Ken Clarke attacks Cameron's "xenophobic" human rights plan

The Prime Minister isn't the only party leader to be experiencing trouble from a Clarke.

Ken Clarke has just appeared on BBC1's Daily Politics show and confirmed his unhappiness at David Cameron's plans to commission another policy group to draw up a new British Bill of Rights.  The former Tory Chancellor and head of Mr Cameron's democracy policy group attacked the proposal as "xenophobic and legal nonsense".

He also confirmed that he hadn't been consulted about Mr Cameron's intentions - even though his policy group is looking at similar issues.  This only confirms ConservativeHome's exclusive of last week about the repeated failure of the Tory leader's inner circle to communicate with others.

Mr Clarke's intervention is, ConservativeHome fears, only the beginning of the ways in which certain policy group chiefs and members may cause trouble for Mr Cameron...

Comments

[James Maskell]

Just a quick question about the EPP (Im not looking for a row about the EU so dont bother). The CF is affiliated to the EPP through the EDS. Will the CF withdraw from the EDS when the Conservative MEPS withdraw from the EPP? Perhaps Nick Vaughan, our CF Chairman can comment...

[JT]

How can the party or the country have a serious debate about a serious issue if Ken Clarke starts hurling adjectives such as "xenophobic" around?

Goodness only knows why Cameron appointed Clarke to head up a policy group to look at democracy and constitutional affairs issues. Clarke should have been put out to pasture a long time ago.

It is a mark of Cameron's naivety that he has appointed the old left europhile dinosaurs to strategic posts. I hope he learns from his mistake quickly.

[Andrew Kennedy]

Kenneth Clarke was instrumental in the resignation of Mrs Thatcher. He was one of the key players that lead to the disasterous 1997 result by refusing to allow any talk of a referendum on Maastrict or the Euro. He prolonged and promoted the public appearce of disunity by refusing to serve under Hague, IDS and Howard. He has contested, and lost, the leadership 3 times.

It is time for a period of silence.

[DavidB]

KEN CLARKE MUST GO!

He and his Europe loving friends have blood on their hands, and are now looking for more. His opinions are hugely unpopular, especially regarding Europe. Plus, he is a bedblocker. Three failed leadership bids, he has had his chance now it's time to go. We need fresh faces.

[Ted]

Ken has a wonderful vocabulary of insults doesn't he "headbangers" "xenophobic" - shame he only seems to use them at his colleagues in the Conservative Party.
I presume he's following his comment that on being re-elected that " I shall certainly start trying to push my influence in politics as far as I possibly can".
Surely after being rejected by MPs and the party membership whenever he has stood for leadership he must recognise he is out of step and IMO would be more successfull arguing his case with temperate words and certainly not in the media.

Still DC might welcome a Clause 4a in dispensing with Clarke (bringing the backswoodmen on side) while continuing to push the party towards the centrist agenda he proposes.

[Jamie]

Ken Clarke = serial loser.

[Sean Fear]

For Kenneth Clarke, it is the Conservative Party, much more than Labour or the Lib Dems, which is a threat to all he believes in.

[johnC]

Given his admission that he had never read the Maastricht Treaty about which he saw fit to pontificate, has he read a full transcript of David Cameron's speech ?

[Desmond Haynes]

Are the lefties really too stupid to realise that they've scooped the pot?

[William Norton]

I think many people will be grateful for Ken Clarke's intervention. It should tell them exactly where they now stand on the Bill of Rights plan, viz: in favour of it.

[Zhukov]

As a lefty Tory I've always had a great deal of time for Clarke.

But the man needs to shut his mouth - he only seems to raise his head when Europe comes on the agenda - he is becoming as boring and as much of a headbanger as Bill Cash, only from the other side of the debate.

The country and the party has moved on - so should Clarke.

[James Maskell]

There is some cause for annoyance for him. Hes supposed to be chairing the Policy Group on constitutional issues and yet Cameron is calling the shots, pre-empting him by announcing a British Bill of Rights, way over the head of the Policy Group. Id be rather peeved if I wasnt able to do my own job properly because of interference by the Leader.

That said, Im not entirely sure why he used the word "xenophobic" though. Legal nonsense...I can buy that.

[Derek]

This is all so predictable. It is the risk Cameron has taken in trying to draw in all sides of the party. The bigger the tent, the more disagreement you will have inside it. I agree with our editor, it is extraordinary that Cameron did not consult with his democracy task force group

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Although I agree that Ken has been rather silly in spitting his dummy out in this fashion, I can't help but feel this might have been avoided if David Cameron had discussed his intentions with Ken first.

Unless the provocation of Ken is a deliberate strategy to keep certain folk on-side (see also: the excommunication of Simon Heffer)...

[Mark Hudson]

Regardless of the merits or otherwise of Dave's Big Plan (and I personally I felt it was too unspeakably woolly for anyone with an ounce of political intelligence to comment on it), this strikes me as very poor management more than anything. Why set up the taskforces and then set yourself up for a fall when you announce policy proposals without consulting them? It's a question of weak leadership and management that he stands accused of with no little justification.

[gingeral]

Clarke should be sacked from his policy group, brought in for a good talking to by Cameron and told to learn the meaning of loyalty or else be deselected at the next election. That should shut him up!

[TomTom]

The Rt. Hon Kenneth Clarke PC and member of The Bilderberg Group is a Cambridge law graduate and a QC................yet as a Government Minister, Chancellor of The Exchequer, this lawyer stated of the Maastricht Treaty - "I have never read it. You should not waste your time."

This was a senior politician and lawyer who had not read it himself but advised others not to, but simply to vote for it. This was stupid politics as it split his party, but also careless with the Constitution and parliamentary democracy

[Donal Blaney]

The argument that this is "legal nonsense" is worth having and while I would have preferred it if Cuddly Ken had raised this behind closed doors, it is an argument we need to have.

The gratuitous use of the word "xenophobic" is yet another example of a supposed Conservative doing the Left's bidding for them. The words "racist", "xenophobic" or "fascist" are thrown around in debate with gay abandon and they shut down areas of debate because those tarred with such a brush fear reprisal and therefore allow themselves to be bullied into submission.

It is the politically correct neutering of debate that leads me to support Cameron's proposal as we urgently need freedom of speech to be codified in a constitution akin to the US.

[Ted]

Ken had two choices if he felt his Task Force had been ignored:

1 Resign his chairmanship and explain why - embarrasssing for DC but he should have thought throuh the Bill of Rights stuff and given Clarke notice.

2 Kept quiet publicly but discussed with DC his opinion.

But Ken seems to have confused himself with another rather overweight and dishevelled Clarke and decided he's too important and vital to resign. Shame Alan isn't still around to bring some balance to the clan.

[william]

Clarke is just plain rude. He's out of time, missed his bus, and now he's hanging around the terminal complaining that he's being ignored.

Ignore him more is my advice.

Where does he get the right to abuse the party leader in public? Maybe Woss was right after all. But it's Clarke's who's the practitioner.

Rushcliffe might do us a favour here. Why not have a browse of the A-List over the weekend?

Here's a Conservative MP who would be BOO of it.

So much for Compassionate Conservatism. Here we have the old kind of Tory - pumped up by the media, all about himself and full of the the powers and threats he wants to be exercised over British citizens.

Sod Off, Clarke. Get out of the way and let the world move forwards.

We don't like being murdered by foreign criminals who have been given rights to stay here. You obviously do like people being murdered to suit your political programmes.

Rushcliffe, how many more times do we need to ask you to help the Conservative Party get rid of this overblown oaf - who cannot see that 1000's of criminals are here and at work who should not be - because of people like Ken Clarke and his desire to keep favour with his colleagues in the Bildeburger Group? He's not loyal to Britain. Why is Rushcliffe loyal to him?

Give Britain a break.

GET RID OF CLARKE.

[Patsy Sergeant]

I like William Norton's comment @ 12.47, I hope he is right!

Ken Clarke is supposed to appeal to the female 'silver-tops', well I am not a silver top, but I am 'old', but I can't stand Mr. Clarke's behaviour in front of the camera. I think he is essentially a rather flippant man, he THINKS he is being rather clever and somewhat amusing when he is making his various assertions; he just doesn't COMPREHEND how what he says comes across to the majority of people. I think he does 'care', because I wouldn't be at all surprised if he doesn't still entertain delusions of abtaining the top job!

[Serf]

Clarke has absolutely nothing left to offer the party. Will the good yeomen (and women of course) of Rushcliffe please help the party out here. We could have some bright young thing, representing the new face of the party instead of this stuck record of a dinosaur.

[Andrew Woodman]

Ken Clarke = Europhile sell out. I fail to see how someone who believes in European Supremacy can head a democracy taskforce. He's a man of total contradictions. On one hand he talks about the supremacy of Parliament, and on the other, he wants to hand over more and more powers to Brussels.

How he must dislike his two sound MEPs.

[Chad]

It just seems all so unnecessary.

All Cameron had to do was discuss the issue with the head of his democracy group than leave him to find out in the press.

Perhaps Clarke has overreacted, but it's easy to see why he is annoyed.

[Don Jameson]

" The Prime Minister isn't the only party leader to be experiencing trouble from a Clarke."

Looked at another way, Ken isn't the only Clarke being second-guessed by his party leader half way through his job. (And apparently about to be fired to please the pundits, too.)

A quick headline for DC, but longer term he risks looking as much a one-man band as Blair.

Come on chaps - bit of team work here!

[sjm]

Another example of Lyndon Johnson being proved wrong - having your enemies inside your tent is not wise, they start get ideas above their station.

Neither Clarke nor Heseltine are big beasts any longer, make them irrelevant, it's what their public disloyalty deserves.

[Editor]

Donal Blaney recently suggested it was "Better a snake in the grass than a viper in your bosom".

[Martin]

If Cameron really could manage to upset Geldof, Heseltine, Red Ken, Gummer and Goldsmith all in the same day I would be most deeply impressed and elated.

Clarke really is your typical leftist. When faced with an idea contradictory to his own, he resorts to name calling and accussations of xenophobia as it is so much easier than to have a debate. We see this all the time with the left. In order to prevail in any debate about key issues like the EU and immigration all that has to be done is for someone to accuse another of having racial motivations in mind and to seize the moral high-ground. Why have a debate when you can just cry "Racist, Bigot, Homophobe, Xenophobe,"and get the debate shutdown before it starts. It's what gives the Liberal left such power and allows issues like the EU to be totally shutdown because no matter how sound an argument offered by Euro-skeptics, the allegation of bigotry always sticks, as it is impossible to prove and therefore impossible to refute. After-all who wants to side with the "headbangers and xenophobes." The Europhiles always say it is they who want a debate about the benefits of the EU and say that it is the Euro-skeptics that are always scaremongering (and of course bigoted, little Englanders) The real truth is that Red Ken and the rest of his Europhile leftist pals have done everything they can to shutdown debate.

"Legal nonsense?" That statement i would have to agree with as surely no matter what was in this Bill of Rights, being still signed up to the ECHR would mean that we would be bound by the decisions coming out of Europe and the document rendered next to useless. Of course, with Clarke, instead of having a debate he accuses Cameron of having prejudice motivations in mind. Any evidence that Cameron is xenophobic Ken? No, of course not, you don't need any do you? Those allegations never need any evidence, they just stick. I hope Cameron gets rid of this fool, i'm sick of the damage he has consistently brought to this party.

[william]

Clarke is inside the tent pissing in.

When Lyndon Johnson spoke his tent-pissing dictum, he never could have imagined Euronation of the Ken Clarke variety.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"having your enemies inside your tent is not wise"

Oh here we go again, more Judean People's Front style bouts of backbiting and recriminations.

Before we have any more hysterical shrieks about Ken Clarke/Michael Heseltine/John Gummer (delete as applicable) being 'enemies', why don't we focus on the real enemies - namely Tony and Gordon - instead of castigating a long-standing, faithful servant of the party for daring to voice a controversial opinion?

[Robert Buckland]

I was very disappointed to learn that his group had not been consulted before the Cameron speech, but Ken's comments were not helpful. The unwritten British Constitution that we knew and loved prior to 97 has been destroyed by New Labour to such an extent that it is impossible to restore. A Bill of Rights might be the only way to safeguard essentials such as trial by jury. As a lawyer myself, it is not right to say that the creation of a UK Bill of Rights would lead to inevitable conflict and confusion with the ECHR. Look at Germany's Basic Law, for instance. I have always been pro EU, but not at all keen on the ECHR. It is not xenophobic to try and resolve what is, essentially, a domestic problem.

[Serf]

instead of castigating a long-standing, faithful servant of the party for daring to voice a controversial opinion?

Dan he is calling the leader of the party a bigot. You could call it a controversial opinion, but I find that a bit of an understatement.

[Disillusioned]

Can't Ken go back to British American Tobacco or something? I’m sure I’m not the only one who is starting to find Ken Clarke as much of an irritation as Ken Livingstone. Clarke and Heseltine are both past it, they're dinosaurs of darker days. The party grassroots are firmly opposed to the Euro, the European constitution and most want to renegotiate our membership - and the likes of the Daily Mail and The Sun talk for huge swathes of the electorate in their eurosceptic stance. Sack Ken Clarke, give him a peerage and hope he shuts up - let him take an array of directorships and make a mint out of British American Tobacco, don't let him ruin the party again...

[william]

DVA writes - Before we have any more hysterical shrieks about Ken Clarke/Michael Heseltine/John Gummer (delete as applicable) being 'enemies', why don't we focus on the real enemies - namely Tony and Gordon?

We would love to, but we've got urine spraying around inside the tent again - source - one of the above.

As soon as he's done up his zipper, we'll be able to focus on the real enemy, I assure you. Clarke's a serial tent-wetter. We would be far more effective in tackling Labour if he went.

Are you in favour of Clarke's disloyalty in public - including name-calling of the party leader DVA? Shame on you.

The new era of Conservatism will involve fighting against State power to deliver the things electors demand - not running around crying 'xenophobe' at Cameron's genuine attempts to do something.

If we propose repealing leagislation which is causing many murders to occur which otherwise would not be occurring, that is what electors are asking for. It is clearly right to be doing something about this, and it is clearly popular. So what is your bloody problem?

[James Maskell]

I shall enjoy my Fanta even more now after reading william's comments...

[malcolm]

I am usually quite sympathetic to Clarke but for him to call DCS ideas xenophobic is monumentally stupid.
Having said that I agree with Editor the failure to consult policy groups is also a pretty stupid move.
A note to those in positions of authority within the party,I spent most of last weekend delivering leaflets for my MP.If we continue to have these ridiculous arguments in public I don't think I'll bother again.It really is much more fun watching the football!

[Henry Edward-Bancroft]

It's possibly the wrong time to mention it, but you're all more than welcome to join the Tory Reform Group for it's summer reception hosted by Ken Clarke in early July. Do come along, it should be fun.

[CCHQ Spy]

Are xenophobes welcome Henry?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Dan he is calling the leader of the party a bigot. You could call it a controversial opinion, but I find that a bit of an understatement."

Given your renowned antipathy towards Ken, I'm not surprised you've taken such exception to his comments.

I said above that Ken's remarks were silly, but I find that suggesting that Ken called David Cameron a bigot a bit of an overstatement.

"We would love to, but we've got urine spraying around inside the tent again - source - one of the above."

What rot. Ken has criticised the approach of David Cameron on an issue for which Ken is partially responsible for overseeing policy formulation - hardly a hanging offence.

The Conservative Party is a broad church hosting a range of people with diverse opinions, which are sometimes expressed in rather robust terms.

Criticism is healthy within a party and helps to stimulate internal debate - if you want to be part of a party where they all follow one line all of the time, I suggest you go and join the North Korean Communist Party, William.

"As soon as he's done up his zipper, we'll be able to focus on the real enemy, I assure you. Clarke's a serial tent-wetter. We would be far more effective in tackling Labour if he went."

Hogwash. Ken is not only one of the most successful Conservative politicians of the past four decades, he brings serious political experience to the table at a time when very few of the top guns within the party have real experience of government.

Furthermore, aside from his exemplary record as Chancellor of the Exchequer laying the foundations for the strong British economy that Gordon Brown has been claiming credit for for the past nine years, Ken is (David Cameron aside) arguably the most popular and well-known politically-active Conservative amongst the general public.

"Are you in favour of Clarke's disloyalty in public - including name-calling of the party leader DVA? Shame on you."

I said earlier that I thought Ken had been a bit silly in spitting his dummy out in this fashion, but I don't think his remarks merit being blown out of all proportion in the manner which they have been.

"If we propose repealing leagislation which is causing many murders to occur which otherwise would not be occurring, that is what electors are asking for. It is clearly right to be doing something about this, and it is clearly popular. So what is your bloody problem?"

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realise Dr John Reid's chief policy adviser was in attendance on this blog! I do apologise, I'm clearly not worthy enough to be allowed to express an opinion in the presence of such greatness!

Heaven forbid that anybody thinks that our top politicians should take a properly thought-out approach to tackling one of the major problems of our time, when superficial kneejerk populism is so much more effective at grabbing headlines and winning the support of downmarket tabloids!

[william]

So the HRA and the ECHR have nothing at all to do with the primary complaint that the public have - that we cannot control who lives here, even if they are immigrants who commit murder.

This is not a personality contest. Nor is it not knee-jerk populism. It is the issue that has done for one Clarke. Now it should do for the next.

If we cannot take account of popular opinion then what the hell are we doing in politics, and what right do we have to win an election?

If we don't start listening to the public and make sure we have a programme that meets their requiremnts, we will all become Ken Clarke Dodos. No thanks, DVA. Cameron is mapping a great future for the party. You should not allow misplaced Ken Clarke loyalty to undo all that Cameron is achieving. Opening up on TV is not about internal debate. It's tent-pissing.

I thought loyalty was the traditional Conservative secret weapon - clearly something that never applied to Ken Clarke -not since he sunk his dagger into Maggie's back. No doubt where he acquired his taste for assassination.

Hear it loud and hear it clear. Cameron will not be his next victim. If Clarke can't manage his gob, he's the one bitiing the dust.

Cameron should do the deed. CLARKE 2 MUST GO.

[Deputy Editor]

Are xenophobes welcome Henry?

Posted by: CCHQ Spy | June 27, 2006 at 16:47

Don't tar everyone in the TRG with the same brush, Mr. Spy.

[James Maskell]

What proportion of the public have any idea of the complicated issues involved in the ECHR, the HRA and the talk of a new Bill of Rights, honestly? Less than 1 in 10 I would say. In fact I would go for something closer to 1 in 20. The legalities involved make it an issue way over the level on which the public care about.

Clearly yyou have a personal issue with Ken Clarke. It doesnt mean he should go. Clarke was asked to be in the constitutional Policy Group and yet Cameron made an announcement pledging a British Bill of Rights without even talking to Clarke about it...would you be happy at that?

[Richard]

""Legal nonsense?" That statement i would have to agree with as surely no matter what was in this Bill of Rights, being still signed up to the ECHR would mean that we would be bound by the decisions coming out of Europe and the document rendered next to useless"

For the millionth time - the ECHR is NOT binding. It merely has "persuasive" authority.

[Chris Ryder]

Now as a potential floating voter seeing how Mr Clarke's words have clearily inflamed many a 'Tory' its clear as crystal to see that the conservatives despite there own party reform agenda still have a lot to learn about allowing individuals to have there own say, after all there is that little 'd' word called 'democracy'? do you all remember that little thing?, it may well be that Mr Clarkes' choice of remarks may not be to everyone's taste but at least allow the man to express an opinion rather than just dismiss him for having one!, it gives the impression that the conservatives are out to sling mud at people who don't sing along to a set hymn sheet rather than openly listening and debating a serious issue that concerns many, even to an ordinary Blair trodden voter like me!, because if you don't then people just like me are bound to end up questioning the real conservatives behind all its modern reforms of image and presentation!

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

For once I agree with DVA. Ken was misguided in his remarks but David Cameron should have had the decency to inform him, as Chairman of the Democracy Taskforce, about his bill of rights (which, incidentally, I support).

All these different taskforces could end in disaster; what, for example, will Zac Goldsmith say if the Party opts for nuclear power?

The biggest public row is yet to come. I am of course referring to which parties we jump into bed with in the EU Parliament. I predict that should we be foolish enough to link up with the Poland's dreadful Law and Justice Party, our party's libertarian, modernising and one nation wings will erupt - making this little episode look rather silly!

[Sean Fear]

Maybe we should just sit on our own in the EU Parliament. As things stand, we have some fairly dubious allies in the EPP.

[Sean Fear]

WRT slinging mud Chris, there was no need for Clarke to inflame the issue in the way he chose to.

[David Belchamber]

Robert Buckland @ 15.39 "I was very disappointed to learn that his group had not been consulted before the Cameron speech, but Ken's comments were not helpful".
Quite right; both DC and KC acted badly which doesn't help the cause.
I have long been seriously worried about Nulab's serial incompetence in government.
Unfortunately, this spat and other examples of poor communications give us little confidence that we will do much better in government, though I do think that David Davis is more than capable of running a large department. Is anyone else?

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

You're right, Sean. I think - certainly for now - that sitting alone is the best option. Let's not turn this page into the EU/groupings (I know I started it - sorry, Ed).

[Edward]

I'm with Ken on this. It's a ridiculous plan from a legal perspective, costly from a substantive viewpoint, indeed hostile to foreigners by Cameron's imposition of "British" in the title for no reason bar patriotic-pandering...but genius politics.

[Tabman]

As a Rushcliffe resident, I can assure you that I'm working hard to ensure Ken Clarke has more time with his family ;-)

[Chris Ryder]

Well Sean, Ken Clarke is clearily someone who trotts his opinions out how he see's fit, now that does not say I personally agree with it but all these calls for him to 'sod off or he's a Dinosaur', etc, etc, is whats inflaming the issue as it hardily gives the impression across of a tolerant level headed political party prepared to except what is at the end of the day only one single individuals view!

[Martin]

"For the millionth time - the ECHR is NOT binding. It merely has "persuasive" authority." RICHARD

Ok, you are absolutely right of course. I may have been a bit sloppy there in articulating exactly what i meant. It is all very well saying that the ECHR just has "persuasive," authority but that implies that nation states can just ignore parts of it that they don't like. That is not the case. It's not binding but it may as well be because of firstly, The Human Rights Act(section 2 is probably not a bad example) and secondly, if national law appears to contravene an article in the convention and parliament refuses to do anything about it, the case just ends up being referred to the European Court of Human Rights and the result is the same. What's the difference except maybe a hell of a lot of extra cost and years of legal wrangling?

[Ted]

Tabman - as Ken is so obviously a LibDem why are you bothering - if as you seem to expect Ming will lead the Merciless Hordes to a position of power Ken is sure to join you when invited.

[Chris Ryder]

What all this does suggest to me is what will happen if the conservatives get there hands on the reigns of power at the next election if this little episode is anything to go by and I have to say Mr Cameron himself is partly to blame he should have spent some more time thinking about this issue than just doshing out something which is being seen as utter nonsense of the claim he can just dump the Human Rights Act, what is needed is a sober headed look at the legalisation to see how it can be reformed so as to be understood better by all which is where the problem with it lays instead of just exclaiming he can 'dump and replace it' when there is clear legal implications to suggests it may not be as simple or as straight forward as that!

[Martin]

Chris Ryder:"Now as a potential floating voter seeing how Mr Clarke's words have clearily inflamed many a 'Tory' its clear as crystal to see that the conservatives despite there own party reform agenda still have a lot to learn about allowing individuals to have there own say"

NO. People are more than happy for him to have his say. What people object to is Ken accusing his own boss of being a bigot merely because he disagrees with him. That is a problem with Ken's own intolerance of Camerons opinions not the Conservatives intolerance of Clarke's. Big difference.

"it gives the impression that the conservatives are out to sling mud at people who don't sing along to a set hymn sheet rather than openly listening and debating a serious issue that concerns many,"

That really is turning the argument on its head mate. This is exactly what Clarke is doing, mudslinging with accusations of xenophobia instead of having a proper debate. The complaint from many Conservatives is that Clarke is helping silence debate rather than having a healthy discussion on an important issue. Clarke is constantly using words like headbanger, and xenophobe to describe anyone who disagrees with him on Europe just like most of the Europhiles.

You don't here people complaining about MPs refusing to toe the party line, that's what is good about the Conservative party, it's a very broad church of different ideas and opinions. I happen to agree with some of his objections to the plan, i just don't think he should make baseless allegations of bigotry against people who disagree, it belies a breathtaking arrogance and perhaps even a little bitterness that he lost his chance at leadership of the party so many times.

[Richard]

I'm with Ken on this. It's a ridiculous plan from a legal perspective, costly from a substantive viewpoint, indeed hostile to foreigners by Cameron's imposition of "British" in the title"

So everything with the word "British" in its title is xenophobic? Maybe he just wanted a Bill more suitable to our political culture. The HRA might have been drawn up by British lawyers but insofar as it claims to grant rights on behalf of the state it is very much Continental.

[Martin]

Edward:"....hostile to foreigners by Cameron's imposition of "British" in the title for no reason bar patriotic-pandering...but genius politics."

Or maybe because it is a Bill of Rights for Britain not anywhere else. What would you prefer? The Peruvian Bill of Rights? The World Bill of Rights? When it only applies to Britain it does seem rather appropriate to put the word Britain in it. Particularly to distinguish it from the American Bill of Rights. I don't find the use of the word American in the American Bill of Rights hostile because I am not a raving intolerant bigot.

[James Cleverly]

Ken heads up an internal think tank. DC heads the party; he is under no obligation to consult Ken.

KC needs to think very carefully about the language that he uses to describe colleagues and their ideas.

[Chris Ryder]

Martin, I think its fair to say we all find things in life objectionable not least Ken's remarks he's made, but I think as you'll agree in a democracy many things are said we all really don't care for but never the less we ought to hear them, Ken's remarks are nothing more than his own opinion end of the day and if his remarks are so distastful why deserve them with an answer, but truthfully is he really being allowed to have his say amongst all these calls for him and I quote 'sod off' or 'boot him out' etc, etc, which you Martin, like me, can read for yourself and therefore is not in my mind healthy for any calm rational debate either and its precisely this thing from the general party against the backdrop of its modernising reforms agenda plus along with what Ken said that bothers me with how the Tory Party comes across and what I'm supposed to make of it and lastly for the record I have no issue with what Tory MP's do when it comes to toeing the party line nor would I even imply that I have.

[Annabel Herriott]

Well as far as I can see, the only people to be grieviously upset are the human rights lawyers staring at a probable decrease in their fat salaries if the compensation culture has its wings trimmed, and kids can start playing conkers again.

[Sean Fear]

That's not entirely fair Annabel. Some of them are sincere. However, despite being a solicitor myself, I do find some of the sort of people you have in mind very difficult to stomach.

[Annabel Herriott]

Like Mrs. C. Blair??????

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"So the HRA and the ECHR have nothing at all to do with the primary complaint that the public have - that we cannot control who lives here, even if they are immigrants who commit murder.

This is not a personality contest. Nor is it not knee-jerk populism. It is the issue that has done for one Clarke. Now it should do for the next.

If we cannot take account of popular opinion then what the hell are we doing in politics, and what right do we have to win an election?"

I didn't say that, and for what it's worth, I do think there is a fundamental imbalance in human rights legislation which requires addressing.

From what I understand of David Cameron's proposals, the UK would remain party to the European Convention on Human Rights even with the new British Bill of Rights, which seems to me to be a bit like changing the carpet when you've got woodworm in the floorboards - the root problem remains in place.

I don't have a problem with the idea of a British Bill of Rights per sé but it would need to be backed up by serious legislative reform if it is to be seen as anything more than a superficial gimmick motivated by kneejerk tabloid populism, and I'm not sure such root-and-branch reform is possible within the framework of the ECHR as it stands.

"If we don't start listening to the public and make sure we have a programme that meets their requiremnts, we will all become Ken Clarke Dodos. No thanks, DVA."

As I mentioned before, Ken Clarke is arguably the best known and most liked politically active Conservative amongst the public, with the exception of David Cameron, so to imply that he is out-of-touch with the public seems a little odd.

Your vendetta (or should that be Kendetta?) aside, this is a representative democracy, William, in which our legislators are elected to make informed, responsible policy decisions on behalf of the public, which means listening to the public and judging the best, most substantial way of addressing their concerns, not pandering to downmarket tabloids and what they consider to be the public's best interests.

"Cameron is mapping a great future for the party. You should not allow misplaced Ken Clarke loyalty to undo all that Cameron is achieving. Opening up on TV is not about internal debate. It's tent-pissing."

I don't dispute that David Cameron is doing a great job as leader. However, I don't think that should make him immune from criticism, even if I don't personally agree with the criticism being levelled.

"I thought loyalty was the traditional Conservative secret weapon - clearly something that never applied to Ken Clarke -not since he sunk his dagger into Maggie's back. No doubt where he acquired his taste for assassination."

If Ken had been consistently sniping against David Cameron, I might agree with you that he is disloyal, but as he hasn't, I won't.

As for the downfall of Margaret Thatcher: Get. Over. It. It does the Conservative Party no favours at all when some of our number insist on harking back to her leadership at every single opportunity.

[Tabman]

http://www.liberalism2010.tsohost.co.uk/liberalviews/

I just want to invite the more Liberal-minded of you to this forum.

Ted - I know that, you know that; but does he know that? :-)

On some issues I find him to my left.

[David Sergeant]

When Ken Clarke accuses the party leader for being xenophobic for trying to copy France and Germany you realise that Clarke isn't interested in Britain or Europe: he's just interested in himself. His support for Europe propably has more to do with getting attention by going against party views than any real belief.

Trouble is the party has so many Ken Clarkes.

[Nick]

Clarke would not have needed to make his comments had Cameron not decided to compete with Gordon Brown for the xenophobe vote by proposing the ridiculous British Bill of Rights. It didn't work for Hague, Duncan-Smith or Howard, so it is disppointing to see that Cameron hasn't learnt the lesson.

[Chad]

"Ken heads up an internal think tank. DC heads the party; he is under no obligation to consult Ken."

Well perhaps James, but that pretty much confirms what many of us orginally said that these policy groups are just a facade, with real policy being created Blair-style. How many people kept telling us to wait 18 months until these groups report back? They're meaningless.

Of course the leader makes the decisions, but we are getting thoroughly sick of this presidential style approach to leadership of Blair/Cameron and would much prefer a consultive approach.

[James Maskell]

As has been said by others, its a trick to divert right wing anxiety. He cant risk the right kicking up again as it has done in the past and bossing him around so fobbing them off with big right wing promises buys some time. How many tricks does this pony have though? He cant do this forever.

The recent Home Office statements dont really count as much as they wsere forced by the Government's own failings more than Cameron pushing the Government to make these mistakes.

[william]

Clarke pissed in Cameron's tent about his EPP pledge on Channel 4.

Now he's at it again on the HRA.

Clarke goes for maximum media coverage for his tent-pissing activities.

DVA doesn't see the pattern.

We all have our blind spots, but Ken Clarke's is the opposite of a blind spot. It's continual deliberate public disloyalty to Cameron.

How much more evidence do we need?

There's a traitor in the camp.

[James Maskell]

What is it about your obssession with pissing in tents? This is the third time youve youve this analogy and its a little unsettling!

[Chris Ryder]

Chad, what you said about the presidental style of our political leaders is precisely what I as an individual detest as a voter we have seen all those gimmicks dished out from Mr Blair over the last number years but as a voter looking for something else I won't stomach any more of that from whoever they are, being what we shall say as very wary, we need leaders today who more than two dimensional that governs in the solid sound interests of the people and dare I say it, care about that to, and not by populist tabloid headlines and I fear this latest attempt by Mr Cameron over the Human Rights issue is yet more of the same just carefully crafted words by him to appease different sections of the media and it will if he rises to office be doomed to failure, what I would laughably describe as 'its all gong no dinner'

[Jon White]

Once more the traitorous head of Clarke raises his head.

We have spent 10 years (almost) in opposition. NO-ONE is more to balme for that than Clarke. Once more his poison drips.

If DC has any sense he will sack him. If his local party has any decency they will deselect him.

Then, just maybe, he will do the decent thing and offer to recontest his seat fighting for the party he truly believes in - The Labour Party.

[Ted]

DVA - courageous attempt to defend the indefensible

I liked a quote from Our Ken:
"I think the convention on human rights - I haven't looked up the history - was written by a conservative lawyer after the war." Doesn't he realise that actually a bit of preparation like looking up the ECHR & its history could have helped his argument?

Pleased to see DC has taken the sensible course "Ken is Ken" and ""David does not believe in making examples of people for the sake of it. He will judge him on the work that he produces."

[Serf]

but I find that suggesting that Ken called David Cameron a bigot a bit of an overstatement.

Dan, what is a Xenophobe, if he is not a bigot?

The reason this kind of language annoys me, is that it is the language of the left. It is precisely the way that lefties use to smear their conservative opponents. In using it he gives our enemies ammunition.

For the record, I think Cameron was silly not to tell Clarke first.

[william]

James Maskell - don't shoot the messenger.

The new philosophy behind Cameron's politics is Compassionate Conservativism. There is a booklet recently published of that name.

If Ken Clarke didn't read the Maatricht Treaty - then I imagine he hasn't bothered reading Compassionate Conservatism either.

When Clarke complains of not being consulted, it reminds one of an undergraduate complaining about his tutorial when he hasn't bothered reading the prescribed week's work. Or he's like a barrister turning to up in court to represent a client when he hasn't read his brief.

Of course KC comes from a privileged age, when University Men were automatically regarded as being at a higher level, whether they had read much or not.

Why should Cameron tolerate ignorant name-calling from Clarke? If Clarke wishes to be considered a serious contributor to the debate, he should engage with the fundamental ideas.

If he merely focuses on the labels, and continually heads for the tabloid name-calling end of the game, he cannot be taken seriously. He's going out looking for trouble, so let him find it.

You see, James. I haven't mentioned pissing inside tents once....I suppose I could use the other cliche - the viper in the nest. The problem is - Clarke's an ignorant viper in the nest.

As someone once said - I paraphrase - against well ordered arguments intelligently assembled, I can battle, but against total ignorance I am powerless.

I suppose Clarke comes from the same era as Prescott. The battle lines were so clearly drawn that no one needed to engage the grey matter. They just climbed into the ring and slugged it out...Prescotts from the Trades Union corner, and Ken Clarkes from the side of Big Business, the world where he still feels secure and at home.

The Cameron era is not the same. There are few battle lines. The ancient philosophies no longer fit. The allegiances they feel are no longer shared or understood. There is new thinking.

The trouble with the old dogs like Prescott and Clarke is that they think the old tricks still work, and they are not interested in learning new ones. The days of ignorant bluster are gone. This kind are a dying breed. They must make way for the new. Cameron doesn't need bed-blockers in the new Conservative era. Clarke Must Go.

[Chad]

Hi Chris,

I agree totally. A Blair/Cameron presidential style just shouts out a lack of faith and trust in their elected colleagues and is no basis to form a government.

Of course a leader needs to seriously take in the opinions of their colleagues, advisors and specialist experts then form a view and make a decision. This is a healthy consultive approach and achieve much more than either the presidential style or the lets-all-have-a-vote-on-it approach.

In business, it seems the most successful people I have worked with always seek to have the best people working for them rather pretend they know best. This breeds long-term success.

Unfortunately, this president-style approach survives in the opposite way by preserving the cult of the leader and reducing opportunities for good colleagues to evolve and grow too.

That's why I really detest seeing things like 'Cameron's Conservatives' as a page header on the official Conservatives site. It sends out the wrong, but unfortunately accurate message that Cameron is in exactly the same mould as Blair as we have seen with his latest declaration without a single reference to the person he appointed to head his democracy policy group.

You're not Cameron's Conservatives, you are Conservatives, period. This cult of the leader must stop to reingage people with politics. This Blair/Cameron approach is rapidly approaching its sell-by date.

(And no I do not think ukip have got it right before you have a go at me!)

[Julian Morrison]

No point getting angry with Ken Clarke. No point worrying, either. Everybody knows what to expect from him; he's go no ammunition held in reserve, hence, no leverage.

[william]

Chad - we're not in business.

Cameron has achieved something that no Conservative leader since Thatcher has done. The Parliamentary Party is working and pulling as one.

The old splits are not in view (bar Ken Clarke occasionally unable to reach the Gents in time) - and it's the Opposition which is rent in half.

In addition to that the LD's are imploding from the top down. Cameron has adopted a new political philosophy which is well adapted to current times, and which will inform his policy chices when they eventually emerge.

Cameron did not invent media-centred political leadership. It's arrived in stages. Unfortunately we all have to accept its limitations, and cope with its requirements...even Ken Clarke.

[Chad]

I'm no fan of Ken but don't you see that the more you slam and belittle him and his lack of relevance and leverage, the more you confirm what a blatant deception the policy groups are?

Treating a party member like this is really nasty.

However, I guess the presidential-style cult-of-leader approach actively requires the elimination of dissent or challenge.

[Ted]

Chad

1 Polling evidence shows associating Cameron with Conservative adds to potential Tory vote. Blair didn't invent his approach - from Roosevelt's fireside chats onwards the ability of a leader to "connect" with voters through the media and lead from the front has been key in bringing people back into engagement with politics. Your current Party made great use of celebrity in last Euro elections.

2 From what I can gather the Bill of Rights issue is viewed as separate from Ken's Democracy Taskforce. Obviously DC decided something that required thought, study & reading was not suited to Ken's dilettante approach to source material and it needs someone more thoughtful and more open to alternative suggestions than Mr Clarke.

[John Coles]

Note which beloved institution gave Clarke his platform to spew his bile - the dear old BBC, of course.

[Chad]

Hi Ted,

I completely agree on point 1. The Tories needed modernisation, and Cameron appears to have that modern outlook that has helped the party image and rise in the polls.

That's great as it clearly shows the public want a positive, modern, fresh outlook. Remember, I have been campaigning for positive, progressive change since the last general election.

My issue is that the change appears to be a veneer rather than sincere. I'm not saying Cameron is insincere, but I am saying the change currently is, because Cameron is not currently representative of the party.

While Cameron is fluffy, the party members are happy to rip another senior party member to shreds in public here like hyenas.

That is a nasty and unpleasant spectacle and those here that have been doing it should be ashamed, as they are holding the party back more than any criticism from Ken ever would.

Blair has often been criticised for not being able to deliver because he has the right ideas, but his party prevents him from delivering. Cameron faces the same problems.

He is not nasty, but this thread has clearly shown that the party members still are.

[Serf]

as they are holding the party back more than any criticism from Ken ever would.

Presumably because "Conservative Home Commenters Abuse Ken Clarke" was front page headlines, whilst "Ken Clarke Calls Cameron Xenophobe" wasn't.

[Chad]

I'm talking about attitudes not headlines Serf.

Bad newspaper headlines are tomorrow's fish'n'chips paper, but bad attitudes stick.

How can Cameron even begin to convince the wider public that the party has changed, when members are prepared to rip apart any senior party member in a vicious way,who they believe is endangering their chance of election?

[Ted]

Isn't politics wonderful, a UKIP supporter attacking loyal Tories for saying bad things about an un-reconstructed Europhile :-)

[william]

Lol, Ted.

Let's all be nice to Ken Clarke week is it, Chad.

If Chad's a UKIP supporter, he obviously hasn't noticed the blood-letting capabilities of his own lot. They make Conservative spats seem like summer picnics.

Is Chad connected up entirely? He should make a quick call to Nigel Farage and request an opinion on Ken Clarke.

And after that, talk to Roger Helmer. Clarke misrepresented Helmer's position on the World At One, saying he was an extremist who had been disciplined by Michael Howard (which was not true).

Roger Helmer wrote to Ken Clarke demanding an apology. Ken Clarke has completely ignored him.

I don't think Chad needs to worry. Ken Clarke likes to dish it out any time any place anywhere. He can hardly complain when a tiny fraction of the treatment comes back his way.

If we want a coherent political Party that can effect change in our society, we have to ensure that Cameron is supported when he is publicly attacked.

On behalf of the relatives of those murdered by people who are here only because of the HRA, none of us have to apologise to Ken Clarke or pull our punches. Come on, Chad, get real.

There's blood on the streets and we're being about as calm as humanly possible discussing this rationally. I think you need to visit the BNP website, if you want to see what real venom and hatred smells like.

[Tory Solicitor]

KC obviously deserves respect. He has served the party and the country well.

But these comments were unhelpful. The party needs to be able to contrast its unity with the feud ridden labour party which has much greater problems (let's not divert the media focus on that).

Cameron was only kite flying and the public at large don't care very much about the HRA or a mooted bill of rights. Let's keep things in perspective.

Similarly, the public at large don't care about groupings in the EP. I'm in favour of our MEPs sitting alone if necessary.

[Mark Fulford]

I'm not saying Cameron is insincere, but I am saying the change currently is, because Cameron is not currently representative of the party.

So would you say that the UKIP leadership is signed up to "no preference, no prejudice", or are you prepared to overlook certain types of prejudice in your search for a party?

[william]

Inspired by Local Tory I searched for some better Ken CLarke stuff before his addiction to the EU rendered him incoherent. He wrote in the Guardian as follows:

'I passed on to Brown the strongest economy and the soundest public finances for a generation. Brown will pass on the bills of an unreformed public sector, a growing pension crisis and an increasing tax burden, which is undermining the strong economy he inherited. It remains an iron law of politics that the job of Conservative governments is to clear up the mess left by Labour governments.'

If only we could pull the EU blinkers from Ken Clarke's eyes....but he's been an unreconstructed europhile since he personally prepared the legislation that signed us in in 1972.

Sadly he appears to be a terminal EU case. Cameron will look upon him kindly like an old friend, but those who refuse to walk into the future and remained glued to the past, weigh heavily on those around them.

[malcolm]

DVA if I ever need a barrister after being caught red handed with loads of witnesses I think I'll call you.Like Ted I think your post was an excellent defence of the utterly indefensible.It's such a shame Ken still holds these views and continues to spout them,he seems such a good bloke otherwise.

[Gary Elsby stoke-on-trent]

It's amazing how you all bull yourselves up.

'Ken is Ken', 'He's had his chance', 'time to go'. etc.....

Anyone would be forgiven in thinking the Conservative party has an anti EU winning policy for electoral success. You haven't!

You just have a failed something of a loose collective that has seen the Tories lose three elections on the trot.

In your eyes, one more push will do it and to beat it all, Dave informs us that he intends to remove my Human Rights (Act).

Tell me you're not serious.

So the Tories will win by lowering or highering taxes. Pumping money into schools and the NHS.Closing the EU and removing human rights.

Do you want the people's answer now?

Gary

[Matt Davis]

This stupidity brings credit to neither Clarke nor Cameron but since it is extremely unlikely to make the slightest difference either way to the electorate let's just largely ignore it and move on. Oh and by the way I would strongly support the taking away of Gary Elsby's "Human Rights".

[Chad]

"So would you say that the UKIP leadership is signed up to "no preference, no prejudice", or are you prepared to overlook certain types of prejudice in your search for a party?"

I only joined a week ago. Even someone as talented as me can't achieve results that quickly ;-)

[william]

Nigel Farage's speeches are worth watching on UKIP TV. He reminds me of a young Ken Clarke fighting on the right side of the argument! I wonder how he will do in Bromley and Chiselhurst.

[malcolm]

Do you want the peopl's answer now?-Gary Elsby.
Yes Gary ,I would love it now.We both know that the corrupt,lying and monumentally incompetent party you slavishly support despite everything would be thrown out of office.The sooner in my opinion the better.

[Richard Patient]

Why does anyone take Ken Clarke seriously?

He is a constant whinger and has lost three leadership elections.

Start being constructive, Ken, or just f*** off.

[Gary Elsby stoke-on-trent]

When the monolith by the name of Gordon raises his flag over London soon,it will be a pleasure to remind you all of the rather racist claptrap that you call reasonable politics.

Dave(call me Dave) is quietly slipping from the position of joined up leading,to a leader of extreme view.

Slowly but surely, bit by bit Dave is becoming an IDS,Willie and Mick. Big mistake Dave.

You have to gain power first before you do that. In the meantime, your job should be to boot people out. Then and only then,do we give it consideration whether you and the remnants of your party are 'fit for purpose'.

The HRA issue cost you at least five seats in borderline areas.

They all can't wait to relieve themselves of the HRA eh Dave?

Gary

[Mark Fulford]

Gary, many people believe that Europe has taken too much power. Even as a "Europhile" I have issues with the EU and can not deny that each day we have examples of Britain being directed by EU agreements against our will. To preserve a European Union it is essential that we can rethink agreements that we now regret. If we fail to, Chad's argument that the EU is unreformable will prevail.

[malcolm]

Mark,I think you're taking Gary Elsby's arguments a little more seriously than he does himself.He can't really believe this claptrap can he?