Isn't is a deep irony that the man who chairs the Conservatives' Democracy Task Force was one of only three Tory MPs to vote to deny the people a vote on the Lisbon Treaty? If it wasn't so fundamental to this country's right to retain its democratic sovereignty you'd have to laugh. But for Ken Clarke in particular, it ought to be no laughing matter. Indeed, it should be quite the opposite.
There are some who argue that Clarke's position at the head of that Task Force is akin to a front bench position and that he should therefore lose his job for defying the party whip in a subject area which falls under his Task Force's remit. Some people might say that. I, of course, couldn't possibly comment.
It won't happen, of course, for the simple reason that the ensuing media row wouldn't be worth the candle. But I hope the whips and party leadership have the guts to point out to the old rascal what the consequences of a repeat offence would be.
54 comments:
Yes but surely part of a democracy is being able to say what you like. I don't agree with Ken Clarke, but in his election address, i believe, he said he would not vote for a referendum so how could he now vote for one?
At least Ken says what he means and does he says. Even if we don't agree with him. Surely you have to respect him for that?
Since some were arguing yesterday that Clegg should have made a virtue out of giving his MPs a free vote, thereby defusing the row, it seems ironic that you now chide Clarke for defying the Tory whip. Surely true democracy and the whip system are incompatible - Ken's constituents elected him knowing full-well his pro-European views and must surely expect him to vote according to his conscience in the House.
Just because he voted in a way with which you do not agree does not make him the embodiment of evil, Iain. Once again, I think you need to temper your rhetoric.
Ken Clarke has the honesty to think for himself rather than slavishly abide by the woolly-headed direction of the Whips. Good for him: while I don't necessarily agree with his position I applaud his courage in maintaining his personal integrity. If there were more MPs in the House with IQs greater than their shoe size and put country before party the Commons would be a better place. It's party Whipping that has brought the Commons to its knees by stuffing it full of robotic speak-your-weight placemen who have to be steered through the Lobbies by their sergeant-majors. The failure of the miserablist Labour cohorts yesterday to vote for democracy, as pledged in their very own manifesto, is a shining case in point.
Slightly OT I kniow, but please forgive me - may I draw attention to the excellent, barn-storming speech by William Hague just after PMQs yesterday. He (almost literally) wiped the floor with the hapless LibDems and reduced the Government benches to shameful silence. Was any of his speech relayed on TV news? Not a chance - but thank God for BBC Parliament where you can watch every word. He may have been Leader before his time and lost his way but he is now truly revelling in the foreign affairs role.Well done William.
WHO gives a fu*k about Ken Clarke? The word 'traitor' comes to mind- over Europe, and his role in Mrs T's political assassination. I'm surprised DC even considered this over-rated fat b*stard for ANY role in the Conservative set-up. He should be shown the 'EXIT' door and fast. The Liberal Democrats is the best place for Clarke; he would fit in quite nicely. God, ANY mention of the traitor gets my blood boiling.
The real irony about Ken Clarke is that he was probably the only person who could have led the Tories to victory in 2005...
Ken Clarke has consistently done his best to do whatever it takes to sell the UK out to the EU. Why is anyone the slightest bit shocked by his latest betrayal?
At lest Ken Clarke is honest, does what he says and stands by his principles.
Shame that those principles involve him selling us out to a foetid and undemocratic super-state and being a traitor.
Ken Clarke's speech was one of the most sensible a tory has given in a long time.
Your pseudo outrage at not "giving the people a say" is really just about tories not liking europe, however much you protest the opposite.
FYI - Clarke was keen to warn about president her - the lady was completely against referendum (As was major, Blair and Brown)
Cameron is apparently not - so will have to face this again in the future.
FYI check out PBS - the ipsos mori poll show that Europe is a big issue for a whole 1% of the country!!!
Iain, though you may not necessarily agree with Clarke's pro-Europeanism, you can hardly say he hasn't laid his cards on the table on this one, can you?
This is a nasty little post, and utterly unmerited considering the Tory party was far and away the most united last night. A little magnanimity and a bit less of the Conservative Home-style witchhunting wouldn't go amiss.
Whatever you say about Ken he does and says what he believes to be right. When you agree with him (as, for example, over Europe in my case) you could not want for a more principled ally. When you disagree with him (e.g. his taking of the tobacco shilling and overtly promoting the dreaded weed with the ghastly BAT) you want to weep! But he's worth ten of the lobby fodder merchants on both sides of the house; has real principles which he sticks to - and he's great company too! Treasure him you Tories - you don't know how lucky you are to have him.
Ken Clarke is fully entitled to his point of view, and I disagree with the whip in principle. However, part of a politician's job is to represent us and _all_ the politicians who voted to deny a referendum have failed to represent what the voters want.
However, the good news for us is that all this is nothing that a few lamp posts and a bit of piano wire wouldn't sort.
Just type in 'Bilderberg' and 'Kenneth Clarke' into a search engine, and you may have your answer.
These bastards have stripped us of our liberty to decide our own affairs in this country, and it won't be coming back anytime soon.
This is of course playingthe man rather than the ball. Are you unable to address the arguments that Clarke raised? Or are you just arguing that the ends justify the means, the killer argument for all anti-democrats?
The rebellious Lib Dems are lauded for standing by their principles, but the rebellious Ken Clarke is villified for standing by his.
Iain, do you honestly think an MP's principles are less important than a vote on the EU Treaty?
Looking over the other comments, I think you've seriously misjudged this one.
Ken Clarke has consistently been opposed to a referendum and this was his publicly stated position prior to the last election, so he would have been more open to charges of hypocracy if he had not voted the way he did yesterday. I happen to agree with him - we elect our MP's to govern and take decisions in Parliament and an ad-hoc referendum system, which is only invoked when the government wants it and where the government sets the questions is not particularly democratic. For it to be consistent with our system of government, we would need a new, fully written constitution. Whether this is a good idea is a whole other discussion!
There is much to admire of KC, particularly that he has consistently made known his pro EU stance.. But. in his declamation on the subject of referenda there is no doubt of his arrogance to deny the ordinary voter`s right to demand one.
That MPs-particularly the majority of the present lot- believe, they are font of all knowledge is farcical.
The only thing that saves Ken Clarke from being sent a pair of exploding hush puppies in the post is that he is just so likeable.
I hate his views on Europe and the damage he has done us in years gone by, but equally have a grudging respect for him - as I think does the wider public.
It is better to keep him employed for the Conservative cause away from Europe.
I am very disappointed in your post. I thought the speech by Ken Clarke was superb and his facts certainly pulled me up as I had not considered many of the issues he raised. He certainly gave a thoroughly strong defence of parliamentary democracy and quite rightly criticised all parties for failing to explain their positions. I thought his argument about the need for Europe to have one voice to take on issues such as the strength of Russia regarding energy supplies was pertinent and valid. I wish I had heard it before signing up to the online campaign for a referendum.
Like other commentators I too feel Ken Clarke would certainly have appealed to many swing voters should he have ever been elected leader. Any attempts to try and stifle his intellect and principles by removing him from his "job" would be a disaster for the conservative party and undermine David Cameron's strategy to tell us all that the conservative party has changed.
I have also read on another website that the latest Mori Political Monitor places Europe some 18th out of 25 issues concerning citizens. The campaign for a referendum has therefore not influenced the public. Perhaps Ken Clarke is more intouch with the public that you are Iain. Regards Jane
Ken Clarke acted according to the dictates of his conscience, as he has done consistently on the issue of Europe. So much so, that he has sacrificed his chance to lead the party, since he won't opportunistically compromise his views for the sake of personal advancement. There is something decent and honourable in that.
His comment, incidentally, was entirely accurate - we have no constitutional requirement for referendums. We are a parliamentary democracy. If we don't like what our pariamentarians do, then we can kick them out at election time, but we can't keep gainsaying them through the use of populist referendums.
I too thought that Clarke made a good speech:
' . . Unusually, I find the official position of all three political parties quite bewildering. I do not envy their Front-Bench spokesmen. They have had considerable difficulty in putting forward their near-incomprehensible positions.
The Conservatives are quite unable to explain how the treaty differs from Maastricht and the Single European Act, upon which we consistently refused a referendum.
The Labour party is quite unable to explain sensibly why the treaty is so different from the constitution that it should now be released from the obligation that it entered into to hold a referendum.
[The Lib Dem] had to get up and explain why, having promised a referendum on the constitution, he thought that the treaty was so different that he was not going to vote on it at all. ' [theyworkforyou.com]
The refusal to give the electorate a referendum is an absolute disgrace and dishonours those who have fought and died for freedom and democracy. To suggest that parliament can divest itself of the rights and powers which it holds on trust on behalf of the people is sophistry of the highest form. Parliamentary sovereignty does not exist in a vacuum.
Oxymoron alert for the hard of thinking.
Ken Clarke is an honest politician. There, anyone who wants to keel over with a contrived fit of the vapours should do so ... now.
You may disagree with him, but he gives it to you - whether welcome or unwelcome - straight. He's got nothing to prove. He was a conscientious and effective minister who mastered a sucession of briefs. He acquitted himself in office significantly better than most politicians of the past 30 years. He has integrity. He should have been the Tory leader in 1997.
He appears to be an honourable man in a discredited and dishonourable profession. He has a range of outside interests and is a complete human being. I don't know him but I would relish the opportunity to savour his company, for I am convinced it would rewarding. I can't think of a single other [unmet] politician of whom I can say that. He's more 'European' than me, but he's a grown-up [as I like to think I am!] in a cartoon world.
At least one comment here states that Ken Clarke went to the polls in 2005 on a pro-EU manifesto.
The danger in a candidate standing for (re-)election having a personal manifesto is that one can never be sure whether his/her electorate voted for his party's stance, the candidate's stance, or a mixture of the two.
Although a candidate who is a party member can legitimately have purely local matters that aren't exactly "national party manifesto" issues as such, I think it is a little dishonest to stand with and within a party but specifically against that party's own stance on highly significant topics. How should the voter react?
I think this is sufficiently fundamental that Ken Clarke really should have stood as an Independent in 2005 if he was not prepared to go along with his party on this.
In the event, what he and the two others did made no actual difference to the result, but it might have done. The electorate need to be sure, before granting someone the power than MPs hold on our behalf..
I, too, believe that Clarke is as honest a politician on the question of Europe. I agree, also, with the view that his speech was excellent. It certainly dealt major blows against the Government's line/ The Conservatives line and the ridiculous Lib Dems.
However the logic of his speech demanded that he abstained as he said he found the Government's line ridiculous( words to that effect).
He didn't, and with Currie and Gummer two honourable members who put self opinions before constituents should be disciplined. I believe they all should have the whip removed from them.
BUT anonymous @ 9.59 hits on the secretive 'Bilderberg'
organisation. Haig is also a member and, perhaps, that is why the Conservative Party will not give a straight answer to the question WILL they hold a referendum on this treaty after they win the next General Election?
Iain, you will be doing everyone a favour if you could get the answer to that question. It is one Brown will, time and again, hit back at Cameron and if he is not careful failure to give a plain answer YES! could sink him!
And don't forget that several Tory MPs, including Bill Cash, made the point during the debate that they respect Ken Clarke's position and that, given that his objections are long-standing, genuine, principled and consistent (unlike the LibDems), their differences on this issue are perfectly amicable and their is no bitterness over them.
The best thing to do about Ken Clarke is to wait till he retires. There are some things he's done which all Tories can applaud and some which few would applaud. But the point really is that he is completely open about his views. Honest politicians are rare (sorry Iain, but that's what many of us think out there beyond the Westminster village) so you don't have to agree with him to be glad he is in Parliament sitting on Tory benches. Better an awkward elderly Tory saying annoying things that he believes, than a smarmy young person from any party trying to deceive us with spin.
Ken Clarke definitely IS a member of the Bilderburger Group, who seem to have a loyalty to something other than their nations.
I wonder if Hague is also a member ? That would explain his less-than-
convincing efforts FOR Britain AGAINST the EU-project.
What to do about Clarke ? Put him out of his misery. We'd need to find a particularly solid lamp-post !
Alan Douglas
If Cameron cares so much about parliamentary sovereignty, how comes he told his MPs to abstain on a Tory amendment to maintain it?
http://broganblog.dailymail.co.uk/2008/03/cameron-hit-by.html
And how comes 40 MPs defied him?
Ken Clarke was elected opposing a referendum on the EU Constitution, and he stuck to it yesterday. He's been consistently pro-EU for donkey's years, and his constituents know it. I don't agree with him on the EU, but he does not say one thing and do another as so many MPs do.
On a side note, he gave a crackerjack speech at last year's conference on reforming British government. An MP3 is available from conservatives.tv
Huntsman in his latest, excellent blog startes:-
"David Cameron made an interesting observation during Prime Minister’s Questions today which may have been lost in the turbulence of a rather rowdy session. It was to the effect that the post for which Tony Blair is putting himself about is that of ‘President of a United States of Europe’. One wonders if he understood the implications of the concession.
If Mr. Cameron accepts, as is implicit in his observation, that the presidency of the EU Council (which is established by the Treaty of Lisbon) is de facto the presidency of a federal Europe, how can he and the Conservative party conceivably resist giving the people of the United Kingdom a referendum on the Treaty even if it is post-ratification? And would it not be better for him to clarify now what his policy is concerning the Treaty if he comes to power after it is ratified and is in force?"
Iain, please use your good offices to force Cameron to tell us exactly where he stands!
Ken Clarke is annoyingly misguided over Europe (annoying it that he tends to be so likeable otherwise). But that's not news.
If there's a finger to be pointed here it's at Dave. He appointed Ken, knowing full well that he's a rabid Europhile and that he will vote with his beliefs on that. It would be a bit rich to then sack him for it. And indeed, if he did fire him, it would draw attention to his initial error of judgment in appointing the man.
Err...If you Tories had made Ken Clarke leader instead of IDS and Howard you'd be mid-way through your second term now.
I'm a big fat leftie and even I think the man is immense.
Personally, I found Ken Clarke's speech thoughtful, thorough and absolutely right. As someone else posted, Clarke would have likely won or come close to winning the 2005 General Election if he had been leader, and until the Conservatives come to realise that they will continue what is now 11 years in the wilderness against an appalling Government. We've done the anti-EU message with Hague and Duncan-Smith and it makes the party look backward and unelectable.
I watched the debate yesterday and he was one of only a few MPs that presented their case in a manner that no-one could disagree with in any other way that "my opinion differs from yours". I think he came off very well and I don't know why any Tories would want to cut their nose off to spite their face.
What a fatuous first line.
As if anyone is going to "do anything about Ken Clarke"
What about John Redwood or IDS for shafting Major?
Same treatment for KC as for them.
i.e None.
No wonder the Conservative Party should be winning in the polls against this bunch of muppets in power .. and is only just.
Woolly thinking.. again.
You Anti EC people must learn to think with your brains...and do some proper planning...A paper on how the UK would operate outside the Uk .. and the chnages neede would be a start.. and one that we could understand...
Clarke's not an "old rascal". He's a sleazy traitor and always has been. A traitor to the Conservative Party, and a traitor to Britain. Cut from the same cloth as Edward Heath.
Paddy Briggs, maintaining his record for being wrong about absolutely everything, writes: "Whatever you say about Ken he does and says what he believes to be right." So did Napoleon. Napoleon believed it was right to march on Moscow in the winter.
For the record Ken Clarke has now defied the tory whip and voted with the government no less than 23 times on Lisbon Treaty Bill. Tonight's third reading will make that 24.
Hold him in the contempt he bloody deserves. I've got no problem with him holding different views to the majority of the party - What I do have a major problem with is Ken standing up in the house telling the world why he thinks the conservative position is wrong. If he disagrees with policy fair enough, but he could have just kept his big mouth shut.
I`m not too fussed about Ken Clarke ,he is only a bit of shrapnel left from past internal Party battles now decisively won by the Euro Sceptics.
Public Opinion across a broad spectrum is moving against not only the Treaty but the entire experiment. Iain was right that the task now is to construct the road out as an argument and as a fact. This will be the work of years but the traitors have taken a step back this week not forward. New Lib Dems are increasingly conscious that the EU is yesterday’s future and Conservatives gathering their courage for the final step.
I am encouraged to see those on the right and left able to come to the countries defence against Clegg and his tribe of inhuman bureau-fascists. This may yet prove to be the end of the beginning and I have distinct feeling it is
Well at least Ken as the courage of his convictions to stick to his line, even if WE think he's wrong.
Thats the democratic principle.
BUT then, when you take the Quisling's shilling you are expected to earn it!!
And Frasnk may well be right. Ken Clarke is the best man who didn't become leader in the Tories. He didn't manage it purely because he wouldn't trim on Europe. He would have made an outstanding leader except for that.
I am opposed to our continuing membership of the EU & for that reason I think the party was right not to choose him but I hope I can recognise integrity & ability in opponents.
During the Clarke IDS election I was I a radio phone in & was asked who I wanted to win & said IDS becasue Clarke was a Bilderburger. The Radio Scotland interviewer aked what Bilderburg was & when I answered said on air she would like to do a programme about - but for some reason never did.
There should be a greater not a smaller place in British politics for those who don't follow the official line & the Tories will lose no votes by making it clear that members are free to hold differing opinions & as a corolary, that every MP who says something is not necessarily letting the Tories "real agenda" slip.
Verity. You are being grossly unfair about Ken.
He may be a traitor, but "sleazy" he is not.
He is perfectly open about his support for the tobacco industry, for a start, and he happens to be one of the cheapest MPs on the books, in terms of expenses.
Please tell us why you think the term "sleazy" applies. Unlike the Labour Party, Ken Clarke has always been consistent about Europe and made it clear exactly where he stands. If you want his head on a pole over Europe, fine, I will do the dirty work, but please don't insult someone who may be irritating, but is consistent and open.
I cannot understand why Conservatives want to pour scorn on him. Here we have the nastiest, most deceitful Labour Government in history and you are eating your own.
God, you don't deserve to be in power if you carry on like that.
What Clarke actually said, comments Iain!
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2008/03/ken-clarke-the.html
Ken Clarke has always been a just right of centre ground moderate.
No wonder he has no place in Cambos scheme.
The irony is delicious
Ken Clarke is nobody's poodle.
He is a sensible chap and he is sticking to his guns.
Iain, why do you always have these volatile knee jerk reactions to everything?
Wouldn't it be better to think things through carefully - before you rant and rave?
It's something you should work on.
Anon 1.17
Ken wouldn't have won a general election for the Tories. First requirement is that you've got to get your own core vote out, and the majority of Tories would have stayed at home or found a suitable alternative candidate. Indeed, KC as Tory leader would have been a gift to UKIP.
Every one of the Lib Dems, Labourites and others who voted with the Tories last night should now be called upon publicly to sign and vote for an amendment at Third Reading which, without mentioning a referendum, rejects the Treaty out of hand because it cedes yet further legislative power to a body which meets in secret and publishes no Official Report, and because it fails to abolish the Common Fisheries Policy.
(On that latter point, it was jaw-dropping to see John Gummer, MP for Suffolk Coastal, among the three Tories who voted with the Government.)
What would Cameron do then? And what would his party do in response?
Furthermore, what would be the reaction of the forty Tories (including twelve from the 2005 intake) who last night defied instructions to abstain and voted for Bill Cash's amendment to restore the supremacy of Parliament?
The lack of coverage of this, the biggest Tory revolt since Cameron became Leader, indicates whom the MSM have (correctly) identified as the meterosexual, Europhile, military-industrial candidate for Prime Minister.
the answer is - more scotch, more cigars...
Did you read what Clarke had to say yesterday?
He considers parliament as this countries 'political ruling class'(sic).
Says it all really. Sooner the Conservatives are shot of this throwback to the 17th/18th century the better!
John Gummer, voting with the Government.. jaw dropping? Hardly. He's always been a toerag.
Ken Clarke has been polishing his MP's seat with his fat arse for so long that he has lost sight of the fact that he is employed by us the taxpaying voters.
If he took his head out of that fat arse, he would see clearly that a vast majority of normal voters across the political spectrum want a referendum on the "non-constitutional" Lisbon Treaty.
Let the people speak!
Daily Referendum: That assumes that generally the world is watching the backbench debates with any care.
I agree with 11:38's point. Clarke is in Parliament to represent the interests of the electorate and the country,not to follow his own star.
He's an amusing fellow, but treacherous.
Post a Comment