Wednesday, April 26, 2006

EXCLUSIVE: John Prescott's Serial Affair Habit

John Prescott has a right to a private life. Affairs happen. David Davis has just told Sky NEws he won't comment on it, saying: "It's none of my business and, may I respectfully suggest, none of yours." He's wrong for two reasons. Firstly, I suspect they chose today to confirm this news to try to get Charles Clarke out of the headlines - something which they have singularly failed to do. But secondly, Prescott was the first to scream 'Tory sleaze' when the Major government was having its troubles. So he's being a total hypocrite. Even more so when you realise that this is not the first affair our Deputy Prime Minister has had since being elevated to that office. This particular affair started in the mid 1990s and, like his recent dalliance, was with someone in his Private Office. This woman is now a very important person in the Labour hierarchy. The whole of the Lobby knows her identity. Which journalist will be first to break cover? I'll lay a bet that none of them will. Bet they would if this was a Tory in the same position - remember Steve Norris? Guido hints at a third affair but doesn't name the other party. It may be the same person I am alluding to. It's going to be a busy day. Check back often!


Anonymous said...

It's not anybody's business, but it is suggestive of the man's character, and character is a big thing in politics. If you can deceive your wife, you can certainly deceive your country. Of course, the obvious problem is that there are no doubt any number of senior Tories having affairs in a similar fashion, but that's not a very electorally appetising reason for keeping schtum.

So far this week, we've had Prescott the cheat, Clarke the incompetent, Hewitt the deluded and a police investigation still in progress. I worry that if the Conservatives don't pin Labour's failures on Labour itself then it's going to get pinned on Politicians In General -- which will do nothing to help the Tories, nothing to help the reputation of politics, and nothing to stop the growth of radical fringe parties.

Politaholic said...

The difference between Prescott and the sexual goings-on of Tory MP's during the Major years is that Prescott has not been going up and done the country banging-on about "back-to-basics". The late John Hanna stated the problem vis-a-vis Major's miscreants very well: imagine, he said, someone preaching endlessly about the evils of drink, and then you discover that he spends every Saturday night in a little known shebeen drinking himself stupid. You might enjoy a tipple or several yourself, but you would find this hypocritical. I don't think the charge of hypocrisy stands against Prescott in the way it did against the Majorettes. Mind you, I always think it disgraceful when they say they "regret" the affair. After a two-year affair that is so insulting to the woman in question. What he really regrets is getting found out. Then again - following the "Palmerston principle" - I can't see it will do Prescott's reputation any harm...

Anonymous said...

A colleague of mine has just suggested a new nickname :

John "Two-Shags" Prescott

I think it could catch on.


BlueistheColour said...

I agree it sounds like the story was leaked to cover Clarke.

Whatever the ills of the Major adminstration - whether 'Back to Basics' driven or not. The levels of the Labour govt scandals & sleaze are almost unprecedented on whatever basis you look.

The trouble is repetitive effect on 'good' politicians. The charge of hypocrisy must stand against Prescott at many levels.

Guido has a link on his blog to the Mirror article - it is extremely entertaining.

In the same way the reaction has been on Mark Oaten getting **IT Faced - most normal people outside the Westminster village will not find this behaviour very electorally appetising though hopefully not all politicians will be tarnished with the same brush

Anonymous said...

OK I don't like John Prescott. In my opinion he's a dimwitted class warrior of the old school and quite how he got into the position he is I couldn't say.

However I will admit I don't know enough about his personal habits and pontifications vis a vis the sanctity of marriage. If he has never made any sanctimonious speeches about "love, honour and obey" etc etc then it is surely a private matter. But if he ever did publicly come out in support of the traditional marriage or made political capital out of another MP's dalliances then surely he has at least set himself up for the charge of hypocrisy and should rightly be pilloried for it. The more the better.


neil craig said...

If they released this story today to take the heat off of the real story about Clarke that is not a reason to push it - indeed quite the opposite.

My favourite Prescottism was when he said that Labour wouldn't deserve to run the country if they couldn't make a success of the Dome. Actually I think that one reflects, comparatively, well on Prescott since the more "professional" sort of politician never puts any failure standards on himself.

Blognor Regis said...

The late John Hanna

Don't you mean Don McLean's favourite ...

"Starry starry night..."

neil craig said...

If you are correct that this was leaked to kill the Clarke story, which seems a reasonable interpretation, was this done by Clarke or by, or with the wink of, Blair.

I suspect this is the sort of thing that John Prescott will take very personally indeed.

Politaholic said...

Sorry chaps, I meant Vincent Hanna.

Ellee Seymour said...

Can you remind me what David Blunkett said about Prescott in his book?

I agree with politholic, I can't stand cowards who denigrate what was once a loving relationship of sorts. But in fact this humanises JP, just like JM and DB.

I imagine it's a very lonely life at the top, all those late hours, stressful votes, back stabbing etc.

Who is literally the nearest and dearest with a sympathetic ear during these moments? Not usually the spouse, unfortunately. The wise ones would spend more time being close by, I know some who do to avoid this kind of temptation.