Prescott made it with hard work (From Lancashire Telegraph)

Tofffeguy, John's a brawler; you will have seen the incident in north Wales, and perhaps you're old enough to have been there when it happened. In that sense, John may be worth 'ten of them'.

I grant that there has never been much doubt about what John meant; but the least one must add is that the interpretation for the purpose of policy was not without confusion.

Graham Hartley wrote:
Tofffeguy, John's a brawler; you will have seen the incident in north Wales, and perhaps you're old enough to have been there when it happened. In that sense, John may be worth 'ten of them'.

I grant that there has never been much doubt about what John meant; but the least one must add is that the interpretation for the purpose of policy was not without confusion.

John did come from a working background and deserves the benefits he is getting. Good luck to him in his quest for the new role he seeks.
Don't forget that in the brawl he had with the egg-thrower it involved two participents.
I think I would have done the same had I been in Johs shoes at the time. Selectivity is is a poor substitute for the truth Graham!

Graham Hartley wrote:
Tofffeguy, John's a brawler; you will have seen the incident in north Wales, and perhaps you're old enough to have been there when it happened. In that sense, John may be worth 'ten of them'.

I grant that there has never been much doubt about what John meant; but the least one must add is that the interpretation for the purpose of policy was not without confusion.

John did come from a working background and deserves the benefits he is getting. Good luck to him in his quest for the new role he seeks.
Don't forget that in the brawl he had with the egg-thrower it involved two participents.
I think I would have done the same had I been in Johs shoes at the time. Selectivity is is a poor substitute for the truth Graham!

The same John Prescott behind the Pathfinder scheme which spent £2.2 billion demolishing structurally sound houses because they were affordable? Houses people had spent a lifetime paying for were subjected to compulsory purchase and the owners evicted and not given fair compensation (eg: £35,000 less than the market value before Pathfinder had blighted the area.) Perfectly sound houses were falsely condemned, to quote a 2007 article: "Brian Clancy, of the Institute of Structural Engineers, told Darwen residents (86% of whose houses had been declared "unfit") that their houses were perfectly good and required no more than an average of £5,000 of renovation to be worth £60,000-£80,000 on the market." Compare that to the £18,000 cost of demolishing each house, never mind the cost of replacing it! If Prescott shows his face in the North West, he had better be pretty contrite. At best, he was gullible and easily manipulated by commercial interests. I, for one, don't want his fingers on the policing budget!

Jay1960 wrote:
The same John Prescott behind the Pathfinder scheme which spent £2.2 billion demolishing structurally sound houses because they were affordable? Houses people had spent a lifetime paying for were subjected to compulsory purchase and the owners evicted and not given fair compensation (eg: £35,000 less than the market value before Pathfinder had blighted the area.) Perfectly sound houses were falsely condemned, to quote a 2007 article: "Brian Clancy, of the Institute of Structural Engineers, told Darwen residents (86% of whose houses had been declared "unfit") that their houses were perfectly good and required no more than an average of £5,000 of renovation to be worth £60,000-£80,000 on the market." Compare that to the £18,000 cost of demolishing each house, never mind the cost of replacing it! If Prescott shows his face in the North West, he had better be pretty contrite. At best, he was gullible and easily manipulated by commercial interests. I, for one, don't want his fingers on the policing budget!

In many areas of East Lancashire residents were more than adequately compensated when their homes were purchased by the council. Full market value of the property, relocation expenses, statutory compensation and an additional lump sum to help them find somewhere else within East Lancashire.

The same John Prescott that hated the House of Lords so much that he would have closd it down, that is until he was offered a Peerage. Mind you, it was not for him, it was for his wife.
Prescott wasted billions when he was in office, I shudder to think what could happen if he got the police job.

Elegant1 wrote:

Graham Hartley wrote:
Tofffeguy, John's a brawler; you will have seen the incident in north Wales, and perhaps you're old enough to have been there when it happened. In that sense, John may be worth 'ten of them'.

I grant that there has never been much doubt about what John meant; but the least one must add is that the interpretation for the purpose of policy was not without confusion.

John did come from a working background and deserves the benefits he is getting. Good luck to him in his quest for the new role he seeks.
Don't forget that in the brawl he had with the egg-thrower it involved two participents.
I think I would have done the same had I been in Johs shoes at the time. Selectivity is is a poor substitute for the truth Graham!

I select from recorded history and its analysis those elements which support my case, as all of us do.

Indeed, John Prescott progressed from a working-class background to high political office, but how is that achievement of greater merit than that of another who achieves the same by another route? Recall that the MPs' expenses scandal has in any case altered the consensus.

Prescott is nothing more than a jumped up shop steward. A socialist thug and political misfit who has no place as a peer of the realm.

Claretbob wrote:
Prescott is nothing more than a jumped up shop steward. A socialist thug and political misfit who has no place as a peer of the realm.

bang on the button Claretbob.

Claretbob wrote:
Prescott is nothing more than a jumped up shop steward. A socialist thug and political misfit who has no place as a peer of the realm.

No place as a peer of the realm? Peers such as Lord Archer and Lord Taylor?

Like I said, he's worth ten of them.

ToffeeGuy wrote:

Claretbob wrote:
Prescott is nothing more than a jumped up shop steward. A socialist thug and political misfit who has no place as a peer of the realm.

No place as a peer of the realm? Peers such as Lord Archer and Lord Taylor?

Like I said, he's worth ten of them.

Ten? Perhaps twenty, or three. How can the rest of us measure him? There was an affair with a woman, with pictures. It will count in his favour among some that the affair was with a woman, as it may have counted in his favour among some had his affair been with a man - with or without pictures. Other correspondents may supply like comments in the cases of Archer and Taylor, or they may not. The difficulty remains that there must be a consensus in the matter of measurement if we are to compare ten of him with three of another plus five of yet another. Perhaps I'm adopting an arithmetical approach without warrant.

Yes, Prescott progressed from a working class background etc, but, as part of New Labour, he sold out any decent values and lost touch with real people. And even if *some* people got fairly compensated in the Pathfinder debacle, a lot didn't and wasting £2.2 billion pounds to make empty sites for grasping developers is nothing to be proud of: Prescott was duped and flattered by millionaires into making things worse for the rest of us.