Ken Clarke

The Ken Clarke saga

A litmus test - if so, what was being tested?

Clarke, mad hatter No1Clarke, mad hatter No1
There is, we are told, 'no such thing as bad publicity'; well, the higher echelons of David Cameron's world, the inner sanctum and the No10 team, may disagree. Ken Clarke is in trouble over a remark he made about his plan for dealing with rape cases. He made the remark during a BBC radio interview in his capacity as Justice Secretary. There is more to the Clarke case than a second rate politico, well past his sell by date, getting bashed because of this remark. In a typically clumsy way Clarke made a mess of a simple situation. Do remember that Clarke goes by the name 'bruiser', a right wing reply to John Prescott, if it were needed, and perhaps it's not. Some would say the style of politics has moved on. There are two main problems here, the man and the remark. Let's start with the man.

The EU and the Lisbon Treaty on the doorstep

The penny drops? (at last!)

At last the penny drops! At last the penny drops!
Writing in the online version of the Spectator today Peter Hoskin makes a very pertinent observation. Obviously the Spectator supports the Tory party but Hoskin says of William Hague,

The shadow foreign secretary was in uncharacteristically subdued form, (during the Daily Politics' foreign affairs debate this afternoon).

Now why should that be, what happened? Hoskin says -

Hague did deploy one of his parties' trump cards, though, by mentioning how the other two had instigated a "betrayal of democracy" over the Lisbon Treaty. Word from the doorsteps suggests that this is a more important issue than most politicos realise.

Aha! So years of 'lets pretend' by all three political parties, that is don't mention the EU and that's a problem solved, has not paid off. Hague is a very smart man and loyal to David Cameron. But Cameron has brought ultra pro-EU Ken Clarke back into the Tory big tent and, much as predicted, this move does not go down well on the doorstep. Thus Hague has to be careful.

A modern tragedy

Modern Britain old problem

Once mighty oak? Once mighty oak?
There's so much wrong, the EU economy is in trouble, the climate warming scam has been exposed and the Chilcot Inquiry is inflicting pain. There's also a lot wrong with the Tory party and Fraser Nelson has written about this following a speech he gave as the 2010 Sir Keith Joseph Memorial Lecture. In this Spectator post Nelson justifies his lecture via an ongoing disagreement with Daniel Finkelstein, who is critical of Nelson in his post in the Times. Still with me? I hope so.

So we have Finkelstein, said to be very chummy with the Camerons. And we have Patrick Hennessy political editor of the Sunday Telegraph, said to be a Brownite loyalist. Both play a part here. There is a link in the Nelson post to his speech, it's generally very supportive of Cameron. However, the truth is that Cameron makes many mistakes. Nelson suggests we must -

"salute Cameron for the incredible achievement (changing the party) – one accomplished in the face of many enemies on the right. But the game changed in 2007".

Yes, it was Cameron who changed it to always following Nulabour. And 2007 cannot be a tipping point as politics is dynamic, always changing. What is the point of 'Nulabour Lite'?

Syndicate content