91Èȱ¬

The trouble with Prescott claiming this is a private matter is that he never failed to try to make political capital over Tory ministers' indiscretions.

I recall some of his early conference speeches which were peppered with such comments not to mention his appearances on Frost etc when the Sunday tabloids had their regular feeding frenzies in the mid-1990s. Why should he be treated any differently?

And unusually Michael Howard was right on the mark on Today - prisoner release-gate is a question of the business of government. What do they do all day if not govern and manage departments? What did he do since the NAO report came out? And no, Clarke's job is to get it right now, we elected the government to get things right first time (or even second time, after the reports).

For many, this has been a Damscene moment of same old, same old politicians. Why do they not last more than ten years?

It is hard to downplay the extend of Labour's blundering over the last couple of weeks.

Blair and Clarke were busy duelling with the "liberal media" over public safety and law and order, ignoring the NHS debacle that reached its peak when Patricia Hewitt was virtually booed off stage in Gateshead.

As well as ending up bruised and battered over the NHS - once at the centre of Labour's reputation - the government has blown away its own credentials on public safety, after the lengthy emails and letters issued by Clarke and Blair to their "liberal" opponents in the media.

Local elections next week? How long can this rudderless ship continue before the captain walks the plank? The first mate should perhaps be joining him, but that nautical metaphor is for another post...

Today, the media seems more concerned with its own importance and ability to influence events instead of reporting them strangely enough.

There is a need to understand that most of us are capable of coming to our own conclusions once given the facts and that's what reporting should be about - providing the facts. Informing people and not steering them in a particular direction is what is required. But maybe I am naive and incapable of developing my own thoughts and impressions in reporters minds. Dumbing down has been taken to an nth degree too often.

Ministers are responsible for their department's actions, but so are the people in those departments.

Let's get back to treating the media's audience, namely the public, with respect.

Sooo, If he wasn't told by (presumably) senior civil servants, why are we not hearing of said senior persons taking a long walk off a short plank. Likewise, if he did mandate policy changes and again, no action occured as a result, how come no civil servants are removed from their positions. Where oh where is the sense of responibility, authority and accountability? All three seem to be missing in this sorry mess.

Did not Willie Whitelaw offer to resign when there was an intruder at the Palace? His offer to resign was, I think, refused as he could hardly been blamed, in any way, for the intrusion; unlike Lord Carrington and Richard Luce for the Falklands.
On that test Clarke should go I fear.

I follow the reasoning why ministers no longer resign.
OK, the errors were made by Civil Servants, I guess.
What I never see any reference to is what happens to the guy who made the mistake. How senior is he (they). Do they just carry on happily putting the public at risk?

"Call me naive but I have no reason to think it was anything but pure coincidence", says Nick.

Couldn't agree more. Why do people keep throwing the charge that bad news has been deliberately buried? John Prescott's situation has been reported in a very high profile way. I'm therefore not tempted to believe it's been buried.

Hi Nick,

"Who's right? You tell me."

It's clear isn't it? It was said that £3 million in additional funds were used to fix the system after the mess was pointed out in July. But this fix clearly failed because

1) The rate of these cases increased post July.
2) Even now he doesn't know where all these people are despite spending that £3 million.
3) If the Lib-Dem case that was mentioned in PMQ's is true the Prime Minister and Clarke will look like fools having stated that since the 1st of April everything is fine.

I give Clarke until Friday afternoon. But never fear, he'll be back in another post before the year is out (Unless Blair has finally gone of course!)

I really wish I could have been a little more original or constructive in my comment but... My Goodness when is this all going to end?... One could almost believe this sorry mess has all been scripted to bring about the end of Mr Blair's reign all the sooner!... Perhaps he'll revive the 'Tradition' and resign!

"Because he's saying - in effect - this failing had been going on for many years. I wasn't told what was going on by civil servants. When I was told I did act but they failed to deliver the policy change."

So, if he isn't going to resign, is he instead going to sack the civil servants involved?

I shan't be holding my breath...

This seems to be the case that reinforces the point there is no immigration control at all. The UK is an open door for all opportunists to fleece it.
Maybe this also points the way about being "political correct" is an excuse for doing nothing.
The senior bureaucrats in the civil service need to realise that incompetence such as this will bring a termination of employment with a loss of pension rights. Industry would not tolerate this type of performance.
Any minister is dependant upon the civil servants for managing his dept. as the dept. and employees continue when the a minister is replaced.

Clarke has possibly weathered the storm. If he continues in office he'll be a permanent embarrassment and a permanent Aunt Sally for the Opposition - much to their advantage. But Blair would rather that than lose another to the 'hounding of the press' - whatever that actually means. After all, Blair is going before the next election so it's Brown who's going to have to pick this one up.

As to whether Clarke should go, well of course he should - by anyone's standards. It's no good taking on a High Office of State and demonstrating such an appalling lack of leadership and ability. This episode will hugely strengthen the hands of all of the trade unions representing 91Èȱ¬ Office employees. He's made serious blunders and now needs their co-operation to dig himself out. In office but not in control. An operator but no leader.

Anyway, who's to take over - Hazel Blears? What sort of Statesperson is she? Maybe they'll ask Blunkett to step in - he's not doing a lot these days after all.

The whole atmosphere in the press and in the country is turning really awful at the moment. It sickened me when I read about all the support for the BNP and their hate-fuelled repulsive views. I can't help but think some of it is the fault of the media who leap with glee on any mistake, never ever report any good news and (in the case of papers like the Daily Mail) actively whip up racism. People make mistakes, people are incompetent, yes. Like in any job. But the real crisis in the NHS was when it was under-funded by the Tories. Who would go into politics? You are just attacked and criticised and no one reports anything good. It's really gloomy and depressing.

The John Prescott affair shows that this sort of development cuts across party lines. In Margaret Thatcher's time, Cecil Parkinson's relationship with his secretary was much in the news.

I am reminded of - was it - Harold Macmillan's comments when asked by a journalist about what brought about the downfall of a government - 'Events, dear boy, events..'
Mr Blair and his ministers try desperately to micro-manage everything which might affect you and me, but 'events' keep getting in the way...!
As an aside, vis-a-vis recent ministerial 'affairs' - one has to wonder what hidden attributes the likes of Blunkett and Prescott must have that are not immediately obvious to the rest of us...

Hello Nick

The failure of Labour politicians to resign is seriously damaging their (already poor) reputation with the voters. Jowell, Clarke, Prescott and even Blair (titles for cash) should have resigned by now. At least the Conservatives used to resign. Tony Blair is weak for failing to accept or indeed insist on resignations.

Arguably, there's something wrong with our wider political system that the Ministerial Code isn't enforced properly and isn't clear enough. The Ministerial Code is clear that a Minister must take responsibility for his/her department when things go wrong. However, there's no cut off point specified for 'how' wrong before the minister should resign and there's no method of enforcing the code whatsoever.

Ministerial Resignations :
Didn't Estelle Morris resign after failures in the Education department?

There is no such thing in politics as an honourable resignation - it is either a push or a jump -

secondly, if the Government ran its affairs as a business they would have gone bust three times over and blair would be sitting in a dock for his mis-management as Alan Sugar says 'You're fired!'

This issue goes right to the heart of what we expect from the State. At its core the 91Èȱ¬ Office is there to protect the lawfull from an unlawfull minority. It's duty is to curtail the activity of criminals and by failing to pursue an opportunity to remove foreign criminals from our shores there has been a fundamental breach of duty. Charles Clarke can forget about ASBO's, parenting orders and the like they are merely media windowdressing if you can't get the basics right.

Dear Nick,It is all starting to smell a bit,is it not? Clarke the man at the top of the latest fiasco,the man taking the 'big-bucks' sitting there and admitting he and his senior civil servants are responsible for this incompetant shambles,with all the talk about increased security at home, identity cards etc.-etc.before that the Blunkett chronicles. . twice. . .very lucrative! . you could not make it up. . . now the Prescott thing. . .-horrendous images are conjured-up..truly a fate worse than death!. . . what a Rotter. . . open a window somebody!

Will Clarke be on the next eject seat?

Well, he certainly knew about the problem and it wasn't fixed. In his defence he did tell his guys to sort it out, he is admitting that it wasn't sorted out and the current situation is not good enough. Poltician admitting errors - refreshing stuff.

The trouble for Clarke is that a few weeks ago he was casting stones at others. He said Jack Dromey wasn't up to the job because Dromey didn't know something that had been kept deliberately secret from Dromey.

Ironic isn't it, that Clarke has the luxury of knowing of the problem and even then could not fix it.

So if Clarke thought Dromey wasn't up to the job, how can we judge Clarke for not fixing a problem that was well known? Hoisted on his petard.

It is of course possible that the Prescott story coming out today was a coincidence but I would be more inclined to believe that if Ruth Kelly hadn't been saved by the front page splash of terrorists' plans to convict Leo Blair.
Both stories of gross governmental incompetence were knocked off the front pages by private matters that would be unlikely to last more than a day or two. The Deputy Prime Minister is unlikely to suffer any lasting damage over this (apart from possibly damage from his wife) but he may have saved Charles Clarke's career.

I dont think Honorable are totally dead they are maybe just on a life support machine -

I would suggest Estelle Morriss as someone who resigned because her department was failing. As for honorable there of course was Robin Cook over Iraq and i know Nick Scottish Politics is far from you but Tavish Scott became the first Liberal (Democrat) Minister to resign from office in over 80 years when he decided to put his constituents before government on a vote on fishing in the Scottish parliament.

So not exactly dead, but the case for Charles Clarke staying in office is probably the weakest i ever remember.

what REALLY worries me is that despite the fact that the Labour ship is so clearly holed below the water-line and Labour has moved the criteria for a resignation (both of which have a certain air of inevitability) policital commentators seem to be losing their sense of objectivity. my own impression is that there is a feeling creeping into all the quality reportage along the lines of 'well this is unprecedented, i can't really see how they can carry on given their lack of credibility to govern; but i am sure they will stagger on, so lets see how they do' rather than confronting the movers in this political farce (yes door-stepping when they will only appear at stage-managed press calls)and challenging them to resolve these questions. are you really too frightened of losing your lobby pass?

The Prescott story has obviously been prepared well in advance and kept for the "right" time for release. So why today? Not to bury the news of Charles "Taxi!" Clarke's latest blundering, but rather to further turn up the heat under the Government as a whole. And goodness knows, they deserve it.

One other point. Clarke has offered to resign but Tony "Stand by your man" Blair turned it down. After all, if people were to resign every time they were exposed as involved in corruption, incompetence or scandal, there'd be very few people left in the Cabinet...

What is quite clear from this story is the lack of accountability by ministers. The failure to deport criminals would in normal circumstances be a resignation matter, however, Clarke allows himself to be dissuaded by Blair, clearly demonstrating his complete lack of ethics.
What is wrong with Labour? they have become completely ammoral, demonstrating a cavalier disrespect for the electorate. Just look at the list--Mandelson(twice), Robinson, Cook, Blunkett(twice), WMD/Dr Kelly, Jowell, to name a few and now Kinnock (speeding) and Prescott (adultery). It's disgraceful.
The release of Prescott's affair is just a little to close to the "good day to release bad news" syndrome to be believed as incidental.
Cannot the people ask for an election, do we really have to wait for seedy and corrupt politicians to do the deed?

Roland Scott wrote:
Ministerial Resignations:
Didn't Estelle Morris resign after failures in the Education department?

I think a lot of people had a lot of respect for Estelle Morris after she resigned because she said that basically, she wasn't up to the job. Not only did she have the courage to step down but had the real guts to admit her own failings.

I think the thing about this 91Èȱ¬ Office affair is that it happened not only under Charles Clarke's watch, not only under David Blunkett's watch but under Jack Straw's watch too. Collective responsibility seems to mean everyone is to blame and nobody takes the rap.

Gordon Brown must be wondering if, and when, he gets the keys to Number 10 what will be left. He's still seen as a giant in Labour, despite everything that's gone on, and I can't help thinking of that iconic image of St Paul's during the blitz, standing tall while all around everything burns. Gordon's still there, but who will be left unscathed around him?

I wonder what Gordon Brown is making of the whole Clarke and Prescott situation? I notice he was not in the Commons today. Perhaps he is feeling that given the Clarke and Prescott situations his chances of becoming Prime Minister this year are significantly improving? As it is likely to considerably affect Labour’s local elections results.

Mr Clarke has had the cheek to say that his outrageous ID scheme would have reduced the gravity of this situation. To be honest, I don't think it's over the top to suggest this could be part of a grand propaganda plan. Remember that two days ago the Independent and the Observer ran stories seriously questionning the government's record on liberty? This revelation is designed to both detract attention from those stories and smooth the way for the ID cards & database. It's disgusting.

P.s. if he resigns, he'll be back in some other capacity soon enough. Just like Blunkett and Mandy.

Before the week is out we will be told that the released prisoners are contributing to the economy, and should not be deported anyway. Perhaps that was the view of the civil servants/agency staff responsible...

Hi Nick,

The problem is, as was pointed out in all quarters last night, the timing of this latest revelation; situated at the point at which Clarke has intensified his campaign against his shibboleth of decadence, the Guardian and Independent. The language of his attacks in these papers is constituted by insistence on "intellectual" strength and attentiveness. Yet the professional 'intellectuals' whose approach Clarke seems to admire were the primary object of his scorn as Education Secretary. I think it would be a shame if Clarke's necessary removal from the 91Èȱ¬ Office were remembered for the involvement of quasi-xenophobic fear of foreign criminals. It is the Secretary's contempt for thought, freedom and articulacy which should have dispatched this bruiser years ago.

Jos

Clarke might be saying sorry and admitting to errors - but only because his back is against the wall and he's trying to save his skin. This is not an honourable response - it's an act of desperation.
Last night, before the facts came out, he was referring to 288 released prisoners as "very few" to try and minimise the problem. As I see it, either he knew the number and was misleading the public - or he didn't know the number and just made up an excuse on the spot.
In the past, politicians avoided answering awkward questions. Now, like little boys caught with their hands in the sweety jar, they just seem to make up excuses to try and get away with it - any excuse will do, facts are no barrier.
If he does get away with it, I expect to see him bullying and spinning again next week.
He must go.

This situation was avoidable, but wasn't avoided. Someone needs to answer for that. If Mr Clarke isn't that someone, then I want to know who is.

I am sorry but I think that the Mirror's headlining of Prescott's infidelities on the same days as Clarke's woes is far from a coincidence. The Mirror is a left wing paper who would see no advantage in discrediting Prescott, it would see an advantage in distracting people attention from Clarke's shambolic mess. It hasn't worked.

If the blame seems to be clearly on the civil servants maybe then the government can confirm how many in the home office received a bonus payment or a pay increase based on performance as per their appraisal system in the last seven years.

All we need now is for Blair to say "Crisis, what crisis".....absolutely unbelivable incompetence at all levels of the government. Oh and with this mendacious lot I don't believe in coincidence, two jags two timer's sorry tale has been buried

A couple of years ago I was taught that the doctrine of Ministerial Responsibility, that a minister must take responsibility for all the mistakes in his own department, was a cornerstone of our unwritten constitution.

I wonder if they're still teaching that now...

How can you say you Prescott's escapades are a bombshell when the majority of lobby journalists and even research assistants in Parliament have declared this to have been a long-term open secret?

The No. 10 spin machine has form with this sort of behvaiour, if the hacks in Parliament had the story then why not sanction its release when attention is elsewhere...luckily this hasn't got Prezza off the hook this time

You say that the Prescott thing came as a shock. Well the Mirror amongst others says that he was throwing her over his shoulder, she was seen nuzzling his neck, accusations were made before the affair even started etc etc. It is obvious a lot of epople know about this which says a lot about (a) Labour secrecy and (b) the politicalisation of the civil service when they cover this sort of thing up yet never did for the Tories. (Not that I would have wanted them to - ANY such behaviour smacks of dishonesty to spouse and thence to voters - sack him)

So why did not one of his civil servants either bubble him to the Cabinet Secretary to ensure Blair had a quiet word or why did not someone actually take him to one side and say - Watch your back'? Hmm?

I also wonder what is going on when civil servants are having high jinks and parties at OUR expense when they should be running the country!

As our civil liberties go and dangerous, convicted fellons walk our streets with impunity I can't help wondering what ever happened to the New Labour slang "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". I presume that panacea of the ASBO should solve the issue, or at the very least bump up the crime and detection figures I read with disdain.

I can't help but think that this government's recent reductions of our civil liberties are there to make the incompetence of such bodies as the police or the government easier. Let's say it becomes law that everyone has to be ready to produce their ID card when asked to by an official (which I'm sure it eventually will, given that no principle has been established by the Blair government as to their future use). Then the next time something like this happens, the 91Èȱ¬ Secretary can simply ask the police to stop anyone resembling the missing 900 and ask for their papers.

Is it the law that foreign nationals who have been released from prison (on parole?)can or should be deported? If it is and for whatever reason the UK routinely doesn't deport them why has that been the case?

Since last July the 91Èȱ¬ Secretary (and the 91Èȱ¬ Office) have failed to deliver what he should be delivering in this respect. He should resign.

The position of being a government minister is not like a normal job. The electorate democratically chooses MPs and on that basis a government is selected to govern. If the govenment and the ministers fail to deliver good government then they shouldn't be there. No one ever said governing was easy but that doesn't mean to say that a minister can shy away from his responsibilities when he fails.

Incidently if some of these people were released on parole why are their whereabouts not known?

Call me naive but I have no reason to think it was anything but pure coincidence", says Nick.

You're naive, Nick (as is Neil Sands). It is indeed a good day to bury bad news. I have it on good authority that City Hall (at least) have known about Prescott's affair for around five months...

Nick, in my view we need a complete restructuring of our political system. Remember the old maxim: having a desire for political office automatically disqualifies one from being suitable for it. How can we vote for worthwhile candidates when there are none (or very few) standing? What I always understood by democracy was that because there was not enough room in the debating chamber for everyone, each group of people would send one of them to represent the others. There are many examples of how this process has been subverted but the clearest way to illustrate this is to look at Shaun Woodward's political history.

If I were the tories, I'd be campaigning for Clarke to stay on, as it would say a lot about this government's attitude to accountability, resonsibility and crime.

Alex

As mentioned above, I feel the most significant factor in this story is that over one quarter of these people have been released since the 91Èȱ¬ Secretary found out about this last year. What exactly has he been doing since then? One could understand the argument of "Oh, I've just found out, let me fix it" if it weren't for the fact that the situation has not improved in any way since he found out. In fact, looking at the average number of people released per day since this 1999, it has actually picked up momentum since he has known. Nor has he sought help from anyone else as far as we know. Instead he has let the problem drag on, buried his head in the sand and then tried to pass the buck when the story eventually broke. I mean - didn't he think the story would come out? He's even had time to set someone else up to take the fall for him, if that were the route he wanted to go. Yet he has done nothing. The man is incompetent. In the wake of the Blunkett and Jowell debacles, Blair should be asking for his resignation, not waiting for it. And certainly not defending him.

It's all very well for a Minister to say that they should not be held accountable for the "systemic" failings of their Department; but you never see them holding bacxk from taking the credit for any successes of their Department. If you take the credit when things go well even if you weren't personally responsible then you should be prepared to take the blame for what goes wrong and were something has gone seriously wrong resign.

Steve wrote:

"Mr Clarke has had the cheek to say that his outrageous ID scheme would have reduced the gravity of this situation."

I agree Steve.

Clarke has Some. Nerve.

If the 91Èȱ¬ Office can't get this right, how on earth are we supposed to trust them to get ID cards and the national register right? That scheme is so obviously going to be a monumental fiasco as every expert who knows about such things has already warned them. But they don't listen. They know best. This is, truly, what terrifies me about this government. They. Don't. Listen. They have no humility. Just hubris and sheer arrogance.

As for Prescott, who cares? I'd much rather see the government held to account on its growing incompetence than trousers down. Hey, maybe if more of them had affairs, they wouldn't have so much time to meddle in all our lives and try to micro manage and control everything we do?

Having been on first-name terms with Peter Carrington both in London and Brussels, I observe a difference compared with Charles Clark: his honour came first.

Is prisongate New Labour's Black Wednesday?

The Tories lost the 1997 election in 1992 when we were turfed out of the ERM despite putting up interest rates 5% in one afternoon. They were then seen to be fatally incompetent, from which they have never really recovered.

New Labour seem to be just as incompetent today. Education, Health, Party Funding, ID cards, David Mills. The list is endless & this is without mentioning the I word.

Hi Nick,

There is no doubt in my mind that the public has been put at additional risk due to this error. I am sure that every journalist worth his salt will be looking for the offence committed by a released prospective deportee. Indeed, awful as it may be, if any child is sexually abused because of this failure, the "sword of Damocles" would surely fall. I can almost hear it swinging in the political breeze now! As over 50% of criminals re-offend, it is just a matter of time before something really nasty happens and Mr Clarke is then confronted by !breaking" news.

I read elsewhere that the names of those who are have gone missing have been handed to the police in order to run them through the police computer and see whether the police know where they are. The article in which I read it did not make clear whether this had happened as soon as Clarke was informed or as soon as the story broke. (Does anyone know which?) It would therefore appear that either:

The £3million strategy adopted by Clarke for finding crooks did not include checking the largest database of information on crooks in the country.

Or, it takes the police (for which Clarke also has responsibility) this long to carry out a series of checks on a database.

Either way, if any of the data is on there, Clarke should surely resign.

This government are serial incompetents, and we've got another 3/4 years of them. God help us.

I can understand that an event of a large enough magnitude (like say 9/11) might allow minor bad news to slip by relatively unnoticed, but generally most of the public and news media have the ability to keep track of a few more normal sized issues at one time, so I hardly think the Mirror has been conspiring with the Labour party to time the release of this sort of news.

Personally I think ministerial resignations are too easy an answer for most issues like this, you replace MP A with MP B and everyone who is actually in charge of carrying out the policies in practise is left in place (or at least that is always the impression I get).

Of course he should resign. If he has any respect for the people who voted for the party that gave him his job then he would because he failed at that job. But he won't because he hasn't any respect for us whatsoever. So what can we do? Well we can cast our 5 yearly vote for another party who will then employ another Clarke who will treat us with the same disdain. Get the feeling you're being had? Until we have more say in the running of our own country ( do we still have one? ) instead of just financing it then this type farce will just continue on and on.

It seems to me that the Labour High Command is losing it's grip. Whether or not one believes that the tensions between Blair and Brown are serious enough to fracture what has been a successful partnership so far, there is at the very least a breakdown in communications at the highest levels of government. The Prescott affair is sad but unsurprising given the hothouse nature of our political institutions. Government requires leadership and accountability but it also requires co-ordination. This latest incident demonstrates the inadequacy of the Opposition in holding Blair & Co. to account and is hardly a good indicator of the way that the next General Election will go. Parliament is not up to the task of handling the government, never mind the overarching insidious prescence of European lawmakers. Whether Clarke should resign is not really an issue. Reigning in a government is.

I'm aghast and in shock. How could TWO women have such bad taste as to fall for a man who is the dead ringer of a bulldog called Churchill in a TV advert?

John Prescott's betrayal of his wife in having a
clandestine affair with a secretary is nothing compared to his betrayal of the trade union movement. At least his wife enjoyed all the trappings of power and wealth that his position accorded him. His former trade union colleagues got sod all.

Is it not worth looking at the bigger picture? As a result of Estelle Morris' resignation, we lost a great Education Secretary, and I'm not sure if it would benefit the country to have a new 91Èȱ¬ Secretary in this Labour administration. Bring back David Blunkett? No, thanks. Charles Clarke made an admission of personal failure - quite refreshing I thought.

Estelle Morris went not only from a feeling of personal inadequacy but also because of the criticism/blame culture in the media. Who indeed would wish to be a politician.

There's an old saying that "People who do, make mistakes" - having worked on Government projects I was appalled at the risk aversion in civil servants. Better do nothing than get something wrong. When we see the media/public reaction to mistakes, is it any surprise that this is the reaction of public servants and that it's so difficult to achieve reform.

Yes Mr Clarke will probably have to go in the end. But he, like many 91Èȱ¬ Secs before have failed to crack the the man in the grey suit!

They, like him should be sacked for failing to manage their departments and impliment change. We all know that the Civle Service run this country, not the elected governmant!
Don't we!!!

I think Clarke probably should resign, but if there is the SLIGHTEST chance of getting Blunkett back then I hope he won't....

Actually, shouldn't Prescott have resigned a few years ago?

I seem to remember that originally he took on the job of sorting out public transport, and swore that if he hadn't done it in five years, he would fall on his sword.

But of course no one ever mentions public transport any more, do they?!

Apparently the GVN have today handed over the first (incomplete) list of the released foreign prisioners to the police - so they can be traced and considered for deportation.

Just one question - why today? The 91Èȱ¬ Secretary knew about the problem nine months ago. When the 91Èȱ¬ Office began collating the list - why didn't they hand it over to the police as a work in progress? Might this oversight be related to the 91Èȱ¬ Office being more fearful that the Police would leak the story than their concern for public safety!

The opposition missed an opportunity to put TB on the ropes at PMQ. If three foreign murderers are beyond the range of the probation service (they are required to be supercvised for the rest of their lives)could TB please confirm that there are no non-foreign murderers whose whereabouts arfe unknown.

I wish the media would stop calling these people released criminals - as i assume they had served their sentences/done their time. Lots of 'criminals' are released every day without such a witch-hunt. Saying that it is a worrying about rapists/sex offenders who i assume arent on the register becuase of this administrative foul up.
One thing though today's news (Clarke, Hewitt, Prescott) does tell us that Blair is losing his grip and hastens his departure (i pray!)- he looked uneasy/embarrassed today for sure but he also looked disinterested. Time to go Mr Blair - i reckon the local elections will now be a much bigger disaster than anticipated

Incompetence is endemic throughout this Government. If the recent reported failures in the 91Èȱ¬ Office, Treasury and Health Department had been in private industry then Clarke, Brown and Hewitt would have been sacked. The CEO i.e. Blair would also have been removed. Not so with this rotten mendacious Government they cling on to office regardless

We are seeing the twilight days of this Government. This information is getting out because everyone, the public, civil servants everybody has had enough and want rid of them.

Prescott deserves to go. He has continually failed in the running of his departments and now has been caught cheating on his wife after berating his political opponents for doing the same thing.

Patricia Hewitt is having to deal with the fall-out of Health Policies resulting in inflated salaries and financial shortfalls. Information keeps getting made public, who’s doing it and why? Everybody. Why? Because they are fed up and ripe for change.

Charles Clark will end up resigning, he knew about the undeported prisoners last year, and told the Prime Minister before Christmas, plenty of time to sort the problem out, round them up and deal with them properly.

Gordon Brown is keeping his head down but the appalling shambles of the Tax Credits has yet to bite. We have a department of Works & Pensions to make benefit payments, why make a bad job of duplicating its function? Tax people aren’t good at giving out money, it goes against their natural instincts.

Much of their problem arises from a tendency to micromanage bits of their departments and lose touch with the overall picture, and in the process probably irritate everybody involved inevitably leading poor performance, low morale and leaks.

We haven't seen anything like the end of this. The real problem is if Labour goes who can take over? The Conservatives are not yet ready whatever they may say to the contrary.

Though Estelle Morris resigned over the failures in the Education Department, it was not due to Individual Ministerial Responsibility, but due to her self-confessed incompetence. It is true what you say; Lord Carrington was the last clear example of the convention of Individual Ministerial Responsibility being effective.

The convention of Individual Ministerial Responsibility is dying out, as are the Civil Service conventions of anonymity, permanence and neutrality.

I would say that Charles Clarke is responsible. He should adhere to Individual Ministerial Responsibility and he should be held accountable for the actions of his ministry. Otherwise it will be a downward spiral, more loss of faith in the political system, higher voter apathy and a less democratic government.

Nick - Where does all this leave Tony Blair now? - after Charles Clarke, Patricia Hewitt, John Prescott, cash for peerages, Tessa Jowell, even Cherie, her hair and her spokeswoman. Is he seriously rattled yet? Does he actually realise how incompetent, dishonourable and arrogant so many of his cabinet appear? Or does he think it's all a media storm he can ride out - again? Also, how does he really fancy Labour's chances in the local elections on May 4th? Does Houdini feel it's closing in at last?

If David Cameron is Dave the Chameleon, then is Tony Blair Slimer from Ghostbusters?

Maybe Tony should call sleaze-busters.

Oh dear - the 91Èȱ¬ 10 O'Clock News spelt out a warning and must have given Blair a shock - 'Black Wednesday.'

Whilst the situation is not as serious as that which engulfed the Tories in the early 1990's, the Labour Party at present is really struggling, as did the Tories with the awkward Third Term.

We are barely a year after a General Election and the wiff of corruption is getting stronger - the peerages question, Cherie Blair's hairstylist and now three ministers under fire...

Something needs to be done and fast - Charles Clarke should resign - he is ultimately responsible and must go. Whatever happened to Individual Ministerial Responsibility? Above all, politicians are responsible to the electorate and to Parliament - he has failed in both.

Ten years ago, the Major Government would not have survived this. It is interesting to see how long Blair soliders on before the knives come out - so keen is he to emulate Mrs Thatcher, he obviously wants to be remembered by his party in the same way - the man who made Labour electable and then subsequently destroyed it...

Watch over your shoulder Mr Blair, whilst Pickfords aren't on their way yet, the ground may be a bit shakier next Friday morning!

What happened about the little matter of close on one billion pounds that appeared to be missing from the home office accounts, and lead to the National Audit Office refusing to sign off their accounts - see

I know Clarke is just a failed management consultant with no clue of the real world, but its about time the incompetant idiot was at least sacked.

Coincidence? Pull the other one. I bet the Campbell phone was red hot last night with him ringing round asking for volunteers with skeletons in the closet to own up to divert attention.

Dear Nick,

Whilst I am bitterly disappointed in the Labour government I think there is another issue that has been overlooked here and that is the performance of David Cameron in today's PMQ's.

Some people have criticised Cameron for not landing the vital body punch that was needed today, something that Michael Howard did much more effectively in PMQ's, and at first I agreed.

However, on reflection I think that Cameron has played this very well. The leader of the opposition made it clear there was no more room for 'Punch and Judy politics' and thus can only approach PMQ's in a restricted manner.

And as has been the case in the past he remained calm and thoughtful in his approach and actually made the Prime Minister confess to things we were yet to discover.

Instead, he left the punching to his right hand man, David Davis who spoke very well today.

Compare this to the Lib Dem Leader who was very poor at questioning the PM and I think the Tories had a very good day.

What are your thoughts on the way Cameron handled today's events?

Not long ago there was a man, a political man at that. His name you ask?
Perfumo was his name. Caught out having an affair with a prostitute no less. He had the decency and courage to resign his post in govt. Some may ask why? He could carry on, just like these sordid incompetents of to-days govt. No, he did the right thing because it was truly expected of a person in high office to be impeccable in all affairs. In and out of public view it was expected that no politician should bring the govt into disrepute. Threaten the security of the nation or behave in such a way that no one else should take the blame for his or her incompetent mistakes. As heads of departments with responsibility Messrs Clarke, Prescott and Hewitt they should resign. The mistakes that these three have committed are all sack-able offences in the real world. No company, no company could withstand this kind of incompetence and negligence. Yet the govt will "stand bye them" and salve their consciences and allow them to carry on in post.Pathetic!

John Prescott said that this affair ended 'some time ago' yet the Mirror was full of pictures of the him and his former mistress, clearly the story has been sat upon for some time, and released today, for whatever reason.

Nick,

What astonishes me, given that we have two major stories in the news concerning the government, release-gate, the NHS and some treacle pudding in the form of smutty tittle tattle regarding Prescott, is the lack of true credible alternative, other than mutterings of 'position is untenable' and other stock phrases, which are normally rolled out in these situations.

So long as there isn't any real alternative; some real argument from the other side, the show will go on.

Rgds

Paul Langham

Nick, could the recent Prescott, Blunkett, Cook and Major affairs, et al, be used to advertise Politics as a career?

Perhaps, something along the lines of;

'Are you ugly or dull? If so, try Politics as a career. You may make life better for millions of people and, if not, at least you may get laid more often!'

Just a thought!

Hi Nick on a lighter note did you see Rory Bremners impression of you recently on TV. It was very satirical you with your trademark glasses and coat and he had you talking in cliches and kind of rhetorical statements. He had Andrew Marr with his jug ears and waving arms right and of course John Cole was caught with his accent and tweed coat. You have reached fame at last.
No one did Robin Oakley so that must mean he was one of us !!!ordinary.
Beware like Marr you may make it worse for yourself as in my view you soon imitate the imitator. I love your coat where did you get it

The story gets murkier and murkier, and the fact that Labour could get away with all is unbearable. The Big question I have to ask, Nick, why do you (and the other 91Èȱ¬, SKY reporters) have to file your stories for TV "outside 10 Downing Street" at 10pm?

I realise this is a bit off-topic, but it demeans the story - why can't we have an intelligent article indoors?

Were you honestly expecting anything to happen at the door of Number 10?

Blair admits that Clarke offered his resignation but it was turned down and then Blair claims that he did not know the numbers involved. Are we to believe that a minister who admitted a grave problem was not asked by his leader, how long it had been going on, how many foreign nationals were involved and what has been done to stop the problem?
If Blair did ask these questions then once again he was economic with the truth and if he didn't then he was just as incompetent as Clarke.
On this basis both of them should resign.

When I saw the composite photograph of the 'sorry three' on the 91Èȱ¬ News web site this morning my first thought was it should be captioned "The bungling, the incompetent and the cheat". The second and seriously concerning thought was that these are three of the key ministers that Tony Blair wanted to give powers to amend and enact legislation without Parliamentary approval or scrutiny. I do hope that the recently promised amendments to the draft of the Legislative and Reform Bill will ensure that never happens. The idea that such ministers, who have demonstrated a clear lack of judgement, competence and integrity, should in future have increased powers as Blair proposed, is truly frightening.

It is hard to believe that the second most important member of government (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would merely sit on the sidelines during this period of uproar, yet this is the impression he is giving (as with the Iraq war). Whether by accident or design, Gordon Brown appears happy to be seen as a voyeur as the government lumbers from one crash scene to the next. However, his inability to display real loyalty and integrity towards the cabinet, and by implication, the best interests of the electorate, is just as likely to rebound on him when Blair does decide to call it a day. Who on earth would elect a boss that simply hung you out to dry on a whim (aside from the Brownies like Douglas Alexander and co)?

Estelle Morris honourably resigned when there was some failure in her tenure as Education Secretary.

I think the fact the Charles Clarke is prepared to try and sort the problems out, despite the predictable onslaught of criticism, is admirable. He surely is the best person to try and sort out the mess, rather than some new 91Èȱ¬ Secretary who knows little about the 91Èȱ¬ Office.

That it, if he manages to pull it off... If it still isn't sorted out in a few months' time, then I think he should resign.

The media are presenting this event as 'murderers and rapists let out into the community'. But in reality this is happening quite legitimately all the time for British murderers and rapists. The only difference here is that, as foreigners, they could have been deported.

Nick,
However much this government 'melts down' it really doesn't matter to the PM. He can afford to ignore it. Why?

Because the blunt truth is that if Blair resigned and went to the country tomorrow we would have no choice but to put labour back in. There isn't any realistic alternative at the present time.

I wonder if in fact they are now governing knowing they only need to keep their heads down and ignore this in what, due to the other party's incompetence (not labour's!) they are effectively fireproof?

To use a cricket analogy, you don't drop a member of the team unless you think there is someone who can do the job better.

Clearly Mr Clark and his department have screwed up, but can is there really an obvious candidate who could do a better job? (I am ignoring the possibility of a change of government for the moment as that will clearly not happen for a few years at least.) What is the benefit of Mr Clark resigning if someone with less ability replaces him?

For Mrs Hewitt I think it is slightly different. She appears to have alientated many of the people who work in the NHS. There is a logical case to be made that anyone but her would, in the short term at least, be able to diffuse that problem.

Nonetheless I still think it is too easy for so many to call for resignations when virtually no-one is proposing who should take their place (and *why* they would be any better).

Call it bad timing, or just plain idiocy, but I notice Part 2 of "Dave the Chameleon" was released yesterday, with a particular nod to Black Wednesday. Woops!

Nick,

You are being lied to about Prescott's affair(s) being a 'bombshell' to his colleagues as it was an open enough secret for Trevor Kavanagh to know.

Also why does the 91Èȱ¬ refer to the Royal College of Nursing as a 'union'?

Oh Nick, You have a way with words! always enter right in, with what the public want answers too. The best reporter there is!...
I do enjoy listening especially when I hear your voice, the tv will go louder..
Did you pick up on Tony Blair saying this in your interview.
"You got to take the Decisons that are right for the Country, Otherwise you really should not be doing the job"
With your next breath I actually thought you would come out with, "Then why are you". ha!ha!...
I was surprised you never, as usually you always seem to come out with things I would like to hear you tackle him on.

Well done and must say you are not only a really good reporter but a barrel of laughs too..

If I have understood matters correctly I do have a question. What I am curious about is how could Charles Clarke say to the press that the numbers released after the August date were "very small" and then admit on the Today programme that he actually didn't know what the numbers were when he said that.

As the numbers released after August were as the Today programme made clear almost a third of the total of people released that surely cannot be described as "very small".

I find this very concerning as surely at this late stage the Minister would be checking everything to make sure that he was certain of the detail and not in any way misleading the public by his statements.

Perhaps it was wishful thinking that the numbers would be very small or perhaps this is an indication that an underlying approach that lead to this situation is still continuing?

God helps us if the identity cards are going to be implemented on to this system.....

I find it intriguing that when Charles Clarke is found to be in control of a department which has failed, he is deemed to be the best man to stay and sort it out. When Greg Dyke found himself in a similar position (despite a masively less significant impact on the public) he was hounded out of his job........

Perhaps Tony Bliar would like to comment on this observation?

I still like Clarke. His credibility is high in my opinion after his 25th April speech at the London School of Economics on the Government's record on civil liberties:

"In the absence of many of the genuinely dangerous and evil totalitarian dictatorships to fight - since they've gone - the media has steadily rhetorically transferred to some of the existing democracies, particularly the United States and the United Kingdom, some of the characteristics of those dictatorships.

So some commentators routinely use language like 'police state', 'fascist', 'hijacking our democracy', 'creeping authoritarianism', 'destruction of the rule of law', whilst words like 'holocaust', 'gulag' and 'apartheid' are regularly used descriptively of our society in ways which must be truly offensive to those who experienced those realities....

As these descriptions and language are used, the truth just flies out of the window as does any adherence to professional journalistic standards or any requirement to examine the facts and check them with rigour."
Quite right!