallet whilst he was sipping Pimms.

A prejudice I often spot when Prescott is spoken of in the media and by politicians is that they constantly restate something along the lines of: Prescott the voice of the working class. No.. He has a working class voice.

His political actions have aided Labour breaking link with class, and supposedly ideology (which gives me a post-modern headache). In government he has not spoken for the working class. I simply see no evidence of that. As I say, people seem to mistake the nature of his voice and accent for some kind of working-class integrity, whereas looking at things on a class level he has done no better than any of the public schoolers in government.

I hope he goes soon, and I hope the knock-on of that is that Blair goes. Seriously, what do they hope to gain by grasping on to power seemingly for the sake of it? Holding out until they've got good names again? ..much too late, and every day grasping on just does more damage.

There is no menion in the Labour Party Rule Book (at least not the one on the Party's website) about the Deputy Leader needing to be in the Cabinet, or even in Government. It would be a brave PM who didn't offer his Deputy a Cabinet post but if it was turned down or resinged, there is no need for the Deputy Leadership to be given up.

Surely Labour Deputy Leaders are a bit like American Vice-Presidents. Good ones can't do a great deal, but bad ones can cause an awful lot of trouble.

It won't happen, but maybe the Party should think about whether it needs the post of Deputy Leader. Or alternatively, to widen it out and have one male and one female, or one from Scotlan and one from Wales.

A deputy leader is for:

1) Uniting the left and right of the party.

2) A scapegoat when the kitchen gets too hot, (He can be made to 'get out of the kitchen'!)

Lucy, Lucy, Lucy. The use of "beg of the question" to mean "prompt the question" rather than "to assume that which one wishes to prove" or "avoid the question" is certainly rather common these days. I'm afraid you'll just have to accept it - we have no Académie Anglaise to threaten errant bloggers or subeditors with deconjugation. English evolves and mutates, and that flexibility has benefited its global march.

That's not to say that we should adopt the Humpty Dumpty stance that "when I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less" (even descriptivist grammarians agree on that - see ).

To link back to Nick's point - what exactly is a deputy? We have the case at the moment that Brown acts almost like a shadow Prime Minister himself, making policy speeches, doing interviews in fluffy magazines, etc. Is he more of a Deputy than Prescott? Deputy posts have often been purely symbolic or overtly political in nature - one need only look at the Vice President of the US. The VP holds very little formal power - Quayle was a useless appendage, Gore was often sidelined by Hillary, Cheney is an éminence grise and wields a lot of power, but only informallly.

No, no, no, Willie Samuel. For any other politicians , whether Tory, Labour or Lib Dem, to be found out having an affair, I would honestly say 'so what?' as well.

But Prescott is the exception to the rule. Here is a man who didn't say 'so what' when other politicians of opposing parties were found out. On the contrary, he gleefully humililated them and called for their resignation again and again.

So for him to simply say 'Oh, remember all those things I said about cheating your wife? Forget it, really, I didn't mean it, you know'.

It absolutely doesn't matter what his class background is. There are many fine politicians from working to upper classes, but Prescott simply is not one of them.

His lack of dignity and integrity is simply staggering.

A nice way to start confusing the question on who should vote for a Leader and Deputy Leader of the Labour Party - the answer is obviously Labour Party members. But there are no doubt political journos queueing up to ask the question - because it's in the "public interest" - why can't the public decide who the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Ministers are?
The Labour Party's members decided through their Conference what national officers they wanted, which included a Deputy Leader of the Labour Party.
Whether or not the country needs a Deputy Prime Minister is another, totally different question.

A deputy leader is for:

1) Uniting the left and right of the party.

2) A scapegoat when the kitchen gets too hot, (He can be made to 'get out of the kitchen'!)

By its constitution, the Labour Party demands that its members elect a deputy leader. By its habit, the Labour Party mistakes its own interests for that of the country.

Blair needed Prescott as his deputy leader to sell the notion of New Labour to the Labour Party membership when they were out of government. It only followed that John Prescott needed to be Deputy Prime Minister because the Labour Party constitution demands a Cabinet role for its deputy leader and since May 1997 it hasn't been clear what is to be done with him.

So, for the sake of the fulfilment of the Labour Party's constitution and at the expense of the nation, Mr. Prescott has been allowed offices which have experimented with transport policy, dallied with the environment, played around with planning and looked at local democracy to no discernibly good effect.

Finally, he's decided that he'd rather be a messenger boy between the Brown and Blair factions and not a minister, so rather than demote him to the role of a PPS, which is what he deserves, he gets to remain as the undefinable Deputy Prime Minister because the Labour Party Constitution would require an election if its Deputy leaves the Cabinet.

So your question "Who needs a deputy?" goes to the heart of the problem with Labour governments, Nick. Clearly the country doesn't require a deputy prime minister. You won't find that office-holder on any official roll of precedence and since the reshuffle, you can't even find his office. However, the Labour Party consitution requires it and no matter how drunk he is in the case of George Brown, or how inarticulate, inept and venal in the case of Mr. Prescott, if it suits the Labour Party in power to have their partisan way, then Parliament, the public and propriety can all go to merry hell for all they care.

Blair has as usual made a huge mess of the Cabinet reshuffle as Charles Clarke recently said candidly in an interview. Perhaps if the Prime Minister had been prepared to give Prescott an extra job such as Chief Whip or Leader of the House alongside the role of Deputy Prime Minister this current mess would not be so bad. Of course people would have still being calling for Prescott to go but at least the various accusations that he was not doing anything would not have been levelled at him. At least then the Government could have said that the DPM was chairing Cabinet Committees and acting as Leader of the House. As usual Blair lacks any sort of planning in reshuffles, they seem to be done on the back of an envelope. Why was a story leaked to the Times last week by Downing Street undermining Prescott? It really is no way to run a Government.

Personally I have always been rather fond of the idea of having a written constitution whereby the powers of the Prime Ministers are clearly defined and the role of the Deputy Prime Minister is properly defined like in America.

I kind of hope that Prescott can ride out the storm I do not think it’s good to see the media get to many scalps. I was disappointed to see Charles Clarke leave the Cabinet recently. Now Prescott has made some bad mistakes, he is perhaps not the most articulate person in Britain but I am not sure the media should be judge and executer.

I'm not the biggest fan of Tony Blair but when he first took the leadership of the Labour Party he shook it to it's core and threw out much of it's dogma. Prescott was the "token Black." Now he's a "body shield", day after day the press rip into him.

Nicholas Dicker wrote:

Nick, Now that Blair's preferred successor Charles Clarke is out of the running, I think....

Given that Tony Blair has become more and more right wing I don't think anyone in the Labour Party is his prefered successor.

I hope Prescott can withstand the current tabloid witch hunt. His affair is a private matter. Only his wife has the right to feel aggrieved. Spare us the crocodile tears for his gold-digging diary secretary.

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ should not let its agenda be set by the redtop rednecks. Yet twice recently the corporation has provided massive free advertisng for the Mail on Sunday by broadcasting footage and photos complete with the MoS logo.

Finally, who cares if he plays croquet during a break ? Was this really the most important story of the weekend ? What an appalling media we have.

Much has been made of Gordon Brown's reluctance to have a new Deputy Leader/DPM for fear that this might upset his smooth assumption of the leadership in the not too distant future. Is it not a common sense solution to arrange for Brown himself to become Tony Blair's formal deputy - or would such a move tell us too much about the truth/mythology of the presumption that Brown is a shoo-in as Blair's successor?

Willie Samuel says Mr Prescot is not university educated and is criticised for "a working class way of speaking ". Both untrue : he attended Oxford ( Ruskin ) and Hull University, and "working class " folk ( most of us ! )may or may not have a regional accents but don't speak the egg-beater English that he does.
Regarding "class ", this is Mr Prescott's USP, and he says he's never happier than fighting on class. How sad. But lets not defend an indefensible on class distiction.

I suspect that Prescott and Blair will both be forced to resign before the summer parliamentary recess next month,meaning a new leader and deputy leader wil both be elected at the september party conference.That is in my analysis the most likely outcome of all this.

It seems to me that Labour's reaction to being questioned about this possibility should tell us quite a lot about what is really going on in the party in relation to Blair's succession. After all, there is much to be learned from what people do not do, and there are many positive headlines to be grabbed through replacing a deadbeat (Prescott) with the party's anointed son (Brown). Labour's failure to do this must surely indicate that, unlike most reports, all is not sweetness and light regarding Brown's "smooth" succession to the leadership, opening up what I should have thought is an important line of political enquiry.

As much as I dislike the man, I think this a tad unfair that the latest scandal involves playing a game of croquet when he should have been doing some work. Wasn't Drake, afteral, playing bowls when he should have been fighting the Spanish? As has already been said, it's a tabloid witch hunt. But for once the actual victim of the hunt is a proverbial witch - but there must be better scandal to be had than knocking some balls around on the lawn?

Pressa's working class accent has been mentioned a couple of times. He was of course, born in Wales yet doesn't have a Welsh accent. Something the residents of Hull are often quick to point out.

I think we have now just come to accept Blair and Prescott as a pair and he has been very useful for Tony Blair and really what he represents is the only left wing labour cabinet member left so I find it hard to imagine how labour party members would feel if he wasn't there- Peter Hain or Harriet Harman would be good deputy prime ministers and party leaders- in fact a lot better than John prescott at the traditional role of this position but they just wouldn't be able to match up to Prescott in the unwritten roles- If he goes that is the end of Blair which is his own fault entirely for portraying themselves as an unseperable couple in the first place- I would certainly bet my bottom dollar that Prescott won't go while Blair is still there

The real reason for the obsession with the 'crocquet' story is that Parliament is in recess and the media-not the public- has decided that Prescott must be the substitute.I doubt that any foreign broadcaster would consider this worth reporting-except as a joke-yet it's led the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s news!The depths of trivialisation to which the media has sunk is staggering-including the ´óÏó´«Ã½.The British media is now an international joke

I think it's rather splendid that Prescott has given up Dorneywood, as for once he has listened to the people. Mind you, look at this piece of toadying garbage from Austin Mitchell MP (whatever happened to him?)

But Labour MP Austin Mitchell said: "I think he's daft to [give up Dorneywood] because as soon as you throw a bit of red meat to the press pack and the media pack that's hounding him now they're gonna want more."

Oh dear oh dear

It seems that snobbery is very much alive and well within the bbc blog.

The very thought of those smelly poor working class people (who only think of money), could actually decide who runs this country and its positions of office,fills many a country seat with contempt.

Those of us who grew up and were tagged to the Cities should always remember that those rich folks will always look after us as long as we do as we're told.

We are therefore instructed to remove the man from Hull from a place he should not have and to a place from whence he came.

I usually knows me place, kind sir but on this issue the answer is NO!! so please **** **!
Gary

Its a bit of a non-job, and only there to keep the dissenters quiet with the chimera of a responsible job. No sane PM would allow any-one with ambition to take the job and stab him in the back. Hence why Prezza has it. Any replacement would need to do a proper job to justify the salary, perks and expenses commensurate with the present position. Otherwise, i see no reason for the taxpayers to pick up the tab here, and New Labour should fund and pay the salary.

I've just seen a story in the Independent about a North Wales farmer who was mauled by a 47-stone pig. He tried to move it into its pen when the animal 'went beserk'. It's indicative of the insidious way the media's political reporting influences us that I immediately thought of John Prescott. He mauled another North Wales farmer during the 2001 election campaign, although last week he turned on Farmer Blair for trying to move him out of his grace-and-favour country pen.
The croquet story was an easy hit for the majority of the media desperate for another ministerial scalp. How ironic that the same media criticised Thatcher for not taking enough holidays. Something for newspaper editors to think about on their awaydays at Lords, Wimbledon, and Ascot this summer.

Nick, i see from the news pics that Prescott is being chauffered around in a new car. To wit a Peugeot 607, isn't that the same company that has taken a decision to close their car assembly plant in Coventry, with many job losses. You would expect Prezza, as an old fashioned union-man, to show a bit of solidarity and respect here. But no, quite content to ignore the point and the efforts his local party MP's are making to save jobs. The "affaires" clearly come first.

The role of a Deputy Prime Minister should be to provide effective support to the PM in areas that the PM is unable to reach himself. It's well documented that Prescott has been a key figure as a intergovernmental broker, so he has been useful to Blair in that sense. As to whether Prescott can still provide that kind of influence and support to the PM after being discredited so much in public is dubious.

Personally I feel it's a pity that Precott felt the need to give up his country house. It further underlines the immense power of the British media. Though oft maligned as an accidental politician, unintelligent, inarticulate, I don't think the British public really see the real Prezza.

There is comment on this thread accusing the media of paying too much attention to political triviality and too little to the substance of policy. This accusation is made regularly - I remember a particularly vitriolic attack by Alastair Campbell, in The Times, about 6 months ago. I heartily agree that it is a futile waste of effort, unbecoming of human intellect, for so much political debate to be carried out in areas devoid of any real importance.

There are 2 separate issues here. One is the policy of much of the media to portray political debate as a sort of grown-up version of a playground spat, with their audience assumed to be either incapable of, or unwilling to indulge in systematic thought. I, for one, don't think that this does much to help the democratic system achieve success.

But that the remainder of the media spends so much time away from policy issues is as much down to politicians as it is to journalists. Balanced, fair, wholly true statements by politicians are NEVER made, and it would be a rather silly journalist who reported as though they were. I'm sure that most proper journalists would love to devote their thoughts to serious policy issues, but just for the moment the removal of window-dressing has to come first. Let politicians follow a code of credibility and we'll soon see what good reporting is all about.

Laughable, the column inches devoted to that relatively harmless buffoon Prescott - the political satirist/cartoonist 's dream.

Laughable (but here the laughter gets a bit strained), that Brown's second year of tax credit chaos is ignored.
Brown's idea, Brown's inception, Brown's implementation, but Primarolo is an eminently suitable fall-girl of course.

Apparently, 130K /year to Prescott, is much more important than 2,000,000K lost by Brown.

I think the most important reason for Mr Prescott being the PM's Deputy, is that a lot of people would like to see Prescott go almost as much as they would Blair!

That way at least the two men can show solidatiry and talk about their lack of public support whilst Brown rubs his hands in glee behind them!

Why not let Gordon Brown replace Prescott as deputy leader (remaining as Chancellor as well of course). That way there would be no need for any messy and divisive election; and Brown/Blair could sell the idea as a logical stepping stone in the smooth transition to Brown's eventual elevation to PM (soon after May 2007 presumably). In a sense, Brown has been the real deputy PM since 1997 anyway. When Brown takes over from Blair would be the most suitable time for an election for his deputy.

Nick, the Prime Minister's lack of team management is the strategic issue here. His players are infighting and giving David Cameron a 10 point lead and a free run into Berlin.

It depresses me how often the political game is discussed and how little the actual outcomes are discussed. Surely this lust for power, this game they play, the constant repositioning must be for something. I want to know what works.

Surely the deputy leader of the Labour party is elected by the National Executive of the Party. It is not a government post.