Monday, June 25, 2007

Will Charles Clarke be Rehabilitated?

I saw Charles Clarke this afternoon sauntering through Portcullis House looking as if he hadn't a care in the world. He seems to have lost a lot of weight and looked very relaxed in his light blue casual trousers. I suppose he may well look very relaxed as I'm reliably informed that since his sacking in last year's reshuffle Clarke has only spoken once in the Commons (on 29 March on an Urgent Question on the restructuring of the Home Office) and has asked no questions.

Just prior to seeing him I had been discussing his prospects of returning to government in the Brown reshuffle with a couple of lobby journalists. None of us could come up with a reason why Gordon Brown would reward a man who has spent the last few months dissing him. And yet all of us felt that it was a distinct possibility.

It's a funny old world.

32 comments:

Chris Paul said...

He certainly won't be getting a job bigger than Home Secretary will he?

Perhaps David Burrowes MP could use his question to ask Blair for a reference Charlie Farlie can offer to Brown?

Chris Paul said...

Back to Education? Can't see it. One of four fabled Vice Chairs? Cruddas, Clarke, Blears, Hain?

Anonymous said...

opening panorama scenes blow gordo the fat cycloptic liar out of the water!

Spin,spin,spin

Redcoat said...

Coming from Clarkes constituency - Norwich South - he could try spending more time in his constituency and not being so self absorbed with himself and his bruised ego.

ecclestones splosh and 14m spent on the election... said...

lying to radio 4 about ecclestones cash.........wot a shock....hes a lying scumbag just like bliar.... if only the public can get to realise the reality

Hughes Views said...

And maybe you'll get the call soon eh Iain?!

Anonymous said...

Iain:

Chris Paul just can't stay away, can he?

I'm beginning to think that he feels more comfortable in the company of the sort of right-wing folk who make up most of the posters on your blog.

I think it's a cry for help.

He wants to come over to our side, I'm sure of it.

Can there be any other explanation?

Ed said...

Perhaps Gordon could offer him a job to a) keep the Brown-nosers on their toes and b) keep your friends close...

Anonymous said...

don't be daft.He's hated in the party, along with that pillock Milburn

10 more minutes said...

chris paul

watch the panorama programme and please crawl back under your rock. the lies,lies,lies told by brown shame all politicians. Added to the rest of the lies and moral bankruptcy of a government that;

sanctioned torture flights
lied about wmd
flooded the country with migrants
lied about the EU constitution
stole pensions...etc etc

please reflect

hatfield girl said...

Every politician who's held high office has done so with all the network and connexion that put him there; they're not there on their own and they're not there with just the support of the political classes.

Charles Clarke is the connector to not just East Anglia but to Cambridge (university, not town) an economist and a Kingsman; and because the Prime Minister abandons ship on Wednesday does not mean that all of Clarke's connexion there goes with him, either.

A lot of people are refusing office offered by Brown, and he's lost Scotland; how much can he afford to lose?

the man from auntie said...

Call it schadenfreude.

Tonight's hatchet job on Brown by the excellent John Ware on the Panorama programme shows that, now they have him where they want him, certain sections of the media are going to crucify the incoming Prime Minister.

Let us hope that David Cameron has the gumption to take advantage of this.

nadds said...

sod this fat boy with wingnuts stuff, tonight's Panorama about brown and spinning and lies

He will not be happy

Ross F said...

How can someone previously sacked for incompetence seriously make a return to the cabinet?

Apart from Harrit Harman. Probably Nick Brown too, and as an outside bet Beverley Hughes as well.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the tip-off about Panorama - I thought John Ware had been pushed out of the new 'dumbed-down primetime' show, but obviously not.

red canary said...

There's plenty of people lining up to take a swipe at Brown now he's PM. Even at the Beeb FFS!

Time for Cameron, Osborne et al to join in methinks. There's no shortage of ammunition quite apart from the rocking horse photo.

Anonymous said...

I would think Iain you'd be more concerned about the other Clarke, Ken that is. After Ken's performance in the commons today. do you think he'll be offered a seat in GB's cabinet. First Portillo is p***ing on the Tories now Ken has started.

frustrated tory said...

Rather than fight Brown some Conservatives seeem intent on fighting each other and ressurrecting the squabbles over Europe.

What a f@ckin shower!

amateur photographer said...

I'm really impressed with this photo, Iain.

Black and White is always more forgiving than colour for anyone over the age of 40.

I don't know who the photographer is but it's the first time that I've seen Charles Clarke looking like he has even half a brain.

Most of the time, he just looks like Fungus the Bogeyman.

A post now taken by....

tapestry said...

Why did Blair keep Brown in his collection for ten long years?

It's as old as the hills. It pays to keep your enemies close. Brown knows Clark is dangerous. Far safer to give him a nice job than leave him out in the cold.

Inside the tent pissing out rather outside the tent etc.

Unlike Brown, Clark is actually able to communicate very well. Doubly dangerous.

chris paul said...

Gordon brown is a bogey-eating tosser and he should resign immediately

red canary said...

Tapestry, If Brown lets Charlie Clark back in the tent he'll piss all over *him*.

Gracchi said...

As a PhD student at Cambridge its interesting that someone should say he is the connection to the university- I and almost everyone I know there holds him in contempt and would be surprised at hatfield girl's suggestion!

CityUnslicker said...

Hvaing seen him in the flesh, he is a very intellectually able man. However, he also has proved not very cpapable of running agovernment department. Why bring back someone who was never a success?

Henry North London said...

Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer

Remember Brown is the proverbial wolf in presbyterian sheepswool clothing

chris paul said...

I am the walrus.

hatfield girl said...

Gracchi is right: some may hold Charles Clarke in contempt.

It would have been better to write Charles Clarke is 'one of the connectors to Cambridge', rather than 'the'; obviously the complexity of the university's connexion into the political establishment is not through a single individual.

Charles Clarke the politician isn't only an individual either; no competent politician is; considering not just personalities but power blocks, networks, and institutional relationships as well, is sometimes useful.

Anonymous said...

Not quite sure what Hatfield Girl is getting at.

Living in Clarke's constituency, he is pretty much hated by everyone in Norwich and East Anglia as a whole.

Send him off to the EU. Please.

Chris Paul said...

Anon 8:51

Agreed.

I am a bit of a sad muppet.

I write a load of bilge and rubbish too, I know.

I just can't help it..

A Labour supporter said...

Can't we just put this useless tosspot in the cupboard under the stairs, lock it and throw away the key?

Anonymous said...

Are we talking Clarke here, labour supporter, or Reid, Blunkett, Prescott, Blair, Straw, Hain, Blears, Woolas, Armstrong. . .
(contd p94)

David Lindsay said...

Sod Charles Clarke - he's a Labour Party member!

If, after all his blather about "all the talents", Brown appoints only Labour Ministers, then his position will be untenable.

However, if he appoints non-Labour Ministers, then the Labour Party, already reeling from Harriet Harman's volte face over Iraq, must seriously consider, at this year's Conference, the Leadership challenge that MPs fondly dreaming of office denied it, only to find that they had given the green light to a man who considers them all, and indeed all Labour Party members generally, to be incapable of at least some Ministerial offices.

So, which is it to be?