Prescott put to pasture

[Naselus]

And today, a new question is on the lips of Westminster - what, exactly, does John 'two jags' Prescott do?

The reshuffle the other week has removed Prescott from all departmental responsibilities; and taken away at least one of the three sub-comittees he used to chair. He has, in effect, become the first unemployed Deputy PM ever.

However, oddly enough, Prescott isn't on the £55 a week unemployment benefit that everyone else in Britain would receive. He's keeping his (large) ministerial salary, even though he's not a minister, and he's also to keep the perks afforded to him.

Now, I personally think this is jst a large-scale retirement package, given that no-one is at all sure what he does, exactly; as far as anyone can tell, he chairs between one and two 4-hour comittees every fortnight, and... sits down a lot. For this, he's paid somewhere in excess of £127,000 a year.

Prescott himself refers to himself as a 'government deal-maker'. I'd agree that he's managed to make a very, very good deal indeed.

I'm not even going to ask if he should have a pay cut; I'd just like to know how much we think it should be cut by.

[modeski]

I think if he's not on Job-Seeker's allowance, then at least most he should be paid national minimum wage, £5.05 an hour.

I'm reminded of Peter Mandelson's notorious "Minister without portfolio" deal, although Prescott lacks his political clout.

[Naselus]

Personally, I reckon he should lose all his perks, and have his salary dropped down to that of a standard MP (about £50,000).

Personally, I still like Thanatos's idea of dropping pay the further up the chain you get, until the PM only gets minimum wage plus all expenses. At least that would quickly improve minimum wage to a sensible level. I earn twice that, and I would still struggle to afford most things (car insurance, mortgage, etc.)

[HStorm]

naselus said:

I'm not even going to ask if he should have a pay cut; I'd just like to know how much we think it should be cut by.

Umm, how about by £127,000? If he's not doing anything for his money, he shouldn't receive any... oh God, what am I saying?!? This is a Capitalist country. The people who do nothing own about 80% of everything in Britain, including the money.

What a silly idea I had! It would undermine every principle that makes Great Britain what she is today {/SirHumphreymode}.

[Naselus]

I know you're joking, but frankly Prescott's doing even less than those who own that 80%. At least the majority of them are held responsible for, well, something. And Prescott doesn't even seem to have that anymore; he's just a massive expense with no real work to do.

[modeski]

Isn't there a way for members of the public to request Prescott's schedule under the Freedom of Information Act?

[Naselus]

I doubt it. security protocols would almost certainly override the FOIA for anyone in the cabinet, which no-ones sure if Prescott really still is. Until it's clear whether he's an MP or something higher up; he's deputy leader and therefor deputy PM, but he has no job of any kind. It's purely cronyism, just like all those 'special' advisors Tony Blair runs the country with.