Today Ken Clarke tried to rock the boat in his inimitable and rather tiresome fashion by disagreeing with David Cameron on the issue of the EPP. That battle has been lost. Cameron has a mandate to implement his policy. A message to Ken Clarke. Shut it. Your time has been and gone. Get off the stage if you have nothing positive or constructive to say.
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Shut it
Today Ken Clarke tried to rock the boat in his inimitable and rather tiresome fashion by disagreeing with David Cameron on the issue of the EPP. That battle has been lost. Cameron has a mandate to implement his policy. A message to Ken Clarke. Shut it. Your time has been and gone. Get off the stage if you have nothing positive or constructive to say.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Iain,
Much though I agree with you on this (How much fun would the next election have been with the two old oligarch curmudgeons of Clark and Brown battling it out?)
But what I don't understand is how you can possibly take that attitude to Clark and not the same attitiude to the Hamiltons in the post below.
Suffice to say that, along with the Archers and the Aitkens, the Hamiltons should be shamed into oblivion and their like must be purged from our party for good.
I can't recall the Hamiltons ever intervening in Tory politics since he left Parliament - the two are not comparable.
We finally have the dream scenario of a Conservative Party that has a popular new leader and is starting to put the wind up labour.
I say this as a Davis supporter by the way and I think that Iain you will agree with this.
Then into the breach steps the bulk of Mr Clarke who for reasons best known to himself, wants to bring back headlines of Tory Splits over Europe.
If David Davis can very publicly give his support to the new boy, why is that too much to ask for from Clarke?
Iain,
Sadly they are the embodiment of political intervention.
Clark may start a fight but he is accessible and can be flattened (if you have the wit and the know how). He starts a debate in which people will take sides (and most will conclude as you have!)
The Hamiltons, however, appear where-ever they can earn a shilling from 'C'list celebrity humiliation with the inevitable tag "disgraced former Tory MP","Cash for questions sleaze former Tory MP etc etc".
In these days of personality politics and indelible media memories, this is the most damaging and irreparable political intervention of all.
You are right, they are not comparable. The Hamiltons are much worse.
I totally disagree. And I should tell you know they are both very good friends of mine. I am in no doubt that a serious wrong was committed against them. What you are saying is that they should crawl away and hide when they know they were innocent of what they were accused of. Not exactly a very "modern compassionate Conservative" view, is it?!
Whoosh.
The sound of eyebrows shooting up all over the Home Counties.
This story is also covered here on Tom Watson's new blog: http://nottinghell.blogspot.com.
I met Neil and Christine on occasion. I heard Neil speak often. My judgement is that they might have enjoyed a freebie at Fayed's expense but he is not the type to take a cash bribe.
I think he is innocent and it is a shame he has been treated as he has.
"He was not the sort of gentleman who would do anything so vulgar as to take a CASH bribe. He always insisted on payment in kind." Brilliant, Guido. Very Lady Bracknell.
I was fortunate enough to see George Carman QC cross-examine Christine Hamilton in what I believe may have been his final case. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter, it was a superb example of how to give a witness too little rope to climb out of the hole but just enough to hang herself.
Unless you wish to see the party become some undemocratic centralist new Conservatives, individual MPs must always be allowed to speak out from the back benches. If what they say isn't comfortable, then that is for the public to decide. Don't treat the public like they're stupid, they will notice.
Post a Comment