On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:52:04 -0000, "Recliner"
wrote:

"plcd1" wrote in message

Article here on BBC website

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8465383.stm

and programme on Radio 4 this evening at 2000.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pxk9w

All about why Mr Prescott's 10 year transport plan didn't happen.
Might be worth a listen.

This bit certainly rings true:
"He had a weight not all transport ministers have had. Sometimes it's
been a job either for young ministers on the way up who can hardly wait
to get a better job, or for old ministers on the way down who resent
that they've been demoted."

The deputy prime minister wasn't like that, says Phil Goodwin



No, the fat ******* certainly wasn't short of weight.

Short of intelligence, that's for sure. ;-)

On Jan 18, 2:52*pm, "Recliner" wrote:
"plcd1" wrote in message



Article here on BBC website

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8465383.stm

and programme on Radio 4 this evening at 2000.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pxk9w

All about why Mr Prescott's 10 year transport plan didn't happen.
Might be worth a listen.

This bit certainly rings true:
"He had a weight not all transport ministers have had. Sometimes it's
been a job either for young ministers on the way up who can hardly wait
to get a better job, or for old ministers on the way down who resent
that they've been demoted."

The deputy prime minister wasn't like that, says Phil Goodwin

It was Prescott vs the Cabinet, DfT mandarin road charging paranoia,
spiralling light rail costs and the right-wing press. Oh, and the
motoring population, or at least the vocal minority claiming to
represent them. Prescott lost. In fact we all lost: crowded trains,
congested cities, almost the lowest cycling rate in Europe and 2 of
the promised 25 tram systems. Well done us.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message

In message , at 14:57:53
on Mon, 18 Jan 2010, David Hansen
remarked:
All about why Mr Prescott's 10 year transport plan didn't happen.

The plan where he told us that it was a promise, and we were to
hold him to account.

Maybe we shouldn't vote for him in the general election, then?

That would be difficult as he has announced he is standing down from
the Westminster parliament and I don't think he intends to give
people the opportunity to vote for him in another arena.

Exactly; so any promise that he might be held to account is empty.

Of course, Mrs Prescott is confidently expecting to become Lady Prescott
pretty soon...

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:53:33 -0000, "Recliner"
wrote:

Of course, Mrs Prescott is confidently expecting to become Lady Prescott
pretty soon...


She already thinks she's Lady Muck. ;-)

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:08:51 on
Mon, 18 Jan 2010, David Hansen remarked:
All about why Mr Prescott's 10 year transport plan didn't happen.

The plan where he told us that it was a promise, and we were to hold
him to account.

Maybe we shouldn't vote for him in the general election, then?


Or any other politician? Many of them seem to make empty promises to try
& get elected. Why should we believe or support any of them ?

Bevan

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:50:57 +0000, Bevan Price
wrote:



Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:08:51 on
Mon, 18 Jan 2010, David Hansen remarked:
All about why Mr Prescott's 10 year transport plan didn't happen.

The plan where he told us that it was a promise, and we were to hold
him to account.

Maybe we shouldn't vote for him in the general election, then?


Or any other politician? Many of them seem to make empty promises to try
& get elected. Why should we believe or support any of them ?


Perhaps you should ignore national politics, and the disreputable
senior politicians at the top, and instead look at your local
candidates, or even the sitting MP?

I'm lucky to have a very good local MP, and I would be happy to vote
for him regardless of his party, because he represents local people
very well indeed.

I think if everyone voted for the best local candidate, rather than
choosing by party on the basis of national issues, we might have a far
more representative and effective parliament. But as long as many
people stick to voting by party, we will repeat the current mess.

All about why Mr Prescott's 10 year transport plan didn't happen.
Might be worth a listen.


It was a Labour government silly.

The very last thing ‘we always know best’ socialists will ever do is
listen to the market, listen to the people that got them elected.

They would much rather fly off on tangents on big blues skies
projects, dreamed up by a centralised bureaucracy, planners and bogus
academics, the sort Labour always has wet their knickers over in
admiration.

They spend millions coming up with something that’s going to cost
billions and eventually the rest of the Government takes one look at
it and realises there are no votes in it and worse, more often than
not, plenty of lost votes in it so then nothing happens because
they’ve got nothing to put in its place.

On 18 Jan, 20:00, allanbonnetracy wrote:
All about why Mr Prescott's 10 year transport plan didn't happen.
Might be worth a listen.

It was a Labour government silly.

The very last thing ‘we always know best’ socialists will ever do is
listen to the market, listen to the people that got them elected.


So you are saying that the reason why a Secretary of State in a New
Labour (ie capitalist) government failed to carry out a relatively
socialist policy was because he is a socialist.

That makes as much sense as can be expected.

On 18/01/2010 19:14, Bruce wrote:

I think if everyone voted for the best local candidate, rather than
choosing by party on the basis of national issues, we might have a far
more representative and effective parliament. But as long as many
people stick to voting by party, we will repeat the current mess.

People always talk about wanting a more representative parliament, but
I'm not sure I want the country run by hoodies, wifebeater-swilling
thugs and thickos.

"Minister, what is your opinion on NHS funding?"
"Woteva. Heard me new ringtone?"

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

What you said above is hardly unique to Labour politicians nor to this
country. *

I couldn't agree more; the Tories wouldn’t be anymore capable outside
the comfort zone of their own world of politics.

It’s just that they know it, rather better than Labour does, hence
their dislike for big government.